Let’s talk about 2002

In Commentary And Analysis by aisle42456 Comments

If you read Baseball Prospectus, you probably know who Jason "Professor" Parks is. Parks had a chat yesterday that was very interesting for Cubs fans, and the most interesting question would be this one:

BTH524 (Pennsylvania): Where do you project the top 2013 draft picks (Kris BryantMark Appel, etc.) to be slotted in your top prospect list? With the understanding that you may change your mind, of course!

Jason Parks: Bryant could/should be in the top ten in the game. He's a polished offensive monster that should be at the highest level at some point in 2014. Appel is also a polished collegiate talent that will move quickly, but I'm not as high on his ceiling as some and I don't see him as a future #1 type. He will be in the top 25, but not the top 10.

Say what you will about Parks (and he has his share of haters, just ask Kyle on the Bleacher Nation boards), but that's an intriguing sign about Bryant. Baez is right around the Top 10 of most boards.

For the purposes of this article, I'm going to assume the relative position of the Cubs' top prospects. If any of them seem outlandish, they might well be. I'm using a rough guide backed up by at least a cursory glance at the prospect wonks' lists.

Baez 10
Bryant 10
Almora 20
Soler 30
Edwards 50
Alcantara 80
Johnson 100

That's an impressive list, and in fact would be impressive if you took any two names off the list! Seriously, remove Baez and Bryant and you still have an organization that is overrepresented in the Top 100, that is weighted towards the top (though not the very top), and is deeper than the average organization too (our 30th best prospect actually has a meaningful chance to make the majors for at least a half of a season, which isn't normally true). 

Cubs fans, unfortunately, have seen this sort of top prospect list before. The year was 2002, and it looks awfully similar to 2013.

Mark Prior 2 (BA, which I'll use for all of these)
Juan Cruz 6
Hee Seop Choi 40
David Kelton 45
Bobby Hill 48
Nic Jackson 68
Carlos Zambrano 80

Let's run through each of the 7 briefly:

Mark Prior: was the best pitcher the Cubs had in the past 20 years not named Maddux. Freak Injuries and a tough throwing motion both took turns derailing his career, which isn't 100% over (but for all intents and purposes, it is). 

Juan Cruz: Injuries and ineffectiveness de-railed his Cubs career, though he eventually caught on as a high-impact reliever for a few other teams.

Hee Seop Choi: traded for Derrek Lee, who has awesome as a Cub. He floundered after a concussion in 2006, though was relatively effective in spurts with the Marlins and Dodgers. Probably led to DePodesta's firing in LA, though Jim Tracy did him no favors.

David Kelton: Kelton literally only had one great season (2001 in AA), and was forgetable the rest of his career (including a repeat of AA in 2002 for no reason). He only has 251 PA the year he broke out, so next time someone tries to use a small sample size to rationalize something, think of David Kelton, please.

Bobby Hill: Part of the trade that landed Aramis Ramirez. Like Kelton, rode a small sample size to prospecthood, and it weared off as soon as he was traded. 

Nic Jackson: Never made it to the bigs, one of 12 on the list not to do so. Had a nice year in A+, was injured the next year, and injuries and strikeouts ended his career (though he still soldiers on in the Indy Leagues). 

Carlos Zambrano: Ended up being pretty great.

So, we look at the 2002 list and are sad at first; actually, the Cubs made out like BANDITS. They turned 2 assets into Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, and another one of the 7 was one of the best pitchers on the best Cubs team of my lifetime. Another one was incredible until a pair of injuries (Dusty Baker, Brad Hawpe), sunk his career. That stuff happens. 

More important is the fact that these lists have gotten much better as time has gone on. In 2002, I'd say 7 of the top 20 players had (or are having) average or better-than-average careers (Beckett, Pena, Mauer, Teixiera, Nick Johnson, Hamilton, Phillips). You could debate Prior and Cruz either way. In 2008, I count 10 (Bruce, Longoria, Buchholz, Rasmus, Kershaw, Price, Wieters, Ellsbury, McCutchen, Andrus). Even the worst of the Top 20 are still actual MLB players (well, maybe not Brandon Wood). In 2009, you have Wieters, Price, Rasmus, Heyward, Bumgarner, Feliz, Alvarez, Posey, Stanton, all in the top 16. Comparisons from 2002 to now just don't make that much sense, because the way team's (and scouts) evaluate talent is demonstrably better. Also worth noting: the 2008 Top 100 list only had 6 players that never made it to the bigs (and one, Deolis Guerra, could still make it and was almost a Rule V last year). The 2007 list had 5. The 2006 list had 6. 

Am I saying that the top prospects on the Cubs are all likely to hit? No, I don't believe that. I think I'm probably more pessimistic than the average fan about their chances. I do think they'll turn out in greater numbers than those who just point to 2002 think (and also, 2002 wasn't as bad as you might think at first blush). 

Share this Post

Comments

  1. bubblesdachimp

    Good little article. I was bored at work the other day and also was counting how many top 100 guys on BA’s list never make it and the number is staggeringly low.

    Maybe not all those guys are superstars but if Baez and Bryant are and Soler and Almora are either solid players that can play or be used as currency well that works too.

    I would argue Choi and Hill were great prospects. They brought back high impact talent.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. dmick89

    I think the Cubs have two in the top 10, two in the 40-50 range and two in the 75-100 range (Alcantara and Johnson). I think that’s what we’ll see with Baseball America anyway. No way is Edwards a top 100 IMO. I doubt I’d even have in the top 50 among pitchers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. Kyle

    Agreed. I enjoy bringing up the early 2000s Cubs prospect lists not to show that we’ll get nothing for this current amazing farm system, just to remind people that this isn’t the first time we’ve had this (although I’m close to saying the current farm is a bit better) and that it isn’t an easy path from this to the sort of dominant run that we all envision.

    That farm system led to three division titles in a six year span, and that ain’t bad. The division now is much harder than it was in the mid-2000s and projects to continue to be so, but that sort of run with three or four good seasons out of six is a good floor for what we’re looking at once we’re done being awful every year.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. 2883

    bubblesdachimp wrote:

    ineffectiveness de-railed his Cubs career, though he eventually caught on as a high-impact reliever for a few other teams.

    Prepare for insta-shock. I think he’s going to miss a lot more lists than you think he will and if he does end up making it he’s back end. (80-100) more than anywhere near 50. Except apparently by Jason Parks who is new to the writing but I didn’t read him this year. Kevin Goldstein is missed at BP.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. sitrick

    2883 wrote:

    bubblesdachimp wrote:
    ineffectiveness de-railed his Cubs career, though he eventually caught on as a high-impact reliever for a few other teams.
    Prepare for insta-shock. I think he’s going to miss a lot more lists than you think he will and if he does end up making it he’s back end. (80-100) more than anywhere near 50. Except apparently by Jason Parks who is new to the writing but I didn’t read him this year. Kevin Goldstein is missed at BP.

    Parks was saying in the chat that opinions on Edwards come down to the people who’ve put eyes on him and the people who haven’t. The people with personal experience with him seem pretty universally convinced he’ll never add the weight he needs, and slot him in accordingly. The guys that haven’t tend to be more optimistic. Take that for whatever you will. The Cubs are apparently trying everything they can to bulk him up this offseason, so I get the feeling spring training will be pretty revealing.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. Omar Little

    I can’t believe it’s already happening (though I shouldn’t be suprised), but the “Clowney is overrated” talk is here. “He takes plays off.” “I like [insert player name] better.” Shut the fuck up. He’s Reggie White. He’s the best prospect not named Luck in the last…decade or so? The only thing that’ll keep him from going No. 1 overall is the abundance of potential franchise QBs.

    Speaking of, this is shaping up to definitely be the year to take a QB. I’d spend a 1 on Bridgewater, Mariota, Hundley and Boyd for sure. I’d give up a day-2 pick at least for Mettenberger, Manziel, Tom Savage (Pitt), Aaron Murray, Jimmy Garoppolo (E. Illinois) and Stephen Morris.

    By the way, that’s only a list of the QBs I’d be good with starting for my team next season. That’s not even including guys like Carr, Jeff Matthews, Bryn Renner and a few others that are good developmental guys.

    I think there will be an early run on the top-tier guys, but then I think you’ll see a few teams like SF (Garoppolo), CHI (Murray), NE (Savage) use an earlier pick than you’d think on a QB.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Omar Little

    sitrick wrote:

    Parks was saying in the chat that…Edwards…eyes…slot. Take that for whatever you will. The Cubs are apparently trying everything they can to…be pretty revealing.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Myles

    Re Edwards-

    All I can point to is the fact that John Manuel had Edwards as one the top 2 or 3 pitching prospects in baseball last season (with a hard floor of the 5-7 range). Keith Law was similarly effusive thrilled with his work. Yes, Parks has his issues with Edwards (and yes, Parks know the Rangers’ system very well). I still think he hits many, many lists and BA might have him quite a bit HIGHER than 50 fwiw. I don’t think he’ll ever add the weight and is therefore probably a reliever, but you go forward with Edwards as a starter until you can’t anymore, and they aren’t close to that point yet.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. bubblesdachimp

    As the resident clowney expert here i can assure you he isnt taking plays off. He is being doubled and chipped every play. They are running opposite way etc.

    Anyone else annoyed with the buzzwords going on in scouting community. All this “want” “rig” “guy” shit is incredibly lazy to me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. sitrick

    bubblesdachimp wrote:

    Anyone else annoyed with the buzzwords going on in scouting community. All this “want” “rig” “guy” shit is incredibly lazy to me.

    The GUY shit has bugged me from day one. The Rig/Want/Slack stuff was funny to me at first, mostly because I think Parks is a pretty funny and likable guy. But now they’re making T-Shirts and it feels like less of a joke and more like branding, which I don’t care for and makes me kinda sad.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. sitrick

    bubblesdachimp wrote:

    Serious question does he need to add weight? If his arm is fine isnt that all that matters?

    There’s exceptions to every rule, but more often than not successful, 200 IP rubber-armed workhorses don’t tend to be built like hipsters.

    The hope with Edwards at this point is either that he can add the weight or he’s a lincecum type that can be successful and healthy despite the physical disadvantages.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. Myles

    Yeah, I really liked Parks at first, but his act wears very thin very quick. I liked Goldstein more on Up and In, and I like Ferrin more on Fringe Average. I’m not saying he isn’t knowledgeable, but it does seem like he’s more interested in his brand than actually giving information to the public.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Myles

    sitrick wrote:

    bubblesdachimp wrote:
    Serious question does he need to add weight? If his arm is fine isnt that all that matters?

    There’s exceptions to every rule, but more often than not successful, 200 IP rubber-armed workhorses don’t tend to be built like hipsters.

    For every Tim Lincecum, there’s 10 not-Tim Lincecums.

    That analogy isnt’ that great.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. Omar Little

    Just for fun (for me), I’m doing a quick 4-round mock for SF. Let me know if you want me to do your team. btw, it’s still too early to do a big board, so I’m using nfldraftscout’s rankings:

    1. Stephon Tuitt, DE, ND: Bigger needs, but this guy was made to be a 5-technique in the NFL.
    2a. Marcus Roberson, CB, Florida: Purifoy was the guy everyone talked about, but Roberson is the guy that stands out on Saturdays.
    2b. Brandon Coleman, WR, Rutgers: Ideal fit at a position of need.
    3a. Hronis Grasu, C, Oregon: OL depth. No other true centers on the roster.
    3b. Jackson Jeffcoat, DE/OLB, Texas: Aldon Smith’s uncertainty leads to this pick.
    4a. Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Eastern Illinois: No way he lasts this long, but he’s available on nfldraftscout. Another perfect fit, imo.
    4b. Mike Davis, WR, Texas: The deep threat this offense needs to get going.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. sitrick

    @ Myles:
    (dying laughing), went back and edited to specifically mention Lincecum. Can’t think of anyone else that slight that hasn’t been fragile as hell.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. bubblesdachimp

    I know the odds are against him But he has maintained his velocity in games doesnt miss starts etc. The only thing that concerns me is the lack of IP. But i have to believe there is a reason they are doing that with him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Omar Little

    bubblesdachimp wrote:

    As the resident clowney expert here i can assure you he isnt taking plays off. He is being doubled and chipped every play. They are running opposite way etc.

    Absolutely. Every opposing offensive game plan I’ve seen has been 100 percent geared toward neutralizing him. He can play in any scheme, cover any gap(s) and handle any assignment along the DL.

    It will be an interesting year, because there are about seven guys with No. 1-overall ability. The only players that should go ahead of Clowney, though, are QBs.

    As of right now, it looks like the top 5 will consist of JAX, NYG, MIN, WAS and TB. I’d say the top 5 right now would be:

    1. JAX – Bridgewater
    2. NYG – Clowney: How perfect for them. It’s like IND failing and getting Luck when they needed him)
    3. TB – Mariota
    4. MIN – Hundley
    5. STL (from WAS) – Matthews

    Manziel to Houston could be interesting.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. bubblesdachimp

    To be honest i am scared to see what happens when Manziel ends up with Philly. It will 100% happen and it will be amazing to watch. He committed to play QB for Chip at orgon before decommiting and he is perfect for chip.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. Omar Little

    sitrick wrote:

    @ Omar Little:
    How ’bout the Vikings?

    I haven’t seen much of them, so I’m basing this mostly on what I saw last season.

    1. Brett Hundley, QB, UCLA: I think this team is basically a QB away from being competitive. With Peterson in the backfield, it won’t take much. Hundley is a legit prospect having a great season at the right time. I personally prefer Boyd, but Hundely’s size will likely move him up a notch.
    2. Jordan Matthews, WR, Vandy: Give Hundley a big, physical WR to go with Patterson and Rudolph. Lache Seastrunk could be an option here (Harvin light).
    3a. Travis Swanson, C, Arkansas: I think the interior OL needs an upgrade.
    3b. Ahmad Dixon, S, Baylor: I like the CBs on your roster. They’re young and should improve over this season. I’d upgrade the S spot, though. Dixon is a hell of an athletic player.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. sitrick

    bubblesdachimp wrote:

    I know the odds are against him But he has maintained his velocity in games doesnt miss starts etc. The only thing that concerns me is the lack of IP. But i have to believe there is a reason they are doing that with him.

    I don’t necessarily think it’s that they couldn’t force him into a starter role if they really wanted to, but which is a better use of his abilities? Making anywhere from 15-25 starts a year and an innings ceiling of 150 IP or so in his best season with an annual trip to the DL and likely a couple of elbow (or worse, shoulder) surgeries mixed in, or making him a shutdown closer that’ll hopefully be reliably on the field when you need him?

    Not that his fate is sealed one way or the other; they’ll keep him a starter as long as they can or as long as they feel like it’s prudent, but most pitchers need a sturdy frame to hold up to the rigors of making 30-35 starts a season and he just doesn’t have it right now. Heck, pitchers that DO have the weight and frame have trouble holding up. It’ll be a big challenge for him to prove he can do it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. SVB

    FWIW: Juan Cruz (the one mentioned above) 6’2″ 170# (B-ref. Not sure if that is current weight or debut weight, not that it matters too much)

    CJ Edwards: 6’2″ 155#

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. dmick89

    bubblesdachimp wrote:

    @ sitrick:
    Trust me i agree with you he would be an outlier. But i dont think that means we should jsut throw him in the pen.

    I agree, but I also think it means we should lower our expectations.

    As for shutdown closer, that’s something that a gazillion prospects each year get labeled. Take two prospects. One is thought to be a future superstar and the other is shutdown closer. The superstar prospect is far more likely to become the superstar than the other guy is of becoming an elite closer.

    I kind of wish we’d stop referring to pitching prospects as being possible elite closers if the whole starting gig doesn’t work out.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. sitrick

    dmick89 wrote:

    As for shutdown closer, that’s something that a gazillion prospects each year get labeled. Take two prospects. One is thought to be a future superstar and the other is shutdown closer. The superstar prospect is far more likely to become the superstar than the other guy is of becoming an elite closer.
    I kind of wish we’d stop referring to pitching prospects as being possible elite closers if the whole starting gig doesn’t work out.

    FWIW, that’s not me pulling something out of my ass, the last BP eyewitness scouting report I saw gave him an OFP of a 70 bullpen guy. I think that reflects that people love the stuff, makeup, command….everything except the body.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. sitrick

    Omar Little wrote:

    1. Brett Hundley, QB, UCLA: I think this team is basically a QB away from being competitive. With Peterson in the backfield, it won’t take much. Hundley is a legit prospect having a great season at the right time. I personally prefer Boyd, but Hundely’s size will likely move him up a notch.

    Would love it if you’re right. Josh Freeman isn’t an answer. I kinda hope they draft another Ponder just for comedy’s sake.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  25. dmick89

    @ sitrick:
    I know. I see those guys say that stuff all the time and I just shake my head. There are just so few elite closers that it shouldn’t even be thrown around. They miss on that more than anything else. It’s like a fall back option for a really good starter who either has injury problems or durability issues. Every time. And every time they’re wrong.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. dmick89

    To be clear, I wasn’t picking on Sitrick who said that. It’s just become one of those things those scouting guys throw around to make themselves sound smart, but it really makes them look as though they have little understanding of how many elite closers the game has ever had. It’s something we hear so often that it cannot be true. I would bet there are probably about 30 to 50 pitchers who those guys think will become, at worst, shutdown closers. Any given year. They’re wrong more about that than anything else.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. sitrick

    I think the assumption is generally that if a guy is a good enough starter to even come close to the majors, that he can probably be a successful bullpen guy just because it’s easier to toss an inning than it is to toss 6-8.

    There’s also the issue of what you consider “shutdown”. Was 2010 Marmol a shutdown closer? I don’t know. Borderline. And I think that’s the thought process with a lot of guys. If you have a power arm and command issues, you can probably be an elite closer for a couple of years because it’ll take that much longer for the league to figure out you’re throwing junk.

    Or you can be cynical about it, and say that prospect rankers are in the business of selling optimism (who wants to read a publication that says their favorite team has the worst farm in the league, or whose number one prospect is a likely bench bat?) and they put closer futures on failed starters because it softens the blow of a guy going from heralded prospect to Rich Hill.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. sitrick

    Really though, who has ever been a truly “elite” closer other than Rivera? Seems like even the best of the rest are good for four or five years tops and then flame out. Hoffman, Huston Street…you could make an argument that there have been less than ten really elite guys ever.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. dmick89

    @ sitrick:
    This is one of the reasons I have a problem with calling a pitcher a potential shutdown or elite closer. There are just so few of them that it’s not realistic. It’s especially unrealistic when you consider that it’s said so often.

    This gets to a larger problem that I have with these guys who do the rankings.

    Here’s something else I think is mindboggingly stupid that these guys say (in this case, Parks, quoted earlier by Myles):

    Appel is also a polished collegiate talent that will move quickly, but I’m not as high on his ceiling as some and I don’t see him as a future #1 type.

    I’m sorry, but if you can’t see Appel as a future number 1, but are high on Edwards, something is fucking wrong. Seriously, seriously wrong.

    Of course Appel is a potential number 1. Every player drafted in the first round has star potential. it’s as simple as that. For that matter, nearly every player drafted does. If you can say, and I’m exaggerating here, “if Edwards can put on 40 pounds, continue to post awesome numbers, refine his pitches, and if this, that and this, he can be really good” something is wrong if you then say that you don’t see Appel as a future number 1. Where did the “if this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this” suddenly go?

    Or you can be cynical about it, and say that prospect rankers are in the business of selling optimism (who wants to read a publication that says their favorite team has the worst farm in the league, or whose number one prospect is a likely bench bat?) and they put closer futures on failed starters because it softens the blow of a guy going from heralded prospect to Rich Hill.

    I’m one of those cynical people. They are without doubt in the business of selling optimism. They do this as much as baseball teams themselves do. Maybe more.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. SVB

    Even Mariano wasn’t predicted to be an elite closer. His cutter came after he hit the bigs. The Yanks even considered trading him early on.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. dmick89

    @ SVB:
    I seem to remember Mo wasn’t thought all that highly of back then, which is why he got moved to the bullpen. My roommate at that time was as big a Yankkes fan as I am a Cubs fan and he wasn’t a fan. We could only watch Yankkes games that were on national tv, but nobody talked about him as if he’d be awesome.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. SVB

    @ dmick89:
    Exactly.

    I think closers tend to be discovered by luck or lack of other options.

    Eck. Demp. Smoltz. Whatever. Easier to list accidents than bred closers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. WaLi

    Miguel Cabrera’s line drive rate could be worse than Starlin Castro’s, but still better at the same time. He hits the ball harder than Castro.

    Al Oliver was a very good line drive hitter.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  34. dmick89

    @ SVB:
    Yep. I also think scouts and fans are terrible at looking at current closers and estimating what they’ll be in 5 years. Back when Marmol was good a lot of fans thought he’d be an elite closer for a long time.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. sitrick

    WaLi wrote:

    Miguel Cabrera’s line drive rate could be worse than Starlin Castro’s, but still better at the same time. He hits the ball harder than Castro.

    Al Oliver was a very good line drive hitter.

    TRIVIA

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  36. WaLi

    Anyone see the lineup that Leyland threw out there?

    Hunter, To, RF
    Cabrera, M, 3B
    Fielder, 1B
    Martinez, V, DH
    Peralta, Jh, LF
    Avila, C
    Infante, 2B
    Jackson, A, CF
    Iglesias, SS

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  37. josh

    There’s a fatal flaw in that theory that teams with former Cubs on their roster are doomed in the post-season: Ryan Theriot and the 2011 Cardinals. In fact, that should be a fatal flaw to the argument that there is a God in the universe.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  38. 2883

    dmick89 wrote:

    @ SVB:
    Yep. I also think scouts and fans are terrible at looking at current closers and estimating what they’ll be in 5 years. Back when Marmol was good a lot of fans thought he’d be an elite closer for a long time.

    Was that before or after he moved from Catcher to PItcher ?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment