Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

Theo's Player Development Machine

  • RAMBLE
  • Franchise Player
  • 1744 posts this site

Posted: 12/3/2012 12:28 PM

Theo's Player Development Machine 


Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 12:46 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 


Towards the bottom of the list, coming in at No. 27, were the Cubs. They had produced roughly 20 wins from players they developed over a decade's time. In the same stretch, Theo's Red Sox dominated by producing 100 wins from their minor-league system.

Boston developed tons of talent – more than any other organization according to the above – but they didn't hoard it all. Epstein made trade after trade, sending out prospects for established major-league players to boost the Red Sox' chances of success in the present.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 1:05 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 


The last paragraph -

There will be some significant differences in how Epstein and his front office can approach the issue of their own player development machine, thanks to the most-recent iteration of the collective bargaining agreement. It puts a cap on international spending while instituting a draft budget based on the number and location of draft picks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 1:37 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

There will be some significant differences in how Epstein and his front office can approach the issue of their own player development machine, thanks to the most-recent iteration of the collective bargaining agreement. It puts a cap on international spending while instituting a draft budget based on the number and location of draft picks.

Does it just not occur to you that the smartest and best people in this business might just be able to find new ways to succeed?  This is an article providing statistical evidence that these guys are literally the best in the business at this, and all you can focus on is one paragraph that fits into your pigeon hole.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 2:00 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



DoubleDown11 wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

There will be some significant differences in how Epstein and his front office can approach the issue of their own player development machine, thanks to the most-recent iteration of the collective bargaining agreement. It puts a cap on international spending while instituting a draft budget based on the number and location of draft picks.

Does it just not occur to you that the smartest and best people in this business might just be able to find new ways to succeed?  This is an article providing statistical evidence that these guys are literally the best in the business at this, and all you can focus on is one paragraph that fits into your pigeon hole.
Then they should be able to do it without tanking seasons just to get a higher draft pick. I agree that the purpose of hiring the best in the business was to improve the major and minor league system at the same time.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 2:08 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

There will be some significant differences in how Epstein and his front office can approach the issue of their own player development machine, thanks to the most-recent iteration of the collective bargaining agreement. It puts a cap on international spending while instituting a draft budget based on the number and location of draft picks.
We all know the CBA has changed- what is your point?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 2:14 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



absolutebadger wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

There will be some significant differences in how Epstein and his front office can approach the issue of their own player development machine, thanks to the most-recent iteration of the collective bargaining agreement. It puts a cap on international spending while instituting a draft budget based on the number and location of draft picks.
We all know the CBA has changed- what is your point?
The point was it is not as easy to do what you posted earlier.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 2:19 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote:
DoubleDown11 wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

There will be some significant differences in how Epstein and his front office can approach the issue of their own player development machine, thanks to the most-recent iteration of the collective bargaining agreement. It puts a cap on international spending while instituting a draft budget based on the number and location of draft picks.

Does it just not occur to you that the smartest and best people in this business might just be able to find new ways to succeed?  This is an article providing statistical evidence that these guys are literally the best in the business at this, and all you can focus on is one paragraph that fits into your pigeon hole.
Then they should be able to do it without tanking seasons just to get a higher draft pick. I agree that the purpose of hiring the best in the business was to improve the major and minor league system at the same time.
What you were proposing to do would have helped the major league club but would have slowed the process of building the farm. If we were competitive last year:

1)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the 2013 Rule 4 (regular) draft
2)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the Rule 5 draft this week
3)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign draft picks for 2013
4)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign international players
5)We wouldn't have flipped Dempster for Villanueva and Hendricks
6)We wouldn't have flipped Maholm and Reed Johnson for Vizcaino and Chapman
7)We wouldn't have flipped Soto for a guy who ultimately turned into Barret Loux
8)We wouldn't have flipped Baker for Marcelo Carreno, the Tigers #11 prospect.
9)We may have lost prospects to build the roster with rentals for a (failed) playoff run.

The above was a lot of benefit to the Cubs from just 1 bad season. There is no magic wand you could have waved to get the above without having been bad. Sure, Theo would still have gotten Soler and Almora (from being bad the last year of Hendry's watch). But being bad added a lot of depth to the farm.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 2:24 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



SportsGoblin wrote:
cubs2007 wrote:
DoubleDown11 wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

Then they should be able to do it without tanking seasons just to get a higher draft pick. I agree that the purpose of hiring the best in the business was to improve the major and minor league system at the same time.
What you were proposing to do would have helped the major league club but would have slowed the process of building the farm. If we were competitive last year:

1)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the 2013 Rule 4 (regular) draft
2)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the Rule 5 draft this week
3)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign draft picks for 2013
4)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign international players
5)We wouldn't have flipped Dempster for Villanueva and Hendricks
6)We wouldn't have flipped Maholm and Reed Johnson for Vizcaino and Chapman
7)We wouldn't have flipped Soto for a guy who ultimately turned into Barret Loux
8)We wouldn't have flipped Baker for Marcelo Carreno, the Tigers #11 prospect.
9)We may have lost prospects to build the roster with rentals for a (failed) playoff run.

The above was a lot of benefit to the Cubs from just 1 bad season. There is no magic wand you could have waved to get the above without having been bad. Sure, Theo would still have gotten Soler and Almora (from being bad the last year of Hendry's watch). But being bad added a lot of depth to the farm.
You need more than depth - you need impact players like Rizzo.

You could of had depth by being a decent team too.

If you are out of the playoff race there was nothing stopping the team from trading Dempster/Maholm/Baker/Soto.

I think each team has a 2.9 million dollar international budget

Last edited 12/3/2012 3:20 PM by cubs2007

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 3:36 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



absolutebadger wrote:

Towards the bottom of the list, coming in at No. 27, were the Cubs. They had produced roughly 20 wins from players they developed over a decade's time. In the same stretch, Theo's Red Sox dominated by producing 100 wins from their minor-league system.

Boston developed tons of talent – more than any other organization according to the above – but they didn't hoard it all. Epstein made trade after trade, sending out prospects for established major-league players to boost the Red Sox' chances of success in the present.


This is why 2007 needs to stop trumpeting Hendry's top ranked farm system.  This isn't college football--rankings are subjective and don't mean squat.  Production matters.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 3:58 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



SPOONER wrote:
absolutebadger wrote:

Towards the bottom of the list, coming in at No. 27, were the Cubs. They had produced roughly 20 wins from players they developed over a decade's time. In the same stretch, Theo's Red Sox dominated by producing 100 wins from their minor-league system.

Boston developed tons of talent – more than any other organization according to the above – but they didn't hoard it all. Epstein made trade after trade, sending out prospects for established major-league players to boost the Red Sox' chances of success in the present.


This is why 2007 needs to stop trumpeting Hendry's top ranked farm system.  This isn't college football--rankings are subjective and don't mean squat.  Production matters.
Rankings are subjective but typically the higher ranked systems contains a greater number of players that are projected to be mlb stars and have greater depth to give you the production that matters.

I'm sure you rather have a higher ranked vs lower ranked system. Higher ranked systems give you a greater probability of success.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 4:12 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote:
SportsGoblin wrote:
cubs2007 wrote:
DoubleDown11 wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

Then they should be able to do it without tanking seasons just to get a higher draft pick. I agree that the purpose of hiring the best in the business was to improve the major and minor league system at the same time.
What you were proposing to do would have helped the major league club but would have slowed the process of building the farm. If we were competitive last year:

1)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the 2013 Rule 4 (regular) draft
2)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the Rule 5 draft this week
3)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign draft picks for 2013
4)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign international players
5)We wouldn't have flipped Dempster for Villanueva and Hendricks
6)We wouldn't have flipped Maholm and Reed Johnson for Vizcaino and Chapman
7)We wouldn't have flipped Soto for a guy who ultimately turned into Barret Loux
8)We wouldn't have flipped Baker for Marcelo Carreno, the Tigers #11 prospect.
9)We may have lost prospects to build the roster with rentals for a (failed) playoff run.

The above was a lot of benefit to the Cubs from just 1 bad season. There is no magic wand you could have waved to get the above without having been bad. Sure, Theo would still have gotten Soler and Almora (from being bad the last year of Hendry's watch). But being bad added a lot of depth to the farm.
You need more than depth - you need impact players like Rizzo.

You could of had depth by being a decent team too.

If you are out of the playoff race there was nothing stopping the team from trading Dempster/Maholm/Baker/Soto.

I think each team has a 2.9 million dollar international budget
You are correct on the International signing pool ($2.9 per team):
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/rule-chan ges-in-the-international-market/
My mistake.

If you are a competitive team, by definition you will still be in it at the trade deadline and hence would not flip the prospects. You might instead try to acquire rental players to bolster your playoff chances and hence cost yourself prospects.

You can draft an impact player with the #2 pick in the regular draft. This is much harder later in the 1st round of the draft.

Bottom line: you get more opportunities to get depth and impact players by being bad. Indisputable.

Does that mean good teams have no opportunities. No. But you have less chances, and there is nothing you can do about that.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 4:24 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



SportsGoblin wrote:
You are correct on the International signing pool ($2.9 per team):
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/rule-chan ges-in-the-international-market/
My mistake.

If you are a competitive team, by definition you will still be in it at the trade deadline and hence would not flip the prospects. You might instead try to acquire rental players to bolster your playoff chances and hence cost yourself prospects.

You can draft an impact player with the #2 pick in the regular draft. This is much harder later in the 1st round of the draft.

Bottom line: you get more opportunities to get depth and impact players by being bad. Indisputable.

Does that mean good teams have no opportunities. No. But you have less chances, and there is nothing you can do about that.
Theo wasn't tanking seasons in Boston and was able to draft impact players. The reason you hire the best and brightest front office people / hire top scouts / develop a top computer program / design your own metrics / build minor league facilities is to find gems later in the 1st round and in the other rounds of the draft. Even teams in the race trade veterans for prospects if it will improve the team which was one of the points of the article.

You are so focussed on getting prospects and finding that value player that you are willing to neglect the major league development. Lets see how they fill out the OF /3b / bullpen and what kind of starting pitching depth they can acquire this off-season.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 4:34 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote:
SportsGoblin wrote:
You are correct on the International signing pool ($2.9 per team):
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/rule-chan ges-in-the-international-market/
My mistake.

If you are a competitive team, by definition you will still be in it at the trade deadline and hence would not flip the prospects. You might instead try to acquire rental players to bolster your playoff chances and hence cost yourself prospects.

You can draft an impact player with the #2 pick in the regular draft. This is much harder later in the 1st round of the draft.

Bottom line: you get more opportunities to get depth and impact players by being bad. Indisputable.

Does that mean good teams have no opportunities. No. But you have less chances, and there is nothing you can do about that.
Theo wasn't tanking seasons in Boston and was able to draft impact players. The reason you hire the best and brightest front office people / hire top scouts / develop a top computer program / design your own metrics / build minor league facilities is to find gems later in the 1st round and in the other rounds of the draft. Even teams in the race trade veterans for prospects if it will improve the team which was one of the points of the article.

You are so focussed on getting prospects and finding that value player that you are willing to neglect the major league development. Lets see how they fill out the OF /3b / bullpen and what kind of starting pitching depth they can acquire this off-season.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Theo was able to draft impact players in Boston because there was no cap for the draft or for international signings. As you have repeatedly said, this approach is not possible now.

Theo also had the 2nd highest payroll in MLB in Boston. He doesn't have that here. Theo also inherited a 93-win team. Here, Theo inherited a very, very bad team with a farm system lacking impact talent.

Apples and oranges. His different approach reflects the different circumstances he inherited. His goal is to set up a team that will be in the playoffs year after year. His goal is not to make the product more watchable for you this year. His planning might have some residual benefit to the short-term product, but he must, must, must make decisions that maximize the long-term benefit of the team. Your approach doesn't do that.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 4:47 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



SportsGoblin wrote:
Now you are contradicting yourself. Theo was able to draft impact players in Boston because there was no cap for the draft or for international signings. As you have repeatedly said, this approach is not possible now.

Theo also had the 2nd highest payroll in MLB in Boston. He doesn't have that here. Theo also inherited a 93-win team. Here, Theo inherited a very, very bad team with a farm system lacking impact talent.

Apples and oranges. His different approach reflects the different circumstances he inherited. His goal is to set up a team that will be in the playoffs year after year. His goal is not to make the product more watchable for you this year. His planning might have some residual benefit to the short-term product, but he must, must, must make decisions that maximize the long-term benefit of the team. Your approach doesn't do that.
I'm not contradicting myself - He may have had more draft picks in Boston but did not have to pick 2nd to get talent. You under-rate the talent inherited in the majors and minors and it was not as bad as most make it out to be.

I get trying to make decisions based on long term goals. He has said he will spend now and wants to work on parallel fronts. You keep pushing that all these decisions will lead to  sustained success in some undetermined future timeframe. All decisions are not based on long term goals and obviously no guarentee on prospects developing into starters let alone stars. All I'm saying is acquire talent when available that helps short and long term. Build both the minors and majors and do not put most your resources into the minors.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 5:05 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote:
SportsGoblin wrote:
Now you are contradicting yourself. Theo was able to draft impact players in Boston because there was no cap for the draft or for international signings. As you have repeatedly said, this approach is not possible now.

Theo also had the 2nd highest payroll in MLB in Boston. He doesn't have that here. Theo also inherited a 93-win team. Here, Theo inherited a very, very bad team with a farm system lacking impact talent.

Apples and oranges. His different approach reflects the different circumstances he inherited. His goal is to set up a team that will be in the playoffs year after year. His goal is not to make the product more watchable for you this year. His planning might have some residual benefit to the short-term product, but he must, must, must make decisions that maximize the long-term benefit of the team. Your approach doesn't do that.
I'm not contradicting myself - He may have had more draft picks in Boston but did not have to pick 2nd to get talent. You under-rate the talent inherited in the majors and minors and it was not as bad as most make it out to be.

I get trying to make decisions based on long term goals. He has said he will spend now and wants to work on parallel fronts. You keep pushing that all these decisions will lead to  sustained success in some undetermined future timeframe. All decisions are not based on long term goals and obviously no guarentee on prospects developing into starters let alone stars. All I'm saying is acquire talent when available that helps short and long term. Build both the minors and majors and do not put most your resources into the minors.
You wanted them to pay $75+M for 5 years of a guy who had an OPS of .752, lower than what David DeJesus delivers. You wanted them to outbid the Rangers for Darvish, even though the Rangers outbid the next closest team (the Cubs) by $30+M. These moves would certainly not help the team long-term, and it is arguable how much it would help them short-term.

They have a different plan than your plan. Thank goodness for this.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 5:09 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



SportsGoblin wrote:
cubs2007 wrote:
SportsGoblin wrote:
Now you are contradicting yourself. Theo was able to draft impact players in Boston because there was no cap for the draft or for international signings. As you have repeatedly said, this approach is not possible now.

Theo also had the 2nd highest payroll in MLB in Boston. He doesn't have that here. Theo also inherited a 93-win team. Here, Theo inherited a very, very bad team with a farm system lacking impact talent.

Apples and oranges. His different approach reflects the different circumstances he inherited. His goal is to set up a team that will be in the playoffs year after year. His goal is not to make the product more watchable for you this year. His planning might have some residual benefit to the short-term product, but he must, must, must make decisions that maximize the long-term benefit of the team. Your approach doesn't do that.
I'm not contradicting myself - He may have had more draft picks in Boston but did not have to pick 2nd to get talent. You under-rate the talent inherited in the majors and minors and it was not as bad as most make it out to be.

I get trying to make decisions based on long term goals. He has said he will spend now and wants to work on parallel fronts. You keep pushing that all these decisions will lead to  sustained success in some undetermined future timeframe. All decisions are not based on long term goals and obviously no guarentee on prospects developing into starters let alone stars. All I'm saying is acquire talent when available that helps short and long term. Build both the minors and majors and do not put most your resources into the minors.
You wanted them to pay $75+M for 5 years of a guy who had an OPS of .752, lower than what David DeJesus delivers. You wanted them to outbid the Rangers for Darvish, even though the Rangers outbid the next closest team (the Cubs) by $30+M. These moves would certainly not help the team long-term, and it is arguable how much it would help them short-term.

They have a different plan than your plan. Thank goodness for this.
+ a googol
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 8:15 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote:

I'm sure you rather have a higher ranked vs lower ranked system. Higher ranked systems give you a greater probability of success.

Obviously.

But once it is PROVEN that the system wasn't as good as the subjective rankings you can't use it as evidence that an organization is drafting/developing talent because they flat out did not draft/develop talent. 

The Cubs did not have a good farm system during the time period you continuously claim.  Period.  It did not develop major league talent at a high rate.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/3/2012 9:34 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

There will be some significant differences in how Epstein and his front office can approach the issue of their own player development machine, thanks to the most-recent iteration of the collective bargaining agreement. It puts a cap on international spending while instituting a draft budget based on the number and location of draft picks.
I do have to commend you, you are making an effort for citing.  Incremental improvement for this board is all I can hope for.


Baez has "top-shelf bat speed," according to one National League scout who recently saw him play. "I haven't seen that type of bat speed this year outside of the big leagues. It's pure, unadulterated, just violent bat-speed."

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/3/2012 10:01 PM

Re: Theo's Player Development Machine 



SportsGoblin wrote:
cubs2007 wrote:
SportsGoblin wrote:
cubs2007 wrote:
DoubleDown11 wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: The last paragraph -

Then they should be able to do it without tanking seasons just to get a higher draft pick. I agree that the purpose of hiring the best in the business was to improve the major and minor league system at the same time.
What you were proposing to do would have helped the major league club but would have slowed the process of building the farm. If we were competitive last year:

1)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the 2013 Rule 4 (regular) draft
2)We wouldn't have the #2 pick in the Rule 5 draft this week
3)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign draft picks for 2013
4)We wouldn't have the second highest pool of money to sign international players
5)We wouldn't have flipped Dempster for Villanueva and Hendricks
6)We wouldn't have flipped Maholm and Reed Johnson for Vizcaino and Chapman
7)We wouldn't have flipped Soto for a guy who ultimately turned into Barret Loux
8)We wouldn't have flipped Baker for Marcelo Carreno, the Tigers #11 prospect.
9)We may have lost prospects to build the roster with rentals for a (failed) playoff run.

The above was a lot of benefit to the Cubs from just 1 bad season. There is no magic wand you could have waved to get the above without having been bad. Sure, Theo would still have gotten Soler and Almora (from being bad the last year of Hendry's watch). But being bad added a lot of depth to the farm.
You need more than depth - you need impact players like Rizzo.

You could of had depth by being a decent team too.

If you are out of the playoff race there was nothing stopping the team from trading Dempster/Maholm/Baker/Soto.

I think each team has a 2.9 million dollar international budget
You are correct on the International signing pool ($2.9 per team):
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/rule-chan ges-in-the-international-market/
My mistake.

If you are a competitive team, by definition you will still be in it at the trade deadline and hence would not flip the prospects. You might instead try to acquire rental players to bolster your playoff chances and hence cost yourself prospects.

You can draft an impact player with the #2 pick in the regular draft. This is much harder later in the 1st round of the draft.

Bottom line: you get more opportunities to get depth and impact players by being bad. Indisputable.

Does that mean good teams have no opportunities. No. But you have less chances, and there is nothing you can do about that.
No, as usual he's dead wrong. It was, not is,  2.9 million per team, for the first year. The budget size is now determined by a teams finish in the standings from the previous seaon.

Last edited 12/3/2012 10:18 PM by HolyMackeral

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >