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)

Believe It.......Or Not

  • RAMBLE
  • Franchise Player
  • 1741 posts this site

Posted: 12/28/2012 11:34 PM

Believe It.......Or Not 


We will, of course, believe it. We are fans. And, even moreso, we are Cubs fans.

 


Cubs | Brett Jackson shortens swing
Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:26:38 -0800

Chicago Cubs OF Brett Jackson has continued to work on his swing during the offseason, shortening the swing while driving the ball with more authority.



 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 2:32 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



RAMBLE wrote: We will, of course, believe it. We are fans. And, even moreso, we are Cubs fans.

 


Cubs | Brett Jackson shortens swing
Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:26:38 -0800

Chicago Cubs OF Brett Jackson has continued to work on his swing during the offseason, shortening the swing while driving the ball with more authority.



 

Not sure what is NOT to believe.  Jackson has talent and the results he had in the bigs just don't match up.  In other words, no place to go but up.  I've been cautiously optimistic about him this offseason.  I guess we'll see in spring.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:40 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



zighawk73 wrote:
RAMBLE wrote: We will, of course, believe it. We are fans. And, even moreso, we are Cubs fans.

 


Cubs | Brett Jackson shortens swing
Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:26:38 -0800

Chicago Cubs OF Brett Jackson has continued to work on his swing during the offseason, shortening the swing while driving the ball with more authority.



 

Not sure what is NOT to believe.  Jackson has talent and the results he had in the bigs just don't match up.  In other words, no place to go but up.  I've been cautiously optimistic about him this offseason.  I guess we'll see in spring.
Based on what he did last season at AAA, his MLB results were right in line. It seems that Jackson was for making changes to his approach/swing until he was blown away by MLB pitching.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:40 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 


It was 120 at bats, which had good and bad in them. Pretty typical I think. 6 doubles, 1 triple, 4 hr with 22 walks to 59 k's. a lot of k's which none of you should be surprised by, but some good things in there too. My concern is whether or not he figures it out with us or some other organization, this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:30 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



Brianj wrote: It was 120 at bats, which had good and bad in them. Pretty typical I think. 6 doubles, 1 triple, 4 hr with 22 walks to 59 k's. a lot of k's which none of you should be surprised by, but some good things in there too. My concern is whether or not he figures it out with us or some other organization, this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.
I have respect for the Cards development over the last decade too, but that might be a bit much to say.  Besides, Castro wasn't "developed" by this FO and he was brought up quick.  I always got the impression that the Cards were a bit more patient with their prospects and didn't treat them like a brand new toy they couldn't wait to play with, kinda like the Cubs new FO is advocating.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:32 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



Brianj wrote: It was 120 at bats, which had good and bad in them. Pretty typical I think. 6 doubles, 1 triple, 4 hr with 22 walks to 59 k's. a lot of k's which none of you should be surprised by, but some good things in there too. My concern is whether or not he figures it out with us or some other organization, this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.
So after 1 year under the new FO you are ready to declare that player development is not a strength?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/29/2012 4:53 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



Brianj wrote:  this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.

No doubt, he would become another Lou Brock.  Oh wait, bad example.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:26 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



KatieCubFan wrote:
Brianj wrote:  this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.

No doubt, he would become another Lou Brock.  Oh wait, bad example.
Thing is, Brock-for-Broglio was seen as a pretty good deal for the Cubs...for a couple of weeks, anyway.  A slap-hitting OF for a starting pitcher coming off an 18-win season--what's not to like, right?   
emsick24.gif
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:35 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 




---------------------------------------------
--- absolutebadger wrote:


Brianj wrote: It was 120 at bats, which had good and bad in them. Pretty typical I think. 6 doubles, 1 triple, 4 hr with 22 walks to 59 k's. a lot of k's which none of you should be surprised by, but some good things in there too. My concern is whether or not he figures it out with us or some other organization, this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.
So after 1 year under the new FO you are ready to declare that player development is not a strength?

---------------------------------------------

Where did you get that.from my post? On the contrary, I hope this FO gets it right in that department. What I am saying is that it has not been a strength for a long time now. Don't get me wrong, I despise the red birds but they churn more out of there system then we do. Now is that better scouting or better development, I don't know, but given that they contend every year I doubt they draft higher than us very often. So I would think they are better in that regard.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:45 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 




---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:  this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.

No doubt, he would become another Lou Brock.  Oh wait, bad example.

---------------------------------------------

If Brock is the most recent that comes to mind then I thank you for supporting my statement. I know there have been others, but few and far between. Several other organizations turn out players regularly that become decent pieces. I am just hoping we become one of those organizations, something that we have yet to do.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:09 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



Brianj wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- absolutebadger wrote:


Brianj wrote: It was 120 at bats, which had good and bad in them. Pretty typical I think. 6 doubles, 1 triple, 4 hr with 22 walks to 59 k's. a lot of k's which none of you should be surprised by, but some good things in there too. My concern is whether or not he figures it out with us or some other organization, this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.
So after 1 year under the new FO you are ready to declare that player development is not a strength?

---------------------------------------------

Where did you get that.from my post? On the contrary, I hope this FO gets it right in that department. What I am saying is that it has not been a strength for a long time now. Don't get me wrong, I despise the red birds but they churn more out of there system then we do. Now is that better scouting or better development, I don't know, but given that they contend every year I doubt they draft higher than us very often. So I would think they are better in that regard.

When it comes to first-round picks, the Cards are as hit and miss as any team.  Since the draft started in 1965, none of their first rounders made the Hall of Fame or won a Cy Young.  Only two have been on a World Series winner (Looper and Duncan), and only one earned the Rookie of the Year award (Worrell).  They have never held the first overall pick; the Cubs have just once.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:11 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



Brianj wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:  this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.

No doubt, he would become another Lou Brock.  Oh wait, bad example.

---------------------------------------------

If Brock is the most recent that comes to mind then I thank you for supporting my statement.
No, Maddux is the most recent that comes to mind.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:06 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 


So many people don't realize Jackson raked it with a high OBP in the minors, even at AAA, every season until last season.  He suddenly struggled last year.  The ability is most definitely there.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/30/2012 6:49 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 


---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:  this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.

No doubt, he would become another Lou Brock.  Oh wait, bad example.

---------------------------------------------

If Brock is the most recent that comes to mind then I thank you for supporting my statement.
No, Maddux is the most recent that comes to mind.

---------------------------------------------

I'm with you generally, Katie, but not sure Maddux is a good example. The issue the Cubs (Larry Himes) had was they could not accept that this talented but inconsistent (often one great half and one bad or mediocre half) young pitcher had actually turned the corner and could put together an entire great season. This, even though he had just done it (albeit for the first time) and won the Cy Young with the Cubs, winning 20 for a total of 87 in his five full years starting, with an ERA in the low 2s. The Cubs did, in fact, get the first of Maddux's elite years, they just refused to see it.

I'd like to think that, if Shark won the Cy in 2013 or, say, Jackson or Vitters stunned us by becoming solid starters and then had a breakout season winning the MVP in their walk year (whenever that is), we would not be clamoring to let them leave. Himes would.

Last edited 12/30/2012 6:59 AM by cubs08

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/30/2012 11:28 PM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



cubs08 wrote: ---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:  this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.

No doubt, he would become another Lou Brock.  Oh wait, bad example.

---------------------------------------------

If Brock is the most recent that comes to mind then I thank you for supporting my statement.
No, Maddux is the most recent that comes to mind.

---------------------------------------------

I'm with you generally, Katie, but not sure Maddux is a good example. The issue the Cubs (Larry Himes) had was they could not accept that this talented but inconsistent (often one great half and one bad or mediocre half) young pitcher had actually turned the corner and could put together an entire great season. This, even though he had just done it (albeit for the first time) and won the Cy Young with the Cubs, winning 20 for a total of 87 in his five full years starting, with an ERA in the low 2s. The Cubs did, in fact, get the first of Maddux's elite years, they just refused to see it.

I'd like to think that, if Shark won the Cy in 2013 or, say, Jackson or Vitters stunned us by becoming solid starters and then had a breakout season winning the MVP in their walk year (whenever that is), we would not be clamoring to let them leave. Himes would.










Larry Himes had nothing to do with it. He was a non-people person and was unfairly made the scapegoat. Himes was hired  the offseason before Maddux entered free agency. During Maddux' Cy Young season with the Cubs, then President Stanton Cook had a contract offer on the table with a deadline. It was widely reported at the time that when Maddux accepted the contract proposal, Cook took it off the table because the deadline had past. This angered Maddux to the point that as his Cy Young season unfolded he refused to reopen negotiations, determined to enter the free agent market.

Himes actually tried desperately to mend the rift but, with that avenue blocked he turned to Jose Guzman and the rest, as they say, was history.

One foot note. When the Braves offed Maddux the contract he would end up signing, he had a change of heart and offered the Cubs a chance to match the offer. The Tribune Company at that point in time, besides being extremely miserly (always had a small market payroll, until MacPhail came onboard) were unwilling to stretch their strictly enforced budget (they had already commited to Guzman) and passed on Maddux a second time.

Yeah, there is a curse, it's called bad management.


Last edited 12/30/2012 11:42 PM by HolyMackeral

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/31/2012 10:41 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



Brianj wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- absolutebadger wrote:


Brianj wrote: It was 120 at bats, which had good and bad in them. Pretty typical I think. 6 doubles, 1 triple, 4 hr with 22 walks to 59 k's. a lot of k's which none of you should be surprised by, but some good things in there too. My concern is whether or not he figures it out with us or some other organization, this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.
So after 1 year under the new FO you are ready to declare that player development is not a strength?

---------------------------------------------

Where did you get that.from my post? On the contrary, I hope this FO gets it right in that department. What I am saying is that it has not been a strength for a long time now. Don't get me wrong, I despise the red birds but they churn more out of there system then we do. Now is that better scouting or better development, I don't know, but given that they contend every year I doubt they draft higher than us very often. So I would think they are better in that regard.
This was your quote: "this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength."

Who cares what happened with former owners? Everything TR has done since he bought this team suggests he wants to improve the scouting/player development side of the organization.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/31/2012 11:15 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 




---------------------------------------------
--- HolyMackeral wrote:


cubs08 wrote: ---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- KatieCubFan wrote:


Brianj wrote:  this club has not shown any of us yet that player development is a strength. Imagine Castro in the cardinals organization, he is good coming out of ours, he would be great coming out of theirs.

No doubt, he would become another Lou Brock.  Oh wait, bad example.

---------------------------------------------

If Brock is the most recent that comes to mind then I thank you for supporting my statement.
No, Maddux is the most recent that comes to mind.

---------------------------------------------

I'm with you generally, Katie, but not sure Maddux is a good example. The issue the Cubs (Larry Himes) had was they could not accept that this talented but inconsistent (often one great half and one bad or mediocre half) young pitcher had actually turned the corner and could put together an entire great season. This, even though he had just done it (albeit for the first time) and won the Cy Young with the Cubs, winning 20 for a total of 87 in his five full years starting, with an ERA in the low 2s. The Cubs did, in fact, get the first of Maddux's elite years, they just refused to see it.

I'd like to think that, if Shark won the Cy in 2013 or, say, Jackson or Vitters stunned us by becoming solid starters and then had a breakout season winning the MVP in their walk year (whenever that is), we would not be clamoring to let them leave. Himes would.










Larry Himes had nothing to do with it. He was a non-people person and was unfairly made the scapegoat. Himes was hired  the offseason before Maddux entered free agency. During Maddux' Cy Young season with the Cubs, then President Stanton Cook had a contract offer on the table with a deadline. It was widely reported at the time that when Maddux accepted the contract proposal, Cook took it off the table because the deadline had past. This angered Maddux to the point that as his Cy Young season unfolded he refused to reopen negotiations, determined to enter the free agent market.

Himes actually tried desperately to mend the rift but, with that avenue blocked he turned to Jose Guzman and the rest, as they say, was history.

One foot note. When the Braves offed Maddux the contract he would end up signing, he had a change of heart and offered the Cubs a chance to match the offer. The Tribune Company at that point in time, besides being extremely miserly (always had a small market payroll, until MacPhail came onboard) were unwilling to stretch their strictly enforced budget (they had already commited to Guzman) and passed on Maddux a second time.

Yeah, there is a curse, it's called bad management.




---------------------------------------------
Even though I do not remember it that way, both versions get you to the same place: the Cubs DID develop the occasional star, they exhibited bad management in (not) holding on to them.
Reply | Quote
  • papa46
  • MVP
  • 746 posts this site

Posted: 1/4/2013 6:53 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 


Just read a transcript from Keith Law chat.  He was asked about Brett Jackson's revamped swing.  He does not buy in and does not think he will make enough contact to stick in majors.    I agree, hope I am wrong.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/4/2013 8:43 AM

Re: Believe It.......Or Not 



papa46 wrote: Just read a transcript from Keith Law chat.  He was asked about Brett Jackson's revamped swing.  He does not buy in and does not think he will make enough contact to stick in majors.    I agree, hope I am wrong.
Not very often I agree with Law, but I was skeptical before aw said this, so I guess I agree with him this time.
Reply | Quote