tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Depends upon what you mean by "re-establishing the farm system". When you start twenty furlongs behind, you're not going to win the Kentucky Derby. Especailly when the front-runners are still putting more distance between themselves and the Cubs.
True, their has been an infusion of young talent, and supporting your point it that the best of it is Asian and Latin American is the top prospect now that Castro has joined the parent club is another young shortstop, Hak Lee (but still without a full season of pro ball), and maybe the best pitching prospect is young Latin Robert Hernandez (who also was in a rookie league last season).
But the awful, depressing odds against the Cubbies getting back to the World Series anytime in this decade are evident from this comparison to the team that has won the last two pennants and is likely to win the next two, the Phillies. In 2009, the Cubs had EIGHT PLAYERS on the top 20 prospects lists for each minor league: none in the AZ League, three (led by #1 Hak Lee, #3 CF Brett Jackson), #19 in the NW League, 3 in the Midwest of Vitters #3 (struggling this year), #16, #20; Castro #6 in the Florida State League, pitcher Jay jackson #11 in the Double A Southern League.
But the pennant-winning Phillies had SEVENTEEN, more than twice as many: #4,#7,#10,#18 in the Gulf Coast; #4.#11,#16 in the Pony, #7,#13,#17,#19 in the Sally; #3,#5,#19 in the FSL, #3,#6,#9 in the Double A Eastern League.
Two aspects of this gulf between the Cubs and an organization with a strong farm system make the contrast even more ominous:
The Phillies can trade top prospects--three to the As for Joe Blanton, four to the Indians for Cy Young winner Cliff Lee, three more for Cy Young winner Roy Halladay--and still have a farm system very deep in highly regarded prospects. The major reasons are apparent: better scouting or better development instruction or both.
And the Phillies--as is the case with most of the MLB clubs with deep farm systems--contrast with the Cubs in that on average their top prospects are younger than those of the Cubs, have more "upside" because of a drafting philosophsy that concentrates on drafting & signing a lot of "toolsy" "high ceiling" high school kids, while the Cubs (not as much as Oakland or the Cardinals) draft mostly college players with proven records at the collegiate level.
Which leads me, at least, to the conclusion that the problems extend beyond hendry down to low echelons of the Cub system. Again, will new ownership see this...who knows.
True, their has been an infusion of young talent, and supporting your point it that the best of it is Asian and Latin American is the top prospect now that Castro has joined the parent club is another young shortstop, Hak Lee (but still without a full season of pro ball), and maybe the best pitching prospect is young Latin Robert Hernandez (who also was in a rookie league last season).
But the awful, depressing odds against the Cubbies getting back to the World Series anytime in this decade are evident from this comparison to the team that has won the last two pennants and is likely to win the next two, the Phillies. In 2009, the Cubs had EIGHT PLAYERS on the top 20 prospects lists for each minor league: none in the AZ League, three (led by #1 Hak Lee, #3 CF Brett Jackson), #19 in the NW League, 3 in the Midwest of Vitters #3 (struggling this year), #16, #20; Castro #6 in the Florida State League, pitcher Jay jackson #11 in the Double A Southern League.
But the pennant-winning Phillies had SEVENTEEN, more than twice as many: #4,#7,#10,#18 in the Gulf Coast; #4.#11,#16 in the Pony, #7,#13,#17,#19 in the Sally; #3,#5,#19 in the FSL, #3,#6,#9 in the Double A Eastern League.
Two aspects of this gulf between the Cubs and an organization with a strong farm system make the contrast even more ominous:
The Phillies can trade top prospects--three to the As for Joe Blanton, four to the Indians for Cy Young winner Cliff Lee, three more for Cy Young winner Roy Halladay--and still have a farm system very deep in highly regarded prospects. The major reasons are apparent: better scouting or better development instruction or both.
And the Phillies--as is the case with most of the MLB clubs with deep farm systems--contrast with the Cubs in that on average their top prospects are younger than those of the Cubs, have more "upside" because of a drafting philosophsy that concentrates on drafting & signing a lot of "toolsy" "high ceiling" high school kids, while the Cubs (not as much as Oakland or the Cardinals) draft mostly college players with proven records at the collegiate level.
Which leads me, at least, to the conclusion that the problems extend beyond hendry down to low echelons of the Cub system. Again, will new ownership see this...who knows.
