Goatriders of the Apocalypse

Reverse Psychology sometimes takes a long time to come around

I guess we are also gonna need a #Matt Garza tag on here, as well.  Eeeh, we don't need no stinkin' Matt Garza.

This post is for the dweebs hyperventilating about the "price we paid" as well as those who feel like Tom Ricketts lied to us about our use of the farm system.

Have any of you truly tracked Baseball America and their so-called top-prospects?  Probably not, since you need a subscription to do so.  I was able to get ahold, thanks to Jeff Zimmerman of Royals Review, of a compiled list of the top 100 prospects per year since 1990.  Granted, our farm system is nearly unmatched in its suckiness.  But, going over the lists over the years, it does tend to lend some perspective to the bleating cry that the "Cubs traded 2 of their top 3 prospects" for Matt Garza, a young, solid member who would look at home on 29 of the 30 starting staffs in baseball.

Doubt the Phillies have any room for him.

Anyway, over the past 21 years:
- 42 individuals made the list as part of the Cubs organization, which is truly pathetic.
- 24 of these magic 42 "top 100, can't miss" prospects actually played in the major leagues.  That means 18 so-called "can't miss" prospects never even made a roster.  We're talking the Earl Cunninghams, Ty Griffins, as well as the Brian Dopriaks and something named Ryan Hawblitzel???
- Out of the 24 that actually saw a major league roster, 9 would be characterized as "bust-outs".  These include Gary Scott, Kevin Orie, Jesse Hollins, but do NOT include Ronny Cedeno, Mark Prior, and Felix Pie.
- Of the 15 who have had a passable major league career, besides Cedeno, Prior, and Pie, the 15 also includes Carlos Zambrano.
- They also include Doug Glanville, Rick Wilkins, and Juan Cruz.
- The top three names on the lists?  Kerry Wood, Kosuke Fukudome, and Starlin Castro.
- The 2008 ROY, Geovany Soto, was never on any of the lists.

Point?  There is nothing more infantile and pointless than the hand-wringing that goes on when "prospects" are traded for proven players.  A very small percentage of the so-called "can't miss" sure things actually make an impact in the major leagues.  It is an even smaller percentage when the Cubs are doing the drafting.

Would I want to have traded Zambrano, Glanville, Wood and Prior for a 3.88 career ERA pitcher?  Of course not, but it is more likely we just traded away Lance Dickson, Pat Cline, Luis Montanez, and...uh...Sam Fuld.

Thank you. I've been trying

Thank you. I've been trying to make the point to my friends that prospects are just that, prospects. People don't seem to want to admit "sure thing" prospects are actually rarely a sure thing.

potential

The Cubs traded guys who have potential. Potential is a French word that means "not quite worth a shit yet."
(Name that movie.)

Guess I'm in the minority in

Guess I'm in the minority in opposing this deal. Yes, Garza makes the 2011 Cubs better. But he doesn't make them a playoff team. That's why I'd rather the Cubs continue to develop the players they held and wait until they were ready to put it altogether again before making a big trade. Garza is a talented pitcher, but even with him, there are still three central division teams that are clearly better than the Cubs. What's the point of finishing in fourth place next year, and with no real growth potential for the future? That's why I'm pissed about this.

Garza is under contract for

Garza is under contract for three years.

And those three years will be

And those three years will be expensive. It's all about conservation of resources. The Cubs probably would have gotten far more utility out of the players they traded and the minimum salary reserve clause years they would have provided than 3 years of Garza, with at least 2011 already sold up the river. It was a shortsighted move by Cruller Jim, a band-aid where this team needs a tourniquet. The Cubs should have waited until at least next offseason, when some of the ugly contracts expire, before looking to bulk up for another run. Archer might've already been in the majors at that point.

Duk from Yahoo! sports puts

Prospects traded

Two players traded were Cubs Minor League Pitcher of the Year and Cubs Minor League Player of the Year. They were both doing very well in A-ball and AA-ball respectively. When I heard that the Cubs traded away their two top prospects, I thought Jay Jackson and Brett Jackson were shipped out. I felt Hak-Ju Lee had a decent glove and had some nice speed, but I am not sure how good he really would have been.

Anyway, I found this website. They ranked the Top Cubs prospects before the trade.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/6/1857658/chicago-cubs-top-20-pro...

Thanks for putting those

Thanks for putting those stats together Rob. There are very few prospects that I would keep over a proven product and you explained exactly why.

why a picture of Rich Hill?

Why, indeed? Wasn't he supposed to be the next big thing?

Chicago Tribune's Chicago's Best Blogs award