Cubs' Prospects FUTUREBONER thread

[SKO]

Almora's is 4:5, so he's better than Schwarber.

It's good to see him drawing some walks, but I wonder if that's his sole focus right now because he's barely hitting anything. He's basically one more 0-fer from having his slugging percentage drop into the .200s.

His slugging sucks, but his last 10 games he's hitting .302 with 3 Ks, 3 BBs, 2 2Bs. .720 SLG last 10 games.

Maybe he's just working on the zone and contact?  8 days past B-day 21. Take your time, kid.

How many games?

720

Also the "he's just 21" argument is great for Javy Baez K'ing against big league sliders. For a position player in AA in his fourth professional season it's more or less par for the course. No one is saying give up on Albert Almora but to act like it's all fine because he's still some wet behind the ear kid going against tougher competition is misleading.

If he finally reaches the majors in 2017 as a barely average offensive player, if that, I think it's safe to say that's kind of a disappointing return on a top ten pick. Doesn't make him a bust or anything. Just a lot of meh.

Fine. I'll just predict that he'll make the majors in 2016 as a barely average offensive player.

In 2017 he'll be good.

Happy?

That's fine? I want him to be good. I don't hate the kid, I don't want him to fail in order to validate my own fear or opinion. I'm not Chuck. I just want someone out there to find a guy who put up the kind of numbers Almora's managed in AA so far and then went on to actually be any good.

I feel like the people shouting he'll be fine because "he's a good kid" and "he's got all of the tools" seem indicative of an outdated mindset. It seems to me most guys don't really do their growing in the majors. If they're good they usually just reach a point where they can do in the majors what they did in the minors, so if a guy isn't putting up any kind of good numbers in the minors, I think that's a 100% legit reason to be concerned, and no matter of "he's just figuring it out!" makes me any less concerned because literally every prospect in AA is "a good kid" who is "figuring it out". That's why farm systems exist.

Seriously, someone find that person. It'd make me feel better.

I've completely written him off. If he turns into anything more than a 5th outfielder on a good team, that would be fantastic. I don't know if he will and I absolutely do not care. I was told that not all prospects pan out. Bryant and Soler look like they'll pan out. Russell, we'll see. I have hope for Baez but if some top prospect has to fail because science, I choose Almora.

I don't know what it is. If a Hendry prospect was putting up Almora's numbers and we were spoonfed the same "he's a great kid" shit we'd have all cried bullshit from the highest rooftops, but acting like there's more reason to be concerned than than there is positive about Almora is like pissing directly on Theo Epstein's face or something. Like you said, prospects don't always pan out. You can be down on Almora and still think overall this front office has done an excellent job. If Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant alone were the only two successes of the draft/amateur signing side of Theo's rebuild that's still a massive haul. I'm guessing Russell and Schwarber are both also going to be good, but I don't see why pointing out the obvious that Almora doesn't look great is so controversial.

There's all kinds of manifested Id in this post...I think I'm just gonna keep walking.

Yes, there's a deep psychological underpinning behind worrying that a guy with a sub-Juan Pierresian OPS in AA won't be good, and wondering why everyone else seems to think it'll all be peechy keen. Cram it, Dogtor Bogtrot, Optoat Pyscologhist.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I don't know what it is. If a Hendry prospect was putting up Almora's numbers and we were spoonfed the same "he's a great kid" shit we'd have all cried bullshit from the highest rooftops, but acting like there's more reason to be concerned than than there is positive about Almora is like pissing directly on Theo Epstein's face or something. Like you said, prospects don't always pan out. You can be down on Almora and still think overall this front office has done an excellent job. If Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant alone were the only two successes of the draft/amateur signing side of Theo's rebuild that's still a massive haul. I'm guessing Russell and Schwarber are both also going to be good, but I don't see why pointing out the obvious that Almora doesn't look great is so controversial.

There's all kinds of manifested Id in this post...I think I'm just gonna keep walking.

Yes, there's a deep psychological underpinning behind worrying that a guy with a sub-Juan Pierresian OPS in AA won't be good, and wondering why everyone else seems to think it'll all be peechy keen. Cram it, Dogtor Bogtrot, Optoat Pyscologhist.

Yeah it was more a comment about how you manage to extrapolate and ascribe so much deductive reasoning to the Straw Man you seem to spend so much time arguing with, rather than the real person with whom it would appear you're engaged in discussion.  For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

You:  I'm afraid Almora won't pan out (lists reasons)
Me: I'm holding out hope that he still will (lists reasosn).
You: YOU FUCKING THEO DONGCHUGGERS ARE ALL THE SAME.  YOU'RE AFRAID TO CRITICIZE THEM--DON'T WORRY DUDE JUST BECAUSE ALMORA'S A BOMB DOESN'T MEAN THEY FAILED.
Me:  lol wat?

[SKO]

I don't know what it is. If a Hendry prospect was putting up Almora's numbers and we were spoonfed the same "he's a great kid" shit we'd have all cried bullshit from the highest rooftops, but acting like there's more reason to be concerned than than there is positive about Almora is like pissing directly on Theo Epstein's face or something. Like you said, prospects don't always pan out. You can be down on Almora and still think overall this front office has done an excellent job. If Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant alone were the only two successes of the draft/amateur signing side of Theo's rebuild that's still a massive haul. I'm guessing Russell and Schwarber are both also going to be good, but I don't see why pointing out the obvious that Almora doesn't look great is so controversial.

There's all kinds of manifested Id in this post...I think I'm just gonna keep walking.

Yes, there's a deep psychological underpinning behind worrying that a guy with a sub-Juan Pierresian OPS in AA won't be good, and wondering why everyone else seems to think it'll all be peechy keen. Cram it, Dogtor Bogtrot, Optoat Pyscologhist.

Yeah it was more a comment about how you manage to extrapolate and ascribe so much deductive reasoning to the Straw Man you seem to spend so much time arguing with, rather than the real person with whom it would appear you're engaged in discussion.  For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

You:  I'm afraid Almora won't pan out (lists reasons)
Me: I'm holding out hope that he still will (lists reasosn).
You: YOU FUCKING THEO DONGCHUGGERS ARE ALL THE SAME.  YOU'RE AFRAID TO CRITICIZE THEM--DON'T WORRY DUDE JUST BECAUSE ALMORA'S A BOMB DOESN'T MEAN THEY FAILED.
Me:  lol wat?

It's not really just you, it's more that any time I've seen anyone express concern that Almora might suck the response is always "list of reasons (mostly intangible and full of scout euphemisms) why he won't, he's young, blah blah" and not "yeah, I know, it doesn't look great, but I hope not?" or "here's some historical examples of players off to similar starts to their pro careers who rebounded to be good." The fact that no one has thrown them out when we had Bryant comps and Russell comps out the ass before either of them played a game makes me think there's not too many examples of Albert Almora types panning out.

[SKO]

I don't know what it is. If a Hendry prospect was putting up Almora's numbers and we were spoonfed the same "he's a great kid" shit we'd have all cried bullshit from the highest rooftops, but acting like there's more reason to be concerned than than there is positive about Almora is like pissing directly on Theo Epstein's face or something. Like you said, prospects don't always pan out. You can be down on Almora and still think overall this front office has done an excellent job. If Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant alone were the only two successes of the draft/amateur signing side of Theo's rebuild that's still a massive haul. I'm guessing Russell and Schwarber are both also going to be good, but I don't see why pointing out the obvious that Almora doesn't look great is so controversial.

There's all kinds of manifested Id in this post...I think I'm just gonna keep walking.

Yes, there's a deep psychological underpinning behind worrying that a guy with a sub-Juan Pierresian OPS in AA won't be good, and wondering why everyone else seems to think it'll all be peechy keen. Cram it, Dogtor Bogtrot, Optoat Pyscologhist.

Yeah it was more a comment about how you manage to extrapolate and ascribe so much deductive reasoning to the Straw Man you seem to spend so much time arguing with, rather than the real person with whom it would appear you're engaged in discussion.  For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

You:  I'm afraid Almora won't pan out (lists reasons)
Me: I'm holding out hope that he still will (lists reasosn).
You: YOU FUCKING THEO DONGCHUGGERS ARE ALL THE SAME.  YOU'RE AFRAID TO CRITICIZE THEM--DON'T WORRY DUDE JUST BECAUSE ALMORA'S A BOMB DOESN'T MEAN THEY FAILED.
Me:  lol wat?

It's not really just you, it's more that any time I've seen anyone express concern that Almora might suck the response is always "list of reasons (mostly intangible and full of scout euphemisms) why he won't, he's young, blah blah" and not "yeah, I know, it doesn't look great, but I hope not?" or "here's some historical examples of players off to similar starts to their pro careers who rebounded to be good." The fact that no one has thrown them out when we had Bryant comps and Russell comps out the ass before either of them played a game makes me think there's not too many examples of Albert Almora types panning out.

DPD, but if you don't think the general (deserved) positivity toward the Theo Regime has had some influence on people not freaking out over Almora's start, you're kidding yourself.

[Richard Chuggar]

I don't know what it is. If a Hendry prospect was putting up Almora's numbers and we were spoonfed the same "he's a great kid" shit we'd have all cried bullshit from the highest rooftops, but acting like there's more reason to be concerned than than there is positive about Almora is like pissing directly on Theo Epstein's face or something. Like you said, prospects don't always pan out. You can be down on Almora and still think overall this front office has done an excellent job. If Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant alone were the only two successes of the draft/amateur signing side of Theo's rebuild that's still a massive haul. I'm guessing Russell and Schwarber are both also going to be good, but I don't see why pointing out the obvious that Almora doesn't look great is so controversial.

There's all kinds of manifested Id in this post...I think I'm just gonna keep walking.

Yes, there's a deep psychological underpinning behind worrying that a guy with a sub-Juan Pierresian OPS in AA won't be good, and wondering why everyone else seems to think it'll all be peechy keen. Cram it, Dogtor Bogtrot, Optoat Pyscologhist.

Yeah it was more a comment about how you manage to extrapolate and ascribe so much deductive reasoning to the Straw Man you seem to spend so much time arguing with, rather than the real person with whom it would appear you're engaged in discussion.  For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

You:  I'm afraid Almora won't pan out (lists reasons)
Me: I'm holding out hope that he still will (lists reasosn).
You: YOU FUCKING THEO DONGCHUGGERS ARE ALL THE SAME.  YOU'RE AFRAID TO CRITICIZE THEM--DON'T WORRY DUDE JUST BECAUSE ALMORA'S A BOMB DOESN'T MEAN THEY FAILED.
Me:  lol wat?

It's not really just you, it's more that any time I've seen anyone express concern that Almora might suck the response is always "list of reasons (mostly intangible and full of scout euphemisms) why he won't, he's young, blah blah" and not "yeah, I know, it doesn't look great, but I hope not?" or "here's some historical examples of players off to similar starts to their pro careers who rebounded to be good." The fact that no one has thrown them out when we had Bryant comps and Russell comps out the ass before either of them played a game makes me think there's not too many examples of Albert Almora types panning out.

Maybe you should sit the next couple of plays out

[Richard Chuggar]

I don't know what it is. If a Hendry prospect was putting up Almora's numbers and we were spoonfed the same "he's a great kid" shit we'd have all cried bullshit from the highest rooftops, but acting like there's more reason to be concerned than than there is positive about Almora is like pissing directly on Theo Epstein's face or something. Like you said, prospects don't always pan out. You can be down on Almora and still think overall this front office has done an excellent job. If Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant alone were the only two successes of the draft/amateur signing side of Theo's rebuild that's still a massive haul. I'm guessing Russell and Schwarber are both also going to be good, but I don't see why pointing out the obvious that Almora doesn't look great is so controversial.

There's all kinds of manifested Id in this post...I think I'm just gonna keep walking.

Yes, there's a deep psychological underpinning behind worrying that a guy with a sub-Juan Pierresian OPS in AA won't be good, and wondering why everyone else seems to think it'll all be peechy keen. Cram it, Dogtor Bogtrot, Optoat Pyscologhist.

Yeah it was more a comment about how you manage to extrapolate and ascribe so much deductive reasoning to the Straw Man you seem to spend so much time arguing with, rather than the real person with whom it would appear you're engaged in discussion.  For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

You:  I'm afraid Almora won't pan out (lists reasons)
Me: I'm holding out hope that he still will (lists reasosn).
You: YOU FUCKING THEO DONGCHUGGERS ARE ALL THE SAME.  YOU'RE AFRAID TO CRITICIZE THEM--DON'T WORRY DUDE JUST BECAUSE ALMORA'S A BOMB DOESN'T MEAN THEY FAILED.
Me:  lol wat?

It's not really just you, it's more that any time I've seen anyone express concern that Almora might suck the response is always "list of reasons (mostly intangible and full of scout euphemisms) why he won't, he's young, blah blah" and not "yeah, I know, it doesn't look great, but I hope not?" or "here's some historical examples of players off to similar starts to their pro careers who rebounded to be good." The fact that no one has thrown them out when we had Bryant comps and Russell comps out the ass before either of them played a game makes me think there's not too many examples of Albert Almora types panning out.

DPD, but if you don't think the general (deserved) positivity toward the Theo Regime has had some influence on people not freaking out over Almora's start, you're kidding yourself.

oops.  too late

[Eli]

For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

I do think it holds true for some people. Chuck, for example, likes to think that Baez and Castro (who are similarly scouty/toolsy guys like Almora) aren't long for the Cubs org. solely because they were from the Hendry regime. And yet he's advocating patience with Almora, who has never even really put up actual results like Baez or Castro. Chuck takes it to the extreme, but I think some people are affected by a similar line of thinking.

Even the absolute best front offices miss on picks. So far, they look to have hit on Bryant and Schwarber. Almora looks like a miss (a quick glance at the first round shows 8-10 guys who were available at 6 who would now look like better picks). That's fine. If they hit on 2 out of 3 first-rounders from here on out, the Cubs are going to be very good for a long time.

[SKO]

For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

I do think it holds true for some people. Chuck, for example, likes to think that Baez and Castro (who are similarly scouty/toolsy guys like Almora) aren't long for the Cubs org. solely because they were from the Hendry regime. And yet he's advocating patience with Almora, who has never even really put up actual results like Baez or Castro. Chuck takes it to the extreme, but I think some people are affected by a similar line of thinking.

Even the absolute best front offices miss on picks. So far, they look to have hit on Bryant and Schwarber. Almora looks like a miss (a quick glance at the first round shows 8-10 guys who would've been better picks). That's fine. If they hit on 2 out of 3 first-rounders from here on out, the Cubs are going to be very good for a long time.

That. I just think a rising tide lifts all boats in this case. People think Almora will pan out because he's in a good system full of other guys who appear to be panning out. That's cool. I'd just like more concrete and specific reasons to be optimistic about him.

[Bort]

I think we've finally hit a point where people are overreacting to SKO's overreacting. Let him blow out a ventricle like a bald tire if he wants.

[SKO]

I think we've finally hit a point where people are overreacting to SKO's overreacting. Let him blow out a ventricle like a bald tire if he wants.

I think the mistake is thinking that's overreacting. I fucking talk a lot, and I type a lot, and I'm not even remotely stressed or ANGRY while doing so unless that mother fucker David Ross is involved. A lot of words does not necessarily make a rant. I had a blog once where I wrote 50,000 words at a time, but then the subject matter of said blog sucked and started collecting domestic abusers. Now I let it out here, and you're all fucking welcome.

[Saul Goodman]

Realistically, if Almora turns out to be the gold glove wunderkind he supposedly will be, what's the minimum level of offensive competence we're willing to accept? If you say Darwin Barney, the door's over there.

(Although if he could be a little better than 2012 Darwin Barney (2.4 fWAR) every single year, I might take that? Maybe? At least until they trade Vogelbach, Baez and Almora for Trout, obviously.)

[Powdered Toast Man]

I think we've finally hit a point where people are overreacting to SKO's overreacting. Let him blow out a ventricle like a bald tire if he wants.

He's not overreacting, he's overposting. I know that feel, though, SKO.

[Bort]

I think we've finally hit a point where people are overreacting to SKO's overreacting. Let him blow out a ventricle like a bald tire if he wants.

He's not overreacting, he's overposting. I know that feel, though, SKO.

I guess I find it fairly easy to just skim things and move on. Probably why I don't have a hard-on for bitching about Brett either.

[SKO]

I think we've finally hit a point where people are overreacting to SKO's overreacting. Let him blow out a ventricle like a bald tire if he wants.

He's not overreacting, he's overposting. I know that feel, though, SKO.

I guess I find it fairly easy to just skim things and move on. Probably why I don't have a hard-on for bitching about Brett either.

But isn't the best part of desipio when the people start saying you shouldn't talk too much about baseball on the baseball blog? I know that's what I love about the internet. Moderation.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I don't know what it is. If a Hendry prospect was putting up Almora's numbers and we were spoonfed the same "he's a great kid" shit we'd have all cried bullshit from the highest rooftops, but acting like there's more reason to be concerned than than there is positive about Almora is like pissing directly on Theo Epstein's face or something. Like you said, prospects don't always pan out. You can be down on Almora and still think overall this front office has done an excellent job. If Jorge Soler and Kris Bryant alone were the only two successes of the draft/amateur signing side of Theo's rebuild that's still a massive haul. I'm guessing Russell and Schwarber are both also going to be good, but I don't see why pointing out the obvious that Almora doesn't look great is so controversial.

There's all kinds of manifested Id in this post...I think I'm just gonna keep walking.

Yes, there's a deep psychological underpinning behind worrying that a guy with a sub-Juan Pierresian OPS in AA won't be good, and wondering why everyone else seems to think it'll all be peechy keen. Cram it, Dogtor Bogtrot, Optoat Pyscologhist.

Yeah it was more a comment about how you manage to extrapolate and ascribe so much deductive reasoning to the Straw Man you seem to spend so much time arguing with, rather than the real person with whom it would appear you're engaged in discussion.  For example, the fact that Almora was not a Hendry pick wasn't even on my mind so I was amused at having to take a backseat in my discussion with you to some mythical arguer.

You:  I'm afraid Almora won't pan out (lists reasons)
Me: I'm holding out hope that he still will (lists reasosn).
You: YOU FUCKING THEO DONGCHUGGERS ARE ALL THE SAME.  YOU'RE AFRAID TO CRITICIZE THEM--DON'T WORRY DUDE JUST BECAUSE ALMORA'S A BOMB DOESN'T MEAN THEY FAILED.
Me:  lol wat?

It's not really just you, it's more that any time I've seen anyone express concern that Almora might suck the response is always "list of reasons (mostly intangible and full of scout euphemisms) why he won't, he's young, blah blah" and not "yeah, I know, it doesn't look great, but I hope not?" or "here's some historical examples of players off to similar starts to their pro careers who rebounded to be good." The fact that no one has thrown them out when we had Bryant comps and Russell comps out the ass before either of them played a game makes me think there's not too many examples of Albert Almora types panning out.

That's fair.

I guess I don't know where the notion that he might sucks comes from.  Outside of his half-season at AA last year--which many people feel followed a premature promotion-- his numbers--while not great--are not necessarily awful.

Take a look for yourself:

2012 Boise (15 games): .292/.292/.446/.738
2012 AFL (18 games): .347/.363/.480/.843
2013 Kane County (61 games): .329/.376/.466/.842
2014 Daytona (89 games): .283/.306/.406/.712
2014 Tennessee (36 games): .234/.250/.355/.605
2015 Tennessee (13 games): .273/.323/.327/.650
232 Minor League Games: .293/.322/.418/.740

Again, that bottom line is not exactly world-beater stuff, but it's not exactly horrid.   it's not unreasonable to think that those numbers can be improved--particularly when there's already a pretty significant upgrade in his BA/OBP/OPS at AA in his 13 games this year compared to his 36 last year--even better when you see the drop in SLG (which can be attributed to a change in approach) and yet his OPS has gone up 50 points.

Forgive me for not throwing in the towel on the kid and daring to use such nebulous factors like Gold Glove defense and a good head on his shoulders to point to as to why I think he still has a chance to develop into a useful--possibly above-average-- ballplayer.  Your fire and bluster has failed to convince me otherwise at this point.