David Ross’ pursuit of another World Series ring in his final season was one of the many great subplots of the Cubs’ championship run, and now the veteran catcher is adjusting to retirement, MLB.com’s Carrie Muskat writes. “There hasn’t been a big lull for me. I ended it the best way I could,” Ross said. “It’s a storybook and a dream. I was saying to my wife, ’This offseason’ — and she said, ’It’s no more the offseason; this is life.’” The widely-respected Ross has often been cited as a future manager or coach, and while he’ll be meeting with Theo Epstein after Thanksgiving to discuss a possible future role with the team, Ross is looking forward to more well-deserved time with his family. Here’s some more from around the majors as we start a new week…
- The Diamondbacks won’t face any payroll limitations in Mike Hazen’s first offseason as the team’s general manager, club president/CEO Derrick Hall tells Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic. “It’ll become a challenge in the future,” Hall said. “We can’t have too many high-priced players on the roster at the same time in this market. You just can’t. At some point we’re going to have difficult decisions to make. But this year it’s not critical. That’s a good spot to be in as a new GM. (Hazen is) not looking at what he has committed and looking at having to move pieces to bring in others. It gives him time to breathe and look and make his own assessments.” While Hazen may not be required to make big payroll cuts, however, he may not have much spending room available if the D’Backs aren’t raising payroll.
- New Rockies manager Bud Black is certain that he can avoid the clash of personalities that soured the relationship between GM Jeff Bridich and former manager Walt Weiss, Jeff Saunders of the Denver Post writes. Black’s ability to communicate and learn throughout every stage of his playing and post-playing career is illustrated in this piece from MLB.com’s Thomas Harding, who explores some of the many relationships Black has made throughout his many decades in baseball.
- Commissioner Rob Manfred has stated that competitive balance and transparency are the league’s priorities in pushing for an international talent draft, though Baseball America’s Ben Badler feels neither of these issues will be helped (and in fact could be worsened) by further limiting contracts for international players within a draft framework. The league’s real priority, Badler argues, is limiting the amount of bonus money given to international players.
- How can the Cubs best position themselves for a repeat in 2017? MLB.com’s Phil Rogers has a few suggestions, including re-signing Dexter Fowler, acquiring Sean Doolittle (if healthy) from the A’s, and packaging some of the club’s top prospects together to trade for a front-of-the-rotation starter.
The CUBS need a front-of-the-rotation starter? When they have two of the three finalists for the CYA and the defending winner in their rotation already?? Seriously…does Phil Rogers even watch baseball?
That’s what I was thinking, but you never have enough pitching I guess.
There’s no such thing as “too much pitching.”
Maybe another starter who will actually hold a runner at first…
You know what’s funny about that? Of all the Cubs starters you know which one had the best caught-stealing percentage? Yeah, it was Lester. He’s so quick to the plate. Runners tried to steal against him, but the percentage they were successful was abysmal.
Didn’t really look at the stats or watch any Cubs games this year, but does having Ross and Contreras/Montero behind the plate have anything to do with that number? Only say this cause I know Ross was Lester’s personal catcher (and I’m sure he got some starts for other pitchers as well) but if Montero and Contreras had average-to-poor numbers throwing out baserunners and Ross had good numbers, that could explain it. Not trying to discredit Lester, but just offering a theory.
David Ross did a good job throwing out runners and that was a part of it. If you want numbers, his CS% was 27%. Miguel Montero was at 11% and Contreras, in a small sample size of course, was at 37%. League average looks to be 27%, so Rossy was average.
That’s not the whole story of course. The catcher’s not going to catch anybody if the pitcher’s not getting him the ball in time to do so, so Lester’s ability to vary his timing and be quick to the plate is definitely its own factor.
Ross and Lester were a great team. How you think the credit should be divvied up is up to you.
Ross was definitely part of it – he did the quick throw to first more than any catcher in baseball, but Lester has an incredibly quick slide-step he developed because of his inability to throw to first. There were still more attempts against Lester, but the percentage of runners caught stealing was much higher than against any of the Cubs other starters.
He still allowed the 3rd most stolen bases in MLB this year, so who cares? The entire Cubs staff was in the NL top 16 for stolen bases against. It’s like being the smartest 30yo in a kindergarten class.
If you want to use that logic couldn’t a response be “the entire Cubs staff gave up the fewest runs on the year”?
Stolen bases aren’t as important as being caught stealing. Teams only get 27 outs a game, and Lester made them pay. Outs are way more important than bases gained. If you’re not stealing at a 75% clip then you’re not stealing efficiently. Lester had a fantastic year despite his inability to throw to first, and teams ran themselves into outs repeatedly when he was on the mound.
I don’t know too many 30 year old kindergartners who won the World Series this year….
Kind of an ignorant way to look at it, especially when you think about how important pitch counts are in todays game teams. Extended innings =shorter outings.
They didn’t run themselves into outs against Lester or anyone on the Cubs staff, the Cubs pitchers and catchers were all pretty bad in regards to baserunners both Ross and Montero allowed better than 70%, the league average, of baserunners to successfully steal.
That has nothing to do with anything I said or further prove the point that Lester struggles holding runners on. But thanks for that valuable input.
they don’t need, but their starters aren’t getting younger.
lackey will be 37. arrieta lost his command and was basically average after May. also both are free agents after 2017.
lester should regress a little but I like him to age gracefully due to him relying more on arm slot than velocity.
Hendricks is the only guy you can expect a repeat performance.
they are overflowing with position players. in the minors as well since candelario and caratini are big league ready future average players.
I see them send Soler plus (plus less than Ian Happ) to a team for a controlled starter that keeps the ball in the park, and doesn’t walk people. Doesn’t have to be a stud, who would require more.
Whichever team has a guy that fits the specs for, say, Soler, Jeimer Candelario, and Jake Stinnett (or somesuch) gets the trade done.
What people forget is that Arrieta fit the specs well enough to come over with Strop for Feldman. Hendricks came over as the second piece for Dempster.
They don’t need to add Chris Sale or Chris Archer this off-season. They would be benefited by adding a guy who comes over relatively cheaply that has three years before free agency.
Any squad willing to make such a trade first, I suspect MLB Trade Runors will report it as fact. And that guy will be a good pitcher with the Cubs defense.
Arrieta lost command? Guess you didn’t watch him in the World Series huh? Dude, you have like, zero knowledge of the game. Lester doesn’t even use different arm angles, no idea where you get that from. He’s not Rich Hill. Seriously, go away
In 11 innigs he had 6 walks, 1 WP, and 1 HBP, and 1HR in the WS. Not exactly great command. Not to mention his awful NLCS start where he couldn’t miss a bat to save this life or his 16WP and inability to string together multiple good innings after May of last year.
I watched 99% of all Cubs games this year and Jake Arrieta sure did lose his control, and often. The world series is a very small sample size and Arrieta’a command of his slider (his most nasty pitch) was all over the place at times.
That said, he still won a boatload of games and did well in the world series. But as a cubs fan looking toward the future, there’s no way I pay him 180-220 mil as you would be paying for old Jake and not who he’ll most likely be. Let Boston, the NYY, and Rangers try and bid to the moon for him.
To replace him, i would be all in on Archer and also try for Sonny Gray. Archer wont come cheap but the cubs need to think long term as lester isnt getting any younger and arrieta having 1 foot out the door.
That’s what I was thinking
Yes, yes he does watch. If you took time to read his article, he states how they can package together prospects to go after a Sale type of Ace. He goes on to explain that would ease the blow of Arrieta hitting free agency after next season.
That makes sense…
I realise there is Lester, Hendricks, Arrieta and Lackey. But it’s tougher to retain than to win the first one. Now that Cubs have finally won the first one in 108 years, it makes more sense to build on quality with quality, rather than be stupid and do what the 1997 and 2003 Marlins did.
The Marlns weren’t stupid. Management couldn’t afford the 1997 team and the 2003 stayed intact except Pudge left as a free agent.
They might not necessarily need one, but as others have pointed out, Lackey is old (and isn’t his contract up after this year?) and Arrieta is a pending free agent (who also struggled during the year, but that isn’t really concerning to me). Lester should be fine next year barring injury and Hendricks is a wild card in my opinion. The guy was lights out during most of the year, but let’s see if he can continue his strong pitching into next year. Also, what gives me a slight pause about Hendricks was that Maddon had him on a shorter leash than some of his other pitchers. Could be that he doesn’t want him to lose his confidence or whatever, but that has to be a slight (miniscule) concern. If I remember correctly, I think I remember reading and hearing that Maddon would pull Hendricks early if he thought his stuff was off (which happens to all pitchers during the year) or if his command was shaky. I agree that a TOR pitcher isn’t necessary, but if the price is right, it’s not a terrible idea.
A 3.10 ERA is “struggling?”
Yes his 3.10 ERA is “struggling” since his ERA was 4.19 from the end of June through the rest if the year. So yes he struggled. He lost command walked many and frankly when is the last time Arrieta got through six innings the second half? Not more then a few times. He is overrated. Not an Ace. Cubs should let him walk.
I disagree, Hendricks looked solid to me all year, Maddon has a thing for the third time around in a game, he likes to take the pitcher out. Hendricks change up will help him to maintain. I don’t see the Cubs resigning Arrietta next year and Lackey will be gone at the end of his contract. I think they will trade for a front line starter this winter along with getting either Jansen, Melancon, or Davis. The Cubs have the pieces to sign a top starter, it just depends on whether they hit the right one. They don’t want to make too many more moves like Heyward even though it’s too early to tell. He did call a meeting!
Epstein said the Cubs were not in the market for a closer at the top of the market. I believe him and that means no Jansen or Melancon. Maybe they sign a starter with good velocity that can be converted to a reliever or they trade for a very good reliever, but not one of those top 3.
He didn’t say need…..
Lester and Hendriks both out pitched their peripherals by a pretty decent margin, there’s going to be some regression. Arrieta slammed into a wall in June and just couldn’t ever string together a run of good innings and his command came and went pretty randomly Lackey is probably going to hang it up after this year and your number 5 spot is currently open. It’s not necessary for them to get one but there are enough question marks there.
Sign Rich Hill and keep all your prospects. Done deal.
And Hill can fill one-half of one rotation spot. I don’t think that oft-injured pitchers are Epstein’s type of player.
Lester’s not getting any younger. Arietta is most likely gone in a year; so is Lackey. At some point, the Cubs will need to make some moves to maintain depth in their rotation. A young, controllable top of the rotation pitcher makes the most sense.
Just look at the Nominals 2 years ago they had Scherezer Strasusburg and Zimmerman, and then the Athletics a couple of years ago when they had Grey Lester Samarja and Kazmir you can never have enough pitching but I agree with them they should target a guy who is labeled as a number 3 or at worst a number 4 but fill all other needs first before going above and beyond to add something that you don’t really need
Far as the draft is concern why not give it a go with what the NFL does? You have x amount of rounds, each slot comes with a set of predetermined slots financially, you can trade however many slots you have in deals with other teams, and teams cant exceed the amount of money they have via slots (not even percentage based like the regular draft). You figure 20 round would be enough. Any player not selected via the draft is free to sign with a team, but cap the amount of signing $$ per team. Any team to go over money in the draft or undrafted players loses picks the following draft dependent upon how much they go over and loses that much money to sign undrafted players the following year; i.e. say they got $150k over in 2018, they lose picks that total $150k or closest to $150k as possible,higher picks are targeted first, and lose $150k off their undrafted signing $$ come 2019..
Pretty much need more than 20 rounds. Every team has short-season rosters to fill.
I’d love to see draft trades. But either the league or the owners balk on that every time like Jordan Walden, and it never happens.
How many players actually sign during the international periods?
20 rounds times 30 teams thats 600 players to be selected as well as however undrafted they sign within the capped $$ for undrafted.
But the 20 rounds was just an initial suggestion i was originall going to put 30 but 900 players?
The Cubs are in the sin bin, and had signed about 17 a month or so ago. It varies per system on how aggressive they are. Which is why MLB might be looking at a draft.
Teams that sign 12 or less, often because they don’t want to scout much ‘over there’, want to make it harder for teams with two international rosters to fill every season.
An international draft that keeps a 17 year old player from playing in an MLB pipeline is bad for that 17 year old play. As such, I’m opposed to any draft that will do that.
Owners are billionaires. If they want to put 4 million more per season into international players and scouting, it should be a wise investment. If they’d rather have the hall monitor prevent the other 29 from doing just that, they’re creating a worse game for everyone.
Couldnt have said it better myself. Well said.
870 players leave MLB and its associated farm systems per season on average the past 10 years. So 30 rounds would be just about right.
Why sign Fowler when they already have Almora? Take that draft pic and use that money on an area of need.
If you watch Almora’s at-bats you’ll see why. He never goes deep into at-bats. I’d love another young high upside arm, but they need some high-floor depth right now, namely a starter in the event that one of their 5 current guys flops for whatever reason (injury / ineffectiveness, etc.). They have literally nothing behind Montgomery, and he is far from a lock for the 5th rotation spot. I’d see about trading E. Jimenez or I. Happ for some rotation depth with a bit of upside, Even signing some older reclamation projects wouldn’t be a bad idea.
I realize I’m digressing, but trading Schwarber would NOT be a crazy idea if someone was willing to pay a premium for him.
Happy and Jimenez are the kind of talent that land you a #1 or 2 not rotation depth
Happ*
While I will agree that Jimenez is an elite talent, I’m not so sure that Happ is considered elite anymore (and yes I know some prospect lists currently still have him at the top of the Cubs prospect list, but I would expect Jiminez to leap him in almost every single list when all the new lists are made going into 2017.). Happ has an extremely good bat, but his defense is questionable at secondbase and he definitely had a poor time adjusting to the outfield in the few games he played there this season. No question he can turn that weakness around, and he is still without question a fantastic bat first prospect, but Happ is NOT going to land you a #1 pitcher for sure, and I seriously doubt a #2 type pitcher at this point in his development (there are so few true #1’s and #2’s anyway).
OF’s who just reached A-Ball and Bat Only players who don’t have a position and was barley a top-100 prospect before struggling pretty bad at AA are not headliners for a TORP starter.
Happ could headline a #3-4 starter, depending on how much control he has left. Jiminez is still so far away he’s not a a flyer prospect but he’s certainly not enough to headline a TORP.
I don’t think the Cubs are looking for an elite arm. Unless Otani comes over as a free agent. I think hey want a guy like Arrieta was. Or a guy like Hendricks was. A guy who throws strikes, and will be around for three years
For Soler, Candelarion, and a piece.
Whoever that is, if he limits walks and homers, he’ll do.
Not sure who you are talking about. Happ is the Cubs #1 prospect and a top 20 overall prospect in baseball. Jimenez is just a couple of places behind. Both would headline a trade for a TOR type young pitcher. I don’t think the Cubs are looking for a guy that is currently the #1 on a team, they are looking for guys that have the stuff and makeup to be a #1 and several years of team control prior to hitting FA.
Happ was BA 87th ranked prospect heading into the season and struggled to hit AA pitching after getting called up, Jimenez was not that list. Just because they’re Cubs prospect doesn’t make them valuable, Jimenez is still very young and very far away, Happ is a bat only player with no position who struggled in AA. No ones trading a potential young ace with large amounts of control for other young unproven players.
Not trading Jimenez. Or Trevor Clifton.
Realistically, the Cubs want someone’s fourth starter with some time before free agency. Doesn’t need to be a TORP.
they have aaron brooks, Rob z, and ryan williams as depth starters. that’s fine. ace or potential ace or just roll with what they have.
.393 OBP and double digit home run power. Almorra offers neither. Package Soler or Almorra with a prospect or two for a pitcher and resign Fowler for the 3 year window the Cubs have to win another ring.
Great article by Rogers, but scroll down and see Ohtani hit the roof in a dome against the Neatherlands in the Tokyo Dome. They also show him pitching, he looks like Nolan Ryan.
I like Badler’s idea for the International players not subject to the MLB draft (short version, fixed bonus pool that allows all teams to negotiate with any amateur player) as long as it also applies to US/Canada/and Puerto Rico players with the draft eliminated.
Every CBA revolves around money–the players want more, and the owners are always looking for new and creative ways to pay less. The competitive balance argument is a dodge–if it was simply about spreading around money to the lower-revenue teams that would be relatively easy to accomplish through revenue sharing. It’s not–if you ask the owners what they really want, it is a salary slotting system for all amateur players, and hard cap that is low enough for all the teams to compete–then, whatever revenues are earned by the teams above that is profit. The value of franchises would soar. A hard cap is essentially a synthetic Reserve Clause–if, say, the Yankees/RedSox/Dodgers can only spend $100M per year, they can’t bid up free agents. That suppresses the value of all players.
Seems to me there is a lot of parity right now, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Too much regulation is not a good thing. Baseball is looking good. I think the most important thing is to reach the young fans, promote the players more, keep making them more visible. Most of us on this site don’t need a change unless you root for a team that never wins. Relocation of failing teams and selling of teams by lame owners who don’t care too much about winning would help, but we know that’s not going to happen.
What’s broke is the cost of attending a game. It is regularly mentioned that the age of the average fan is getting older. If MLB puts more butts in the seats by making the game more affordable for families to attend, it will create more fans. Soccer has mostly low scoring games, but is growing because the kids play it, and understand the intricacies of it. If a family of 4 needs to drop $200 plus to attend (tickets, parking, concessions), they show up less, and the kids can’t pick up the nuances of the sport. If it becomes more affordable, kids go more, and learn, becoming fans. Attendance goes up. Ratings go up. Quantity of concession sales go up. The fans are always forgotten in the negotiations. When they stop showing up, the pie they are splitting up will be a whole lot smaller.
This is a good point, but neither the owners nor the players are really thinking about giving fans a break. Owners want to maximize their profits, players (who have more limited earning years and the risk of injury) their total pay. I’ve always been struck by the lack of negotiating by government when they give away free stadiums–why not demand, in return for taxpayer dollars, that teams set aside a certain number of reduced-fee tickets for local community groups, schools, etc? There’s nothing like going to the ballpark to help make a fan.
Yep, exactly. Baseball is the only major sport without a salary cap and should remain so. Look at the absurd contracts handed out in football, where a player can be released and not get paid because he got injured on the field. Or the NBA’s torturous exceptions and such. Baseball is swimming in money and the Royals, who are a small-market team, nearly won the World Series two years in a row. Meanwhile, the NFL has a hard cap and the Patriots win every year and the Browns stink every year, even though ostensibly they have the same money to spend on players.
A salary cap only benefits the owners. Period.
The lack of parity in the NFL has little to do with the salary cap. It has to do with the singular importance of the QB position.
The Pats win every year because they have Brady while the Brown have gone through about 40 QB’s during his career…and lose.
The Giants, Steelers and Chargers have been competitive most years since getting franchise QB’s in that 2004 draft.
I’m not saying that baseball needs a cap, but a better example would be hockey where the cap has definitely created parity.
But that’s sort of the point, right? Cleveland drafted and paid bad quarterbacks like Johnny Manziel, and when they didn’t pan out they were unable to pivot. In baseball, when even a small-market team like the Royals makes a mistake, like signing Omar Infante, they can still go out and get a better player. You can’t do that in football. How many trades are made in football ever? Almost none.
A better example might be the SF Giants, right? They won three World Series despite signing a bunch of players to terrible contracts (Zito, Rowand, Scutaro, Lowry, Peavy, et al.). The lack of a salary cap allowed them to remain competitive despite those bad contracts.
So, what is your solution? Eliminate all drafts with no limits on bonus amounts? The current draft that applies only to players from the US, Canada, and Puerto Rico certainly suppresses their bonus opportunities while players not covered by the draft can be paid 10X or more for comparable talent.
Let’s talk about the domestic draft for a second. It has two real stingers in it for many HS player–the need to trade off a scholarship for the possibility of an acceptable contract–and the absurd “can’t talk to agents” nonsense if I want to go back to college. What other line of work demands that I not have the opportunity to choose freely without penalties between career paths? If, say Michigan offers me a free ride, but Microsoft offers me $75K to start and stock options, I could defer Michigan and see how the working world is. Maybe I never go back, maybe, after a year, I do. But I wouldn’t be required to find some junior college/software engineer academy. As for the lack of formal representation–think about that. You are asking an 18 year old as his parents to negotiate potentially a six to seven figure contract on their own? The slotting system, if fair, is less of a problem if you give kids a chance to choose without penalty.
My main issue is the disparity between the earning opportunity of players currently subject to the draft and those foreign players that are viewed as free agents able to negotiate freely with any MLB team. The agent issue is not controlled by MLB, it is the NCAA; however, with the current draft structure players are restricted to negotiating with one team that is significantly constrained by bonus pools and associated penalties for spending beyond that pool of dollars. I want players from Canada, US, and Puerto Rico to have the same earning opportunity as those players from Cuba, DR, Mexico, et al
I think that’s also a valid point on the disparities between the absolute top international signings, although most international signings are done for comparative pennies. As to the Agent/eligibility issue, something can be worked out if there is the will to do so. Now, both the NCAA and MLB profit from the arrangement, so they don’t want to change it.
Great point, there should be an international draft IMO
High school players are allowed to have a professional advisor, they are just not required to choose that advisor as their agent if they choose to become a professional. It’s really the agent that is taking the risk, because the kid and his family do get to have professional advice and still play in college if the kid is not drafted high enough or offered enough money. For college basketball it’s worse. They literally have to choose making themselves available for a 2 round draft or play college ball. If they are not chosen in those 2 rounds they are a professional and can’t play college ball.
One radical improvement to watch baseball might be to put a form of Go-Pro on the hats and helmets of players. This way you could replay or show what the player sees while hitting, fielding, throwing a ball. I have thought about this for all sports. It’s kind of out there, but it might bring in the young viewer more.
MLB needs to have one draft.
Why should a good young player from Cuba get $60 million while a good young player from Kansas gets $4 million?
Why should the Yankees and Cubs and Dodgers, etc have a group of elite players that are only available to them?
MLB is the big fish. Tell the rest of the world how it’s going to work. and make them adjust.
If that’s the problemlimit how much teams can spend on veteran IFAs.
Over a three or four year period, each team can spend 40 million on free agents above the age/cap limit.
Then, teams can sign who they want, but not everyone they want.
Theo2016- “the Cubs should sign him, and then trade Baez. Desmond has way more value at his age than Baez, who’ll just steadily decline the next few years”
If I were Mike Hazen of the Diamondbacks, I would trade Greinke first thing. That would open payroll like crazy, especially if the Dodgers are willing to take on 80% or more of that contract.
Bad time to go shopping for a pitcher. The free agent market is very weak, and though guys like Terharan, Archer, Odirrizi, or perhaps Sale could be available, the asking price will be ridiculous. I’d just as soon go with Lester-Hendricks-Arrieta-Lackey-Montgomery, and then find another Maholm/Feldman/Hammel type for Bosio to parlay into something better than they are. Though Sonny Gray would be an interesting target at a reasonable cost.
I’d keep grienke if I were the dbacks. Honestly wouldn’t do anything offensively. Just add bullpen. Idk who id try to sign though, I think melancon would do back, but I wouldn’t want to pay chapman or janson 19$ mil a year
The Snakes need to get better and more efficient at scouting and development. But, then, that applies to most of the other teams, as well.
The draft has players available in the third to fifth rounds that will be good players. Have enough quality scouts to find them, and coaches to develop them.
Two teams really good at those aspects are the Cubs and Indians.
Lindor/Naquin/Frazier/Papi/Sheffield/Zimmer/McKenzie
Baez/Blackburn/Johnson/Almora/Bryant/Schwarber/Happ
A whole bunch of not misses on that list. And they have done well later, as well.
Ah, I love the “player development” argument, especially when it comes to young players. Lets take a look at everyone you listed and see where they were drafted:
Lindor – 8th overall
Naquin – 15th overall
Frazier – 5th overall
Papi – 38th overall (CBA pick)
Sheffield = 31st overall
Zimmer = 21st overall
McKenzie – 42nd overall (CBA pick)
Baez – 9th overall
Blackburn – 56th overall
Johnson – 43rd overall (Sup pick)
Almora – 6th overall
Bryant – 2nd overall
Schwarber – 4th overall
Happ – 9th overall
Almost every single player was taken in the first round, and half of them were in the top 10. These are players that SHOULD turn into very good major league players. The difference in “player development” between teams isn’t nearly as big as the difference in draft philosophy, especially when you look at the Cubs young players. When most other teams were taking high-upside pitchers and/or high-upside high school players the last handful of years, the Cubs were smart enough to focus on college bats. These are players that should be hit on the majority of the time as you have more information to scout (against better competition as well), and they should be a lot closer to major league ready with their advanced ages. Any team in the league could develop bats like Bryant’s and Schwarber’s. It’s just the fact that the Cubs both 1) had the option of picking them, and 2) decided to take them instead of pitching.
If you want to give them credit for hitting on all of these picks, I’m all for it. They had/have a heck of a hit rate. That being said, come back when they start “developing” major league players taken outside of the first round (or heck, even outside of the top 10). At the end of the day, talent wins out the majority of the time, not development (especially when talking about position players).
Side note – this goes for pretty much every team, not just the Cubs. I’m just using the Cubs because they were brought up here, and I know a fair amount about their organization.
Player development will start to show (or not show!) next year and forward. They have a lot of guys coming that we’re not high picks or were high school arms that needed development.