2007 Cubs Minor League Wrap-Up

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I am intrigued by the SP depth in the system. Although, they may not be top flight arms, the Cubs have a good 6-7 guys that could start some games next year if needed, not to mention if Prior returns to anywhere close to form. This may be for another thread, but if 2-3 of these arms can't be packaged for a good player, it opens up the door to trade Marshall or for a great player, Hill. The Cubs could mix and match in the 5th starter's spot with the depth they have knocking on the door of the majors. Hopefully, the hit in production from the rotation can be picked up by Zambrano showing up all season and by the bat(s), the Cubs can pick up.

 

I agree. And my guess is that Marshall will be heading somewhere for a bat and the Cubs will fill the 5th starter job among Gallagher/Mateo/Prior/et. al., with the expectation that Samardzija could be brought up sometime during the season.

 

Having three lefties in the rotation was undesirable from the beginning, but the Cubs had no choice this year. Next year, they will, so I agree Marshall is as good as gone. Were the Cubs to package him with someone like Murton, they could/should get a quality bat in exchange. Maybe throw in a lower-level/perceived high ceiling guy like Atkins, and go get Tejada or Renteria? I'd support that.

[badnews]

Saying that Colvin's strikeouts won't hurt him because Ryan Howard's and Nick Swisher's don't hurt them is preposterous. Nick Swisher isn't as great as people think, and anyway Nick Swisher hit for better power than Colvin in the minors, and he took more walks, same with Howard. I've seen too many guys with the 3 or 4:1 K/BB ratio and few other skills flame out to think anything good about Colvin.

 

I think the Jacque Jones comparison is a good one.

 

Someone in this topic said that "everyone" says Colvin is "above average" in center field, but I'm afraid I've never read the works of Mr. Everyone.

Whenever I ask people why such a studly center fielder would be playing left field at college, they get this blank look on their face, then point up at the sky and say "It's the Goodyear Blimp" before running off.

 

Anyone who can play center field at the major league level can out-defend a center fielder or a right fielder at the college level.

 

Easy. If you're Clemson, do you stick a player who has never played outfield before in CF? Colvin's been a guy who has reportedly made great strides every year he has played in the OF. Honestly, I have no idea who to believe anymore. I've heard all kinds of reports (there have been no reports that he was terrible in CF, but I've heard everything from will eventually move to a corner to so-so to excellent). I don't think the fact that he played LF at Clemson means that he cannot play CF though because he was still very new to the outfield while he was at Clemson.

 

As for top 100 prospects, my guess is that Colvin will be in most of them. He'll be down pretty far (80's or 90's) but he'll be there. Colvin will also be in the top 3 of about every Cubs prospect list. I can't back that up though, so that's just my opinion and I guess we'll have to wait and see on that.

 

Playing center field in college is a lot like playing shortstop in college, though not quite to that extreme: most guys who do it in college have no chance whatsoever of doing it in the majors. If Colvin is the plus fielder people talk about, he would've bumped one of the other two guys. Some people have been trying to talk up his arm, that should've bumped someone out of right. Matt Murton was a center fielder at Georgia Tech. Anyone who can play a major league right or center field is a better defender than 9 out of 10 college outfielders. Where did Colvin start out?

He played nearly every game in left field his sophomore year, if he was that good he would've been moved.

 

As for the Top 100, I don't think Colvin will make Baseball America's Top 100 Prospects list. Very remote chance. I know Eric Patterson won't make it. Vitters, Soto, Gallagher are probably the best bets I'd think.

[Outshined_One]

Let me guess badnews, you don't like Adam Dunn. If that's the case, we're not going to get anywhere in terms of this argument. All other things equal, I'll take the .260/.360 hitter over the .300/.330 hitter any day of the week.

 

I think batting average is overrated. It does not paint a complete picture of how much a player contributes to his team at the plate. It can fluctuate fairly significantly and be dependent on luck, both good and bad. At the minor league level, you're dealing with defensive inexperience, which only mucks up any potential predictive power it has. Moreover, I'm a bit confused about the idea of how strikeouts can sap a guy's batting average considering a good number of guys in the MLB Top 40 for batting average either already have 100 Ks or are on their way to 100 Ks. Do strikeouts really have that gross of an impact on batting average? Hell, Colvin still managed a .299 BA between Daytona and Tenn despite having 101 Ks.

 

With things such as IsoD, there seems to be a lot firmer ground to stand on. I don't think the ability to draw a walk fluctuates and is as luck-dependent as the ability to get a hit. It doesn't seem like an ability that goes away over time. Sadly, in Colvin's case, it doesn't seem like an ability a player can markedly improve over his career. There are some exceptions to the rule (Jose Reyes), but, more often than not, guys who don't walk much in the minors tend not to walk much in the majors, either. That can sap productivity in a hurry.

 

As for Colvin, I think he'll end up being in the 50-60 range on most Top 100 lists. His K/BB will cause people to back off of him, but the rest of his tools seem to be good enough that people will buy into the idea that he'll cut down on his strikeouts/increase his walks or whatever.

 

I'm hopeful of Colvin's future, but the present product does not inspire much hope in me. Believe it or not, I've compared him to Jacque Jones starting roughly at some point last season and I think there's a good chance it'll continue to hold true. He might display better power numbers and better IsoD numbers, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

It's been a down year for this system. I hope some of the potential high ceiling guys down in Peoria/Boise/Mesa can break through next season...but that remains to be seen. It ain't pretty from Daytona on upward.

[badnews]

Next year, they will, so I agree Marshall is as good as gone. Were the Cubs to package him with someone like Murton, they could/should get a quality bat in exchange. Maybe throw in a lower-level/perceived high ceiling guy like Atkins, and go get Tejada or Renteria? I'd support that.

 

You would support that because it's an unreasonable proposition, no offense. It's more or less one of those "If we throw together enough mediocre talents we can get back a real impact player" proposals which never work. Murton and Marshall have far less trade value than most of us think. Not many teams have an opening in left field they can't fill with somebody better than Murton. If he played a different position he'd have value, but he doesn't.

 

Marshall's trade value has been even more understated. He's shown flashes, but he keeps hitting the wall at a certain number of innings, and his upside isn't that great.

 

Who has a need for Marshall and thinks Marshall could survive their park (i.e. not an AL team) and has a spare bat to give away in a position we could use?

[Guest]

I don't care for Chris Huseby. He's another one of Jim Hendry's "gut feeling" picks that won't get anywhere. Surprise, surprise, he's from Florida. If you're not from Florida or Virginia or Notre Dame, the Cubs aren't interested. They should've taken Huseby's money and spent it on Matt Latos, Alex White, Jordan Walden, or Charles Brewer.

 

Jeff Samardzija is a Hendry pick through and through - he's 6'6, righthanded, comes from Notre Dame, he's Grant Johnson's more talented twin brother. I'm not surprised the Cubs' organization and staff continues to say great things about him - they've done nothing but lie so far, when he was drafted they kept putting out releases about his 98 mph fastball, I can tell you what, it's not 98, not close.

 

Tim Wilken has been in charge of the draft for 2 years now.

[badnews]

Let me guess badnews, you don't like Adam Dunn. If that's the case, we're not going to get anywhere in terms of this argument. All other things equal, I'll take the .260/.360 hitter over the .300/.330 hitter any day of the week.

 

I think batting average is overrated. It does not paint a complete picture of how much a player contributes to his team at the plate. It can fluctuate fairly significantly and be dependent on luck, both good and bad. At the minor league level, you're dealing with defensive inexperience, which only mucks up any potential predictive power it has. Moreover, I'm a bit confused about the idea of how strikeouts can sap a guy's batting average considering a good number of guys in the MLB Top 40 for batting average either already have 100 Ks or are on their way to 100 Ks. Do strikeouts really have that gross of an impact on batting average? Hell, Colvin still managed a .299 BA between Daytona and Tenn despite having 101 Ks.

 

With things such as IsoD, there seems to be a lot firmer ground to stand on. I don't think the ability to draw a walk fluctuates and is as luck-dependent as the ability to get a hit. It doesn't seem like an ability that goes away over time. Sadly, in Colvin's case, it doesn't seem like an ability a player can markedly improve over his career. There are some exceptions to the rule (Jose Reyes), but, more often than not, guys who don't walk much in the minors tend not to walk much in the majors, either. That can sap productivity in a hurry.

 

As for Colvin, I think he'll end up being in the 50-60 range on most Top 100 lists. His K/BB will cause people to back off of him, but the rest of his tools seem to be good enough that people will buy into the idea that he'll cut down on his strikeouts/increase his walks or whatever.

 

I'm hopeful of Colvin's future, but the present product does not inspire much hope in me. Believe it or not, I've compared him to Jacque Jones starting roughly at some point last season and I think there's a good chance it'll continue to hold true. He might display better power numbers and better IsoD numbers, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

It's been a down year for this system. I hope some of the potential high ceiling guys down in Peoria/Boise/Mesa can break through next season...but that remains to be seen. It ain't pretty from Daytona on upward.

 

No, I like Adam Dunn. We're just talking about different things. You say Colvin's problems is his lack of walks. I say it's his K/BB ratio coupled with his lack of other standout attributes.

 

A lot of the guys who have a lot of strikeouts are not good bets to repeat their success. I don't think B. J. Upton is a .330 hitter with those K's.

 

Jose Reyes is in a different system. I have no confidence in this organization to help players until they give me a reason to have confidence.

 

I'l take your bet on Colvin. I think people on this topic have forgotten about how rich other teams are in prospects, I don't think Colvin makes the Top 100, let alone 50-60. His other tools aren't even that exciting. No one has spoken definitively on his defense, his basestealing is not great, his power isn't great, where are all these tools everyone should be impressed with? Like I said, other teams with guys like Colvin have him as their 9th best prospect or so. He's not going to rate 50-60.

 

Every year seems to be more of a "down year" than the year before.

[Guest]

Colvin certainly will be in BA's Top 100.

[CubFanPhilly]

Next year, they will, so I agree Marshall is as good as gone. Were the Cubs to package him with someone like Murton, they could/should get a quality bat in exchange. Maybe throw in a lower-level/perceived high ceiling guy like Atkins, and go get Tejada or Renteria? I'd support that.

 

You would support that because it's an unreasonable proposition, no offense. It's more or less one of those "If we throw together enough mediocre talents we can get back a real impact player" proposals which never work. Murton and Marshall have far less trade value than most of us think. Not many teams have an opening in left field they can't fill with somebody better than Murton. If he played a different position he'd have value, but he doesn't.

 

Marshall's trade value has been even more understated. He's shown flashes, but he keeps hitting the wall at a certain number of innings, and his upside isn't that great.

 

Who has a need for Marshall and thinks Marshall could survive their park (i.e. not an AL team) and has a spare bat to give away in a position we could use?

 

I agree that Marshall has his limitations, but a lot of teams over value performance at the ML level. Marshall would be viiewed as a fairly low risk inexpensive upgrade at the back of most rotations.

 

I also agree that Marshall, Murton & Atkins probably does not net them Tejada, but upgrade the prospect a bit and they might talk. I think there are potential deals out there centered around Marshall, Murton, and prospects - particularly if the Cubs can take some payroll on for a veteran bat nearing the end of his contract (e.g., Tejada, Griffey, Dunn, Burrell, etc.)

[badnews]

I don't see how you can figure he'll "certainly" be on there. Will the Braves' Jordan Schafer be on there too?

 

Or the Dodgers' Xavier Paul or the A's Javier Herrera? Tampa's Sergio Pedroza? The Rockies' Dexter Fowler? The Diamondbacks' Gerardo Parra? The Indians' Nick Weglarz or Cirilo Cumberbatch? The Royals' Derrick Robinson?

 

Nolan Reimold, Ellsbury, Bruce, Upton, Maybin, Fernando Martinez, Colby Rasmus, Jose Tabata, Andrew McCutchen, Wladimir Balentien, Aaron Cunningham, Carlos Gonzalez, Austin Jackson, Michael Saunders, Chris Marrero, and Jason Heyward would be the outfielders who are getting on the Top 100 ahead of Colvin, and there's some that I'm missing. There's 16 outfielders there already. Is this the Top 100 Prospects list or the Top 100 Outfielders? I think other positions are going to be represented. How many times do more than 16 outfielders make it? That doesn't even include the guys who dwell in the same fringey territory above that I listed, like Schafer, Parra, Robinson, Fowler, etc.

 

I've noticed many of my fellow Cubs fans do that. They don't compare their prospects to other organization's prospects - they compare them to crappier Cubs' prospects. Colvin must be a great prospect, because, compared to Chris Walker or Yusuf Carter, he is. The farm system must be in good shape because they have no basis for comparison to see where it comes up short.

 

I don't see how Colvin "certainly" makes it. There's too many other clubs with quality outfielders and his numbers are fringey for a Top 100 Prospects list. I don't think they're going to give the nod to a center fielder just because he's a center fielder. History shows Baseball America is more likely to give an .890 OPS right fielder a nod than a .770 OPS center fielder with middling numbers and serious flaws.

[badnews]

Next year, they will, so I agree Marshall is as good as gone. Were the Cubs to package him with someone like Murton, they could/should get a quality bat in exchange. Maybe throw in a lower-level/perceived high ceiling guy like Atkins, and go get Tejada or Renteria? I'd support that.

 

You would support that because it's an unreasonable proposition, no offense. It's more or less one of those "If we throw together enough mediocre talents we can get back a real impact player" proposals which never work. Murton and Marshall have far less trade value than most of us think. Not many teams have an opening in left field they can't fill with somebody better than Murton. If he played a different position he'd have value, but he doesn't.

 

Marshall's trade value has been even more understated. He's shown flashes, but he keeps hitting the wall at a certain number of innings, and his upside isn't that great.

 

Who has a need for Marshall and thinks Marshall could survive their park (i.e. not an AL team) and has a spare bat to give away in a position we could use?

 

I agree that Marshall has his limitations, but a lot of teams over value performance at the ML level. Marshall would be viiewed as a fairly low risk inexpensive upgrade at the back of most rotations.

 

I also agree that Marshall, Murton & Atkins probably does not net them Tejada, but upgrade the prospect a bit and they might talk. I think there are potential deals out there centered around Marshall, Murton, and prospects - particularly if the Cubs can take some payroll on for a veteran bat nearing the end of his contract (e.g., Tejada, Griffey, Dunn, Burrell, etc.)

 

The Cubs would have no place to play Burrell or Dunn. We all know what would happen if Soriano tried to move to RF. He'd fall into a nervous coma because his little plastic bubble was burst. We'd see bad offensive numbers and the whole ball of yarn would probably unravel. Plus, despite his assists, he's not a great outfielder. The Reds probably won't trade Dunn to the Cubs, and Burrell's contract actually looks sane now - he's redeemed himself a lot lately.

 

People are forgetting - most teams don't have an open slot in LF they want to fill with Matt Murton and his upside of an .830 OPS or so. That's a position that's easy to fill anyway with Matt Stairs/Jack Cust/Moises Alou types and so forth anyway.

 

Personally, I don't like Renteria as a Cub. He'll come here and go back to the same sulky "Ooooh, the weather's too cold" .720 OPS guy he's been in years past.

 

Marshall... what's his value? He doesn't even have the track record of a Horacio Ramirez. He doesn't have the ability to even eat innings like a Wandy Rodriguez. His attributes and career trajectory resemble Mark Hendrickson's. I just don't see any team jumping up and saying "Yeah, yeah, that's the guy we need."

 

Maybe we could ship him off to the Devil Rays for Jonny "I strike out 40% of the time" Gomes. But that's about it, I'd wager.

[Guest]

I don't know if Colvin will "certainly" be on the BA 100, but I think there's a very good chance.

[badnews]

I think if you sit down and attempt to list all the minor league outfielders better than Colvin, you'll see the chances look rather remote. At least to me. Like I said, at least 15 minor league outfielders better than Colvin...

[Guest]

I think if you sit down and attempt to list all the minor league outfielders better than Colvin, you'll see the chances look rather remote. At least to me. Like I said, at least 15 minor league outfielders better than Colvin...

Have you read their reviews of Colvin? He was their #1 prospect in the NWL last year and "more than held his own" two and three levels higher this year.

[rawaction]

Last year's BA top 100 had 26 OFs on the list. They routinely have over 20.

[rawaction]

Im going to rate them on a 0-100 scale. 100 being awesome, an elite prospect. A 90 being a top 100 guys. A 80 being a top 200 guy and so on. Donaldson is growing on me. Hes about the only thing that went right in June, although I didnt like it at the time. If he would be a MLB C he'd be a 90+ right now.

 

96 Eric Patterson

94 Geovany Soto

93 Donald Veal

92 Sean Gallagher

90 Josh Vitters

88 Tyler Colvin

88 Chris Huseby

87 Josh Donaldson

80 Brian Dopirak

78 Jeff Golden Boy

78 Kyler Burke

77 Mitch Atkins

76 Ryan Harvey

75 Tony Thomas

75 Robert Hernandez

75 Alex Maestri

75 Jose Ceda

75 Larry Suarez

75 Cedric Redmond

75 Jake Renshaw

 

 

I dont know much about Carlos Perez, but he looks fairly promising. Take these as a starting point, not absolute. I did them from memory without thinking. Is there someone I forgot? Rocquet doesn't count. As you can tell 75 became a catch all rating for guys who have decent potential and the low minors.

 

Not a bad list. I feel similarly about Szamardzija as you do. I think your ratings are a little high, but I would at this point, roughly go in my top 10:

 

Patterson, Soto, Colvin, Vitters, Gallagher, Veal, Huseby, Szamardzija, Donaldson, Burke. I also really like Hernandez and Ceda.

[badnews]

That wasn't a great year for the NWL, and BA is very liberal when it comes to handing out places to recent draftees. I don't think "holding his own" is that convincing for inclusion.

 

Does anyone think Eric Patterson will make Baseball America's Top 100? If not, why have both of you rated him the Cubs' best prospect? He's got far less of a chance than Colvin of making it. Even his biggest asset, basestealing, didn't get off the ground.

[rawaction]

That wasn't a great year for the NWL, and BA is very liberal when it comes to handing out places to recent draftees. I don't think "holding his own" is that convincing for inclusion.

 

Does anyone think Eric Patterson will make Baseball America's Top 100? If not, why have both of you rated him the Cubs' best prospect? He's got far less of a chance than Colvin of making it. Even his biggest asset, basestealing, didn't get off the ground.

 

Mine wasn't in order. I don't think Eric makes the BA top 100, but that doesn't mean he can't be a good ML player. I don't know what was so wrong with Patterson's season at AAA. He walked 54 times in 516 ABs, which is an excellent rate. He hit for about as much power as you could expect. He struck out less than he ever has as a professional. I think he could be a ML 2B or a CF, where he could be at least a league average to above average hitter for his position.

[CubColtPacer]

That wasn't a great year for the NWL, and BA is very liberal when it comes to handing out places to recent draftees. I don't think "holding his own" is that convincing for inclusion.

 

Does anyone think Eric Patterson will make Baseball America's Top 100? If not, why have both of you rated him the Cubs' best prospect? He's got far less of a chance than Colvin of making it. Even his biggest asset, basestealing, didn't get off the ground.

 

Mine wasn't in order. I don't think Eric makes the BA top 100, but that doesn't mean he can't be a good ML player. I don't know what was so wrong with Patterson's season at AAA. He walked 54 times in 516 ABs, which is an excellent rate. He hit for about as much power as you could expect. He struck out less than he ever has as a professional. I think he could be a ML 2B or a CF, where he could be at least a league average to above average hitter for his position.

 

I don't think anything was necessarily wrong with Eric Patterson's numbers-until you consider the offensive environment at Iowa and the PCL overall. The PCL overall had an average OPS of 783, so Patterson only was 34 points above average. At Iowa, there were plenty of people who had better seasons than Patterson. In fact, his closest batting comparisons this year are to Sam Fuld, Koyie Hill, and Josh Kroeger. That's not the greatest company there, and there were several other non-prospects that had similar or better numbers than Patterson. Most of the other actual prospects in Iowa last year had over 900 OPS's.

[CubinNY]

Having three lefties in the rotation was undesirable from the beginning, but the Cubs had no choice this year. Next year, they will, so I agree Marshall is as good as gone. Were the Cubs to package him with someone like Murton, they could/should get a quality bat in exchange. Maybe throw in a lower-level/perceived high ceiling guy like Atkins, and go get Tejada or Renteria? I'd support that.

 

Marshall and Murton for Tejada? I'd do that deal.

[Mephistopheles]

Colvin will most certainly be in BAs top 100. I wouldn't be shocked if hes top 75 or even higher.

[rawaction]

That wasn't a great year for the NWL, and BA is very liberal when it comes to handing out places to recent draftees. I don't think "holding his own" is that convincing for inclusion.

 

Does anyone think Eric Patterson will make Baseball America's Top 100? If not, why have both of you rated him the Cubs' best prospect? He's got far less of a chance than Colvin of making it. Even his biggest asset, basestealing, didn't get off the ground.

 

Mine wasn't in order. I don't think Eric makes the BA top 100, but that doesn't mean he can't be a good ML player. I don't know what was so wrong with Patterson's season at AAA. He walked 54 times in 516 ABs, which is an excellent rate. He hit for about as much power as you could expect. He struck out less than he ever has as a professional. I think he could be a ML 2B or a CF, where he could be at least a league average to above average hitter for his position.

 

I don't think anything was necessarily wrong with Eric Patterson's numbers-until you consider the offensive environment at Iowa and the PCL overall. The PCL overall had an average OPS of 783, so Patterson only was 34 points above average. At Iowa, there were plenty of people who had better seasons than Patterson. In fact, his closest batting comparisons this year are to Sam Fuld, Koyie Hill, and Josh Kroeger. That's not the greatest company there, and there were several other non-prospects that had similar or better numbers than Patterson. Most of the other actual prospects in Iowa last year had over 900 OPS's.

 

Eric Patterson- 24 years old, 1st year in AAA.

Sam Fuld- 26

Koyie Hill- 28

Josh Kroeger- 24 most of the year, but has AAA experience.

[Mephistopheles]

Eric Patterson will most certainly be top 100 on BA. Don't be surprised if hes down around 50

[rawaction]

Eric Patterson will most certainly be top 100 on BA. Don't be surprised if hes down around 50

 

He wasn't on the list last year, and while I've argued his numbers at AAA are good, I don't think he's done enough to be on the list this year.

[Guest]

Eric Patterson will most certainly be top 100 on BA. Don't be surprised if hes down around 50

 

Really? I agree with you on Colvin and I think top 75 sounds about right but EPatt is a player that BA has never been enamored with.

[craig]

I'd expect Soto and Colvin to be on BA's list. As raw noted, there are lots of outfielders who make it every year. For a 21-year old to hit around .300 in A+/AA with 16 HR, projection, and good tools (arm, speed, defense), I think BA routinely includes guys like that. As Lord K said, perhaps as high as 75.

 

Soto they've got to include, and his success with the Cubs may force them to reevaluate their previously tepid interest. Hard to not include a guy who's got an open door to a big-league job, who's had a really good big-league debut in his small window, and who hit for power, average, and walks in AAA.

 

gallagher I'd think could be in there, although it wouldn't shock me if he wasn't. He's young and has had good minor-league success. Stuff isn't "Wow", but BA's been aware of him for a while now. Possibly another back-of-top-100 guy.

 

Samardz, might be in there. There are still scouts BA talks to who seem to like his talent considerably, and their Cub sources are still very favorable. Plus he's a story guy, a good discussion guy for them. Put him in somewhere in the back, at 90 or whatever. If he busts, nothing rare about that at the back of your top-100. But if he blossoms, you can say that you were listing him as a guy to watch all along. Can't lose.

 

I'd be rather surprised to see Patterson in there, on BA's list. Prospectus, different story, since their assessment of defense is very different from the average human scout.

 

Patterson is a jumble of puzzles. I don't really know what he is. As a good defensive 2B, I'd view him as well worthy of Top-100 rank. But not as a bad defensive 2B, or a bad defensive CFer, or a utility outfielder with a below-average arm.

 

My understanding is that by some statistical measures, there are indicators that his 2B defense isn't too bad, may actually be fairly good. But I don't think the BA boys read those, and based on past reports the human scouts they've talked to have been pretty negative about Eric's 2B defense.

 

I know Fleita will say he moved him to outfield to make him more flexible and more useful as a bench player, and that is logical. But I also wonder whether that move isn't really a reflection that they don't see him as a big-league caliber defensive 2B. Can't lose for the pro-Patterson posters. If he makes it big, they're smart, win. If he doesn't, just use that to prove the Cubs are idiots to have moved him, if they'd kept him at 2nd he'd be great, Cubs ruined him, Cubs are dumb, win again! Win win!

 

I'll be shocked if BA loves his defense enough to include him in top-100.