Cubs Top Prospect Lists (BA top 30, Sickels top 21, BP - 11)

[Wrigley Rat]

If anyone is willing, I would like to know the other guys they listed in their Depth Chart who didn't make the top 30 (and maybe the position they are listed at). I appreciate knowing the 30+ guys. Thanks!

[badnews]

Raisin, if you have the time/inclination, I'd like to know if Jake Renshaw and Scott Moore ranked with the Orioles and if so, where.

[CubColtPacer]

Raisin, if you have the time/inclination, I'd like to know if Jake Renshaw and Scott Moore ranked with the Orioles and if so, where.

 

I can jump in and give you Sickels rating while we're waiting for Raisin or somebody else with the Handbook to possibly look up BA's.

 

Moore-15th, C+ (ranked directly behind Mike Coztanzo, which was an interesting comparison last year in the Tejeda trade thread)

Renshaw didn't even make a C grade and wasn't in the Orioles top 35 list.

 

To compare, Moore would have fit somewhere between 11 and 16 on Sickels list for the Cubs (he has the same grade as Petrick, Hart, Fuld, Fox, Maestri, and Clevenger). Renshaw would not have been in the Cubs top 36.

 

It will be interesting to see how the BA Handbook compares with that.

[Guest]

If anyone is willing, I would like to know the other guys they listed in their Depth Chart who didn't make the top 30 (and maybe the position they are listed at). I appreciate knowing the 30+ guys. Thanks!

 

C:

 

Geovany Soto (2)

Josh Donaldson (7)

Wellington Castillo (15)

Steve Clevenger (29)

Carlos Perez

Chris Robinson

Mark Reed

 

1B:

 

Brian Dopirak

Micah Hoffpauir

 

2B:

 

Tony Thomas (9)

Eric Patterson (12)

Matt Camp

Nate Spears

 

SS:

 

Darwin Barney (24)

Dylan Johnston

Jonathan Mota

 

3B:

 

Josh Vitters (1)

Josh Lansford (28)

Kyle Reynolds

Marquez Smith

Jovan Rosa

Casey McGehee

 

LF:

 

Jake Fox (19)

 

CF:

 

Sam Fuld (18)

Brandon Guyer

Ty Wright

Leon Johnson

Jonathan Wyatt

 

RF:

 

Tyler Colvin (3)

Kyler Burke (13)

Josh Kroeger

Ryan Harvey

Yusuf Carter

Drew Rundle

 

RHP Starters:

 

Sean Gallagher (5)

Jeff Samardzija (8)

Kevin Hart (!0)

Chris Huseby (14)

Dae-Eun Rhee (16)

Robert Hernandez (17)

Larry Suarez (20)

Ryan Acosta (21)

Mark Holliman (27)

Mitch Atkins

Adam Harben

 

RHP Relievers:

 

Jose Ceda (4)

Billy Petrick (11)

Alex Maestri (23)

Jose Ascanio (25)

Rocky Roquet (26)

Tim Lahey (30)

Justin Berg

Audy Santana

Juan Mateo

Matt Avery

Grant Johnson

 

LHP Starters:

 

Donald Veal (6)

James Russell (22)

Mark Pawelek

 

LHP Relievers:

 

Casey Lambert

Edward Campusano

Jeremy Papelbon

Carmen Pignatiello

[Guest]

Raisin, if you have the time/inclination, I'd like to know if Jake Renshaw and Scott Moore ranked with the Orioles and if so, where.

 

Scott Moore came in at 14 with the Orioles, Jake Renshaw didn't make their top 30.

[Guest]

Top 2008 Rookie: C Geovany Soto. His performance during his September callup earned him two playoff starts - and Chicago's catching job for 2008.

 

Breakout Prospect: RHP Robert Hernandez. With two potential plus ptches, he's ready to take on high Cass A hitters at age 19.

 

Sleeper: OF Brandon Guyer. A fifth-round pick last June, he hit just .245 in his pro debut, but he had a huge instructional league and has one of the best power-speed combinations in the system.

 

Sources of Top 30 Talent:

 

Homegrown: 25 (College = 11, Junior college = 2, High school = 6, DFE = 0, Nondrafted free agents = 1 International = 5)

Acquired: 5 (Trades = 4, Rule 5 draft = 1, Independent leagues = 0, Free agent/waivers = 0)

[Wrigley Rat]

Awesome - thanks Raisin!

[Guest]

Cubs who made the BA Top 50 Prospect Lists:

 

Jim Callis:

 

43. 3B Josh Vitters

46. C/1B Geovany Soto

 

Will Lingo:

 

39. 3B Josh Vitters

47. C/1B Geovany Soto

 

John Manuel:

 

No Cubs

 

Chris Kline:

 

30. 3B Josh Vitters

[badnews]

Dear Mr. Manuel,

 

Ouch.

[Guest]

Keith Law's Cubs top 5 prospects (if anyone cares what Keith Law says):

 

1. Josh Vitters, 3b

2. Geovany Soto, c

3. Sean Gallagher, rhp

4. Josh Donaldson, c

5. Jose Ceda, rhp

[Rob]

Keith Law's Cubs top 5 prospects (if anyone cares what Keith Law says):

 

1. Josh Vitters, 3b

2. Geovany Soto, c

3. Sean Gallagher, rhp

4. Josh Donaldson, c

5. Jose Ceda, rhp

 

Nobody does.

 

Though surprisingly, he hasn't muffed that up too badly. Ceda has no business being in a top five simply because he's a reliever, but I can't find much fault with including the others in the top 4.

[badnews]

I agree, Ceda is rated too highly. He dominated the dead-ball Midwest League, at the Low A level, and he had way too many walks. This makes him more valuable than Gallagher? Give me a break. If we traded him I wouldn't be sad because he seems like our only prospect who may be overrated.

[Outshined_One]

Ceda still could pan out as a starter. Apparently he prefers relief work, but if he could stick at SP...yikes.

[Guest]

Ceda still could pan out as a starter. Apparently he prefers relief work, but if he could stick at SP...yikes.

 

The Cubs are keeping him in relief, I don't see it happening.

 

I also think he's overrated. He's certainly not a top-5 prospect. People are falling all over themselves over his upper 90s FB and slider. He still has major health issues, only finished low-A ball and has had some shoulder problems already.

[Rob]

Kevin Goldstein at BP put up his top 100 list.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7092

 

37. Geovany Soto

45. Josh Vitters

[Mephistopheles]

Keith Law has his top 100 prospects and stuff for free (for now)

 

17. Josh Vitters

Vitters was the top prep hitter in the 2007 draft and could easily have gone first or second overall. He's an offensive third baseman with a simple, direct swing and plus-plus bat speed, making lots of contact and hitting everything hard to all fields. He already shows good raw power to pull and will drive balls out the other way as he adds experience and muscle. At third base, he's rough, but has enough athletic ability to be at least average at the position, and he has plenty of arm strength for the position. He's a star and he should move quickly for a high school product.

 

32. Geovany Soto

It might not have made any difference in the playoffs, but the Cubs would have clinched their division a few days sooner had they handed Soto the catcher's job after they shipped Michael Barrett (parcel post, no less) to San Diego. Instead, they gave the remains of Jason Kendall the job, costing themselves on offense and defense. Soto has plus raw power, keeping his weight back extremely well, and he has the upper-body strength to take pitches middle-out and pull them out to left-center. He can get too pull-happy, but he has shown the ability to shorten up and go the other way, and his pitch recognition is solid. He has a strong arm and average receiving skills. There was no justification for playing Kendall over Soto, and now Soto's path is clear to play every day and make a run at the NL rookie of the year award.

 

71. Sean Gallagher

Gallagher could step in as the fifth starter right now for most noncontending clubs, and has a good chance to end up a solid No. 4 in the majors. He works with a three-pitch mix: a 92-94 mph four-seamer that's a little too true, a tight 12-to-6 curve that gets swings and misses for him and a solid-average changeup with some fading action. His control is above average but his command is below, and despite having a quick arm there's some effort in his delivery that may hold his command back long term.

 

76. Josh Donaldson

Donaldson's huge pro debut may be setting unrealistic expectations, but he could end up a steal at the 48th overall pick. Primarily a third baseman in college, he's playable already behind the plate with soft hands, good footwork and a solid-average arm. He centers balls well and has above-average raw power, but he tends to lunge for the ball too often instead of staying back.

[TruffleShuffle]

here's the bp top 100

 

soto is #37 and vitters is #45 (he'll be #2045 next offseason)

 

btw the guy the cubs should've drafted is #12

[sneakypower]

the bp prospect lists have always been bloody awful

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20030129roundtable.shtml

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2594

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3773

https://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1335

 

usually about half of their top half just completely busts out. you'll find some of the other lists have better reliability for future forecast, but i guess it's all for entertainment anyways.

[Guest]

here's the bp top 100

 

soto is #37 and vitters is #45 (he'll be #2045 next offseason)

 

btw the guy the cubs should've drafted is #12

 

2045, eh?

[Mephistopheles]

the bp prospect lists have always been bloody awful

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20030129roundtable.shtml

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2594

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3773

https://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1335

 

usually about half of their top half just completely busts out. you'll find some of the other lists have better reliability for future forecast, but i guess it's all for entertainment anyways.

 

You enjoy making crap up don't you? My God. I can't stand it. If you're going to make a comment on the validity of someone's accuracy in a top XX prospect list and say it is not better than some other prospect list, you had better know what in the world you are talking about. It's comments like this that certainly show that you really don't have a clue about the validity of BP's lists (or BA's). In fact let's compare the results from 2003 and 2004, granted it's early for the last class but we can at least get an idea if one is "bloody awful".

 

Let's see first analyzing the top forty of BA and BP for 2003 (since BP only has a top 40).

 

Total WARP

577.8 - Baseball Prospectus

505.3 - Baseball America

 

Top 10 WARP

205.4 - Baseball America

203.4 - Baseball Prospectus

 

A graph of their success:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f189/kctigers23/LOLCROMAGNONLOL1.gif

Although the regression shows that BA was better for the top 7, they were not, but the log best fit went that way because BA did do well 10-20 and like crap 20+. BP was pretty damn good from 20+. There is not sufficient data to conclude that BPs list is better, but there is more than enough evidence to conclude that BP's list is not "bloody awful". Similar results are found when looking at 2004 Top 50:

 

Total WARP

489.1 - Baseball Prospectus

415.7 - Baseball America

 

Top 10 WARP

133.1 - Baseball America

132.0 - Baseball Prospectus

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f189/kctigers23/LOLCROMAGNONLOL2.gif

So in conclusion. Don't even bring up these ideas again without making sure their valid. Selective memory plagues us all, Mephistopheles included.

 

all of that....nevermind that kg is a BA stalwart ...

[SweetZombieJesus]

here's the bp top 100

 

soto is #37 and vitters is #45 (he'll be #2045 next offseason)

 

btw the guy the cubs should've drafted is #12

 

Since when did Rick Porcello change his name to Matt Wieters?

[sneakypower]

You enjoy making crap up don't you? My God. I can't stand it. If you're going to make a comment on the validity of someone's accuracy in a top XX prospect list and say it is not better than some other prospect list, you had better know what in the world you are talking about. It's comments like this that certainly show that you really don't have a clue about the validity of BP's lists (or BA's). In fact let's compare the results from 2003 and 2004, granted it's early for the last class but we can at least get an idea if one is "bloody awful".

...

So in conclusion. Don't even bring up these ideas again without making sure their valid. Selective memory plagues us all, Mephistopheles included.

 

all of that....nevermind that kg is a BA stalwart ...

yeah so i'm not sure if you've noticed by now but warp is kind of a joke.

 

that aside, you're viewing these as a cumulative 40 prospects graded with no rankings. you're mistaken in their intent. their intent is to rank the players by best to worst of the top 40 prospects, and there is just far too many previous errors to indicate they have a good handle on what they're doing.

 

BA did do well 10-20 and like crap 20+. BP was pretty damn good from 20+.

flaws in your method aside, this point best highlights the juxtaposition between the two. looking at the lists in hindsight, it is apparent that BA does a better job of sniffing out the star players which is highly due to the superior scouting input with which they affiliate. given that they tend to gravitate towards the more high upside star caliber players rather than the average regular types the results regarding cumulative warp would also be distorted by the quantity over quality approach the latter employs.

 

if you like their rankings, i'm glad for you. i've never been impressed with them, but i'm sure they're happy to have your monthly $5.

[Mephistopheles]

yeah so i'm not sure if you've noticed by now but warp is kind of a joke.

 

Oh believe me when I say I know the uses for WARP and the problems with WARP. For what I was doing now, it's perfectly acceptable.

 

that aside, you're viewing these as a cumulative 40 prospects graded with no rankings. you're mistaken in their intent. their intent is to rank the players by best to worst of the top 40 prospects, and there is just far too many previous errors to indicate they have a good handle on what they're doing.

 

You know, I did not put a label on each axis of the graph, thinking that this place would be smart enough to infer what they meant given the numbers on the graph and the comments about the graph. I guess I can't expect people to be able to do that. Let's see the x axis on the graph is a players rank in that year, with the Y axis being the WARP accumulated. So I did that....and BP's still more impressive.

 

looking at the lists in hindsight, it is apparent that BA does a better job of sniffing out the star players which is highly due to the superior scouting input with which they affiliate. given that they tend to gravitate towards the more high upside star caliber players rather than the average regular types the results regarding cumulative warp would also be distorted by the quantity over quality approach the latter employs.

 

You're right. Players with a WARP of 25 or higher right now in 2003's BA's list (7). Players with WARP of 25 or higher on BP's list (9). BP listed Travis Hafner and Dontrelle Willis. BA didn't. Players with WARP of 25 or higher right now in the 04 BA list 3, compared to 4 on BPs. BP has Jason Bay listed, BA does not. Since that's a year later, let's look at WARP of 20 or higher. Oh look 8 for BP and 6 for BA. BP has Khalil Greene listed, BA does not.

 

So the four guys that BP had on their lists that BA did not are Jason Bay, Dontrelle Willis, Travis Hafner and Khalil Greene. That's 4 All Star appearances, 2 Rookie of the Year winners, a Cy Young runner up, a top five MVP finish, a 22 game winner and 2 35 HR hitters. Oh it's also 3 seasons of WARP over 11.0, 5 over 8.0 and a World Series ring to boot.

 

Yeah BA sure was better at finding stars. Please stop making things up.

[sethuel1]

yeah so i'm not sure if you've noticed by now but warp is kind of a joke.

 

Oh believe me when I say I know the uses for WARP and the problems with WARP. For what I was doing now, it's perfectly acceptable.

 

that aside, you're viewing these as a cumulative 40 prospects graded with no rankings. you're mistaken in their intent. their intent is to rank the players by best to worst of the top 40 prospects, and there is just far too many previous errors to indicate they have a good handle on what they're doing.

 

You know, I did not put a label on each axis of the graph, thinking that this place would be smart enough to infer what they meant given the numbers on the graph and the comments about the graph. I guess I can't expect people to be able to do that. Let's see the x axis on the graph is a players rank in that year, with the Y axis being the WARP accumulated. So I did that....and BP's still more impressive.

 

looking at the lists in hindsight, it is apparent that BA does a better job of sniffing out the star players which is highly due to the superior scouting input with which they affiliate. given that they tend to gravitate towards the more high upside star caliber players rather than the average regular types the results regarding cumulative warp would also be distorted by the quantity over quality approach the latter employs.

 

You're right. Players with a WARP of 25 or higher right now in 2003's BA's list (7). Players with WARP of 25 or higher on BP's list (9). BP listed Travis Hafner and Dontrelle Willis. BA didn't. Players with WARP of 25 or higher right now in the 04 BA list 3, compared to 4 on BPs. BP has Jason Bay listed, BA does not. Since that's a year later, let's look at WARP of 20 or higher. Oh look 8 for BP and 6 for BA. BP has Khalil Greene listed, BA does not.

 

So the four guys that BP had on their lists that BA did not are Jason Bay, Dontrelle Willis, Travis Hafner and Khalil Greene. That's 4 All Star appearances, 2 Rookie of the Year winners, a Cy Young runner up, a top five MVP finish, a 22 game winner and 2 35 HR hitters. Oh it's also 3 seasons of WARP over 11.0, 5 over 8.0 and a World Series ring to boot.

 

Yeah BA sure was better at finding stars. Please stop making things up.

 

 

ooooooo, buuuurrrrrrnnnnn

[TruffleShuffle]

BP tends to be more stat-oriented. BA is more tools-oriented. Personally I have never been a big fan of BA's rankings; they seem to give way too much credence to a guy's tools when it's becoming obvious that he can't play (see: ryan harvey). on the other hand, BP will tend to overrate guys who are playing at a level that is pretty low for them, or guys who have significant holes that will be exploited at the big league level. Maybe the Jason Dubois types is what I'm thinking of.

 

But I think BA really underrates guys in the vein of Khalil Greene and Dustin Pedroia - guys who are relatively good bets to become at least average major league players. Just because they don't have superstar upside does not mean that they won't be productive players in the big leagues, and if you can get a guy who is a little above average (granted - the two guys above are pretty significantly above average for their positions) and end up paying him beans for a few years, then you've got yourself a valuable commodity.