Cub prospects in the news

[TruffleShuffle]

You dont see it? Really?

 

Two young shortstops with standout defensive tools and trouble making the routine plays... both of whom have line drive strokes and attack the ball early in the count. Granted, Castro is beginning to show some signs of patience at the plate as of late... but until that the only real difference was that Cedeno had more trouble putting the bat on the ball... though he hit it a bit harder when he made contact.

 

a latin american teenaged shortstop who screws up routine plays too often? that makes him similar with 90% of his peers. edgar renteria? 33 errors in AA at age 19. hanley ramirez? 36 errors in A ball at age 18. elvis andrus? already went over him. omar vizquel? 25 errors in back to back years between A ball and AAA. inexperienced players, bad fields, lots of balls hit at them - they all make errors.

 

as for "more trouble putting the bat on the ball" - it's a big difference in their K rates. cedeno's biggest problem throughout his minor league career, and upon reaching the majors, was his inability to make contact. castro largely doesn't have that problem; his K rate was a manageable 15% last year and he's cut it under 10% this year. that makes them very different types of hitters. castro isn't likely to flame out because of contact issues; if he fails, it's because he doesn't walk enough and doesn't hit the ball with enough authority when he puts it in play.

[Rob]

I don't understand how in the same post outlining their similarities you can say they K at different rates, and on contact hit the ball differently. If every toolsy SS who doesn't walk a lot were the same, then 90% of toolsy SS are the same. You(and Meph) are acting like people are expecting Castro to hit 400 in AAA. What does Cedeno's AAA line have to do with anything? We're supposed to be disappointed that Castro isn't likely to put up Cedeno's absurd AAA line?

 

My post that set this whole thing off was that I said I was getting a Starlin Castro - Ronny Cedeno vibe. And because Cedeno didn't pan out I think some people took that the wrong way. At one point Cedeno was an excellent prospect, and if it were somehow possible to magically press a reset button and have another shot with him, I'd take it in a heartbeat. It wasn't meant to take anything away from Castro at all.

[Jehrico]

I don't understand the infatuation with trying to associate Castro's chances of success with the career of Ronny Cedeno. There are some similarities. Cedeno also had some similarities with Hanley Ramirez, as well as thousands of other guys that no one has ever heard of. It doesn't mean much. What does mean much is Castro's quality peripherals at an advanced level for his age. That is always about the best predictor you can get for future success, regardless of what "type" of player a guy is.

[Rob]

I don't understand the infatuation with trying to associate Castro's chances of success with the career of Ronny Cedeno.

 

I'm not. At all.

 

I just said it in the post above yours.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't understand how in the same post outlining their similarities you can say they K at different rates, and on contact hit the ball differently. If every toolsy SS who doesn't walk a lot were the same, then 90% of toolsy SS are the same. You(and Meph) are acting like people are expecting Castro to hit 400 in AAA. What does Cedeno's AAA line have to do with anything? We're supposed to be disappointed that Castro isn't likely to put up Cedeno's absurd AAA line?

 

My post that set this whole thing off was that I said I was getting a Starlin Castro - Ronny Cedeno vibe. And because Cedeno didn't pan out I think some people took that the wrong way. At one point Cedeno was an excellent prospect, and if it were somehow possible to magically press a reset button and have another shot with him, I'd take it in a heartbeat. It wasn't meant to take anything away from Castro at all.

 

Cedeno was never really an excellent prospect. He was a pretty crappy one throughout most of his career and then went nuts in AAA and turned heads, making people think he had something. When he was added to the 40-man people were scratching their heads because he'd done nothing by then and there was little to no danger of somebody putting him on their everyday roster for a full season. He was a noboby with some tools.

 

It just doesn't make any sense to get a similar vibe when there are huge differences. If you get a vibe then you should get a vibe from every toolsy hispanic shortstop, because that is about all they have in common.

[NCCubFan]

Cedeno was never really an excellent prospect. He was a pretty crappy one throughout most of his career and then went nuts in AAA and turned heads, making people think he had something. When he was added to the 40-man people were scratching their heads because he'd done nothing by then and there was little to no danger of somebody putting him on their everyday roster for a full season.

I still remember the disbelief many of us (inclucing myself) had when he was added to the roster. I think some of us thought Hendry had lost his mind.

 

Of course, some of us still feel that way.

[Guest]

BA Hot Sheet: August 28

 

No. 13 JAY JACKSON, RHP, CUBS

Jay JacksonTeam: high Class A Daytona (Florida State)

Age: 21

Why He's Here: 0-2, 3.60, 10 IP, 13 H, 7 R, 4 ER, 1 BB, 18 SO

The Scoop: An unheralded ninth-round pick last year from Furman, Jackson burst onto the scene by going 4-2, 2.88 in his first pro summer, getting all the way to high Class A. He's posted similar numbers in 2009, going 7-7, 2.90 in stops at Double-A Tennessee and Daytona. Jackson had an up-and-down week, losing both of his starts but fanning 18 hitters in 10 innings, including 11 in five innings against Lakeland on Wednesday. Jackson's got good stuff with his low-90s fastball and biting slider, but his command suffers from time to time, leading to lines like the one he put up this week.

[chattbaseball]

Burke getting some love from MILB.com:

 

http://img.skitch.com/20090830-rx1ntmac3t655yth49k48airc.png

 

http://img.skitch.com/20090830-8wiq27sup1y48wn635uxb2gebj.png

[karenmac]

it's great to see Kyler having a great year, both at the plate and in the field. His bat gets all the press (deservedly so this year) but it's always a pleasure to watch his defense too - he can run down a lot of stuff in right that many wouldn't get to, and has an arm that can gun someone down any time. Was in Cedar Rapids for Sat / Sun games and can only hope the Chiefs stay as hot for another 3 weeks :) Will try and post some pics in the appropriate game threads tomorrow sometime.

[Guest]

Ask BA on Starlin Castro:

 

Jim Callis[/url]"]What's the ceiling for Cubs shortstop Starlin Castro and how likely is he to reach it?

 

Donald R. Dyer

Huber Heights, Ohio

 

I thought the Cubs were overly aggressive when they promoted Castro from the Rookie-level Arizona League in 2008 to high Class A Daytona for Opening Day. But Castro has handled himself well there and after an August promotion to Double-A Tennessee, batting a combined .297/.342/.383 with 25 steals. Those aren't A-Rod numbers, but they're more than fine for a 19-year-old.

 

Castro still has a lot of development to do, both in adding strength to his 6-foot-1, 160-pound frame and in polishing his game. He has quick hands and strong wrists, which allow him to make contact (just 47 strikeouts in 444 at-bats) and bode well for his future power potential once he fills out. He's an average runner who also could develop plus speed as he gets stronger. He also has all the tools to be an above-average defender as well.

 

Castro has a ceiling of an all-star shortstop. There's a big gap between his present and potential ability, because he's so young, but the early returns are very positive.

[CUBZ99]

Ask BA on Starlin Castro:

 

Jim Callis[/url]"]What's the ceiling for Cubs shortstop Starlin Castro and how likely is he to reach it?

 

Donald R. Dyer

Huber Heights, Ohio

 

I thought the Cubs were overly aggressive when they promoted Castro from the Rookie-level Arizona League in 2008 to high Class A Daytona for Opening Day. But Castro has handled himself well there and after an August promotion to Double-A Tennessee, batting a combined .297/.342/.383 with 25 steals. Those aren't A-Rod numbers, but they're more than fine for a 19-year-old.

 

Castro still has a lot of development to do, both in adding strength to his 6-foot-1, 160-pound frame and in polishing his game. He has quick hands and strong wrists, which allow him to make contact (just 47 strikeouts in 444 at-bats) and bode well for his future power potential once he fills out. He's an average runner who also could develop plus speed as he gets stronger. He also has all the tools to be an above-average defender as well.

 

Castro has a ceiling of an all-star shortstop. There's a big gap between his present and potential ability, because he's so young, but the early returns are very positive.

 

I like that! :D

[Ryno12]

Nice Gaub blurb from BP:

 

The DeRosa trade looks a bit better now

 

John Gaub, LHP, Cubs (Triple-A Iowa)

Sunday's stats: 1 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 2 K

Acquired from Cleveland in the off-season deal for Mark DeRosa, Gaub has gone from a sleeper to one of the most dominating relievers in the minors. After cruising through Double-A, Gaub has allowed a hit in only one of his last nine outings. His ERA for Iowa sits at 0.64 in 22 appearances, with opponents batting a paltry .109 against him. He's not a dominating force, with a 89-92 mph fastball and a nice slider playing up due to a ton of deception, but scouts think it's funky enough to work in the big leagues.

[Guest]

Nice Gaub blurb from BP:

 

The DeRosa trade looks a bit better now

 

John Gaub, LHP, Cubs (Triple-A Iowa)

Sunday's stats: 1 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 2 K

Acquired from Cleveland in the off-season deal for Mark DeRosa, Gaub has gone from a sleeper to one of the most dominating relievers in the minors. After cruising through Double-A, Gaub has allowed a hit in only one of his last nine outings. His ERA for Iowa sits at 0.64 in 22 appearances, with opponents batting a paltry .109 against him. He's not a dominating force, with a 89-92 mph fastball and a nice slider playing up due to a ton of deception, but scouts think it's funky enough to work in the big leagues.

The DeRosa trade is bad and it doesn't matter what these guys do in the minors. It's bad because they replaced him with Miles et al. in the name of getting more left handed.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The DeRosa trade is bad and it doesn't matter what these guys do in the minors. It's bad because they replaced him with Miles et al. in the name of getting more left handed.

 

That is some really terrible logic. The DeRosa trade went from an okay one to a pretty good one given the performance of all 3 guys this season.

[Ryno12]

The DeRosa trade is bad and it doesn't matter what these guys do in the minors. It's bad because they replaced him with Miles et al. in the name of getting more left handed.

 

That is some really terrible logic. The DeRosa trade went from an okay one to a pretty good one given the performance of all 3 guys this season.

 

Expanding upon this, the DeRosa trade in and of itself was actually pretty good in terms of the return we got. Archer, Gaub, and Stevens have all performed nicely. The decision to sign Miles was the mistake, however, Miles's suckitude should have no bearing on the evaluation of the DeRosa trade, because they are separate moves.

[jersey cubs fan]

The DeRosa trade is bad and it doesn't matter what these guys do in the minors. It's bad because they replaced him with Miles et al. in the name of getting more left handed.

 

That is some really terrible logic. The DeRosa trade went from an okay one to a pretty good one given the performance of all 3 guys this season.

 

Expanding upon this, the DeRosa trade in and of itself was actually pretty good in terms of the return we got. Archer, Gaub, and Stevens have all performed nicely. The decision to sign Miles was the mistake, however, Miles's suckitude should have no bearing on the evaluation of the DeRosa trade, because they are separate moves.

 

They were seperate moves that were made in conjunction with each other. There's absolutely nothing wrong with evaluating them together. The only reason they trade DeRosa was to get more left handed, the only way they got more left handed was by replacing DeRosa with Miles. Every trade involving major leaguers for prospects has to weigh the cost/benefit of the present/future. This was an absolutely horrible short-term trade. Without question. It was a disaster. Longterm who knows. But people are getting worked up about bullpen prospects, those guys are a dime a dozen.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The only reason they trade DeRosa was to get more left handed, the only way they got more left handed was by replacing DeRosa with Miles.

 

That's not even close to true.

[CUBZ99]

The DeRosa trade is bad and it doesn't matter what these guys do in the minors. It's bad because they replaced him with Miles et al. in the name of getting more left handed.

 

That is some really terrible logic. The DeRosa trade went from an okay one to a pretty good one given the performance of all 3 guys this season.

 

Expanding upon this, the DeRosa trade in and of itself was actually pretty good in terms of the return we got. Archer, Gaub, and Stevens have all performed nicely. The decision to sign Miles was the mistake, however, Miles's suckitude should have no bearing on the evaluation of the DeRosa trade, because they are separate moves.

 

They were seperate moves that were made in conjunction with each other. There's absolutely nothing wrong with evaluating them together. The only reason they trade DeRosa was to get more left handed, the only way they got more left handed was by replacing DeRosa with Miles. Every trade involving major leaguers for prospects has to weigh the cost/benefit of the present/future. This was an absolutely horrible short-term trade. Without question. It was a disaster. Longterm who knows. But people are getting worked up about bullpen prospects, those guys are a dime a dozen.

 

I thought that DeRosa was traded to allow Hendry to have money to sign Bradley and/or trade for Peavy? Wasn't Miles brought in to take Fontenot/Cedeno's place on the bench?

[jersey cubs fan]

The only reason they trade DeRosa was to get more left handed, the only way they got more left handed was by replacing DeRosa with Miles.

 

That's not even close to true.

 

It's absolutely the truth and it still cracks me up that people deny this fact.

[SouthSideRyan]

Aaron Miles is the only left handed 2B in baseball? Signing Miles was the mistake.

[jersey cubs fan]

I thought that DeRosa was traded to allow Hendry to have money to sign Bradley and/or trade for Peavy? Wasn't Miles brought in to take Fontenot/Cedeno's place on the bench?

 

The Cubs saved $2.5m in the DeRosa to Miles shift, that did not make or break the Bradley acquisition.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The only reason they trade DeRosa was to get more left handed, the only way they got more left handed was by replacing DeRosa with Miles.

 

That's not even close to true.

 

It's absolutely the truth and it still cracks me up that people deny this fact.

 

Or they were trying to save money since there was speculation throughout that stretch that they were able to add Peavy if they could afford him. With the ownership situation what it was, every little bit counts. And beyond that, the idea that because Hendry misidentified DeRosa's replacement has any bearing on how good an idea it was to trade DeRosa is silly. Hendry got quite a good return for DeRosa, especially with the benefit of seeing how they've all performed this year.

[CubColtPacer]

I thought that DeRosa was traded to allow Hendry to have money to sign Bradley and/or trade for Peavy? Wasn't Miles brought in to take Fontenot/Cedeno's place on the bench?

 

The Cubs saved $2.5m in the DeRosa to Miles shift, that did not make or break the Bradley acquisition.

 

3.3 million actually (5.5 for DeRosa, 2.2 for Miles) and depending on how you charge the signing bonus for Bradley, that could be as little as 1/3 of his contract for this year or more than 1/2 of his contract. But I tend to agree with you that getting more money for the Bradley deal was a concern but not a significant one.

 

However, I don't agree at all that they signed Miles to get more left-handed. They signed Miles to replace the versatility of DeRosa and as a platoon partner for Fontenot. The fact that he switch hits was a distant third in the reasons for signing him. In fact, if Miles batted only from the left side, the Cubs probably wouldn't have signed him.

[jersey cubs fan]

The only reason they trade DeRosa was to get more left handed, the only way they got more left handed was by replacing DeRosa with Miles.

 

That's not even close to true.

 

It's absolutely the truth and it still cracks me up that people deny this fact.

 

Or they were trying to save money since there was speculation throughout that stretch that they were able to add Peavy if they could afford him. With the ownership situation what it was, every little bit counts. And beyond that, the idea that because Hendry misidentified DeRosa's replacement has any bearing on how good an idea it was to trade DeRosa is silly. Hendry got quite a good return for DeRosa, especially with the benefit of seeing how they've all performed this year.

 

He sacrificed a great deal of 2009 production for bullpen prospects.

[jersey cubs fan]

I thought that DeRosa was traded to allow Hendry to have money to sign Bradley and/or trade for Peavy? Wasn't Miles brought in to take Fontenot/Cedeno's place on the bench?

 

The Cubs saved $2.5m in the DeRosa to Miles shift, that did not make or break the Bradley acquisition.

 

3.3 million actually (5.5 for DeRosa, 2.2 for Miles) and depending on how you charge the signing bonus for Bradley, that could be as little as 1/3 of his contract for this year or more than 1/2 of his contract. But I tend to agree with you that getting more money for the Bradley deal was a concern but not a significant one.

 

However, I don't agree at all that they signed Miles to get more left-handed. They signed Miles to replace the versatility of DeRosa and as a platoon partner for Fontenot. The fact that he switch hits was a distant third in the reasons for signing him. In fact, if Miles batted only from the left side, the Cubs probably wouldn't have signed him.

 

You can not agree if you choose, but you'd be wrong.

 

It's so freaking obvious, I don't understand the need to try and pretend it's not what happened. Bradley replaced Edmonds. Miles replaced DeRosa. The goal was to get more left handed and only one of those things got the team more left handed.