How does the Cubs farm system rank now?

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Going into the season BA had them listed 27th and almost every publication had them in the bottom third of the league. Given the successes of Wells, Hart, Fox, and to a lesser extent Jose Ascanio in the majors, how does the system rank now? Is it still has bad as it was in the beginning of the year since the players that have come up don't have a top of the rotation potential or is it looking better?

[TruffleShuffle]

Going into the season BA had them listed 27th and almost every publication had them in the bottom third of the league. Given the successes of Wells, Hart, Fox, and to a lesser extent Jose Ascanio in the majors, how does the system rank now? Is it still has bad as it was in the beginning of the year since the players that have come up don't have a top of the rotation potential or is it looking better?

 

well the guys who succeed at the major league level and use up their rookie eligibility won't be ranked in BA next year.

 

but i think castro and cashner have taken significant leaps forward, as have several guys on the boise cubs (lee, watkins, antigua). welington castillo's rank will take a hit and dae-eun rhee might as well (seems to be slow coming back from TJS), but my impression is that the cubs' system should be ranked several spots higher next year. and i'm no kool-aid drinker about the quality of their system; last year i thought it was God-awful.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I am not talking about how they will rank next year. I am talking about looking at how the system was ranked and how they are now in terms of the prospects in the system and majors.

[Outshined_One]

Wells/Ascanio/etc. don't have an impact on how the system is ranked. If you wanted to evaluate the Cubs based on the talent the system has churned out, they'd rate pretty well on the pitching side of things and fairly poorly on the hitting side of things. BA ranked us 27th mostly because the system lacked depth and was very thin at the top, with Josh Vitters pretty much being the only Top 100 prospect we had along with a number of guys who were question marks.

 

Right now, with the way the season has progressed, the Cubs are likely closer to the bottom third than the bottom 5. The system has four, possibly five guys (Vitters, Castro, Jackson, Cashner; maaaaaaaaaaaaybe Lee) who could make a strong case for Top 100 consideration if they produce up to their expectations. The 2008 draft yielded some excellent results and the surge of international players (particularly from the Pac Rim) have helped a lot. There's more talent in the system and some intriguing depth in the lower levels.

 

What is going to matter a lot in the offseason is how the 2009 draft pans out. The Cubs have signed some interesting names, but the quality of talent has been somewhat lacking thus far. Signing Raley and a few of the HS guys would go a long way towards helping that.

[toonsterwu]

I'll start with that rankings are meant only for discussion. From a year to year basis, the only things I care about are

 

a) Is the system improving?

b) Does the system fit the organization (or, has it helped the organization ... after all, if you are the top system in the game, the chances of you staying there are, well, very slim)?

 

To answer that, I think there are three truths to the Cubs system as things stand right now:

 

i) It's not good. I love following the system, but no one's going to mistake this for a top third system in the minors.

ii) Our top shelf is better than most people think. The top 5 (the guys O_O listed) is a competitive top 5 with most systems (no, we don't have the elite shelf guys yet, but give it time).

iii) Our system is starting to diversify while adding upside. Actually, that's the thing that excites me the most. We're starting to see a bit more of a diverse farm system, and we're seeing more potential than before.

 

So the answer for me to the top two points would be yes. The system's in a win-now mode, so we need the high upside in the lower levels. Sure, we've been hit or miss developmentally in the past, but we've got to keep trying.

 

But rankings are fun, and I'll say that I think I will be flabbergasted if we are in the 26-30 range. 21-25 is likely, and I wouldn't rule out us out as a borderline top 15. Really borderline, but there's an outside chance. The arms are as good as we've been since 2003 (and a case could be made that this is better than 2003 in some respects, at least, what I recall from 2003, as it seems like several of our top arms are in AA (or were in AA in Jay Jackson's case) (granted, there was a ridiculous amount of high upside lower level arms back in 2003, but a lot of them didn't pan out ... remember Justin Jones? Last I checked, he was hanging around in AA somewhere. And for old time's sake ... I'm trying to remember who the pitcher was that we drafted that beaned a guy in college without googling. Ben something?).

 

I think people often times assume that there is a big difference between, say, the 15th rated club and the 25th rated club. There really isn't. It's usually a couple player difference, maybe a good draft difference. Our biggest issue in value right now is the lack of upper level quality chips, but four of our top five (well, five of our top 6, as Carpenter is probably the 6th guy right now) is in High A/AA. Actually, during our "dark years" from around 2004-2006 (we had a horrible ranking last year, but there were signs of life in the low levels), we ranked in the teens at least once, but we had a "cup of tea" system, a system with a bunch of average guys, few top guys, and minimal upside to be really excited about.

 

I think our biggest problem when matching up with other clubs systems comes in that 2nd tier, where we simply have some holes. Some of the guys that go there certainly have questions (Guyer/Castillo had some bad luck in AA this year, but you still have to perform). Others have injuries to work their way back from (like Rhee). I'm coming around to Searle, who I know O_O and Raisin have been high on most of the year. One of my favorites, McDaniel, really went hard in the tank. That said, there's a nice collection of mid-end of the rotation arms to support that 2nd tier (like Casey Coleman, here's hoping he spends the offseason working on that cutter/slider), and next year, here's hoping some guys step up (Flaherty/Lake come to mind, amongst others).

 

I think we're in good shape. The ranking may not be great, but the future outlook is brighter than it's been for awhile.

 

__________________

 

A quick extra thought: Two guys that I was really intrigued with entering the year, Justin Bristow and James Leverton, seems to have found a groove of late. I really like the arm profile that Wilken seems to go after, and the athletic background of these two offers me some hope that there may be a bit more that can get pulled out. Leverton holds extra intrigue because we really don't have enough lefty starter types. Heck, Chris Rusin could make a case as our 2nd best potential lefty starter, (I doubt Russell goes back to starting), and he just joined our system (that said, Beliveau and Antigua would be in the mix, but geesh, we are lacking in that regards). Here's hoping Aaron Kirk can really reach Boise by year's end.

[Keener98]

Another poster that seems to know our minor league system quite well, sweet. Welcome aboard

[jersey cubs fan]

Ben Christensen.

[CUBZ99]

I'll start with that rankings are meant only for discussion. From a year to year basis, the only things I care about are

 

a) Is the system improving?

b) Does the system fit the organization (or, has it helped the organization ... after all, if you are the top system in the game, the chances of you staying there are, well, very slim)?

 

To answer that, I think there are three truths to the Cubs system as things stand right now:

 

i) It's not good. I love following the system, but no one's going to mistake this for a top third system in the minors.

ii) Our top shelf is better than most people think. The top 5 (the guys O_O listed) is a competitive top 5 with most systems (no, we don't have the elite shelf guys yet, but give it time).

iii) Our system is starting to diversify while adding upside. Actually, that's the thing that excites me the most. We're starting to see a bit more of a diverse farm system, and we're seeing more potential than before.

 

So the answer for me to the top two points would be yes. The system's in a win-now mode, so we need the high upside in the lower levels. Sure, we've been hit or miss developmentally in the past, but we've got to keep trying.

 

But rankings are fun, and I'll say that I think I will be flabbergasted if we are in the 26-30 range. 21-25 is likely, and I wouldn't rule out us out as a borderline top 15. Really borderline, but there's an outside chance. The arms are as good as we've been since 2003 (and a case could be made that this is better than 2003 in some respects, at least, what I recall from 2003, as it seems like several of our top arms are in AA (or were in AA in Jay Jackson's case) (granted, there was a ridiculous amount of high upside lower level arms back in 2003, but a lot of them didn't pan out ... remember Justin Jones? Last I checked, he was hanging around in AA somewhere. And for old time's sake ... I'm trying to remember who the pitcher was that we drafted that beaned a guy in college without googling. Ben something?).

 

I think people often times assume that there is a big difference between, say, the 15th rated club and the 25th rated club. There really isn't. It's usually a couple player difference, maybe a good draft difference. Our biggest issue in value right now is the lack of upper level quality chips, but four of our top five (well, five of our top 6, as Carpenter is probably the 6th guy right now) is in High A/AA. Actually, during our "dark years" from around 2004-2006 (we had a horrible ranking last year, but there were signs of life in the low levels), we ranked in the teens at least once, but we had a "cup of tea" system, a system with a bunch of average guys, few top guys, and minimal upside to be really excited about.

 

I think our biggest problem when matching up with other clubs systems comes in that 2nd tier, where we simply have some holes. Some of the guys that go there certainly have questions (Guyer/Castillo had some bad luck in AA this year, but you still have to perform). Others have injuries to work their way back from (like Rhee). I'm coming around to Searle, who I know O_O and Raisin have been high on most of the year. One of my favorites, McDaniel, really went hard in the tank. That said, there's a nice collection of mid-end of the rotation arms to support that 2nd tier (like Casey Coleman, here's hoping he spends the offseason working on that cutter/slider), and next year, here's hoping some guys step up (Flaherty/Lake come to mind, amongst others).

 

I think we're in good shape. The ranking may not be great, but the future outlook is brighter than it's been for awhile.

 

__________________

 

A quick extra thought: Two guys that I was really intrigued with entering the year, Justin Bristow and James Leverton, seems to have found a groove of late. I really like the arm profile that Wilken seems to go after, and the athletic background of these two offers me some hope that there may be a bit more that can get pulled out. Leverton holds extra intrigue because we really don't have enough lefty starter types. Heck, Chris Rusin could make a case as our 2nd best potential lefty starter, (I doubt Russell goes back to starting), and he just joined our system (that said, Beliveau and Antigua would be in the mix, but geesh, we are lacking in that regards). Here's hoping Aaron Kirk can really reach Boise by year's end.

 

 

Nice analysis. :D I think you hit on some very good points in regard to the different ways to evaluate a farm system.

 

As much of a beating as the system took in the offseason, the farm seems to have been underestimated even by the team. Fox has proved to be very useful to the big league club and will be a terrific bat coming off the bench for the rest of the year. Blanco and Scales have proven that Miles was unneeded. Guzman has stayed relatively healthy and has been lights out. Nobody expected Wells to be as good as he has been so far this year. Stevens has shown some real promise. Even Fuld filled in for a short time, and played adequately. Sure there are no A+ prospects in that group, but they have provided much needed production.

 

Many players have stepped up in the lower levels and given fans prospects to be excited about again. It is starting to look like Cashner may be able to convert to starter, and his numbers so far in AA are very encouraging. Carpenter will have played in 3 different levels this year and has been terrific. J. Jackson was putting up some pretty impressive numbers in AA, leaving the Cubs with three legit above average starting rotation options in the near future.

 

With Vitters, Lee, Casto, B. Jackson, among others, the Cubs have some exciting position prospects to keep an eye out for in the coming years.

[illiniguy]

If we offer arbitration to the right guys this could go way up. I think that Gregg and Grabow are both type A's. They could both net us a couple extra draft picks which would only help. But yeah, it seems our system is improving.

[Vanilla Ice]

Harden should be Type A, too

[toonsterwu]

If we offer arbitration to the right guys this could go way up. I think that Gregg and Grabow are both type A's. They could both net us a couple extra draft picks which would only help. But yeah, it seems our system is improving.

 

I'm scared of offering arbitration to average Type A guys and getting stuck with them. With the Cubs payroll situation as it is, I think we are going to be more prudent about the moves that we make. That said, sort of got to wait to see the ownership situation and what the payroll is going to be.

[illiniguy]

If we offer arbitration to the right guys this could go way up. I think that Gregg and Grabow are both type A's. They could both net us a couple extra draft picks which would only help. But yeah, it seems our system is improving.

 

I'm scared of offering arbitration to average Type A guys and getting stuck with them. With the Cubs payroll situation as it is, I think we are going to be more prudent about the moves that we make. That said, sort of got to wait to see the ownership situation and what the payroll is going to be.

Right there is a risk invloved. Although Gregg and Harden seem like no brainers to me as I imagine both won't want one year deals.

[Guest]

I definitely think Gregg can get a better contract on the open market and it'd be wise to offer arbitration. With Harden, it's a lot riskier considering the injury risk and a relatively down year this season. A 1-year contract with Harden next season might not be the worst thing in the world.

[Guest]

I definitely think Gregg can get a better contract on the open market and it'd be wise to offer arbitration. With Harden, it's a lot riskier considering the injury risk and a relatively down year this season. A 1-year contract with Harden next season might not be the worst thing in the world.

If Harden makes it through the season in one piece, I can't foresee any circumstance in which he ends up with a one year deal. If we don't offer him arby, I'll be really, really upset.

 

Gregg, also, seems to be a no-brainer.

 

I am personally hoping that Grabow performs well, but the other people near the borderline of a/b perform better and he ends up as a "b" guy this winter.

[illiniguy]

I definitely think Gregg can get a better contract on the open market and it'd be wise to offer arbitration. With Harden, it's a lot riskier considering the injury risk and a relatively down year this season. A 1-year contract with Harden next season might not be the worst thing in the world.

If Harden makes it through the season in one piece, I can't foresee any circumstance in which he ends up with a one year deal. If we don't offer him arby, I'll be really, really upset.

 

Gregg, also, seems to be a no-brainer.

 

I am personally hoping that Grabow performs well, but the other people near the borderline of a/b perform better and he ends up as a "b" guy this winter.

Yeah the bad thing about Grabow is, like Juan Cruz, team who's picks aren't protected probably aren't going to want to lose the picks.

[Guest]

I definitely think Gregg can get a better contract on the open market and it'd be wise to offer arbitration. With Harden, it's a lot riskier considering the injury risk and a relatively down year this season. A 1-year contract with Harden next season might not be the worst thing in the world.

If Harden makes it through the season in one piece, I can't foresee any circumstance in which he ends up with a one year deal. If we don't offer him arby, I'll be really, really upset.

 

Gregg, also, seems to be a no-brainer.

 

I am personally hoping that Grabow performs well, but the other people near the borderline of a/b perform better and he ends up as a "b" guy this winter.

 

I agree with all that - and, obviously, I hope the Cubs don't re-sign Grabow.

[toonsterwu]

Gregg's going to be an interesting decision, I think. I think it may partially depend on how Marmol finishes the year, in some respects. If Marmol's inconsistent, I think they happily offer Gregg arbitration to have a closer plan. If Marmol's strong, I can see them not offering arbitration, akin to the Wood move last year. I don't think Gregg is that clearcut, but that's me. I think Harden is a definite yes, though. Someone's going to offer him a deal, provided his arm doesn't fall off. SP with that type of ability will get a deal.

[UK1679666180]

The Cubs definitely have improved their depth, especially on the positional side of things with this recent draft as well as the progression of Castro, Lake, Lee, Burke, maybe Flaherty, etc. they have built a nice little stable of position prospects that project as ML regulars. As previously mentioned, they lack the star prospects (minus Vitters). They do have some power arms with Archer (although I must've caught him on a bad day), Carpenter, Cashner, Samardzija, etc. but they really don't have plus breaking balls/off-speed that other power arms in other organizations have and separate star arms with ML avg. arms.

[toonsterwu]

The Cubs definitely have improved their depth, especially on the positional side of things with this recent draft as well as the progression of Castro, Lake, Lee, Burke, maybe Flaherty, etc. they have built a nice little stable of position prospects that project as ML regulars. As previously mentioned, they lack the star prospects (minus Vitters). They do have some power arms with Archer (although I must've caught him on a bad day), Carpenter, Cashner, Samardzija, etc. but they really don't have plus breaking balls/off-speed that other power arms in other organizations have and separate star arms with ML avg. arms.

 

Um ... I'm a bit confused by the last comment. Carpenter/Cashner/Jackson all have plus breaking balls. Those three are quality arms that would rate highly (possibly all within a top 120 list of the entire minors, prospect wise). There's other guys with good fastball/breaking ball combinations. Raisin has pointed out Searle this year. McDaniel has a good breaking ball. Plus is a debatable word, but it's good. It's the consistency that's lacking. Whitenack, by all accounts, has a plus breaking ball.

 

Now ... the problem with Carpenter/Cashner/Jackson, in terms of arsenal, all have more to do with their 3rd pitch, for them to stay as starters. That said, there's been positive reports on all three this year.

[UK1679666180]

Carpenter does and he has the K ratio to prove it. Cashner has flashed the real good slider but for it to be a plus pitch, they have to do more than flash it and you can say the same with Jackson and as you mentioned they don't have the combo with a 3rd pitch.

 

With plus FBs (minus Jackson at this stage where it's more likely avg.), if they have better secondary pitches you would've seen the higher K ratios and Carpenter who might have the most consistently good breaking ball of the group has the better strikeout ratio to show for it.

 

Each pitcher has a flaw/something to work on that is preventing them from becoming a #1 type of starter down the road. Cashner is the 3rd pitch, tightening the slider. Jackson is a lack of plus FB, Carpenter it's the 3rd pitch and maybe staying healthy, Samardzija it's command & consistency with the splitter/slider, Archer it's throwing strikes.

 

They have good arms but they don't have the great arms yet. I don't like to compare it to the '02 farm but, it's a fair comparison as there likely isn't a Prior, Cruz, and Zambrano in this group as far as elite arms.

[toonsterwu]

Carpenter does and he has the K ratio to prove it. Cashner has flashed the real good slider but for it to be a plus pitch, they have to do more than flash it and you can say the same with Jackson and as you mentioned they don't have the combo with a 3rd pitch.

 

With plus FBs (minus Jackson at this stage where it's more likely avg.), if they have better secondary pitches you would've seen the higher K ratios and Carpenter who might have the most consistently good breaking ball of the group has the better strikeout ratio to show for it.

 

Each pitcher has a flaw/something to work on that is preventing them from becoming a #1 type of starter down the road. Cashner is the 3rd pitch, tightening the slider. Jackson is a lack of plus FB, Carpenter it's the 3rd pitch and maybe staying healthy, Samardzija it's command & consistency with the splitter/slider, Archer it's throwing strikes.

 

They have good arms but they don't have the great arms yet. I don't like to compare it to the '02 farm but, it's a fair comparison as there likely isn't a Prior, Cruz, and Zambrano in this group as far as elite arms.

 

Well, the fun part about discussing the farm are different opinions.

 

I'm not sure what else Jackson and Cashner can do to "show" that their pitch is plus. Both had solid K rates. Actually, their K rates were more impressive to me than Carpenter's in Peoria because, well, at that level, a plus breaking pitch should dominate (see Chris Archer). Now, Jackson fell in a little slump the last month, but during his hot streak, he was very impressive. We'll have to see what the flaw was for this past month, as there's been very little reporting, but most of it probably revolves around consistency. As for Jackson's fastball, he's sitting in the low-mid 90's with good movement. No, the pitch isn't on part with his slider, but I haven't heard anyone call his fastball "average" to be honest. Is it an elite pitch? Nah, but it's definitely a solid pitch, and however one defines plus is the variable.

 

The reality is, there are few pitchers in the minor leagues that profile as aces, true 1's. I'm assuming that is what you are referencing, as an average pitcher could be the "1" of a staff. All three of our guys are potential top of the rotation guys and are quality pitching prospects. Are they elite, top 50 prospects? No, but they are all fairly young considering when they joined our system. It's possible that Jackson and Cashner will both be considered top 100 type arms, and Carpenter be on the outskirts. I think you are far higher on Carpenter than a lot of folks. I can see the intrigue and I like him a lot, but I'm waiting to see how his changeup and command does at the upper levels. Of the three, I'm least confident about him, due to past health issues, command and consistency, and his changeup.

 

On a side note, most reports suggest Jackson's 3rd offering is more than show me capable now, and that it's a measure of command/consistency. At his peak this year, Jackson was averaging near a K an inning, which is solid (iirc, at one point, it was 59 K's in 61 innings before he dipped off). It's not elite, but it was solid. I fully recognize his slump, not trying to avoid it, but I think he showed enough in the hot streak to be pleased with how fast his fastball has progressed (better velo this year) and how his secondary pitches have progressed. I'll also acknowledge another thing, that I am higher on Jackson than many others probably, but I think considering the 2 quality pitchers and 4 solid offerings, and considering the performance for part of this year, that when you factor in he's relatively new to full time pitching, that it's been an impressive start for him. Cashner's intriguing if the changeup development is true, as there have been some very positive reports. Let me cycle back to this - there aren't that many true "1" projections in the minors. 2003, our system was ranked as one of, if not, the best system in regards to pitching, iirc. I'll be honest - I think I prefer this current batch of arms more than that one, as that one was heavily tilted towards low level arms, and this one, we've got a solid batch in the upper levels.

 

Btw, real quick, are you the same UK that shows up in the BA prospect chats? Random curiousity.

[UK1679666180]

Yeah that usually me...

 

"UK from Chicago"

 

I think with Jackson, his FB everything I've heard that it touches the mid 90s and sits in the the low 90s. For a RH'er, a 50 (avg. FB) sits at 91 so his velo is prob. 55, his movement doesn't hurt him as it's prob. avg to slightly above avg., and his command/control is solid as well. It's above avg. but it's not a plus pitch (60+ on the OFP scale).

 

Cashner hasn't been consistent enough with the slider, IMO. Sure it flashes plus which is good but without that 3rd pitch, it has to go from once in awhile "2 plane late break" to more often than not "2 plane late break" even before factoring command/control of the FB.

 

Carpenter has the highest ceiling but he is most likely to flame out (not including Samardzija) b/c of those reasons, but I believed he showed a feel for the change at Kent St. as well as that frame, he's the highest boom/bust candidate while Jackson is the safest pick to reach a #3 starter.

 

For them to take that next step as a farm, they need the equiv. of the ceiling of Vitters off the mound, or two of each, maybe get 2-3 in the top 50 and sprinkle the few names towards the btm of the top 100. I know they don't have the money to spend but I would've liked some high ceiling arms within the 1st 10 rounds. Rusin was safe, Kirk might be that guy his FB wasn't overwhelming even for a lefty, Raley didn't have overwhelming stuff. Whitensack depending on how his FB velo actually is and plays off his breaking ball might be that guy as far as boom/bust.

 

Of course, BAs list is purely subjective and is never truly predictive but given the resources, I feel it is the most accurate.

[Guest]

Carpenter does and he has the K ratio to prove it. Cashner has flashed the real good slider but for it to be a plus pitch, they have to do more than flash it and you can say the same with Jackson and as you mentioned they don't have the combo with a 3rd pitch.

 

With plus FBs (minus Jackson at this stage where it's more likely avg.), if they have better secondary pitches you would've seen the higher K ratios and Carpenter who might have the most consistently good breaking ball of the group has the better strikeout ratio to show for it.

 

Each pitcher has a flaw/something to work on that is preventing them from becoming a #1 type of starter down the road. Cashner is the 3rd pitch, tightening the slider. Jackson is a lack of plus FB, Carpenter it's the 3rd pitch and maybe staying healthy, Samardzija it's command & consistency with the splitter/slider, Archer it's throwing strikes.

 

They have good arms but they don't have the great arms yet. I don't like to compare it to the '02 farm but, it's a fair comparison as there likely isn't a Prior, Cruz, and Zambrano in this group as far as elite arms.

 

Well, the fun part about discussing the farm are different opinions.

 

I'm not sure what else Jackson and Cashner can do to "show" that their pitch is plus. Both had solid K rates. Actually, their K rates were more impressive to me than Carpenter's in Peoria because, well, at that level, a plus breaking pitch should dominate (see Chris Archer). Now, Jackson fell in a little slump the last month, but during his hot streak, he was very impressive. We'll have to see what the flaw was for this past month, as there's been very little reporting, but most of it probably revolves around consistency. As for Jackson's fastball, he's sitting in the low-mid 90's with good movement. No, the pitch isn't on part with his slider, but I haven't heard anyone call his fastball "average" to be honest. Is it an elite pitch? Nah, but it's definitely a solid pitch, and however one defines plus is the variable.

 

The reality is, there are few pitchers in the minor leagues that profile as aces, true 1's. I'm assuming that is what you are referencing, as an average pitcher could be the "1" of a staff. All three of our guys are potential top of the rotation guys and are quality pitching prospects. Are they elite, top 50 prospects? No, but they are all fairly young considering when they joined our system. It's possible that Jackson and Cashner will both be considered top 100 type arms, and Carpenter be on the outskirts. I think you are far higher on Carpenter than a lot of folks. I can see the intrigue and I like him a lot, but I'm waiting to see how his changeup and command does at the upper levels. Of the three, I'm least confident about him, due to past health issues, command and consistency, and his changeup.

 

On a side note, most reports suggest Jackson's 3rd offering is more than show me capable now, and that it's a measure of command/consistency. At his peak this year, Jackson was averaging near a K an inning, which is solid (iirc, at one point, it was 59 K's in 61 innings before he dipped off). It's not elite, but it was solid. I fully recognize his slump, not trying to avoid it, but I think he showed enough in the hot streak to be pleased with how fast his fastball has progressed (better velo this year) and how his secondary pitches have progressed. I'll also acknowledge another thing, that I am higher on Jackson than many others probably, but I think considering the 2 quality pitchers and 4 solid offerings, and considering the performance for part of this year, that when you factor in he's relatively new to full time pitching, that it's been an impressive start for him. Cashner's intriguing if the changeup development is true, as there have been some very positive reports. Let me cycle back to this - there aren't that many true "1" projections in the minors. 2003, our system was ranked as one of, if not, the best system in regards to pitching, iirc. I'll be honest - I think I prefer this current batch of arms more than that one, as that one was heavily tilted towards low level arms, and this one, we've got a solid batch in the upper levels.

 

Btw, real quick, are you the same UK that shows up in the BA prospect chats? Random curiousity.

 

Cashner can be more consistent with his slider. It's a potential plus pitch but he himself has admitted he has struggled with it this season.