BA's Midwest League's top 20

[illiniguy]

Man if they are that high on gordon they have to be super high on castro. He had a smiliar year as younger player at a higher level.

He doesn't have the top end speed that the tools guys crave, though.

True, but in their write up of him last year they predicted that he would fill out some and develop power. "Castro needs to get stronger. Once he does, he could have close to average power and plus speed." Which I think I would rather have than blazing speed anyways.

[Outshined_One]

Navin (NorthSideBaseBall): So if I read your Brett Jackson response correctly ("no lower than 3"), you'd rate Jackson as a better prospect in the MWL than Josh Vitters? I'm surprised by that.

 

 

Jim Callis: I would have been to before I started working on the list. But everyone loved Jackson, and he's going to have more value if they both develop as hoped and he's playing center field while Vitters is playing first base. Not sure which way I'll go after delving into this further for our eventual Cubs Top 30.

 

That's...not exactly a glowing review of Vitters' future.

[illiniguy]

The other guy on the list that I really like is Montgomery. Wish we would have been able to get him.

[Guest]

Navin (NorthSideBaseBall): So if I read your Brett Jackson response correctly ("no lower than 3"), you'd rate Jackson as a better prospect in the MWL than Josh Vitters? I'm surprised by that.

 

Jim Callis: I would have been to before I started working on the list. But everyone loved Jackson, and he's going to have more value if they both develop as hoped and he's playing center field while Vitters is playing first base. Not sure which way I'll go after delving into this further for our eventual Cubs Top 30.

 

Sure, Vitters is more likely to move from first base than Jackson but "if they both develop as hoped," Vitters will not be playing first base.

[illiniguy]

Navin (NorthSideBaseBall): So if I read your Brett Jackson response correctly ("no lower than 3"), you'd rate Jackson as a better prospect in the MWL than Josh Vitters? I'm surprised by that.

 

 

Jim Callis: I would have been to before I started working on the list. But everyone loved Jackson, and he's going to have more value if they both develop as hoped and he's playing center field while Vitters is playing first base. Not sure which way I'll go after delving into this further for our eventual Cubs Top 30.

 

That's...not exactly a glowing review of Vitters' future.

I guess I don't understand BA. For the first two years when it would have been easy to get down on Vitters they pumped him up. Now he has a pretty decent first full year in baseball and they ar dwon on him. Confusing.

[toonsterwu]

I think it's clear from the last two days that BA will rate, in no particular order here, Starlin Castro, Josh Vitters, Brett Jackson, Andrew Cashner and Hak-Ju Lee as the Cubs top 5 prospects.

 

The only "upset" I could POSSIBLY see is Jay Jackson making it over Cashner. Very doubtful, but if they are thinking of Cashner as an 8th inning type, I guess I could see it.

 

In late July or early August, when asked who the Cubs #2 prospect was behind Vitters, Jim Callis responded Andrew Cashner. Also, it seems like most of the BA guys are not as enamored with Jay Jackson as a lot of us are.

 

agreed on that point. IIRC, only 1 BA guy was really high on him, and this was during the stretch in AA when Jay was dominating folks early in the year, before his control collapse, demotion, and what not. I remember trading some emails with them late in the summer and they essentially hinted that they didn't think Jay was important enough for them to follow all that closely. At least, that's the impression I got from their replies.

[Guest]

So...

 

Hak-Ju Lee > Brett Jackson

 

and

 

Brett Jackson > Josh VItters?

 

Could they really go

 

Castro

Lee

B Jackson

Vitters?

[davell]

Man if they are that high on gordon they have to be super high on castro. He had a smiliar year as younger player at a higher level.

 

Castro between Daytona and Tennessee

 

,299/.342/.392 with 23 doubles, 6 triples, 3 homers, 49 RBI and 28/39 SB with a birthday of 3/24/90

 

Gordon at Great Lakes

.301/.362/.394 with 17 doubles, 12 triples, 3 homers, 35 RBI, and 73/98 SB with a birthday of 4/22/88

 

Castro's season was MUCH MORE impressive.

[illiniguy]

So...

 

Hak-Ju Lee > Brett Jackson

 

and

 

Brett Jackson > Josh VItters?

 

Could they really go

 

Castro

Lee

B Jackson

Vitters?

They might, which I guess could be viewed as a good thing. Our system has really come a good ways this past year. I really hope we stay this active in the far east.

[ChiefsVoice]

That just seems odd. Most people would be angry if we traded Vitters and got Hicks back. Did the half season only count against Josh here?

 

From what I saw 10 times or so I would be angry to trade you and get Hicks back. Granted I've never seen you hit. Or throw. But I would say that Hicks is the worst first rounder I have seen in seven years of the MWL (with Bush) and that includes Ryan Harvey, Chris Parmalee, Chris Lubanski.

[toonsterwu]

So...

 

Hak-Ju Lee > Brett Jackson

 

and

 

Brett Jackson > Josh VItters?

 

Could they really go

 

Castro

Lee

B Jackson

Vitters?

 

Edit: I missed the question from Raisin above ... so let's remove that Callis comment as it seems that as of now, they are leaning Jackson, including callis.

Edited October 1, 2009 by toonsterwu

[toonsterwu]

Man if they are that high on gordon they have to be super high on castro. He had a smiliar year as younger player at a higher level.

 

Castro between Daytona and Tennessee

 

,299/.342/.392 with 23 doubles, 6 triples, 3 homers, 49 RBI and 28/39 SB with a birthday of 3/24/90

 

Gordon at Great Lakes

.301/.362/.394 with 17 doubles, 12 triples, 3 homers, 35 RBI, and 73/98 SB with a birthday of 4/22/88

 

Castro's season was MUCH MORE impressive.

 

They are very high on Castro. Didn't Callis or Manuel recently say that Castro was an A-S potential shortstop when they did a quick blurb on him in an Ask BA? They noted, as many expect, that he should develop more power in time. I wouldn't be all that stunned if Castro cracked top 30 ... although I'm not expecting it.

[Serge]

So...

 

Hak-Ju Lee > Brett Jackson

 

and

 

Brett Jackson > Josh VItters?

 

Could they really go

 

Castro

Lee

B Jackson

Vitters?

 

I doubt it. Not impossible, but I doubt it. I am almost certain that there are segments of BA still very high on Vitters, and I'm pretty sure it was Callis who said he thought Vitters should go 1 (in the MWL lists) recently. Also, keep in mind that, IIRC, their team lists are influenced by organizational sources, and I think the Cubs are still very high on Vitters internally (at least, that'd be my guess).

 

I think him going to the AFL shows they're still very happy with him.

[Outshined_One]

Jeff (Chicago): How confident are you that Vitters will be a successful MLB hitter w/out controlling the strike zone? Is a decent comparison Pablo Sandoval, in the sense that he doesn't walk much but has an uncanny ability to square up balls on the barrell of the bat? Please tell me that this guy will succeed. Was Flaherty on the bubble? Do you think he will reach the majors as a platoon type player?

 

 

Jim Callis: I really like the Sandoval comparison in terms of not walking but barreling up balls with ease. That's a good way to put it. I like Flaherty some but he doesn't fit great defensively anywhere in the infield. He might have to be a lefty bat off the bench who gets time at 4-5 different positions.

[Guest]

So...

 

Hak-Ju Lee > Brett Jackson

 

and

 

Brett Jackson > Josh VItters?

 

Could they really go

 

Castro

Lee

B Jackson

Vitters?

 

But it's more:

 

NWL Hak-Ju Lee > NWL Brett Jackson

 

MWL Brett Jackson > MWL Josh Vitters (which I disagree).

 

Just like you were saying FSL Chris Carpenter > MWL Chris Archer > MWL Chris Carpenter.

 

I do think Callis will rate Castro the top prospect in the Cubs system. Then, I'd guess Vitters-B. Jackson-Cashner-Lee.

[davell]

So...

 

Hak-Ju Lee > Brett Jackson

 

and

 

Brett Jackson > Josh VItters?

 

Could they really go

 

Castro

Lee

B Jackson

Vitters?

 

I doubt it. Not impossible, but I doubt it. I am almost certain that there are segments of BA still very high on Vitters, and I'm pretty sure it was Callis who said he thought Vitters should go 1 (in the MWL lists) recently. Also, keep in mind that, IIRC, their team lists are influenced by organizational sources, and I think the Cubs are still very high on Vitters internally (at least, that'd be my guess).

 

If they DID go that way, I think I'd look at it as a positive for our system, instead of as a negative on Vitters. He makes great contact, he just needs to learn a little patience. His wrist injuries are the biggest negative I can see at this point on him personally, along with his fielding at 3rd. Hopefully, he has a 1st half in Daytona much like the one he had in Peoria this past year. If he does and gets moved up to Tennessee, people will be back on his bandwagon. I think that comment may be just to prepare Cub fans that he WILL NOT be our top prospect this year.

 

Castro, Vitters, B Jackson, Lee, and Cashner in that order possibly? If the Cashner question was late July or so when it was answered, Jackson, Lee, and Castro have made lots of noise since then and Cashner declined a bit actually.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't buy into Gordon. He's a whole year older than Vitters and don't think he's comparable as a prospect. That and he slugged .394.

 

The 70+ steals help with that.

[illiniguy]

I don't buy into Gordon. He's a whole year older than Vitters and don't think he's comparable as a prospect. That and he slugged .394.

 

The 70+ steals help with that.

But not at a super rate. Wasn't he thrown out 25 percent of the time? By Low A catchers?

[TruffleShuffle]

aaron hicks was #1??? come on.

[chattbaseball]

Callis missed on many points here, but since many of you know who I am, I'll hit on the Burke issue. Here's the deal, a list like this is only someone's opinion. So I won't dispute not having Burke in the top 20, but I'll definitely dispute the reasoning he gave in his chat. I subscribe to Baseball America, but I have to question their credibility year after year as I see things like this. To save time and to keep from re-writing, I'll post the email I wrote to Jim.

 

"Jim,

 

Just wanted to send you my thoughts on your MWL Top 20 list. I'll preface my email by saying that I am biased because I am Kyler Burke's brother. But then again, I'm not saying he should have been in the top 20. It's no surprise that 99% of baseball lay people think Burke should have made the list, but my problem comes with your reasoning behind him not making the list. And this sheds light on larger credibility issues with Baseball America's entire rankings system.

 

I realize rankings are just somebody at a desk's opinion, however a publication like Baseball America should strive to achieve some amount of credibility - especially when they're charging for a service.

 

In your MWL Top 20 Chat, the question was asked about Burke missing the cut. You responded with two reasons: he doesn't hit lefties, and he has below average speed.

 

To disprove the first reason, Burke's line against left handers was .291/.359/.402. His power was relatively lower than it was against righties, but he also had three times more at-bats against right handers. And that wasn't because he didn't play against lefties. He played in 136 games for the Chiefs this year. Either way, that kind of a line is hardly "not hitting" lefties.

 

Now, let's look at your number 1, Aaron Hicks. His overall line was .251/.353/.382. Burke's line against left handers was better than Hicks' OVERALL line. Not only that, Hicks' line against left handers was even worse: .207/.303/.362. This doesn't make Burke a better prospect than Hicks, but it nullifies your first reason for Burke not making the list.

 

Secondly, I can't say that Burke has blazing speed. But he played as good of an outfield as anyone in the MWL. You made the comment about him not sticking in CF. He never was "supposed' to stick in center field. He's a right fielder that had to play center field because the Chiefs didn't have a center fielder. When Brett Jackson was bumped to Peoria, Burke moved back to the corner. But despite him being a corner outfielder, he still got to balls that he shouldn't have. He was 14-of-16 in stolen base attempts, which essentially adds the effect of quite a few doubles to his already league-leading 43. So even when he hits singles (against righties), he's got the ability to get on second for the next batter.

 

To conclude, I'm not disputing the actual ranking (although I do think he should have been somewhere in the top 20). I'm disputing the reasons you gave. There's no way to factually back up what you said. You basically swung and missed this year in the MWL (and on many more issues than Burke), and it proves that not much goes into these rankings - except draft position and Baseball America hype. (although you missed on Vitters too!)

 

More credibility will lead to more money on the bottom line. Long term, lists like this only decrease the value of the Baseball America name. Thanks again for your time."

[Guest]

Nice email. Could you let us know if Jim responds? Even though I feel he did swing and miss with this particular list a bit, I've had a good amount of respect for Jim over the years.

[chattbaseball]

Nice email. Could you let us know if Jim responds? Even though I feel he did swing and miss with this particular list a bit, I've had a good amount of respect for Jim over the years.

 

It's not that I don't respect Jim as a person. I question a lot of their info. And honestly, it boils down to Baseball America tries to cover high school, college, minor league and big league players. I don't know exactly, but that's well over 5,000 players!!! It's just impossible to get good, accurate info on that many players. So I realize that, but don't just make up reasons and facts...

[Guest]

I was actually referring to Jim's body of work at BA. He's covered the Cubs system for years and has generally been very good with his information. He usually does a good job of crosschecking his information from a variety of sources.

 

He definitely whiffed a bit on this one, though.

[chattbaseball]

I was actually referring to Jim's body of work at BA. He's covered the Cubs system for years and has generally been very good with his information. He usually does a good job of crosschecking his information from a variety of sources.

 

He definitely whiffed a bit on this one, though.

 

I tried not to come off as a brother who cannot be objective (as a coach I know family members can't be), but it's not the rankings, just the reasoning.

[Guest]

Nice e-mail.

 

I agree with Tim, I think Callis usually does a great job but he definitely whiffed here. Vitters at 3 was bad and I disagreed with the omission of Kyler Burke too.