Cubs Top Prospect Lists (NSBB, BA, etc.)

[craig]

Not sure I see why the Watkins thing is so surprising. Here's a quick young player who can run, has a big arm, made very few errors at a new middle-infield position, and is an outstanding contact hitter. And has great makeup qualities.

 

We aren't shocked that Lee is ranked top 5, so why should we be shocked that Watkins might be in the top 10?

 

By comparison:

 

1. Offensively: They had about the same numbers (average/slugging/OBP/OPS). The offensive differences: Watkins was the best anti-K guy in his league, a really good contact hitter. Lee is a much higher-K guy. Watkins K-rate was less than 60% of what Lee's was. Advantage: Watkins. The other difference is that Lee was a better basestealer.

 

2. Defensively: Lee made 27 errors, Watkins 13. Obviously Lee played SS, which is more difficult. But based on some of Callis's stuff, Watkins may have been kept off of SS more because Lee was a pricier prospect than that Watkins's range/arm is inherently inferior. (Although it may be, I don't know.) SS vs 2B is obvious advantage Lee. And I ranked Lee much higher than I did Watkins. (I think I had Watkins around 18 or so on my list.) I'm just saying that if 27-error Lee is a no-problem top prospect, why can't much-more-reliable Watkins be a valid top-10?

 

3. Age/experience: Lee 18, Watkins 19. Again, obvious advantage Lee. Still, Watkins was a Kansas quarterback. Given the Kansas winters and with late summer/fall focused on football, I'm not sure that Watkins has as much or as good-competition baseball experience as has Lee. So I'm not sure that Watkins is really any more maxed-out in terms of his baseball skills maturation. Although that extra year could be a big factor in terms of physical maturation and strength.

 

Listen, I'm not saying Watkins is or will be great, or will be as good as Lee or should be ranked as highly. Just that I don't think his ranking is that bizarre. He's got a bunch of the tools: speed, arm, hitting, apparently fielding, plate discipline, and attitude/work/etc.. Obviously he doesn't appear to project as a SS, and it doesn't appear that he projects any HR power. Two huge limitations.

 

If he projected to get stronger enough to get into the Todd Walker/Michael Barrett class HR-wise, I'd have him VERY high.

[Vanilla Ice]

My personal list looks a lot more like NSBB than BA.

[toonsterwu]

If he projected to get stronger enough to get into the Todd Walker/Michael Barrett class HR-wise, I'd have him VERY high.

 

Not sure why I never followed up on this thread - anyhow, the few reports I've read on Watkins suggest that he won't get near that type of power (Walker/Barrett) without completely retooling his swing.

[toonsterwu]

Here's a question - how concerned are folks about Jay Jackson's mechanics/delivery? I've never seen anything that would make me tremendously worried, and the common refrain has always been that he's a thrower more than a pitcher right now, with too much arm action and too little lower body movement. Most of the reports have always suggested that he had fairly solid mechanics/fairly solid delivery.

 

Doesn't he have control and consistency issues? Coupled with being considered a thrower and I'd find it very hard to believe his mechanics are all that good.

 

His arm action is solid, and I think that's what most people are referencing when discussing his mechanics. The problem is more on the delivery side and how he needs to get his lower body more involved. It just didn't seem that pronounced to me outside of that clip. Furthermore, he is still fairly young to FT pitching.

[toonsterwu]

We have a loose idea of KG's BP list, assuming the conversation on SportsCentral was summed up accurately at

 

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/11/cubsrumors11279.php

 

It seems to suggest Vitters, Lee, Cashner, Castro, Brett Jackson as his top 5. He suggests the talent level drops off rapidly after that top 5.

 

Certainly an interesting take. He doesn't seem to be as high on Jay Jackson as he was at midseason (ranked him 3rd midseason ... it was on David Kaplan's blog in a review of the Mark DeRosa trade, at midseason, he had it as Vitters, Cashner, Jay Jackson, Lee, Castro).

 

I agree with the general idea that Castro is overhyped, but I find it interesting that KG doesn't seem to factor in projection for Castro, whereas most of his comments on Vitters suggest he's factoring in some form of projection. After all, the idea of Vitters and plus power, assuming that he overcomes his discipline deficiencies, is still a bit of a projection.

[davell]

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see his comments about everyone, if there's one thing I think we DO HAVE at this point, it's depth. I think we can make a case at this point that we have upside throughout our entire top 30, which definitely hasn't been the case recently.

 

Castro is overhyped right now, but partially it's because he's had ZERO hype up until about a month before his season ended. And very little even then up until he tore up the AFL, which put his prospect status in a new perspective from almost everyone's eyes. Maybe Goldstein isn't biting.(and that's fine, not everyone has to love the kid) I mean, he's 19 and held his own in AA and tore up the AFL, but there's probably some team's out there that have the same opinion of him that Goldstein does. In the end, I don't care if Castro is top 5, 25, 50, or 100, because it looks like he's our SS of the future and possibly the present as well. We're not trading him, in all likelihood, so his trade value or prospect ranking doesn't even truly matter, other than for bragging rights in some of the publications possibly.

[craig]

... In the end, I don't care if Castro is top 5, 25, 50, or 100, because... We're not trading him, in all likelihood, so his trade value or prospect ranking doesn't even truly matter, other than for bragging rights in some of the publications possibly.

 

Good point here, Dave. I believe that Hendry (like I think most GM's) identifies a handful of prospects that he views as potential future cornerstone guys and that he won't really include in trade discussions. (At least until that opinion changes.) Castro is certainly on that list, and will not be really considered for trade. If he's not going to be traded, then his reputation and the way other teams value him doesn't much matter. whether he's overvalued or undervalued outside the organization means nothing. All that matters is how good he's really going to be. His valuation within the system does matter to some degree, I guess, because that determines how he gets used (stay at SS vs switch to 2B or CF?), how quickly he gets promoted, and perhaps also how he gets coached.

 

For me as a fan, my perception of his value is impacted by input from the scouting world. So the more good things I hear, the more confident and hopeful I am that his actual value is good. But the real future value is really al that matters in the end.

[craig]

If he projected to get stronger enough to get into the Todd Walker/Michael Barrett class HR-wise, I'd have him VERY high.

 

Not sure why I never followed up on this thread - anyhow, the few reports I've read on Watkins suggest that he won't get near that type of power (Walker/Barrett) without completely retooling his swing.

 

Thanks, toonster. (Unfavorable as that info may be.) If he'll never show any HR power, that's a major limitation, and is the reason on my list I had him more at 18 than up at 7 where Callis had him.

 

It's interesting that I (and I think my view isn't that far from consensus around here) had Lee as a top 5 guy, exciting, potential star, high-ceiling perspective. But Watkins down at 17, in the limited-ceiling, low-excitement perspective. But Callis, as mentioned perhaps heavily influenced by some internal Cub enthusiasm, has them back to back.

 

Obviously Callis, like me or any of the rest of us, rank guys based on our current perceptions. And perceptions and projections can often be way off. My perception that Lee might hit with some power might be totally wrong. Callis's perception that their power profiles aren't much different might be totally wrong. Time will tell.

 

I think the reason that I like Lee much better is for the following:

1. Power potential. Lee is younger and taller, so I hope that he will grow into some power. I don't expect that from Watkins.

2. SS/defensive potential. My perception is that Lee has a shot to be a very good defensive big-league SS. Watkins I assume is a 2B/utility guy, and not sure where he projects as a defensive gem even in that capacity.

3. Speed. Lee could become an impact disruptive leadoff-man basestealer, Watkins doesn't project that at all.

 

That Callis has them back-to-back suggests he doesn't perceive as much differentiation as I do. Most likely I'm guessing that his power perception is not like mine.

 

That could be good; perhaps he envisions watkins with more power hope, and perhaps that perception will be vindicated? That would be win-win. His writeup did seem to act as if he thought Watkins could at least hit with more XB authority. Under "weaknesses", he said that Watkins needs to "get stronger to hit the ball with more authority". Teenagers often do get stronger, so that doesn't seem a hopeless wish.

 

Almost indistinguishable from his Lee comment: "Lee doesn't possess much power and needs to get stronger". I believe elsewhere in a chat Callis elaborated, to the effect that even if Lee does get stronger his style is more slap and run, chop and run, and doesn't appear conducive to HR's even if he was stronger. That could be lose-lose. If Watkins has and projects no power, and if Lee has and projects no power, then maybe we're looking at a couple of guys who are more Theriot-type prospects (with perhaps more range and more speed) rather than Lee as a potential star.

 

Obviously how Callis and I rank guys is dependent on our perceptions. If our power perceptions differ, at least one of us must be perceiving poorly. Hopefully with every player on the list the more optimistic perceptions will end up being vindicated.

[KingCubsFan]

If he projected to get stronger enough to get into the Todd Walker/Michael Barrett class HR-wise, I'd have him VERY high.

 

Not sure why I never followed up on this thread - anyhow, the few reports I've read on Watkins suggest that he won't get near that type of power (Walker/Barrett) without completely retooling his swing.

Even if he can become Mark Grudzelanek with better patience, that's a pretty good player

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Fangraphs had their top 10 today: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/chicago-cubs-top-10-prospects/

 

Brett Jackson was not eligible.

 

1. Cashner

2. Castro

3. Vitters

4. Lee

5. J. Jackson

6. Carpenter

7. Flaherty

8. Rhee

9. Watkins

10. Gaub

[Guancous]

Fangraphs had their top 10 today: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/chicago-cubs-top-10-prospects/

 

Brett Jackson was not eligible.

 

1. Cashner

2. Castro

3. Vitters

4. Lee

5. J. Jackson

6. Carpenter

7. Flaherty

8. Rhee

9. Watkins

10. Gaub

 

Oy, I just posted this exact same post in another thread.

[davell]

Sickels is in the midst of doing his list. Na won't be on his top 40, due to lack of info, but I just asked about Jung. There should be enough info on him for him to make the top 40 anyway......

 

On a side note, he just said that Vitters could either be a strong or weak B, but that he'll keep him at a B+ for one more year.

 

Looking over other teams grades, it seems Sickels is very stingy in giving out A's or even A-'s. Should be interesting to see what Castro gets from him......

[davell]

Castro and Vitters got B+'s. Both Jacksons(Brett first), Cashner, and Lee all got B's, with Carpenter, Burke, and Flaherty getting B-'s.....Lemahieu finished out Sickels top 10, with a C+.

 

Other C+'S, in order, were Raley, Watkins, Caridad, Parker, Gaub, Spencer, Rhee, and Coleman. Finishing out his top 20 were Colvin and Beliveau......

 

Conspicuous by their absence were Archer, Searle, Huseby, Anitgua, Barney, and Castillo. All were rated as C's, as were Adduci, Bristow, Cales, Dolis, Guyer, Kirk, Lake, McNutt, Parisi, Rusin, Russell, and Thomas.

[Outshined_One]

Just added Sickels to the first page.

 

I'm annoyed I overlooked Beliveau in making my list. I'm still not 100% on where I'd add him to my list, since he had substantial control problems, was a touch old for the MWL, and didn't spend his entire season logging substantial innings. However, there are some parallels with Rich Hill, where a few mechanical tweaks and repetition in his delivery could see him fly through the minors. He doesn't have the same stuff as Hill did, though.

 

I'd probably slip him into my 20-30 range.

[toonsterwu]

I think Sickels did a real solid job this year. Archer/Searle/Antigua/Huseby all getting C's surprised me. I figured Huseby would be borderline C+, but I liked the other three (and probably many of the people here as well) more than John does. I can somewhat understand going with C's on all of them as well, but I really think one or two of them should be C+'s, but I'm not sure that's something I'll "fight" for on Sickels site whenever he asks people to offer suggestions on grade issues.

 

Mildly surprised at Raley at 11, but I can buy that a tiny bit.

[Outshined_One]

I think Sickels did a real solid job this year. Archer/Searle/Antigua/Huseby all getting C's surprised me. I figured Huseby would be borderline C+, but I liked the other three (and probably many of the people here as well) more than John does. I can somewhat understand going with C's on all of them as well, but I really think one or two of them should be C+'s, but I'm not sure that's something I'll "fight" for on Sickels site whenever he asks people to offer suggestions on grade issues.

 

Mildly surprised at Raley at 11, but I can buy that a tiny bit.

 

Sickels places a much higher value on starters than relievers. I think he's only willing to rank relievers high if they either are really talented or if they are close to the majors (Caridad, Parker, Gaub, etc.). That explains Huseby.

 

I'm not totally sure why he was down on the rest of them, though.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think Sickels did a real solid job this year. Archer/Searle/Antigua/Huseby all getting C's surprised me. I figured Huseby would be borderline C+, but I liked the other three (and probably many of the people here as well) more than John does. I can somewhat understand going with C's on all of them as well, but I really think one or two of them should be C+'s, but I'm not sure that's something I'll "fight" for on Sickels site whenever he asks people to offer suggestions on grade issues.

 

Mildly surprised at Raley at 11, but I can buy that a tiny bit.

 

Sickels places a much higher value on starters than relievers. I think he's only willing to rank relievers high if they either are really talented or if they are close to the majors (Caridad, Parker, Gaub, etc.). That explains Huseby.

 

I'm not totally sure why he was down on the rest of them, though.

 

That's how it should be, no?

[toonsterwu]

I think Sickels did a real solid job this year. Archer/Searle/Antigua/Huseby all getting C's surprised me. I figured Huseby would be borderline C+, but I liked the other three (and probably many of the people here as well) more than John does. I can somewhat understand going with C's on all of them as well, but I really think one or two of them should be C+'s, but I'm not sure that's something I'll "fight" for on Sickels site whenever he asks people to offer suggestions on grade issues.

 

Mildly surprised at Raley at 11, but I can buy that a tiny bit.

 

Sickels places a much higher value on starters than relievers. I think he's only willing to rank relievers high if they either are really talented or if they are close to the majors (Caridad, Parker, Gaub, etc.). That explains Huseby.

 

I'm not totally sure why he was down on the rest of them, though.

 

Huseby was a borderline C+ for me for the same reasons.

 

If I "fight" for any one of them, it'd probably be Searle. I have Antigua higher as of now, but that one is understandable in that, he might simply want to see more. Searle, on the other hand, really did have a fairly solid season in A+, and considering John has emphasized and supported ARL as a factor in his rankings in the past, that seems a better argument than the other three.

Edited December 30, 2009 by toonsterwu

[Outshined_One]

That's how it should be, no?

 

This subject came up in the NSBB Prospect Chat, particularly in the context of Jay Jackson versus Andrew Cashner. In one camp, those who supported Jay Jackson over Andrew Cashner made the case that, if Cashner became a top-flight reliever and Jackson became a 2-3 starter, Jackson would be more valuable since he would pitch more innings, be an above average starter, etc. However, the other camp made the case that a top-flight relief pitcher can be just as good as, if not better than, an average/above average pitcher. With Cashner, he has two devastating pitches in his fastball and slider. Not only does he profile as a closer/top-flight setup man as a reliever, but he profiles as a really good one. In other words, they would take a great relief pitcher over a very good starting pitcher. Granted, I think those same posters would take a great starting pitcher over a great relief pitcher.

 

My point was mostly that Sickels falls firmly in the former camp. I tend to follow that particular line of thought, but the opposing viewpoint has given me food for thought.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's how it should be, no?

 

This subject came up in the NSBB Prospect Chat, particularly in the context of Jay Jackson versus Andrew Cashner. In one camp, those who supported Jay Jackson over Andrew Cashner made the case that, if Cashner became a top-flight reliever and Jackson became a 2-3 starter, Jackson would be more valuable since he would pitch more innings, be an above average starter, etc. However, the other camp made the case that a top-flight relief pitcher can be just as good as, if not better than, an average/above average pitcher. With Cashner, he has two devastating pitches in his fastball and slider. Not only does he profile as a closer/top-flight setup man as a reliever, but he profiles as a really good one. In other words, they would take a great relief pitcher over a very good starting pitcher. Granted, I think those same posters would take a great starting pitcher over a great relief pitcher.

 

My point was mostly that Sickels falls firmly in the former camp. I tend to follow that particular line of thought, but the opposing viewpoint has given me food for thought.

 

But isn't it still way too difficult to judge who can become a great relief pitcher? There's just a handful of them out there. If you are ranking prospects a guy who projects as a solid starter does so for a reason. Cashner still potentially projects as a very good starting pitcher, which should inflate his rankings, even if people think eventually he'll have to settle as a reliever. But if a guy is a reliever from the get go in the minors, then he's got a lot more to prove.

[davell]

All in all, it's a pretty positive look at our farm system from Sickels. There have been extremely few A's or A-'s given out so far by Sickels, so seeing us with 2 B+'s was a solid showing. And it's conceivable that Vitters could have a solid year in AA next year, which COULD move him up(obviously, it's just as likely he could struggle and go down)I figure Castro will wind up getting enough major league at bats to graduate.

 

Jay Jackson and/or Cashner could wind up graduating as well. In fact, I think one or the other probably will. Hopefully the other shows improvement and moves into a B+. Brett Jackson could easily go up or down next year, but I'm very happy with him right now and there's enough out there to think he could move up his status as well.

 

About the only guys who's grades I would think about disputing are Barney(not exciting, but I figure him as a C+ and think he'll have a long career in the majors, even if it's not for us. Searle and Archer seemed like C+'s to me as well. Both had decent years and have high upsides.

 

I think that the guys who have the best shot at moving up in the rankes next year though are Hak ju Lee, Kyler Burke, and Logan Watkins. Lee and Burke, in particular, can truly put themselves on the map next year.

 

 

Other guys I think can make jumps next year would be Rhee, Archer, Antigua, Searle, Raley, Kirk, and the Korean trio of Kim, Jung, and Na. All Rhee needs is some success coming off his TJS and he could be back in our top 5. Archer needs to build on what he accomplished this past year(although he's probably the easiest one to see regress as well) Antigua just needs to keep doing what he's been doing at higher levels and I think he'll wind up in Daytona for most of 2010 anyway. Searle will be interesting to see develop, not sure whether or not we'll see him move up to AA or not, considering his age. But, it's nice to have a young sinkerballer with potential. Raley could move quickly, especially since he's concentrating on pitching alone. Kirk will probably pitch in Peoria next year and if he shows enough, I could see his grade moving up some. It was encouraging seeing his K rate to this point in limited time. The Koreans should all show up next year, Jung possibly in Peoria and Na and Kim in Boise. Kim seems to be the one with the most breakout potential, if he shows power, he could really put himself on our map.

[Outshined_One]

But isn't it still way too difficult to judge who can become a great relief pitcher? There's just a handful of them out there. If you are ranking prospects a guy who projects as a solid starter does so for a reason. Cashner still potentially projects as a very good starting pitcher, which should inflate his rankings, even if people think eventually he'll have to settle as a reliever. But if a guy is a reliever from the get go in the minors, then he's got a lot more to prove.

 

I don't think it's any more difficult than identifying who can become a great starting pitcher.

 

UK can go more in-depth on this particular subject if he wants to jump into the conversation, but Huseby can be a good example of this. I'm not Huseby's biggest fan for various reasons, although I still think he could be a good relief pitcher if he makes the majors. He has very good deception from the right side to go with two plus pitches. He has qualities that should make him an effective relief pitcher in the majors. Assuming he stays healthy and his development continues on its current path, he should be able to make the majors and be an asset in the bullpen.

[Guest]

Good for Sickels giving Burke tons of love.

 

Matt Jones at 16 and C+? That's a surprise for me.

[Guest]

Just added Sickels to the first page.

 

I'm annoyed I overlooked Beliveau in making my list. I'm still not 100% on where I'd add him to my list, since he had substantial control problems, was a touch old for the MWL, and didn't spend his entire season logging substantial innings. However, there are some parallels with Rich Hill, where a few mechanical tweaks and repetition in his delivery could see him fly through the minors. He doesn't have the same stuff as Hill did, though.

 

I'd probably slip him into my 20-30 range.

 

I had Beliveau in my top 30 initially but ended up going Bristow instead. I like him but the system is deep enough that guys like Beliveau and Bristow shouldn't be considered top 20 prospects.

[toonsterwu]

Good for Sickels giving Burke tons of love.

 

Matt Jones at 16 and C+? That's a surprise for me.

 

I'm assuming you are referring to Spencer. I wasn't that surprised, although I thought he was a borderline C/C+ guy as well. That said, upper level bat with pop that, by most accounts, showed progress last year as he started spraying the ball around a bit more and, iirc a report indicated his swing wasn't as long as before. Potentially able to stick in RF. I mean, that sounds C+ish, and he was always relatively well liked by scouts.