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

[toonsterwu]

I want to reiterate that, my concern with Vitters isn't necessarily the walks, which I'd love to see more of, but it's how many pitches he sees per at bat. Obviously, there's correlation to walk rate, but for a guy that aggressive, I don't want him to completely neuter his instincts. That said, he can't simply (and this is simplifying it way too much) swing at the first pitch he sees that's decent. I also have some concerns about power and plane. I'm concerned about the injuries as well, but that's something that, as a fan, there's little, for lack of a better way of saying, that I can complain about. Seeing one more pitch - that's something that a player should be able to do. Staying healthy isn't something that is always in the player's control.

[Outshined_One]

Part 2 and the rankings have been posted on the front page of NSBB, with links in the first post of this thread.

 

Comments and questions welcome. :D

[CUBZ99]

I think both lists so far are pretty solid. Thanks to all of the posters and mods that put together an informative and well thought out top ten. It is a good feeling to be excited about the Cubs minor league players again, and to see some potential difference makers in the pipe line. Selfishly, I am hoping that J. Jackson, Cashner, Carpenter and Castro play in Iowa this year.

 

As far as the respective lists:

 

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

BA -- How can Burke not be a top 10 at this point? As has already been pointed out, it was odd that they projected him as a starter for the Cubs in a few years, but yet didn't think he deserved top ten respect?

[Cubswin11]

When do the organizational rankings come out? Should be interesting to see how far the Cubs move up in MLB, I think we have a shot to be in the 12-15 range.

[Shilzzz]

yeah, most analysts like callis and goldstein have said we should be in that area.

[Rob]

yeah, most analysts like callis and goldstein have said we should be in that area.

 

I thought Goldstein was still pretty down on the system. Saying we had a big turnaround, but we still weren't in the top half. I could be wrong on that.

[Outshined_One]

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system.

 

Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them.

[Shilzzz]

yeah, most analysts like callis and goldstein have said we should be in that area.

 

I thought Goldstein was still pretty down on the system. Saying we had a big turnaround, but we still weren't in the top half. I could be wrong on that.

 

Yeah, I may have taken something he said to that effect and put it in that context.

[JeffH]

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system.

 

Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them.

 

For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys.

[jersey cubs fan]

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system.

 

Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them.

 

For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys.

 

I agree with that.

[bubblesdachimp]

I think we did pretty good on the DeRosa trade. Espescially since he is a type B. Good job Jim. :good:

[toonsterwu]

I think both lists so far are pretty solid. Thanks to all of the posters and mods that put together an informative and well thought out top ten. It is a good feeling to be excited about the Cubs minor league players again, and to see some potential difference makers in the pipe line. Selfishly, I am hoping that J. Jackson, Cashner, Carpenter and Castro play in Iowa this year.

 

As far as the respective lists:

 

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

BA -- How can Burke not be a top 10 at this point? As has already been pointed out, it was odd that they projected him as a starter for the Cubs in a few years, but yet didn't think he deserved top ten respect?

 

To be real fair, I think Rhee was put in at the end as we were trying to find a guy that was a general consensus to be put around there. As for Watkins and LeMahieu, both are intriguing, but both have some questions. I really like both, but

 

LeMahieu - Can he maintain his high contact ability? He'll need that, unless he increases his power, which would worry me a bit, as I think he needs to change his swing quite a bit to generate that power. I can live with his current power if he's playing MI.

 

Watkins - I think here's a guy a lot of people liked, but we weren't sure how to rank him/where to rank him. Like LeMahieu, he doesn't hit for much power, but he doesn't really have the potential to generate more power. He does a lot of things well, and has a good approach for his age ... but he was at Boise. It's just so far away, and for me, I want to see how the bat plays before really moving him up.

 

That said, for me, both guys were in the teens, and I could've gone wiht LeMahieu at 10 and been fine. In Rhee's case, before injury, he arguably has the best starting arsenal, and so it was more of an upside nod. He has questions, too, though, in regards to finding his stuff again and whether or not he is durable enough to be a starter.

[toonsterwu]

When do the organizational rankings come out? Should be interesting to see how far the Cubs move up in MLB, I think we have a shot to be in the 12-15 range.

 

I'm not real sure where we'll rank. Even doing rough grades for us, I have a hard time arguing us as being definitively in the top half. I mean, we've got a good healthy front 7, but after that top 7, you could make a case that no one else really deserves a B- or higher (I'd make the case for Burke to be on the border, with an outside shot of Flaherty). I do think we'll be considered in that middle tier though, and we could end up in the top half.

 

As long as the system is getting better and improving, while being a fit for the organization, I don't really care where we rank, though. I think what was nice was that there weren't many huge disappointments this past year.

[toonsterwu]

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system.

 

Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them.

 

For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys.

 

Can I ask why on Archer? I can understand Burke - the system isn't exactly overflowing with power prospects that really project well right now, and when you factor in his general toolsiness with his big season, there's a lot to like. I'd rank Burke higher than Flaherty or LeMahieu.

 

That said, I'm curious why on Archer? As much as he has a nice fast/curve, and while he has shown improvement on his change and command, he's still far away and has a good shot of ending up in the pen. Giving up arms is always hard, but in the right trade, if a team came calling on Archer, I wouldn't mind giving him up.

 

Flaherty, meanwhile, could really become a great 2nd base option. I mean, power and defense alone, and he's intriguing enough. If he can hit for enough contact, that's an excellent option at 2nd.

[JeffH]

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system.

 

Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them.

 

For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys.

 

Can I ask why on Archer? I can understand Burke - the system isn't exactly overflowing with power prospects that really project well right now, and when you factor in his general toolsiness with his big season, there's a lot to like. I'd rank Burke higher than Flaherty or LeMahieu.

 

That said, I'm curious why on Archer? As much as he has a nice fast/curve, and while he has shown improvement on his change and command, he's still far away and has a good shot of ending up in the pen. Giving up arms is always hard, but in the right trade, if a team came calling on Archer, I wouldn't mind giving him up.

 

Flaherty, meanwhile, could really become a great 2nd base option. I mean, power and defense alone, and he's intriguing enough. If he can hit for enough contact, that's an excellent option at 2nd.

 

Between Flaherty and Archer, Archer is the only one who has "star potential".

[toonsterwu]

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system.

 

Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them.

 

For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys.

 

Can I ask why on Archer? I can understand Burke - the system isn't exactly overflowing with power prospects that really project well right now, and when you factor in his general toolsiness with his big season, there's a lot to like. I'd rank Burke higher than Flaherty or LeMahieu.

 

That said, I'm curious why on Archer? As much as he has a nice fast/curve, and while he has shown improvement on his change and command, he's still far away and has a good shot of ending up in the pen. Giving up arms is always hard, but in the right trade, if a team came calling on Archer, I wouldn't mind giving him up.

 

Flaherty, meanwhile, could really become a great 2nd base option. I mean, power and defense alone, and he's intriguing enough. If he can hit for enough contact, that's an excellent option at 2nd.

 

Between Flaherty and Archer, Archer is the only one who has "star potential".

 

Tbh, I don't think either one of them will be stars, but I'm not real sold Archer has star potential and I think Flaherty has more star potential than you think (again, don't really buy either as stars or guys with star potential; I think Flaherty will be more DeRosa than anything). At his best, the profile of a low 90's fb, plus curve, average change is what, more of a mid-rotation starter (oversimplifying it here). A very useful asset, a guy who, on the open market, could earn 8-12 million in AAV, but a star/star potential? Not sure I see it. When you factor in the control issues and change needing growth, I just have a hard time ranking him that high. I had him in the teens in the last go-through of it. With Flaherty, you are talking about a potential MI with pop in his bat. There's some star potential in that.

 

But that's me.

[Shilzzz]

Is it weird and/or stalkerish if i just sent a facebook message to Trey McNutt and a friend request to Starlin Castro? What about your friendsssssss

[davell]

I think we did pretty good on the DeRosa trade. Espescially since he is a type B. Good job Jim. :good:

 

 

Yeah, I agree. We've got 3 guys who have some sort of value right now and if we want to, we can go get DeRosa back as well. Stevens showed some signs last year in the majors and could be a decent middle reliever for us in 2010. My guess is he's huttled back and forth between Iowa, but he could stick all year possibly. Hearing callis' comments on Gaub are extremely encouraging as well. I've been very impressed with his numbers from 2009, although the blip in the AFL kind of sucks. Still, he's almost certainly going to make it to the majors as a LOOGY at worst. And then you have Archer, who's a boom or bust guy obviously, but almost definitely has more value now than when he did when we got him.

[craig]

NSBB - I have to disagree with the inclusion of Rhee at the expense of either Watkins and Lemahieu(sp?). I hope that Rhee proves me wrong next year.

 

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system.

 

Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them.

 

I understand the reasoning with Rhee, and it's similar to what Jeff said with Archer. If everything goes perfect with Archer, by some accounts his stuff has a velocity/movement combo which could be exceptional even by major league standards. With Rhee, he might end up being a crafty control pitcher with a plus fastball, a decent breaking pitch, and a putaway change/splitter that hitters are so scared of that they don't want to even risk getting into two-strike counts.

 

Personally, I didn't even have Rhee in my top 20. I thought pre-injury that his fastball was more 88-93, with the projection to perhaps get faster. But not really Wood/Cruz/Zambrano/Prior exceptional velocity/movement, or Wellemeyer/Farnsworth/Samardzija/Cashner/Guzman caliber speed. An excellent-if-not-exceptional fastball with control and a knockout pitch can win, if you have control. But I was concerned that his rehab seemed so slow, and that his velocity was well down into the mediocre-or-worse level 13-18 months post-surg. Many rehab guys recover really well, but there are still quite a few who don't do so, and never get the speed they had or were projected to throw with, or the control. Or who need to ditch an effective pitch that is too dangerous.

 

I am pleased and surprised that Callis is acting like Rhee is progressing well. I assume he's gotten that from Gush Fleita, so I'm cautious whether it's actually true.

 

But yes, like a fresh draft pick, it's fun to think that perhaps everything will go well, and if so he'll have a chance to become a top-10 prospect and someday more than that. That would be really awesome to have him turn into a good rotation pitcher.

[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. Anyhow, I was looking at the clip on prospecttube put up by Kinslerhomer (over at SB Nation), and watching that short clip made me curious if somehow my eyes bought into the reports, because the lack of the lower body use was very pronounced in that clip.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

[Guest]

People keep saying that Callis listens to Fleita gush and might be biased that way but the guy has been down on the Cubs farm system (rightfully so) for before this season and I'm sure Fleita was gushing away the last few offseasons too. Callis, like other prospect guys at BA and Goldstein at BP, probably are more likely to tune out the excessive stuff a Fleita would say, as opposed to someone at the Tribune or Sun-Times. And I'm sure most other organizations have guys gushing about their prospects too.

[craig]

People keep saying that Callis listens to Fleita gush and might be biased that way but the guy has been down on the Cubs farm system (rightfully so) for before this season and I'm sure Fleita was gushing away the last few offseasons too. Callis, like other prospect guys at BA and Goldstein at BP, probably are more likely to tune out the excessive stuff a Fleita would say....

 

I'm one of those people, and I agree with your point.

 

I personally am selective in what Callis views I think might be suspect due to Fleita influence. For example, I don't think his estimation that the Cubs have the best farm in the division is suspect. He thinks that, and is objective enough that his analysis is not overly fogged by Fleita. Plus, I think that for the top-ten prospects that dominate where a system is going to be ranked relative to other systems, I am sure that he is getting input from outside scouts. He knows when Fleita still loves Colvin, but nobody else seems to. Just like years ago when Fleita and Hendry were still gush on Kelton but outside scouts were not. So the more important and scoutable the prospect, I think the less he's likely to be skewed by Fleita.

 

Where I am selectively more skeptical is for prospects about whom other scouts aren't likely to talk or provide balance. I think there are a lot of prospects outside the top ten for whom he isn't making lots of calls to outside scouts, or if he does where they probably don't have lots of focused ideas. The two that come most to mind in the recent chat are Chirinos and Rhee. Yes, Rhee pitched in a couple of games, and appeared in instrux. But I wonder if there were a lot of outside scouts studying him and telling Callis he looks great? Maybe. But I think it's perhaps possible (perhaps even likely?) that Fleita is the primary guy telling Callis about how Rhee's rehab has progressed.

 

Likewise I wonder if when callis is calling two dozen outside scouts to discuss Cub prospects, if the discussions involve a lot of in-depth extensive discussion about how 25-year-old Chirinos is doing defensively, and how he compares to Castillo or Clevenger defensively? I wonder if he might not instead be getting some discussion about that from Fleita, and if that isn't rather heavily shaping his relative evaluations of the three potential backup catchers? (I am pretty confident that he has gotten outside feedback, and that not altogether enthusiastic, about Castillo...)

 

It's the guys that outside scouts aren't likely to know or discuss where I think his views are most heavily influenced by Fleita.

[Rob]

I really don't think there's any way Watkins gets ranked that high without significant input from the Cubs front office.

[Serge]

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. Anyhow, I was looking at the clip on prospecttube put up by Kinslerhomer (over at SB Nation), and watching that short clip made me curious if somehow my eyes bought into the reports, because the lack of the lower body use was very pronounced in that clip.

 

I havent' seen him pitch, but I was under the impression his mechanics were fine and his command issues were just typical for a young pitcher, maybe made a bit worse since he was two way player and just started focusing on pitching full time.