Re: 2010 Cubs Top Prospect Lists

[Guest]

That's quite the strawman to throw into the discussion. It is pretty silly for people to be ranking a lot of these guys. You can pretend you have extensive first hand reports, but it's all pretty worthless. It makes sense to rank a Mark Prior or Strasburg, but Reggie Golden is an 18 year old who hasn't done anything.

 

Why does it make sense to rank a Prior or a Strasburg compared to Golden, especially when those reports are supposedly worthless?

to be fair, the value of performance information (and scouting, for that matter) is much greater for someone coming from a major college program than it is for a high school kid.

 

Also to be fair, if we were ranking the prospects purely based on their scouted upside, Golden would rank in the top 3. He's been bumped down significantly in the rankings due to the additional risk associated with his limited professional track record.

 

In the end, it makes no sense to me to pretend those guys don't exist. You have to make the best judgment you can and go from there.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's quite the strawman to throw into the discussion. It is pretty silly for people to be ranking a lot of these guys. You can pretend you have extensive first hand reports, but it's all pretty worthless. It makes sense to rank a Mark Prior or Strasburg, but Reggie Golden is an 18 year old who hasn't done anything.

 

Why does it make sense to rank a Prior or a Strasburg compared to Golden, especially when those reports are supposedly worthless?

 

How is this a serious question from somebody who pays as much attention to player development as you?

[Outshined_One]

That's quite the strawman to throw into the discussion. It is pretty silly for people to be ranking a lot of these guys. You can pretend you have extensive first hand reports, but it's all pretty worthless. It makes sense to rank a Mark Prior or Strasburg, but Reggie Golden is an 18 year old who hasn't done anything.

 

Why does it make sense to rank a Prior or a Strasburg compared to Golden, especially when those reports are supposedly worthless?

 

How is this a serious question from somebody who pays as much attention to player development as you?

 

All I want to know is what you think separates the firsthand reports for a lot of these guys (as you put it) and the firsthand reports for someone like Prior or Strasburg.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's quite the strawman to throw into the discussion. It is pretty silly for people to be ranking a lot of these guys. You can pretend you have extensive first hand reports, but it's all pretty worthless. It makes sense to rank a Mark Prior or Strasburg, but Reggie Golden is an 18 year old who hasn't done anything.

 

Why does it make sense to rank a Prior or a Strasburg compared to Golden, especially when those reports are supposedly worthless?

 

How is this a serious question from somebody who pays as much attention to player development as you?

 

All I want to know is what you think separates the firsthand reports for a lot of these guys (as you put it) and the firsthand reports for someone like Prior or Strasburg.

 

It's not just firsthand reports. It's meaningful quantifiable facts over the report of some guy that saw some guy practice a little bit. I think it's kind of crazy and a complete waste of time to try and rank a lot of these guys who have at most played a little short season ball.

[Outshined_One]

It's not just firsthand reports. It's meaningful quantifiable facts over the report of some guy that saw some guy practice a little bit. I think it's kind of crazy and a complete waste of time to try and rank a lot of these guys who have at most played a little short season ball.

 

Fair enough.

[craig]

I think everybody understands that the confidence in projecting players varies with age and experience and scouting input.

 

Still, this is just a discussion board, it's for fun. And whether or not a guy has played pro doesn't mean there isn't scouting information, or performance information. How much and how much confidence we put in some of the scouting info, that varies. But guys do exist, so it makes sense to include them in consideration.

 

One subjective logic that I sometimes use is simply to think about which guy I'd be most reluctant to see traded or to have a career-ending injury. I often use that as a subjective litmus test. That approach has some flaws for sure: my concerns about losing Chirinos or Castillo are impacted by the reality that we have Soto. My concerns about whether or not we trade Lee or Barney is impacted by having Castro. So I try to filter those biases out, at least to some extent.

 

Using that logic, I'd be more disappointed to find out that Simpson is gone forever than if Carpenter or Rhee or Lake is gone forever, so I have Simpson more valued on my list. But that's pretty subjective. Tim might have Lake as the guy he'd least like to lose!

[TruffleShuffle]

That's quite the strawman to throw into the discussion. It is pretty silly for people to be ranking a lot of these guys. You can pretend you have extensive first hand reports, but it's all pretty worthless. It makes sense to rank a Mark Prior or Strasburg, but Reggie Golden is an 18 year old who hasn't done anything.

 

ok, then how about bryce harper?

[craig]

Sorry if already posted - Arizona Phil's Top 20:

http://www.thecubreporter.com/2010/10/24/2011-cubs-top-15-prospects

 

Thanks, Wrigley. Some interesting stuff in there. His list is very different from mine or most of ours.

 

A couple of things from Phil's stuff that struck me:

 

1. Reference to Golden being cocky and iffy whether or not he'll be coachable. That's not encouraging, although it may not actually be a problem.

 

2. Reference to Golden's power being very real. At draft we got that he was strong... (for a 5'10" guy; and for a HS guy); but was he actually strong enough to be a real big-league HR hitter? If Phil sees Golden's power as being legit HR power, strong as a bull, most power in that systme, that's really encouraging and exciting.

 

3. Lemahieu: Reference to Lemahieu being strong. The idea that his utter lack of power production is more a function of his stroke/approach, but might change if he adds enough additional strength future so that it's actually worth his time to adjust his stroke and pull the ball more often.

 

4. His favorable notes on Ha's CF defense and Lee's improving defense.

 

5. His enthusiasm for the speedster we got for Fontenot.

 

6. Phil's almost complete lack of valuation for IsoD. Of his top 20, he has Barney and Lem high, the Giants guy almost top 20, Castillo, Vitters. A whole bunch of guys who are flagrant non-walker low-IsoD guys, and several of whom have shown no sign of any IsoP to offset their absent IsoD. I think that's where Phil's ranking is most likely to be in error.

 

7. It's funny how Phil is constantly ranking Castillo high, but when discussing him he rarely has a whole lot favorable to say about him.

[Guest]

Tim might have Lake as the guy he'd least like to lose!

possibly, actually! Hard to name a guy with higher upside in the system or one that showed more year to year progress.

[Guest]

I think everybody understands that the confidence in projecting players varies with age and experience and scouting input.

 

Still, this is just a discussion board, it's for fun. And whether or not a guy has played pro doesn't mean there isn't scouting information, or performance information. How much and how much confidence we put in some of the scouting info, that varies. But guys do exist, so it makes sense to include them in consideration.

 

One subjective logic that I sometimes use is simply to think about which guy I'd be most reluctant to see traded or to have a career-ending injury. I often use that as a subjective litmus test. That approach has some flaws for sure: my concerns about losing Chirinos or Castillo are impacted by the reality that we have Soto. My concerns about whether or not we trade Lee or Barney is impacted by having Castro. So I try to filter those biases out, at least to some extent.

 

Using that logic, I'd be more disappointed to find out that Simpson is gone forever than if Carpenter or Rhee or Lake is gone forever, so I have Simpson more valued on my list. But that's pretty subjective. Tim might have Lake as the guy he'd least like to lose!

 

Sure they exist, but it seems kind of pointless to rank them anywhere, Strassburg and Prior included. Why not wait until their first season of A ball? I know it's fun, and maybe that's the point, but if one doesn't have confidence in the rankings I don't know what value they have.

[Guest]

The posters obviously have some confidence in these prospects. The point is to rank every prospect in the Cubs system and ignoring newer players gives you an incomplete picture.

 

Back in 2002, what did we really gain by seeing Mark Prior throw 5 innings in West Tenn before deciding he was the best Cubs prospect? It was glaringly obvious even before his pro debut.

[CUBZ99]

I think everybody understands that the confidence in projecting players varies with age and experience and scouting input.

 

Still, this is just a discussion board, it's for fun. And whether or not a guy has played pro doesn't mean there isn't scouting information, or performance information. How much and how much confidence we put in some of the scouting info, that varies. But guys do exist, so it makes sense to include them in consideration.

 

One subjective logic that I sometimes use is simply to think about which guy I'd be most reluctant to see traded or to have a career-ending injury. I often use that as a subjective litmus test. That approach has some flaws for sure: my concerns about losing Chirinos or Castillo are impacted by the reality that we have Soto. My concerns about whether or not we trade Lee or Barney is impacted by having Castro. So I try to filter those biases out, at least to some extent.

 

Using that logic, I'd be more disappointed to find out that Simpson is gone forever than if Carpenter or Rhee or Lake is gone forever, so I have Simpson more valued on my list. But that's pretty subjective. Tim might have Lake as the guy he'd least like to lose!

 

Sure they exist, but it seems kind of pointless to rank them anywhere, Strassburg and Prior included. Why not wait until their first season of A ball? I know it's fun, and maybe that's the point, but if one doesn't have confidence in the rankings I don't know what value they have.

 

I think part of the fun is comparing the Nsbber's lists to BA, BP, etc. BA, BP and most other publications include newly drafted prospects, as they are now part of the team's minor league system.

[toonsterwu]

Other places have said Golden's power has plus-plus potential I believe.

 

LeMahieu's power possibilities have been talked about for awhile. He needs to change his swing to get some more loft ... but if he does and the result is sacrificing the one thing that makes him somewhat intriguing right now (his ability to make contact), that doesn't necessarily make him a better prospect unless there's enough power to compensate. Now, if he can add power without sacrificing contact ability, then that'd be intriguing.

 

As a side note, mildly intriguing to hear Carpenter was working high 90's today. Granted, short spurt work, so the fact that he could ramp it up a bit isn't surprising (considering he was peaking in the mid-90's as a starter).

[craig]

Other places have said Golden's power has plus-plus potential I believe.

 

LeMahieu's power possibilities have been talked about for awhile. He needs to change his swing to get some more loft ... but if he does and the result is sacrificing the one thing that makes him somewhat intriguing right now (his ability to make contact), that doesn't necessarily make him a better prospect unless there's enough power to compensate. Now, if he can add power without sacrificing contact ability, then that'd be intriguing.

 

As a side note, mildly intriguing to hear Carpenter was working high 90's today. Granted, short spurt work, so the fact that he could ramp it up a bit isn't surprising (considering he was peaking in the mid-90's as a starter).

 

Where are you getting Carpenter in high 90's? And how high is that? 96, 98? Was he working usefully there? (I know a week or too back Law mentioned Carpenter throwing 98, but it was on a pitch to the backstop...)

 

Perhaps relief is exactly the right thing for Carpenter. Or, perhaps he was pitching a lot of this summer (and last summer at AA) without being healthy, and now he's feeling better? Who knows. Given how everybody hits in AFL, his effectiveness is fun.

 

On Lem, he'll play most of the upcoming season at age 22. He's got some time to figure things out. I hadn't read a lot of input that he's very strong or had much power potential, so any hints to that effect are encouraging to me, at least.

 

I think when a player is younger or not strong enough, it doesn't make much sense to swing for power. If all it gets you is warning-track flyouts, why try? But sometimes when a guy gets a little stronger, then pulling the ball and swinging more often for power makes more sense; if it gets you over-the-wall hits. A guy can also grow in to enough strength so that he can hit it over the wall naturally without overswinging and compromising a healthy stroke.

 

Also, it's common to teach hitters to go with the pitch and use all fields, which typically means getting pull hitters to hit outside pitches to the opposite field more. But shouldn't it be likewise to Lemahieu's advantage for him also to learn to go with the pitch and to use all fields, including hitting inside pitches to his pull field?

 

If Lemahieu can become an improved hitter by learning to hit inside pitches to his pull field, and if he can add ten HR-hits to his batting average, OBP, and slugging, that would be a big boost. An extra ten HR hits is worth 20 OBP points, 80 slugging points, and 100 OPS points. It could do him a lot of good (if as you say that could be done without badly compromising the contact-hitting-for-average that he's currently good at, and which is currently the only thing that he's good at.)

[toonsterwu]

Carpenter's high 90's in Arizona have been reported in numerous places, by guys like Keith Law and Jason Grey. It's in the cubs prospects in the news thread.

 

total side note, but I half wonder if Daniel Sanchez is going to end up ranking much higher than many of us have him, particularly with tools heavy folks. Not top 10 ... but I half wonder if he cracks more top 20 lists.

[davell]

Carpenter's high 90's in Arizona have been reported in numerous places, by guys like Keith Law and Jason Grey. It's in the cubs prospects in the news thread.

 

total side note, but I half wonder if Daniel Sanchez is going to end up ranking much higher than many of us have him, particularly with tools heavy folks. Not top 10 ... but I half wonder if he cracks more top 20 lists.

 

 

I kind of doubt Sanchez makes any lists honestly. He didn't get a mill+ type bonus anyway and it at least appears to me that most guys who don't get those extreme high end bonuses, get left off of most prospect lists, unless the system is very weak. Not to mention, with as little info that is out there on him, I wouldn't think most would rank him anyway. Last year, Contreras received supposedly about the same bonus, maybe even a little more possibly, and didn't show up at all on any lists. Plus, not many guys get ranked even AFTER playing a season in the DSL, much less before they play there, and I feel pretty certain that's where Sanchez is next season.

[CUBZ99]

Carpenter's high 90's in Arizona have been reported in numerous places, by guys like Keith Law and Jason Grey. It's in the cubs prospects in the news thread.

 

total side note, but I half wonder if Daniel Sanchez is going to end up ranking much higher than many of us have him, particularly with tools heavy folks. Not top 10 ... but I half wonder if he cracks more top 20 lists.

 

ESPN insider stated that he hit 100 in the AFL. Nice to see the extra velocity.

[craig]

Carpenter's high 90's in Arizona have been reported in numerous places, by guys like Keith Law and Jason Grey. It's in the cubs prospects in the news thread.

 

total side note, but I half wonder if Daniel Sanchez is going to end up ranking much higher than many of us have him, particularly with tools heavy folks. Not top 10 ... but I half wonder if he cracks more top 20 lists.

 

ESPN insider stated that he hit 100 in the AFL. Nice to see the extra velocity.

 

Well, that would be two. Law had him at either 97 or 98, as I recall, although I recall that being on a single pitch that went to the backstop rather than being near the plate. Grey's was more vague.

 

Carpenter is at 5.79 in AFL, with 17 baserunners in 9.1 innings.

[toonsterwu]

Okay, here's a random thing I was pondering the other day that sort of ties into the previous conversation in this thread. How would you rank the fastballs of our top pitching prospects (so no Cashner)? Just fastballs.

 

 

___________

 

As a side note, I don't know if it was ever mentioned here, but in this Jayson Stark article, they did note

 

On Cubs pitching prospect Chris Carpenter: "Easy power stuff. Great life. This guy has a chance to be a front-of-the-rotation starter."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings101117

 

I'd be happy if he simply made it as a starter.

[toonsterwu]

This might be a tad odd coming from someone who was okay with the fact that he was left exposed for Rule 5 and from someone that doesn't think there's a big loss if Scott Moore was our regular I-Cubs 3rd baseman in 2011, but a part of me feels like Marquez Smith is perhaps getting underrated a bit. The highest I've seen Marquez this offseason is 17th with AzPhil and uh, 22 or 23 with Bedo's list in the other thread. The rest of us seem to have him in the 30's.

 

My issues with ranking Marquez high typically have to do with what he lacks (versatility, raw power) ... but he is a solid defender at 3rd and no one really questions his line drive power, his potential to be a 15-20 HR guy, his solid enough approach at the plate, and his bat speed. I mean, there is enough there to suggest that he'd be a passable starter for a couple years, while some guys that are getting ranked ahead of him are more utility player types as of now, unless they make improvements.

 

Anyhow, was pondering this because a lot of people are talking about Steve Parker of the A's as a top prospect, and from the little I know about Parker (good defender, more 15-20 HR power, good discipline/approach), I'm just not sure I see the dramatic difference between Parker and Marquez, outside of age/level right now (I mean ... Parker's probably a better defensive guy and shows better discipline). Parker's a tad ahead of Marquez on the age-track, but nothing significant (Marquez also first reached A+ at 23, while Parker turned 23 late this year).

[davell]

Just fastball related, I guess I'd put McNutt, Archer, Carpenter, Jackson, Lopez and Cabrera, in that order. But, I'm not sure I'd differentiate much between the 1st 3 guys. Nor the last 2 either.

[Outshined_One]

Just fastball related, I guess I'd put McNutt, Archer, Carpenter, Jackson, Lopez and Cabrera, in that order. But, I'm not sure I'd differentiate much between the 1st 3 guys. Nor the last 2 either.

 

Archer apparently has good movement on his fastball, while McNutt's is a bit flatter (although McNutt controls his better than Archer). I'd probably flip those two and then throw Dolis into consideration with Lopez and Cabrera.

[davell]

Just fastball related, I guess I'd put McNutt, Archer, Carpenter, Jackson, Lopez and Cabrera, in that order. But, I'm not sure I'd differentiate much between the 1st 3 guys. Nor the last 2 either.

 

Archer apparently has good movement on his fastball, while McNutt's is a bit flatter (although McNutt controls his better than Archer). I'd probably flip those two and then throw Dolis into consideration with Lopez and Cabrera.

 

Crud, I forgot completely about Dolis. I'd have probably had him in the same group with Lopez and Cabrera, but possibly a tad ahead of them. But, I don't think his velocity during the season was as high as it was last year in Instructs, was it?

[Guest]

BP's list is out: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12522

 

System In 20 Words Or Less: Impact talent? Not really? Depth? You betcha.

Four-Star Prospects

1. Brett Jackson, OF

2. Trey McNutt, RHP

3. Chris Archer, RHP

Three-Star Prospects

4. Josh Vitters, 3B

5. Hak-Ju Lee, SS

6. Chris Carpenter, RHP

7. Hayden Simpson, RHP

8. Reggie Golden, OF

9. Jay Jackson, RHP

10. Robinson Lopez, RHP

11. Brandon Guyer, OF

 

Nine More:

12. Robinson Chirinos, C: This converted infielder is improving defensively, and he can really hit.

13. Marquez Smith, 3B: He's a bit of an older prospect, but Smith can provide power and defense at the hot corner.

14. Wellington Castillo, C: He has a plus arm and power; and could turn into nice backup or second-division starter.

15. Rafael Dolis, RHP: He's another power arm in a system full of them; scouts want to see him in relief.

16. Ben Wells, RHP: This seventh-round pick was late-riser in the spring; he has low-90s heat with projection.

17. Brett Wallach, RHP: The ex-Dodger arm could move up with more consistent control; his stuff is plus.

18. Darwin Barney, UT: He'll never be a star, will rarely start, but Barney could play a decade in the majors.

19. Austin Reed, RHP: One of the talks of Arizona, scouts love his size and arm action.

20. Alberto Cabrera, RHP: This long, skinny Dominican has plus-plus velo, but needs to refine his secondary stuff.

 

The rest is premium content so I won't post it.

[jersey cubs fan]

They really meant it when they said 20 words or less.