Re: 2010 Cubs Top Prospect Lists

[Guest]

Don't get me wrong, I like Carpenter. But on the whole he's a series of not quite enoughs. Not quite young enough, not quite enough K's, not quite enough control, not quite hard enough to hit, etc. He's closer to the back end of my Top 30, although like I said, there's not much besides personal taste keeping one man's 25 from being another man's 9.

[toonsterwu]

fair enough. I can understand both you and Craig's concerns in that regards.

[Guest]

I can't buy Carpenter being safer than Vitters. Not with his injury history.

[craig]

...That said, Carpenter is, IMO, safer than Vitters and Lee right now. He's going to end up around 150 innings for the year. He still has a mid-90's fastball to go with a good slider and a decent change. There's still a decent shot that he's a possible number 3 starter.

 

I definitely get the concerns, but right now, I tend to think that Lee and Vitters have as many, if not more, concerns as Carpenter.

 

Thanks for your list and comments, toon and dave. Fun to read.

 

On Carpenter, how often does he throw mid-90's, and regardless of his velocity, is his fastball actually a good pitch? I was under the impression that he would touch mid-90's many games, and high 90's on a good night. But that most of the time it's low-90's. But I don't really know. I'm just wondering whether, if 90% of his fastballs are <94, is a 40-seam-93 fastball with iffy control better than a 2-seam 90? Maybe it is, I don't know. But I submit that it's at least possible that the fastballs for Whitenack, Coleman, Raley may be actually "better" or more effective. 2-3 extra mph versus better location/movement, who knows? I probably had Carpenter too low, I'm sure I did. A poster who goes to scads of Tenn games said Carpenter looked just fabulous (and fabulously fast) in an August start that he watched. Of course, he'd seen him many times before and said he'd never actually seen him look good before. And in his subsequent start of course he got demolished. I thought his 1.44 WHIP wasn't that good for a guy who'll turn 25 soon. But he's got a shot. I'd love to see him get a little more consistent; maybe in relief he'll be able to throw hard more consistently; who knows, maybe next year he'll show up 100% healthy and stay 100% healthy all year and if healthy he'll be throwing harder more consistently, too.

[toonsterwu]

From what I know, and I wasn't able to go down south much this year, Carpenter has solid sink on his fastball. If he runs a 4-seamer in there, he goes around 93-95. If he opts to go for more sink, it's probably more 91-94. Those are rough ranges based on numbers I got.

 

I mean, it's somewhat the same case as Archer. Archer can run a harder fastball in there in the mid-90's, but he'll opt for more sink and sit more low-mid 90's as well.

[toonsterwu]

As a quick side note, since Carpenter is getting the discussion here right now, I admit that was as much a default move as it was a positive for Carpenter, as I just was wary of putting anyone else there.

[craig]

..

9. Reggie Golden...

10. Ben Wells....

11. Hayden Simpson.

 

The hotly debated first round pick missed pitching professionally due to mono. I was tempted to keep him ahead of Golden and Wells, but the weight loss bothered me enough and Golden’s offensive upside seems that good and I like Ben Wells arm upside more. There’s no doubt that at one point this year, he was throwing mid-90’s with 2 solid breaking pitches and a decent change. There’s also no doubt that he tired at one point, with his fastball dropping down a bit, and his secondary stuff not being as sharp. Was it a case of being overworked, or was it some other reason? How one feels about that will likely determine where they place him. I tend to think of him as being similar to Jay Jackson a bit. If he’s healthy, I could see the Cubs push him to Peoria, although starting at XST is possible.

....

 

Interesting that both toon and Dave have Simpson in their 2nd ten (11th and 15th), both have him behind Golden, and toon behind Wells. That may very well prove prescient. Outshined was also shocked that I'd ranked Simpson as high as 6th. So I'm unexpectedly finding myself a real outlier here; perhaps if he turns out well, I'll unexpectedly get to take some credit for not having downgraded him.

 

Obviously he hasn't pitched yet, so I have no idea nor do any of us. Dave mentioned that he thinks he was a signability pick. I'm probably naive, but I don't believe there is much reason to believe that. There may have been $1.6 guys who Wilken liked as well, and signability broke such ties in Simpson's favor. But I honestly don't believe Wilken intentionally took an inferior prospect, or that Ricketts forced him to do so. I think the simplest explanation, which may perhaps be correct, is that Wilken believe he was as good or better than any available player. And was too good to risk waiting till round 2 to pick.

 

Even if I'm wrong, there are plenty of pretty talented guys who would be willing to sign for $1.06. So even if Wilken was forced so sign somebody for $1.06, surely there could have been plenty of talented $1.06-signable guys available. Yet Wilken preferred Simpson.

 

Obviously my higher ranking looks brainless (I'm not contributing any individual analysis), and like a Cubs/Wilken lackey. I'm basing my #6 ranking pretty much on the fact that Wilken must have seen something pretty good, and that given the time and expertise he had to study Simpson, that he saw some pretty good potential.

 

I admit my tendency is to kind of go with what Wilken/draft-scouts seem to think until there comes out reason to think they are/were mistaken. That time hasn't yet arrived with Simpson, so I'm giving him a decent place until/unless he proves Wilken was thinking crazy.

 

I guess I'm also more optimistic about his arm. Throws mid-90's sometimes and rests low-90's most of the time? That doesn't sound like Cashner or young Zambrano, but it doesn't sound any slower than Carpenter or Jackson and perhaps only a touch slower than Archer or Cabrera. Of course, if it turns out in reality that he's mostly 88, that might be different.

[toonsterwu]

I'm fairly optimistic about Simpson. It's just, I try to stand by certain sets of rules with which to judge by. I don't think I did as good a job in holding the line this year on those rules (Wells/Golden come to mind, huge, huge upside nods with zero performance to back it up, and I tend to not do that to the extent I pushed them up this year).

 

I'm with you in that, I don't believe this was a signability pick. I do get the feeling that Wilken was hoping someone would be there (maybe Chris Sale ... I thought there was a rumor about that). I honestly think Simpson was the top guy on their board. It just so happened that he was willing to sign for slot. I really don't buy that this was a signability argument, or that Wilken reached him for fear of missing him later.

 

I may end up pushing Simpson ahead of Golden and Wells (that said, I'm probably too "in" on Wells ... I think there's a case that Ben Wells has the most arm upside in the system). I have a hard time pushing him ahead of my top 8 - Lake's upside is arguably the best in the system and he's had some performance in A+. As of now, I guess I've been listening to O_O too much on the loss of weight and needing to build his arm strength back, so I slid him down a few slots from my first go-around (initially had him 9th ahead of the two youngsters).

[craig]

From what I know, and I wasn't able to go down south much this year, Carpenter has solid sink on his fastball. If he runs a 4-seamer in there, he goes around 93-95. If he opts to go for more sink, it's probably more 91-94. Those are rough ranges based on numbers I got.

 

I mean, it's somewhat the same case as Archer. Archer can run a harder fastball in there in the mid-90's, but he'll opt for more sink and sit more low-mid 90's as well.

 

Thanks. An anti-HR sinking 2-seam 90-92 seems a lot more valuable to me than a straight 95. The notion that Carpenter works more as a sinker guy than a high-velocity guy probably fits better with his relatively high-hits-low-HR results. Hopefully he comes up with a more consistent quality breaking pitch.

 

So, on simpson, are you and oo thinking that June mono is going to have caused him a career-long weight-loss and arm-loss or something? Not sure I follow why a summer-2010 weight-loss would have much impact on stuff/performance in 2011-12-13-14-etc.?

[JeffH]

To me, Carpenter is the baseball equivalent of a basketball "tweener". I think he has the profile to be an excellent relief pitcher, but I wonder if his arm would hold up to the rigors of pitching out of the bullpen.

[toonsterwu]

From what I know, and I wasn't able to go down south much this year, Carpenter has solid sink on his fastball. If he runs a 4-seamer in there, he goes around 93-95. If he opts to go for more sink, it's probably more 91-94. Those are rough ranges based on numbers I got.

 

I mean, it's somewhat the same case as Archer. Archer can run a harder fastball in there in the mid-90's, but he'll opt for more sink and sit more low-mid 90's as well.

 

Thanks. An anti-HR sinking 2-seam 90-92 seems a lot more valuable to me than a straight 95. The notion that Carpenter works more as a sinker guy than a high-velocity guy probably fits better with his relatively high-hits-low-HR results. Hopefully he comes up with a more consistent quality breaking pitch.

 

So, on simpson, are you and oo thinking that June mono is going to have caused him a career-long weight-loss and arm-loss or something? Not sure I follow why a summer-2010 weight-loss would have much impact on stuff/performance in 2011-12-13-14-etc.?

 

Honestly, this was my 2nd run through. Last year, it was 5 run throughs or so before I came up with the final list that I was comfortable with. I may end up pushing Simpson back up a touch. I do love Wells upside, though. I blame the evil Outshined_One for feeding me all the talk about weight loss (j/k).

[Outshined_One]

So, on simpson, are you and oo thinking that June mono is going to have caused him a career-long weight-loss and arm-loss or something? Not sure I follow why a summer-2010 weight-loss would have much impact on stuff/performance in 2011-12-13-14-etc.?

 

Mono represents a big enough question mark in my mind to knock Simpson down a notch simply because it can really cause trouble for a pitcher when it comes to recovery. It's not like he'll come back at 100% once the mono is out of his system; he still has to not only regain his weight, but also his former strength and stamina. There were already questions about Simpson's size and durability, so this sort of thing just nags at me. It's speculative on my part, but I could see Simpson needing to spend time at EXST next season in order to get back into shape. That would cut into his performance into 2011, considering he won't log as many innings and might also have trouble going deep into games.

 

I grant you, he could be perfectly fine next year and it's all needless worrying on my part. Lots of athletes have overcome their bouts with mono and Simpson should, as well. However, 2011 might be a bit of a bumpy road for him depending on how his recovery goes.

 

Also, for me, mono was one factor of many in why I ranked Simpson where I did (14). Had Simpson been a 3rd or 4th round pick (around where he was ranked pre-draft), I don't think anyone would have him in their Top 30s. I'm willing to give Tim Wilken credit, but I'm not going to buy into a guy just because Wilken picked him in the first round. Finally, the sheer lack of professional experience and data makes it hard for me to get a read on him, especially considering how Simpson's stuff varied over this past season. At least Jin-Yeong Kim got quality time at Instructs, you know? It just didn't feel right to rank him in the Top 10 to me.

 

I'm rooting for the guy to break out and prove the doubters wrong. However, for now, I'm willing to be bearish on him.

[davell]

The reason I have Simpson so low IS because as much as I want to believe this wasn't a signability pick, the fact he signed quickly for 500,000 UNDER slot keeps me thinking that it likely was. Thing is, we will never know, in all likelihood, unless Wilken keaves the Cubs in a huff and blurts it out or something like that. The mono issue certainly didn't help my thinking either, especially considering how long he's been out with it as of now. If he had pitched in Instructs and did well, I possibly would have had him in my top 10. Obviously, I want to be proven wrong on him.

 

On a side note, I'm more encouraged with Carpenter after reading you guys' reports on him. I was almost positive I read recently that he just doesn't have much movement whatsoever. Maybe I misread or mistook him for someone else.

[davell]

Toonster, I see your post at Sickels' site asking about Lopez.......The reason I put him this high is because of his age(19), his fastball hitting 96MPH and the fact that he has the ability to throw his change and curve for plus pitches eventually. Scoutingthesally was very high on him, as was BA last year. What separates him from guys like Dolis and Cabrera to me anyway, is the fact that he is still extremely young, thus, in my case, holding out more hope it all comes together. To me, his struggles in the second half of the season may have been due to him getting tired. On the other hand, in my opinion, Dolis and Cabrera have been around long enough to show more warts basically. If Lopez falters this next season somewhat, the "magic" prospect status that I hold out for him will dry up quite a bit. I guess I look at guys like him and Golden as extremely high ceiling guys that until they give me reason to doubt them, I'm going to rank them very highly.

[craig]

...Also, for me, mono was one factor of many in why I ranked Simpson where I did (14). Had Simpson been a 3rd or 4th round pick (around where he was ranked pre-draft), I don't think anyone would have him in their Top 30s. I'm willing to give Tim Wilken credit, but I'm not going to buy into a guy just because Wilken picked him in the first round....

 

Heh, heh. I'm shamelessly willing to buy in based on Wilken's scouting. I pretty routinely buy into the scouts opinions who have actually seen the guys play, who are having gobs of hours to think about these things, and who are basing their careers and their reputations on their judgments. I pretty much always put 1st and usually 2nd round picks into top-10 until they prove otherwise and prove the scouts wrong. Just a different approach. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't! (As is true with most other guys outside of the top three...) Not to rehash the Simpson stuff, but I still think it's logical to put more stock into what Wilken sees, having seen him late, seen him several times, and having put in doubtless many hours of thought; as compared to BA who, since they started with him as an afterthought, probably weren't soliciting a dozen scouts opinions about some short D2 mid-rounder anyway. That's part of my logic for why I think it's not that crazy to think that Wilken might be right and BA and the smart scouts they talked to wrong. I doubt they talked to all that many smart scouts about the guy.

 

...

Mono represents a big enough question mark in my mind to knock Simpson down a notch simply because it can really cause trouble for a pitcher when it comes to recovery. It's not like he'll come back at 100% once the mono is out of his system; he still has to not only regain his weight, but also his former strength and stamina. There were already questions about Simpson's size and durability, so this sort of thing just nags at me. It's speculative on my part, but I could see Simpson needing to spend time at EXST next season in order to get back into shape. That would cut into his performance into 2011, considering he won't log as many innings and might also have trouble going deep into games.

 

I grant you, he could be perfectly fine next year and it's all needless worrying on my part. Lots of athletes have overcome their bouts with mono and Simpson should, as well. However, 2011 might be a bit of a bumpy road for him depending on how his recovery goes.....

 

You're probably right. But:

1. 2011 isn't what it's about. 2013/2014 or whenever is what it's more about. Some bumps in 2011 won't matter unless those bumps interfere with his big-league career. My recall with mono guys, I can't recall any who had any long-lasting impact.

 

2. He may have lost 15 pounds, but my guess is that he's already recovered most if not all of that. He had mono in July. Apparently a severe case, so obviously he hadn't quite recovered enough of the weight and strength and stamina to pitch in instrux. But I'd guess that if he had it in July and had lost a bunch of weight by mid-August, that now two months later he should have recovered most of it already, and with four-five months left till minor-league spring training opens, he should easily have the weight recovered by Thanksgiving and have three months to recover as much strength and stamina as the next guy. So I'd be surprised if there is any carryover effect next spring. But, perhaps I'm a pure Koolaid optimist, it's possible and wouldn't be the first time.

 

3. Kim got some quality time in Instrux, but didn't he pitch about 6 innings with mixed results? My enthusiasm for him is based on: 1) the money (heh, again I trust the scouts until proven otherwise) and 2) Phil liked a couple of his innings (as with Wilken, I tend to trust Phil too until proven otherwise.) But if I'm going on scouting either way, I'm usually more inclined to go with Wilken, who watched a bunch of Simpson innings, and is arguably an excellent scout, more than Phil, who watched a couple of Kim innings and is not that sharp of a scout.

[Outshined_One]

3. Kim got some quality time in Instrux, but didn't he pitch about 6 innings with mixed results? My enthusiasm for him is based on: 1) the money (heh, again I trust the scouts until proven otherwise) and 2) Phil liked a couple of his innings (as with Wilken, I tend to trust Phil too until proven otherwise.) But if I'm going on scouting either way, I'm usually more inclined to go with Wilken, who watched a bunch of Simpson innings, and is arguably an excellent scout, more than Phil, who watched a couple of Kim innings and is not that sharp of a scout.

 

Arizona Phil has the final numbers:

 

Jin-Yeong Kim (age 18) – Pro debut (2010 FA - South Korea)

7.20 ERA – 1.30 WHIP - .286 Opp BA

10.0 IP, 12 H, 8 R (8 ER), 1 BB, 12 K, 1 HR, 1 WP, 8/8 GO/FO, 4 GAMES (3 GS)

 

Very small sample size, but it seems like he was a victim of bad luck. The peripherals are nice.

 

Phil's not necessarily a sharp scout, but he usually has a pretty good eye for pitchers. Hitters...not so much so. I'm willing to buy what he says.

 

Furthermore, I still have Simpson over Kim (by one spot!). However, as much credit as we give Wilken for the draft, it's worth noting that the Cubs have done a very good job of scouting and developing Pacific Rim players. What you said about the Cubs extensively doing their homework on Simpson is also true about the international scouts in the organization.

 

As for what you said about Simpson and Wilken, I agree it is a good idea to take the Cubs' scouts judgments over what BA says. Wilken and company are entitled to deference, given their enormous body of experience. They clearly have a plan and execute it, regardless of what any other organization might think. However, I think we disagree as to the amount of deference that should be afforded them. I'm willing to be more constrained in that regard.

[craig]

...Very small sample size...

 

Phil's not necessarily a sharp scout, but he usually has a pretty good eye for pitchers. Hitters...not so much so. I'm willing to buy what he says.

 

Agree. It's a small sample size. The 12K/1BB seems nice, the 7+ ERA doesn't; he was good twice, bad another time. Phil's reports on pitchers have been iffy IMO, but when they jive with the $1+ in scouting talk, I'm all in.

 

...Furthermore, I still have Simpson over Kim (by one spot!). However, as much credit as we give Wilken for the draft, it's worth noting that the Cubs have done a very good job of scouting and developing Pacific Rim players. What you said about the Cubs extensively doing their homework on Simpson is also true about the international scouts in the organization.

 

Agreed. I've got Kim at 15, a bit down from Simpson, but could almost as easily have put him up at, say, 7 in front of Vitters and Lake. I tend to not give international guys quite as much scouting credit as I do for draft. Because the internationals are free agents, I always assume the free market bumps their bucks some. If limited by draft, perhaps Kim would have gotten no more than Golden or Raley? I suspect I've got Sanchez and the always-injured Korean OF a little higher than most, too.

 

... it's worth noting that the Cubs have done a very good job of scouting and developing Pacific Rim players.

 

We'll see. I hope so. Kim is the best prospect, based on 10 innings of 7+ ERA ball in instrux! Rhee and Jung have both been injured, so it remains to be seen whether they know how to scout a pitcher who can stay healthy through even A-. Rhee didn't show much stuff last year, so whether or not he's going to make it anywhere, time will tell. Lee is the top guy from Korea, but he's in A-, K's, and shows no power. We'll see. Chen isn't much. Neither of the Wangs impressed much. Na appears to have been a complete waste of money, not sure what happened there. Ha is interesting for sure, but a corner outfielder with an IsoD of around zero had better either get some IsoD or else hit with an awful lot of power.

 

So as hopeful as I am with those kids, I think it's something of an open question whether we're going to actually get much payoff out of those signings. Lets hope so.

[Guest]

I've got Kim at 15, a bit down from Simpson, but could almost as easily have put him up at, say, 7 in front of Vitters and Lake.

Picking on the prospects I spend the most time defending! :)

[craig]

All of the Koreans (except Kim and Na) have been injured. Lee had arm surgery, Rhee had arm surgery, Jung has had arm problems and ended the season with a bad shoulder (never a good precursor), Ha had a bunch of injuries that impacted last year, and the OFer has been injured so much that he has yet to play. They throw and play and practice a lot. I wonder if they aren't more prone to injuries as a result? An age ago Ryu also didn't wait long to have arm problems and lose his velocity.

 

But it does seem that prior to getting hurt, the Cub scouts have done a pretty good job of scouting for talent. Rhee and Ryu may have gotten their arms shot pretty quickly, but until that happened their talent was undeniable. And Lee and Ha both have some obvious talents as well. So other than Na, it doesn't seem like the scouts are just whiffing on talent evaluations.

[toonsterwu]

I'd really love to talk to the scout who gave the report on Na. Even if you acknowledged the range/speed and arm, what did he exactly see offensively to suggest that Na was deserving of such a high bonus?

[craig]

I've got Kim at 15, a bit down from Simpson, but could almost as easily have put him up at, say, 7 in front of Vitters and Lake.

Picking on the prospects I spend the most time defending! :)

 

Well, post your individual list here! So, is your Sunday night chat going to get posted, or how does that work?

 

By, the way, Keith Law apparently had a gush note on Vitters:

 

"That hard-hit groundball to third base was fielded by Chicago Cubs prospect Josh Vitters, who has looked good in the first week-plus here in Arizona, particularly on defense, which was always a weakness of his in the past. Vitters isn't Ryan Zimmerman at the hot corner, but he has shown better hands and footwork and an above-average arm, and I feel much better about his chances to remain at the position. As a hitter, he's showing more willingness to go the other way -- he hit a double off the right field wall on Wednesday -- and he still has one of the best-looking swings you'll see in the minors. And he did finally draw his first walk of fall league, although I'd like to see that become more than an every-other-week event."

 

Lake and Vitters are certainly like pretty much all of our prospects this year, to varying degree. None are certain or safe. Many have a variable chance to be pretty good; and that certainly seems the case for both vitters and Lake. And both have a chance to flop completely, as normally applies to most position prospects.

 

But, after all the negative stuff about Vitters lack of defense, lack of work ethic re defense, lack of brains, and lack of hitting smarts, lots of red flags. But the note from Phil this fall that Vitters looked at least a little bit interested in 3B, and now this note from Law that he looks less hopeless at 3B, that's pretty encouraging. I think given how seemingly relatively dumb he is, it may just take him longer to learn stuff and make adjustments than quicker minds like Brett Jackson. I think it's also possible that a more upbeat, teaching, communicating manager like Quade (theoretically) might be a better fit if/when Vitters hits the majors. Some managers might lose patience with him, but a guy who might be a more patient teacher and encourager and reminder and motivator could perhaps serve him well.

 

Tim, have you heard much in terms of Lake's attitude and coachability and stuff? I know Phil thought he had some non-trivial issues back when he was in Mesa years back, and this fall he rather uncharitably speculated that the reason Lake might not be at Instrux might be because instructional camp is for instruction, and if they figure that Lake doesn't take coaching anyway what would be the point? I'm guessing Phil may be way off, but I was wondering if you have any info or insights into how much of an attitude case Lake might or might not be? Is that actually an issue that will hold him back or should be factored in our projections? Or is that totally a non-issue? Who knows if there were every any real issues, and even if there were he may well have already grown out of them or will do so. And even if he doesn't, there are certainly plenty of attitude guys and jerks in pro sports, so that isn't necessarily any problem in terms of performance and winning.... The radical change in his walk rate from Peoria to Daytona certainly suggests that whatever he is or isn't, he's not beyond making some adjustments for the better.

[toonsterwu]

so, in the thread over at sickels, several people, along with davell here, have suggested that robinson lopez should be significantly higher, and they all point to the Mike Newman report, so I weent back to read it again..

 

http://scoutingthesally.com/2010/08/scouting-report-robinson-lopez-p-atlanta-braves/

 

I'm reading over that report right now ... and I'm just not sure what people are seeing in there to make him go that much higher. Elite fastball velocity, but fastball's a bit straight and he suggests that what you see is what you are getting (although obviously, elite fastball velocity on hand already). Curve is fringe-average with potential, but loses release point. Unwilling to go to change-up in game action.

 

All in all ... I might've had Lopez too low ... but I'm still not sure I see the argument for Lopez being ahead of, say, Cabrera, who has an upper 80's hard slider that seems more polished than Lopez's curve right now.

[davell]

so, in the thread over at sickels, several people, along with davell here, have suggested that robinson lopez should be significantly higher, and they all point to the Mike Newman report, so I weent back to read it again..

 

http://scoutingthesally.com/2010/08/scouting-report-robinson-lopez-p-atlanta-braves/

 

I'm reading over that report right now ... and I'm just not sure what people are seeing in there to make him go that much higher. Elite fastball velocity, but fastball's a bit straight and he suggests that what you see is what you are getting (although obviously, elite fastball velocity on hand already). Curve is fringe-average with potential, but loses release point. Unwilling to go to change-up in game action.

 

All in all ... I might've had Lopez too low ... but I'm still not sure I see the argument for Lopez being ahead of, say, Cabrera, who has an upper 80's hard slider that seems more polished than Lopez's curve right now.

 

For me, I think it's basically the age thing. Cabrera is 2.5 years older than him and has really only had success at A+ ball to date. I guess I'm looking at it like this: Lopez' curve and change have 2.5 years to reach the level of Cabrera's slider. Which means I'm expecting over that 2.5 year time frame, he'll feel comfortable throwing the change and his curve will become more consistent, which is obviously a risky thing for me to expect. Personally, I'm not saying Cabrera doesn't have the same talent(or maybe even more) than Lopez, but with age being a factor, I'm betting that Lopez has the better chance to realize that potential.

[davell]

Another way to look at it is Lopez is my guy and Wells is yours. :D Both of us are counting on lots of projection here(although I do think I'm quite a bit higher on Wells, than you are on Lopez,). That being said, listening to you and reading some more on Wells, has me thinking I may have him a tad low myself anyway. :D The cool thing though, is that our system actually has a decent amount of young arms in the lower levels we can dream on for a while with Reed, Simpson, and Kim also being in the mix.

[toonsterwu]

I mean, I understand the upside argument, and if he makes the improvements that Cabrera, and to a lesser extent, Archer, made in the past year, then sure, I'd slide him up in a heartbeat. Right now, he sounds as intriguing to me as ... Luis Liria (and I don't say this in jest - Liria is able to touch mid-90's, has some room for projection, has a good change, and has a decent breaking ball). As for Wells/Lopez, I think the big difference, relative to reports, is that Wells is already able to run the fastball into the mid-90's (he did it a little bit at the end of his senior year), and has shown two advanced secondary pitches.

 

Tis the fun of rankings, though (discussion that is).