Cubs Youth Movement - Top 20 Prospects (20 Yrs or Younger)

[imb]

god i love reading about baseball prospects. top-notch thread.

[Guest]

Being concerned about Lee doesn't mean you have to prefer Lake.

 

Both prospects have holes in their game and Lee does seem to get a pass on his flaws. That said, I have Lee rated ahead of Lake.

[Guest]

Lee's going to have a hard time being a great average hitter with his strikeout rate and lack of power. He draws walks, but not at such an exceptional rate that it'll make up for a low average. He'll also face pitchers that challenge him more due to his lack of power threat at higher levels. That means that he'll have to rely on elite stolen base potential to have any real impact on offense - and I just don't see elite capability in his stolen base totals so far.

 

Lake is still young (same age/level as Lee, really), but has far more offensive potential to his game. Enough that you could realistically have 3B+ production from a capable middle infielder.

 

Lake's certainly got a lower floor than Lee, but I'd much rather trade HJL. As long as the return is decent, I don't think I'd ever come to really regret trading away a light-hitting, great defense SS. But there's that small chance that Lake hits his ceiling and you have missed out on a better fielding Hanley Ramirez.

[Guest]

Lee's going to have a hard time being a great average hitter with his strikeout rate and lack of power. He draws walks, but not at such an exceptional rate that it'll make up for a low average. He'll also face pitchers that challenge him more due to his lack of power threat at higher levels. That means that he'll have to rely on elite stolen base potential to have any real impact on offense - and I just don't see elite capability in his stolen base totals so far.

 

Lake has almost the exact same problems, except he has a little more pop but with much worse defense and SB. Also, what more would you like to see from Lee to have faith in his running game?

 

2009: 25 steals in 68 games, 76% SB%

2010: 32 steals in 122 games, 82% SB%

 

That's strong volume and improving percentages at a higher level.

 

 

Lake is still young (same age/level as Lee, really), but has far more offensive potential to his game. Enough that you could realistically have 3B+ production from a capable middle infielder.

 

I think that Lee's ceiling as a Reyes type guy isn't so different from Lake's ceiling as a slugging infielder. And I don't think there's any indication that Lake is closer to his, and Lee has a developmental year on Lake.

 

Not that I wouldn't trade Lee in a second, he's definitely the top prospect with the most risk and the payoff isn't THAT awesome that it's not worth cashing in on that value. But I think you're putting too much into Lake's good performance and forgetting the balance that isn't so hot.

[Scotti]

My assumption with Lake is that he fixed the hitch in his swing (too much load) that the Cubs were working with him at least back to '09. Reports were that you could see both numbers on his back when he loaded up his swing. Brett Jackson had a similar (but not as drastic) hitch before he was drafted and he fixed it in a few weeks after he was told what to fix (the reason that Vitters is considered to have a great swing is that he has almost zero load and can still hit for power).

 

Having such a long swing meant that Lake could hit a ball a country mile if he could ever connect but he rarely did. To compensate he had to swing earlier and that made him susceptible to breaking pitches thus the low BB's and high K's. The good thing is that Lake fixed the problem. The bad thing is that it took so long.

 

Regardless, going into their Mesa years, Lake and Castro were both highly considered athletes with Lake edging Starlin out. That says a lot because Castro is a good athlete. But the two things that make Starlin a plus at SS are his ability to hit for high average and his defense (quickness, natural ability at SS and strong accurate arm). Lake is faster and likely has a stronger throwing arm but SS is about quickness not speed and, as Craig alluded to, strong arms need to be accurate and have a quick release to be effective. Lake has never been described as natural at SS (or any position).

 

As such I really don't see Lake ever moving Starlin Castro off SS but there are credible observers who think that Lee has the potential to move Castro. Reports are that, at a minimum, Lee's defense is plus, his arm is plus and his speed is plus. Three of Lee's five traditional tools are not just MLB average (a five-tool player need only have 50's across the board) but at least plus. Frankie P (a trained scout) has Lee's defense at plus, plus and his speed at plus, plus.

 

So, in a head-to-head comparison Lee is significantly better in defense and speed. (Lake may have potential in both but Lee is WAY ahead). For instance, in 1,025 AB, Lake has just a 35/18 (66.0%) SB record while Lee is 57/15 (79.2%) in 749 AB. In similar AB Lee would have 78 SB (more than double that of Lake and at a much higher percentage). Lee also is exceptionally quick to 1B per reports such that he disrupts defenses. He has very usable speed.

 

Power would obviously go to Lake. Lee is reportedly working on strength this off-season but that won't add 10-15 HR. Lake isn't a thumper by any means but he has significantly more power than Lee who, while not a Juan Pierre-style pure slap hitter, just doesn't have power as a main feature to his game. That leaves hitting:

 

When discussing Lee's potential to hit for high average many bring up his propensity to draw decent walks and, as a result, K more. However, his K rate has gone down from his first pro year (16.4%) to his second (15.7%). Neither is a high total. I'm not sure why Lee gets a rap as a high K guy--perhaps because he leads off and his K totals wind up being higher than if he batted 3rd or 6th or 8th. And a fast, left-handed batter will have more infield hits (resulting, if you're into that kind of thing, a higher BABIP).

 

On the other hand, Lake, even in his good months of June, July and August, K'd at a 27.6%, 16.8% and 23.1% rates and those are serious improvements. Each significantly worse than either Lee season. I believe that not only is Lee more likely to hit at a good enough average to be a productive MLB player but I believe that Lee has MUCH more potential to hit for a high average than Lake. During his hot stretch in the second half, Lake's best monthly batting average was .302. Lee's best average was .345 and that on the heals of a .330 season in Boise.

 

So for me, though I like Lake's potential, I still feel that Lee out paces him in terms of floor AND ceiling. As such I rank Lee much higher than Lake and wouldn't be interested in trading Lee unless I was blown away. Right now I'd score it DEFENSE: Lee (considerable advantage), SPEED: Lee (considerable advantage), BATTING AVERAGE: Lee (considerable advantage), ARM: Lee--but potential toss up, POWER: Lake (considerable advantage).

[davell]

I always go back to what AZPhil had said about Castro and Lake showing up at the same time. Castro bought into everything and did exactly what was asked of him and more, while Lake basically didn't take to instruction at all. Possibly due to the manner of which he was raised as a kid.

 

That always stood out to me and while I certainly see the upside Lake has, I think it's highly unlikely we wind up getting it, therefore I'm definitely in the Lee camp on this one. Plus, I'm pretty sure if you take away Lake's one prolonged hot streak(which was a month and half long, to give him credit), he didn't show much improvement from year to year even.

 

In the end, if we're ranking guys JUST on upside, Lake is my top 10 easily. But, if we're taking everything into account, he doesn't make the cut for me.

[Guest]

I believe evaluating the five tools has a lot of merit (and thanks for your breakdown!), but I believe it also has flaws. For one, not all tools are equal in importance.

 

Unless Lee develops some usable power, Pierre is a decent comp for Lee's ceiling as an offensive player. But Lee doesn't have Pierre's basestealing capabilities - in about the same number of at bats, Pierre had about twice as many steals (104). If Lee really has plus-plus speed, he hasn't really displayed it to date. It is definitely a plus tool, but I'm not sure it will be disruptive at the major league level. The truly elite base stealers aren't limited to 30 in a full minor league season by A-ball catchers and pitchers who haven't fully developed their ability to hold runners and deliver quickly to the plate.

[davell]

I've seen lots of projections saying Lee could wind up as a 10-15ish home run guy. I don't think he's considered a slap hitter even now, is he? He stings the ball pretty well from what I've heard anyway.

[series65cubsfan]

Thanks Scotti, hope you post more.

[Guest]

Agreed. Good to see you around, Scotti.

[Scotti]

I believe evaluating the five tools has a lot of merit (and thanks for your breakdown!), but I believe it also has flaws. For one, not all tools are equal in importance.

 

I agree. By far the most important tool is hitting for average. If a guy can bat .280-290 he can play any just about any position in MLB and start on a good team. If a guy can't hit for a decent average, he'll need some other really special tools to play. The second most important tool is defense (and, specifically, defense at key positions). Defense is, after all, half of the game. Power would be the third most important tool but guys don't hit 50-60 HR anymore so speed is more important relative to power than it used to be--especially useful speed.

 

Unless Lee develops some usable power, Pierre is a decent comp for Lee's ceiling as an offensive player.

 

I disagree. Pierre had one total HR in 1,305 minor league AB. He was never anything but a slap hitter. Lee does slap at the ball in an Ichiro fashion (though not all of the time). Ichiro has averaged 9 HR. My guess for Lee is 5-10 HR a year with decent (30) doubles. It is telling that Lee's isolated power through his first two seasons (.076) is better than Pierre's in either of his first two seasons (.050 and .062) or in his minor league career overall (.070). Even though Lee is working out this off-season (and has added 10 pounds) power is not Lee's game but comps to Pierre undersell his current and future ability.

 

But Lee doesn't have Pierre's basestealing capabilities - in about the same number of at bats, Pierre had about twice as many steals (104). If Lee really has plus-plus speed, he hasn't really displayed it to date. It is definitely a plus tool, but I'm not sure it will be disruptive at the major league level.

 

A couple points, first, Pierre was a college draftee out of a four-year college. He played his first season at 20/21 (NWL) and his second at 21/22 (SAL). Lee played the same levels out of high school and less physically advanced (18 all year in the NWL and 19 all year in MWL). One would expect a college player to have a much better grasp of stealing bases and of being more physically mature than a kid straight of of high school. Second, SB is just one aspect of usable speed. Speed also plays a useful part in disrupting defenses (errors, fielders playing in, pitcher focus, making bunts easier, advancing extra bases when not bunted, etc.).

 

The truly elite base stealers aren't limited to 30 in a full minor league season by A-ball catchers and pitchers who haven't fully developed their ability to hold runners and deliver quickly to the plate.

 

This argument is used quite a bit. Not just for Lee, or even for SB, but in general ("if so-and-so can't do X in the minors..."). But it really doesn't comport with the development schedule of players. For instance, Hak-Ju Lee was comped to Jose Reyes (with less power) by Frankie Piliere (a former trained MLB scout). Now everyone knows that Jose Reyes had true plus, plus speed. Guess how many SB he was limited to "in a full minor league season by A-ball catchers and pitchers who haven't fully developed their ability to hold runners and deliver quickly to the plate"? Exactly 30. The year before in rookie ball he had only 10. So he had 40 SB (and 14 CS for a 70.7%) in his first two years. Lee has had 57 SB (and 15 CS for a 79.2%) in his first two years. Does this mean that Lee is faster? No. It means that you can make too much of the A-ball pitchers and catchers argument--it really doesn't tell us anything.

 

Different development tracts take different guys in differing directions. Sometimes a guy just doesn't steal as much as he could because the team wants him to learn regular base running first, or he's batting ahead of a guy that they don't want being pitched around, or the team is cautious of him blowing out his hamstring, or his minor league manager isn't too keen on SB, he's shy, or whatever. If I had to guess I'd say the fact that Peoria is a cold-weather team and concerns of Lee going all Soriano and busting up his hammy played a part but that is just conjecture.

 

Finally, no one scores a 36 on the ACT or a 2400 on the SAT by mistake. Those same people can have bad days and score 30 or 2100 (or even lower) but to score a 36 (or 35 or 34, etc.) on the ACT or a 2400 (or 2350 or 2300, etc.) means that you are that bright--you didn't "luck" into it. A similar thing happens with prospects. A scout for the Tigers sees a kid and he's a bit off. His FB is slower or he isn't as smooth around the bag or he can't hit the ball passed the warning track in BP or maybe he isn't running his best. But another scout sees him on a different day and, BAM!, he's got it all together. That scout saw the kid's real ability. The other guy just saw him on a bad day.

 

This leads to Lee. An actual former scout saw Lee and he had a stop watch and knows what speed is. He saw him plenty and he liked his speed plenty (70-80). Just like the ACT you don't luck into speed. You can hit a mistake or dribble three "hits" passed the SS but you can't luck into being faster.

 

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/10/full-scouting-report-cubs-prospect-hak-ju-lee/

[Scotti]

Thanks Scotti, hope you post more.

 

Agreed. Good to see you around, Scotti.

 

I am actually moving over here from another board that got kind of tired. I made up my mind last night when I read that some of the folks over here don't revere Steve Stone. :wink:

[craig]

Lee's going to have a hard time being a great average hitter with his strikeout rate and lack of power. ... I don't think I'd ever come to really regret trading away a light-hitting, great defense SS. But there's that small chance that Lake hits his ceiling and you have missed out on a better fielding Hanley Ramirez.

 

I've seen lots of projections saying Lee could wind up as a 10-15ish home run guy. I don't think he's considered a slap hitter even now, is he? He stings the ball pretty well from what I've heard anyway.

 

I think these two posts kind of reflect the crux of how one evaluates Lee. If he's a dinky light-hitting guy, who can't even hit for average because he never gets any HR-hits (which help average) and he K's, that's one thing and it's a very limited thing. Then you're hoping for a lighter-version of Ryan Theriot with a better glove. And Theriot had the average he did because he didn't K. If you have Theriot-power with K's, you're really limited. If that's the projection for Lee offensively, he's not going to be valued much.

 

But other people seem to think that Lee can sting the ball, at least for extra base power, and that while he won't be a 20-HR guy, that 10-HR power is not implausible and extra-base gap strength is within reach. His K-rate wasn't favorable, but perhaps it wasn't awful for a teenager in full-season. It may be that with more strength and more experience, that he'll reduce it. That's the hope, at any rate.

 

Lake as a superior-fielding Hanley Ramirez, that would be pretty cool. I'd be happy with a good-fielding Hanley at 3B, 2B, RF, or LF. We'll see how it goes with Lake's power. When you hit HR's, that justifies a lot of things, like K's, and HR's are hits so it's a lot easier to have a decent batting average when you hit HR's. Tim, I agree 100% that not all tools are equal. If Lake is a serious HR hitter, who cares if Lee is a half-step faster in the 100-yard dash. Lake has been kind of a harvey-whiffer thus far. (>25% K-rate this past season.) Often that reflects some problems that bleed worse against better pitchers. But, he was only 20, so hopefully he'll improve, and if he develops into serious power, all kinds of things are forgiven for HR hitters.

[CubsWin]

Well, now that Lee's gone, this list is down to 19. But there was an obvious oversight in leaving Kim Jin-Yeong off the list in the first place. The question is where in the order should he go?

 

 

1. Junior Lake

2. Reggie Golden

3. Jae-Hoon Ha

4. Robinson Lopez

5. Jeffry Antigua

6. Su-Min Jung

7. Ben Wells

8. Austin Reed

9. Aaron Kurcz

10. Arismendy Alcantara

11. Matt Cerda

12. Pin-Chieh Chen

13. Austin Kirk

14. Cam Greathouse

15. Luis Liria

16. Hunter Ackerman

17. Ryan Hartman

18. Wes Darvill

19. Tzu-An Wang

[craig]

...By far the most important tool is hitting for average. ..... The second most important tool is defense (and, specifically, defense at key positions). Defense is, after all, half of the game. Power would be the third most important tool but guys don't hit 50-60 HR anymore so speed is more important relative to power than it used to be--especially useful speed.

....

 

The relative value of power has changed with the decline of HR's, I think that's a good and very significant point. If HR's are fewer and harder to hit, the importance of power relative to speed, defense, and contact changes.

 

Still, I think the relatively greater importance of effective power compared to speed is still quite substantial, in many cases.

 

Effective power, power that is interlinked with batting average, becomes a twin-tools package that largely trumps anything else. That's why Manny Ramirez is a HOF impact player, without speed or defense.

 

Power is different from the other tools in that effective power is not independent. Speed, defense, hitting, those are independent skills/tools. And raw power can be graded independently as well, based on how far guys can hit the ball off of HS coaches in batting practice.

 

But raw power is worthless as an independent tool, it only becomes effective and valuable if twinned with hitting. Winfield Mallory, Harvey, Brandon Sing, they have tons of raw power; but without the hitting tool it didn't matter.

 

On power, I don't know how to think. For a while I've kind of felt like any corner who didn't project to have 20-30 HR power couldn't be much of a prospect. But I wonder if the volume of 25+ HR guys is going to be more limited. If so, that could have two implications:

1. Guys who project to still hit 30+ may be even more unique and more especially valuable. When most good teams have three 30-HR hitters, it's not that extraordinary. But if many good teams have barely one, coming up with one or two guys like that might be huge. The value of true hitter/power-hitter might become relatively even more important.

 

2. Guys who don't project to hit 20+ may deserve more consideration as prospects. If you don't need to have six 20+ HR guys in a championship lineup, perhaps there will be more occasions for teams to have good hitters/good players who hit 10-15 HR's at power spots?

 

I think it's been routine that for a guy who doesn't project 20+ HR power, he needs to scout as a C/SS/CF defender or we don't like him too much. But I guess I've been wondering whether a guy like Guyer, if he was able to hit for average, and run, and field, might be a better LF or RF prospect than I'd appeciated? Or Lemahieu at 3B; if he hits .290 and plays pretty clean defense, and hits 12 HR's, would that be good enough to earn him more than a spot in the 15-25 range on my prospect list? Cerda's another one kind of in that pool.