BA's Top 10 Cubs Prospects

[javy knows my name]

Someone please give me Szczur phonetically.

 

Shurr? Shuh-zurr?

[Scotti]

Kind of surprised BA had Simpson make the list. They had him as something like the 192nd ranked prospect from the 2010 draft and yet he makes our top 10 over a guy like Golden, who they had in their top 100 or so? On top of that, Simpson hasn't done anything but catch mono since he was drafted, so what kind of new info could they even have to change their opinion on him, other than they must trust Wilken? Lost some respect for BA here, just doesn't make sense as to why they changed their ranking to me. If they were high on Simpson before, I'd understand this better, but they weren't.

 

Shocked with Szczur's ranking as well. Through BA's eyes, we may be in for a rude awakening as far as final system rankings go, if you ask me. Of course, Szczur at least played last year and played well, so maybe they moved him in after seeing what he's capable of at least.

 

The cynic in me agrees. A given team's top pick always makes their list. Even when the Cubs didn't have a #1 pick in the 2004 draft, Grant Johnson still made the list. The cynic in me says that this helps sell subscriptions--a given team's fan wants to see his team's top pick in there. The cynic also tells me that this is a good way for BA to cover its behind (sure we were onto Simpson--we had him rated in the top 10 of the 8th rated team). The cynic also says that rating him ahead of Guyer is only because Guyer isn't that hyped at this point. They can be "on" both guys. The cynic in me thinks that the Szczur may have been a bit of quid pro quo (the Cubs need Szczur to see that he has a legit future in baseball to entice him to sign and a good ranking does that while BA really wants access to Tim Wilken, Jim Hendry, Marla Collins...).

 

The non-cynic in me... Is rather quiet right now.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Scotti

[CUBZ99]

Someone please give me Szczur phonetically.

 

Shurr? Shuh-zurr?

 

I'm pretty sure it is See-zer.

[Scotti]

Someone please give me Szczur phonetically.

 

Shurr? Shuh-zurr?

 

Like Caesar as in Julius.

[CUBZ99]

From BA's write up on the top 10:

 

One pro scout who covered the Cubs opined that they had more future big leaguers than any other organization.

[illiniguy]

From BA's write up on the top 10:

 

One pro scout who covered the Cubs opined that they had more future big leaguers than any other organization.

Did that scout not consider the Royals a big league organization?

[davell]

From BA's write up on the top 10:

 

One pro scout who covered the Cubs opined that they had more future big leaguers than any other organization.

Did that scout not consider the Royals a big league organization?

 

 

The Royals certainly have WAAAAAY more top end talent than the Cubs do. But, you can probably find over 30 guys in the Cubs organization who are "considered" future big leaguers. That's all he's talking about probably. All Star middle of the order hitter and a 6-7th inning middle reliever each count as one.

 

I'm not even knocking it either, it'll be very nice to be spending 400K on backups and relievers for a while, along with the occasional breakout guy hopefully. It can at least mean we spend FA money towards difference makers, instead of frittering it away on average players.

[craig]

...

Kind of surprised BA had Simpson make the list. They had him as something like the 192nd ranked prospect from the 2010 draft and yet he makes our top 10 over a guy like Golden, who they had in their top 100 or so? On top of that, Simpson hasn't done anything but catch mono since he was drafted, so what kind of new info could they even have to change their opinion on him, other than they must trust Wilken? Lost some respect for BA here, just doesn't make sense as to why they changed their ranking to me. If they were high on Simpson before, I'd understand this better, but they weren't.

 

Shocked with Szczur's ranking as well. Through BA's eyes, we may be in for a rude awakening as far as final system rankings go, if you ask me. Of course, Szczur at least played last year and played well, so maybe they moved him in after seeing what he's capable of at least.

 

Obviously if BA is popping the Cubs as #8, the inclusion of Caesar and Simpson is not just a reflection that they think we've got a bunch of junk prospects so they had to try somebody.

 

I'm not even a little bit surprised that Simpson was included. If anything, I'm more surprised that he isn't even higher (ahead of Caesar and/or Carpenter).

 

And I don't think it reflects unfavorably on BA, or causes any loss of respect. If anything I think it strengthen's my respect. I think they should be willing to change their rankings with new input, rather than stubbornly sticking with something they had before because they had it before. While he hasn't pitched since the draft, they got input after the draft that they didn't have when they published that list. I respect that they seem to have realized that their earlier listing was probably wrong.

 

Hardly surprising. He was a short kid from a small school, and wasn't on their high-draft radar. I don't imagine all the scouts were buzzing about him. It's almost certain that the spin they got from Wilken post-draft (repeatedly hitting 96-97, good balance, good command of four pitches, good face) was somewhat more enthusiastic than the input they had when they made the list.

 

New input, revise your rankings. Makes perfect and respectable sense to me. Would be stupid and stubborn to not do so. I also think that they know Wilken didn't make that pick on a 2-second whim, that he'd put thought into it. It's well possible that they never talked to more than a couple of scouts about him before that list (guys projected for 5th round or later don't get endless discussion, I don't think), and that none of those discussions was detailed or more than a half minute long. If they'd gotten Wilken's input before the original list, and having know how much time Wilken must have put into it, I'm sure they'd have ranked him WAY higher.

 

Their lists are formed based on input from scouts they respect, and Wilken is one of the scouts they respect a lot. So when Wilken believes, I think they appropriately adjust their ranking accordingly.

 

I think that's always how they operate. If we like Castillo, but they've got some trusted source scout who really doesn't believe, Castillo isn't going to rank very high. they are heavily influenced by their source scouts. It may well be that Dolis is so surprisingly high because one of their source scouts really likes Dolis.

[craig]

...The cynic in me agrees. A given team's top pick always makes their list. Even when the Cubs didn't have a #1 pick in the 2004 draft, Grant Johnson still made the list. .....

 

I think it's partly just a reflection of what BA is. It isn't a scouting org, it's basically a go-between that has access to scouts and passes on what scouts tell them. A guy doesn't make #1 pick without the scouts for that team believing. So when BA is reflecting what the scouts think, how can a 1st-round guy not make a top ten?

 

That said, back in the Brownlie draft, I don't think that sandwich Blasco made even the top 25, and sandwich Clanton didn't even make the top 30. That probably speaks to how enthusiastic the Cubs and some scouts were about other prospects back then (perceptions were sky-high back then). And probably about how with other guys to gush about, how little gush attention was spent on those two sandwich picks.

[Guest]

Actually, I was less surprised with Szczur than I was with Dolis making it.

 

Really? I'd love to get your thoughts, could you explain a little?

 

Did you really, really love Szczur? Or are you pretty uninterested on Dolis?

 

Sorry..I should have clarified. I'm not surprised BA is so enthusiastic about Szczur given his athleticism and projectability. I personally didn't spend much time rating him as a prospect because I think there's a good chance he leaves for the NFL next month and considered that in my rankings.

[craig]

For those like me who aren't BA subscribers, any tidbits from the chat would be much appreciated.

 

For example, what did they say about Dallas Beeler? Will he be on the top-30?

 

I know Az Phil liked him, too.

[Guest]

Someone please give me Szczur phonetically.

 

Shurr? Shuh-zurr?

 

Like Caesar as in Julius.

 

Yep. That's how the Chiefs PA announcer was saying it.

[Scotti]

...The cynic in me agrees. A given team's top pick always makes their list. Even when the Cubs didn't have a #1 pick in the 2004 draft, Grant Johnson still made the list. .....

 

I think it's partly just a reflection of what BA is. It isn't a scouting org, it's basically a go-between that has access to scouts and passes on what scouts tell them. A guy doesn't make #1 pick without the scouts for that team believing. So when BA is reflecting what the scouts think, how can a 1st-round guy not make a top ten?

 

BA talks to most managers who watch the players play, scouts from most teams and some front office people. As Callis said above, the list is BA's not the Cubs. If all of this was just 30 teams selling their guys to BA then, well, that would reflect even more poorly on BA. BA claims that they get input from outside sources. Folks who see a guy play. I believe them.

 

Given that other teams see guys you'd have to figure that occasionally a team's top pick--even a second rounder--wouldn't be precisely in their top ten because other teams didn't like the guy that they all passed over until the second round.

 

That said, back in the Brownlie draft, I don't think that sandwich Blasco made even the top 25, and sandwich Clanton didn't even make the top 30. That probably speaks to how enthusiastic the Cubs and some scouts were about other prospects back then (perceptions were sky-high back then). And probably about how with other guys to gush about, how little gush attention was spent on those two sandwich picks.

 

The cynic's theory just needs the top pick--the one with the local publicity--to make the top ten list. "Oooh, that guy is in the top ten? He was just drafted and in the news and I don't know enough about him. I'm gonna subscribe!" It's marketing pure and simple. Sell what is already hot. Top draft picks come with ready made publicity.

[KingCubsFan]

The cynic's theory just needs the top pick--the one with the local publicity--to make the top ten list. "Oooh, that guy is in the top ten? He was just drafted and in the news and I don't know enough about him. I'm gonna subscribe!" It's marketing pure and simple. Sell what is already hot. Top draft picks come with ready made publicity.

Baseball America isn't geared towards the common fan. People who suscribe to the magazine already have a great deal of interest in the minor leagues and probably know more about a team's minor league system outside of its latest first round pick. Including the first round pick in the Top 10 has more to do with the process and the nature of the draft. When you're ranking a system, it's hard to ignore a guy who the scouting directors talk up (since they just drafted him), has incredible stats (probably one of the reasons he was a first round pick), and has had limited history of failure (again, guys who have failed a lot probably won't be drafted in the first round).

[BeerHere]

For those like me who aren't BA subscribers, any tidbits from the chat would be much appreciated.

 

For example, what did they say about Dallas Beeler? Will he be on the top-30?

 

I know Az Phil liked him, too.

 

Dan (Lansing): What can you tell me about Dallas Beeler?

 

 

Jim Callis: Another good sleeper from the 2010 draft. Had Tommy John surgery at Oral Roberts, throwing 92-95 again and also showing a promising slider.

[BeerHere]

bubblesdachimp (DC): Do the Cubs have the best farm system in the NL central right now?

 

 

Jim Callis: Neck and neck with the Reds.

[craig]

Which guys outside of the top ten have been basically numbered, from the chat?

 

A post said they had Chirinos and Castillo at 16-17, and Watkins/Flaherty at 21-22. (I'm shocked that Watkins is still that high. Whatever for, I wonder?)

 

Who else kind of got pegged, whether with exact number of in ballpark area?

 

On Bruce Miles's blog, http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5035#comments

 

a poster copied in basically all of the top ten writeups. The Szczur writeup is really Wow.

 

If he's really all that, I think they're going to be willing to offer more than the standing $0.5 to keep him.

[Scotti]

The cynic's theory just needs the top pick--the one with the local publicity--to make the top ten list. "Oooh, that guy is in the top ten? He was just drafted and in the news and I don't know enough about him. I'm gonna subscribe!" It's marketing pure and simple. Sell what is already hot. Top draft picks come with ready made publicity.

Baseball America isn't geared towards the common fan. People who suscribe to the magazine already have a great deal of interest in the minor leagues....

 

How does one become a person with great interest in the minor leagues? You start by being a common fan. Then you read something on the Internet or pick up a baseball magazine geared toward prospects. BA has always been more than just for the hardcore prospect fan. BA tries to build its base by CREATING hardcore prospect fans. If a newby grabs a magazine and sees something that he is somewhat familiar with yet still interested in learning more about (like a first round pick who already has had lots of local press) then he is more likely to buy the magazine. If it is all Greek to him then he reads Maxim.

 

...and probably know more about a team's minor league system outside of its latest first round pick.

 

The first round pick is someone that a fan wants to know more about. Both a newby and a hardcore fan have an interest in the first round pick. The fan may already know about the prospects that have been around the block (if he/she is already hardcore) but he/she wants to know even more about this top pick that everyone keeps talking about. BA promises that they have "inside info" if I pay for the subscription, so... That is why the top ten list always gets the first rounder--he's free press for BA.

 

Including the first round pick in the Top 10 has more to do with the process and the nature of the draft. When you're ranking a system, it's hard to ignore a guy who the scouting directors talk up (since they just drafted him), has incredible stats (probably one of the reasons he was a first round pick), and has had limited history of failure (again, guys who have failed a lot probably won't be drafted in the first round).

 

I've been reading BA for nearly 30 years. The editors are not swayed every time some failing Scouting Director says, "No, really, this draft pick is actually good" unless other scouts from other teams agree (and even then it isn't the Director's gush but the other scouts opinions that rule).

 

Simply put, based on virtually all the other things that the BA staff heard, they could have written WTF over Simpson's name. That would have sold a few papers but it would have lost BA all access to all Cub scouts, managers and front office personnel. Given that they depend on those people for "insight" into the Cubs, Baseball America made the right move in playing down the middle:

 

"They project him as a No. 2 or 3 starter with four average or better pitches, including a knee-buckling curveball, hard slider and effective changeup, not to mention plus control and command. Other teams don't rate his stuff quite as highly and think he'll have to add life to his fastball and work lower in the strike zone. They also wonder if he has the size to hold up as a starter, though Chicago thinks his athleticism will help in that regard."

 

So, Chicago really likes him/other teams think they pulled a boner. "We put him in the top ten" so, if he is a success then we don't look stupid. But we also said that other teams don't like him so we can point out that we said other teams don't like him if he falters. Typical CYA. Craig suggested that it is good and refreshing to see that the BA staff can learn/change positions. Did they? Where is the "We really missed on this one?" Nowhere to be found. Again, just CYA. Two things you don't hear from BA--"We were wrong" and "X team is wrong."

 

Take CNBC or Fox Business. They have reputations to uphold in regard to the markets but they also are in the broadcast business and their shows had better draw viewers or they're out of business. Sometimes they cover things for their reputation's sake (good solid financial reporting) and sometimes they cover things for their ratings (let's work this missing Natalee Holloway girl into a story about slowing tourism in Aruba). Sometimes you just can't do both very well.

 

BA is the same way. Sometimes they may run something for their street cred and sometimes they push Matt Bush as a legitimate number one overall pick (over Jeff Niemann, Stephen Drew, and Jered Weaver) to sell magazines.

[Guest]

A few from the chat:

 

Guy (VA): Dae-Eun Rhee - prospect or suspect?

 

Jim Callis: Still a prospect. He had Tommy John surgery in 2009, so last year was just a recovery season for him. We'll have a better feel for what he can become in 2011, when the surgery will be two years behind him. His stuff hasn't come all the way back yet.

 

Paul (Midwest): Is Simpson an overdraft in your opinion? What led the Cubs to take him as high as they did?

 

Jim Callis: He was in my opinion but the Cubs have no regrets about taking him 16th overall, after he missed his first pro summer with a bad case of mono. They saw him better than most clubs did, watching him work at 94-97 mph in an NCAA Division II playoff game and think he'll have four average to plus pitches with good command. The Angels also saw Simpson good and had five picks between Chicago's first- and second-rounders, forcing the Cubs' hand.

 

Don (Rosemont, IL): As a charter member of the Junior Lake Fan Club, I'm intrigued by his power potential and arm. Do you think that his bat and defense will ever improve enough to be a starting infielder?

 

Jim Callis: I am too, and he spent last year in high Class A at age 20. He's not the most disciplined hitter or reliable fielder, so it wouldn't shock me if the Cubs eventually tried him on the mound. Lake's best position is probably third base, which means he may have to go back to Daytona if D.J. LeMahieu and Ryan Flaherty are in Double-A.

 

Don (Rosemont, IL): What are your thoughts on Jae-Hoon Ha? I was impressed with his hitting ability last year, though I wasn't sure about what type of power he could realistically have or which outfield position he would fit best at.

 

Jim Callis: Another guy I want to see more of. I got mixed reviews on him when I was working on our Midwest League coverage, but he did hit .317/.334/.468 in a tough hitter's league, playing in low Class A as a 19-year-old. He's more of a high-average, gap-power, 15-homer-max type of guy than a slugger. One club official told me he had the most competitive at-bats of any Cubs farmhand last year. He's a good corner outfielder who can fill in in center as needed.

 

Bill (Deerfield, IL): Where would the Cubs system rank if Cashner and Castro still qualified?

 

Jim Callis: They wouldn't be No. 1 ahead of the Royals, but they could make a case for No. 2.

[Guest]

Which guys outside of the top ten have been basically numbered, from the chat?

 

A post said they had Chirinos and Castillo at 16-17, and Watkins/Flaherty at 21-22. (I'm shocked that Watkins is still that high. Whatever for, I wonder?)

 

Who else kind of got pegged, whether with exact number of in ballpark area?

 

On Bruce Miles's blog, http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5035#comments

 

a poster copied in basically all of the top ten writeups. The Szczur writeup is really Wow.

 

If he's really all that, I think they're going to be willing to offer more than the standing $0.5 to keep him.

 

Alberto Cabrera - 11

Robinson Chirinos - 16

Welington Castillo - 17

Logan Watkins - 21

Ryan Flaherty - 22

Matt Cerda - 31

 

Not in top 30:

 

Jeff Beliveau (just missed)

Micah Gibbs

Chris Rusin (close to the top 30)

Austin Kirk (close to the top 30)

Evan Crawford

[JoshiQ]

A few from the chat:

 

Bill (Deerfield, IL): Where would the Cubs system rank if Cashner and Castro still qualified?

 

Jim Callis: They wouldn't be No. 1 ahead of the Royals, but they could make a case for No. 2.

 

That's definitely something to be happy about. Being from Kansas all I ever hear is about how great the Royals system is. Knowing that we would be number two if Castro and Cashner counted is something to look forward to.

[craig]

..

Alberto Cabrera - 11

Robinson Chirinos - 16

Welington Castillo - 17

Logan Watkins - 21

Ryan Flaherty - 22

Matt Cerda - 31

..

 

Thanks, Cal. Interesting that Rusin and Belliveau didn't make it, but Logan Watkins of all people is still high 20's. Who knows.

 

With three of the 2nd ten names, here's my guess for other seven names for the 2nd ten:

Junior Lake

Jay Jackson

Reggie Golden

Brooks Raley

Ben Wells

D.J. LeM

Robinson Lopez, RHP

 

I'll take a less confident shot at the pool from which the other names in the third ten are drawn:

Aaron Kurcz

Austin Reed

Darwin Barney (is he still eligibile?)

Jae-Hoon Ha

Kim Jin-Yeong

Cam Greathouse

Robert Whitenack

Brett Wallach

Dae-Eun Rhee

Nick Struck

[craig]

....

Jim Callis: [Lake's] not the most disciplined hitter or reliable fielder, so it wouldn't shock me if the Cubs eventually tried him on the mound. Lake's best position is probably third base, which means he may have to go back to Daytona if D.J. LeMahieu and Ryan Flaherty are in Double-A.

 

Callis is whipping these off on the fly, and he's just Callis. But that he's already talking about moving him to the mound is not a super ringing endorsement for Lake as a Hanley Ramirez upgrade.

 

Jim Callis: ..I got mixed reviews on [Ha] when I was working on our Midwest League coverage, but he did hit .317/.334/.468 in a tough hitter's league, playing in low Class A as a 19-year-old. He's more of a high-average, gap-power, 15-homer-max type of guy than a slugger. One club official told me he had the most competitive at-bats of any Cubs farmhand last year.

 

As a low-K contact-hitting .300+ guy with 7 HR in 77 games as a teenager, and being over 6 feet tall, I had hopes that Ha might have significant HR potential. Given that he never walks, if he's really only a 15-HR max guy, then he's much less interesting.

 

O well, that's the value of getting additional input on guys. Hopefully that HR evaluation will prove incorrect, and the 7HR/77 games as a teenager will grow by the time he's 25. Maybe a wiry Luis Gonzalez type power guy down the road?

 

HR-hitting is a function of contact and strength. If you're a premium contact guy, which I'm still hoping Ha may end up being, you don't need to be exceptionally strong to get a fair number of HR's.

[toonsterwu]

WTF?? Dallas Beeler?

 

What about him? I hadn't heard much of anything about him, other than the Cubs could see him developing into another McNutt type steal......

 

As for Szczur, I've heard upside comps of Carl Crawford somewhere, so if that's the case, I could see the hype starting behind him anyway.

 

As for the Cubs having the 8th best system in baseball? Holy crap. Not sure what else to say. I would have bet we'd have been somewhere in the 13-17 range and felt comfortable about it. I know BA is extremely high on Archer, I guess it's not going to surprise me to see him somewhere in the top 30 or so now, maybe Brett makes it into that general area as well......

 

I believe AzPhil speculated that Beeler could amp up his velo a bit more, or maybe it was someone else. But if Beeler can run it in the mid-90s with his two solid secondary offerings, that's a potential middle of the rotation type arm.

[craig]

For every young hitter, the question of future HR power is central. Other than the negative comment on Ha's power (15-HR max), I very much liked some of the comments on other guys:

 

Lemahieu: Cubs think Lemahieu could adjust and hit 15 per, that's terrific. Very encouraging. If he did that, and played 2B, with his contact/average skills, you'd have a great value. Likely, maybe not, but nice to think there's at least a chance. And with his contact skills, I think 15-HR power could support 3B too.

 

Szczur: Talk about hitting 400-foot bombs and having average-to-better power with great hitting/contact skills, that's WOW encouraging. HR's need power and contact. If the power is average or better and the contact is really good, look out.

 

Lee: "has the bat speed and strength in his hands to hit for some power once he develops". That's really encouraging too. He doesn't need to hit 15, but if he could hit 8-12 and keep the OFers honest, that's really encouraging.

 

Cerda: "I think he fits best at third base, and he may not have enough power for the position." If it's even in question that he might almost remotely have some power to keep 3B in consideration, that would suggest that he's not Theriot light. Maybe 8-15 HR potential? A good contact hitter with 8-15 HR potential could be a very good utility or 2B bat. (Wasn't

 

Golden: "I've had multiple scouts compare him to a young Kevin Mitchell. He has plus-plus raw power." That is awfully encouraging, too. Kevin Mitchell hit 47 and 35 HR's at ages 27 and 28 for the Giants, so we're talking serious corner OF/middle-lineup power potential. Very encouraging.