BA's Top 10 Cubs Prospects

[Scotti]

Craig mentioned the WOW factor in the Szczur write up by Callis. I agree but for a different reason. I expect that he will hit--his collegiate profile (high avg/low K's) followed up by the same for the Cubs means that he gets good, solid contact. I expect that he will have average to above average power--the guy has good size and is, for all intents and purposes, a RB at a major college. Given his ability to catch and track footballs very well I also expect that he will have the eye-brain-hand/foot coordination (kinesthetics) to be a good defender.

 

For me the WOW is the claim of plus, plus speed. I know that there are claims of a 4.3 40 time in high school but, having watched him get caught from behind on several occasions by college DB's, I'm thinking that the 4.49 time that 40-yard-dash-times.com has listed for him is correct. Saying that he is faster than Westbrook was in college isn't an indicator that he is a burner, either. Westbrook ran a 4.57 at the combine.

 

4.49 speed is good but it isn't plus, plus speed. It's Earl Bennett speed. It's slower than Forte coming out of college (4.44). Maybe the 4.49 time was on an off day. Maybe the times I've seen him he was gimpy. I hope he does have plus, plus speed. But being faster than Westbrook out of college doesn't really say much. I'm hoping that Callis has some hard evidence to back the plus, plus stuff up. That would be awesome.

[toonsterwu]

One thing I would caution against is reading too much into 40 times, and specifically, how 40 times translate into baseball speed. First thing, the only "official' 40 times are from the NFL Combine. Most NFL teams add an adjustment factor (+ or -) depending on the track and conditions at the local colleges. I believe that the Nova track was known as a slow track, but it's been awhile since I've been involved on that stuff, so my memory could be slipping me.

 

2nd, straight-line speed doesn't really translate into baseball speed. Heck, it doesn't really translate into football speed (this isn't to say the 40 isn't relevant, but it's value has to be put in context, particularly with the agility and quickness drills).

 

Now, in general, I do think that Szczur is more quick than fast, at least, from what I've seen of him on the football field. I've heard people suggest that he might pop a low 4.4 number, if not 4.3, number at the combine, though, so who knows.

[craig]

Or perhaps the Cubs told him that they wanted him to take more pitches in front of Lee. .... With 18 sacs behind Lee, it looks like Kopitzke was taking matters into his own hands. I wouldn't doubt there were some failed bunts (bad for batting average) and a bit of hit-and-run action to go along with taking more pitches than he was used to.

 

Heh, so this is a testament to how much damage having a somewhat fast baserunner can have! Watkins' production is demolished because of Lee's speed!

[Scotti]

Or perhaps the Cubs told him that they wanted him to take more pitches in front of Lee. .... With 18 sacs behind Lee, it looks like Kopitzke was taking matters into his own hands. I wouldn't doubt there were some failed bunts (bad for batting average) and a bit of hit-and-run action to go along with taking more pitches than he was used to.

 

Heh, so this is a testament to how much damage having a somewhat fast baserunner can have! Watkins' production is demolished because of Lee's speed!

 

Well, Callis is back to Lee having plus, plus speed so you can take the "somewhat" off--it's official. The world can rest on that count. At least until Callis changes his mind again.

 

Regarding the "damage"... The minors is for development. If Watkins is going to amount to anything then he needs to go deeper into counts. If he is going to amount to anything then he needs to learn to sacrifice bunt. If he is going to amount to anything then he needs to learn to hit-and-run. If he is going to amount to anything then he needs to learn to hit with two strikes.

 

More importantly, if Hak-Ju Lee is going to develop into the best player that he can be then other players along the way will need to sacrifice their games. Some players may move off short because of Lee's development. Some players may not be advanced (or be advanced too quickly) because of Lee's development. Some may be asked to bunt a whole lot. Some may be asked to hit-and-run a whole lot. Whatever it takes to force learning to your top prospects.

 

If I had Lee and Watkins at Peoria I would certainly do everything I needed to do to make sure that Lee had numerous opportunities to steal bases, double steal, advance on bunts, run on hit and runs, etc. Just sticking a guy out there for a season isn't sufficient. CREATE those situations. Even at the possible expense of a less valuable prospect (though, in this situation, Watkins learning those skills would be to Watkins' own advantage).

 

This way, when your top prospect gets to Wrigley, he already knows how to play the game instead of bumbling and fumbling around--a novel idea, I know. From everything that I've heard that is what the Cubs love about Kopitzke--he's always teaching.

[craig]

One thing I would caution against is reading too much into 40 times, and specifically, how 40 times translate into baseball speed. First thing, ... most NFL teams add an adjustment factor (+ or -) depending on the track and conditions at the local colleges. I believe that the Nova track was known as a slow track,...

 

2nd, straight-line speed doesn't really translate into baseball speed. H...

 

Now, in general, I do think that Szczur is more quick than fast, at least, from what I've seen of him on the football field. I've heard people suggest that he might pop a low 4.4 number, if not 4.3, number at the combine, though, so who knows.

 

I think straight-line speed is even less relevant in NFL than in baseball. Deep fly ball, I want to run as straight and fast to the ball as possible, I don't need to elude any safeties and no cornerback is going to obstruct my path. To steal second base, I know exactly where I'm trying to go as fast as possible, rarely true for an NFL running back or WR. Still, the in-stride speed is often less discriminating than the ability to read (a fly ball; a pitcher when I'm trying to steal...) and then to redirect my body (which direction to turn on a fly; from watching the pitcher and maybe diving back to first, versus driving towards 2B on a steal...) and get quickly up to max speed.

 

Szczur stole hardly at all for Boise and surprisingly little at Nova in a low-level college league. Perhaps his lack of SB reflects that something in his toolbox is not suited for base-stealing. Maybe that's straight line speed, maybe something else.

 

How fast his timed speed is could be a mixed blessing. I'd love to have him really have exceptional, extraordinary plus-plus speed. The kind that could in time and with training turn into even serious base-stealing speed. But if he has great NFL speed, he's more likely to get drafted in the 4th round or even higher, in which case it will be harder to actually get him to play baseball. If his timed speed is more 4.49, (or worse) he may be more likely to last till the 6th round, or later. And if he lasts that long, teams may even further drop him because he's got the baseball issue, and they may not be convinced he's all in for football. (If two prospects are about equal, one is all in, and the other might go to the Cubs, teams might logically take the other guy....)

 

A teensy finesse in speed isn't that big a deal to my mind, actually. If in fact he's a pure natural barrel hitter, with average or plus raw power to boot, and very very good speed, he's going to be really good. If he hits .300 with 25 HR, and plays a rangy OF, I'm not sure it matters much whether he's on the 4.35 side or 4.49 side of a 4.42 time. I don't remember many but I like the concept of a prolific base-stealer, so if he was actually fast enough to do that besides, that would be sweet. But that seems so improbable that it's hardly worth even considering.

[davell]

None of Kirk, Beliveau, or Rusin made the top THIRTY? That almost seems impossible.

 

Yeah, I was trying to figure out how they were filling the top 30 without any of those guys, too.

 

At present we know the top ten, Cerda at 31, five others of the 2nd and 3rd ten exactly. (Cabrera 11, Chirinos/Castillo 16/17, Watkins/Flaherty 21/22),

 

That leaves 15 guys. He mentioned:

Raley

Lemahieu (he didn't fall as far as Flaherty did, so he's in 2nd ten somewhere)

Jay Jackson (he was mentioned, and didn't fall as far as Flaherty, so he's in 2nd ten somewhere)Golden (something to the effect that he's around 20 or so)

 

That would leave 11 more. Several he didn't mention as on the list, but in favorable enough terms so that they must certainly be:

Robinson Lopez (mentioned him touching 97, being great value for Lee, and perhaps being the most interesting A-ball pitcher)

Kurcz. (mentioned as possibly jumping to Daytona, and being one of the top A-ball guys to watch)

Lake. Gotta be in there somewhere.

Ben Wells.

 

That would leave about seven more spots. Reed, Ha, Wallach, Barney, Kim, Jung, Rhee, Whitenack Struck, Cales, Smith, Smit, Beeler might fill up most of those spots somehow. Or who knows, maybe some other teenager or Korean who's off my radar. (I certainly didn't include Watkins in my list...)

 

 

Out of the 15 unnamed spots, I agree that Lopez, Lake, Kurcz, Jay Jackson, LeMahieu, Golden, Wells, and Raley are locks. Based on what was said on here about what was asked in the chat and all, I think that Rhee, Ha, Reed(remember, he made their rookie league top 20 list) Barney, and Beeler appear like their on it as well.

 

To me, it only leaves 2 spots where we really don't know who's going to be in. My guess is it comes down to Struck, Kim, Wallach, and Cales for the final 2 spots. Not sure what BA may have on Kim yet, but the 1.2 mill bonus should probably get him on the list and I think they'll favor Struck's season to Wallach's for the final spot personally.

[craig]

...That would leave about seven more spots. Reed, Ha, Wallach, Barney, Kim, Jung, Rhee, Whitenack Struck, Cales, Smith, Smit, Beeler might fill up most of those spots somehow. Or who knows, maybe some other teenager or Korean who's off my radar. (I certainly didn't include Watkins in my list...)

 

Out of the 15 unnamed spots, I agree that Lopez, Lake, Kurcz, Jay Jackson, LeMahieu, Golden, Wells, and Raley are locks. Based on what was said on here about what was asked in the chat and all, I think that Rhee, Ha, Reed(remember, he made their rookie league top 20 list) Barney, and Beeler appear like their on it as well.

 

To me, it only leaves 2 spots where we really don't know who's going to be in. My guess is it comes down to Struck, Kim, Wallach, and Cales for the final 2 spots. Not sure what BA may have on Kim yet, but the 1.2 mill bonus should probably get him on the list and I think they'll favor Struck's season to Wallach's for the final spot personally.

 

Good points.

Barney: still eligible? If so, agree he's a lock.

Ha and Reed also locks, agree.

RheeI'd thought not, because I ranked him 22nd last year and he didn't help his status. But I think you're certainly right that he's in there. BA has always ranked him kind of ridiculously high, and they still had him at #12 only last year. He didn't help himself, but Callis's comment did seem to basically give him another free pass. Also, there was a question about which guys had fallen the most, and Callis mentioned Burke (11 to gone) and Flaherty (9 to 22). If Rhee had gone from 12 to gone, he'd have been mentioned (at least, if Callis remembered him.)

Beeler Good bet to be on, based on 92-95 comment. But he might be on the "like but not enough for top 30" list category, as with Rusin and Bellivieu and Antigua. So I'm not sure he'll be on.

Struck, Kim, Wallach, and Cales Agree that at $1.2 mill, and given that Kim apparently looked impressive in Instrux according to Az Phil, agree that he should be included and will be included. Rhee hadn't done much more and BA was listing him ridiculously high a few years back.

 

I actually think Wallach will probably make it. Callis made a comment re Lopez to the effect that the Cubs do a great job in getting value in their trades, which might support think Wallach is of value. He had 116K/114IP, so it's not like his performance was entirely lacking from the scouting side. BA had him ranked 20th for the Dodgers last year; that wasn't Callis's list, and the perception that the Cubs have a high-level system that's impressively deep, to fall from 20 to off is possible and might not merit his comment. But my guess is they'll stay with their BA guy and keep him on.

 

If we keep Wallach and Kim on, and you keep Beeler on, then I think we've got their top 31. To squeeze somebody else in, I'd think Beeler would be first option to take off, Wallach the 2nd.

[Guest]

I think Cales is a lock to be on there. He was on the top 30 last year and did nothing to hurt himself.

 

I doubt Beeler makes it. I think Wallach is pretty likely to be on there since BA has liked him in the past.

[Guest]

Also, as it stands now, Szczur needs to tell the Cubs in writing if he'll stick to baseball and then drop football completely. Unless the Cubs give him an extension or overwhelm him financially (a la Samardzija), I think he's going to try the NFL. He can always go back to baseball like, say, Pat White.

[craig]

I think Cales is a lock to be on there. He was on the top 30 last year and did nothing to hurt himself.

...

 

Interesting. I hadn't been thinking like that. Last year, he slipped in at 28 but the system wasn't as strong/deep (weren't they ranked like 17th or something?), and they needed guys like him and Jim Adduci to fill out the back end. His overall numbers were fine (4.03 ERA, 1.3 WHIP), but nothing eye-catching and he had a 6.6 ERA down the stretch at Iowa. He's a reliever, and I don't think he throws hard enough to be particularly scout-jazzy. If Callis was talking like the depth was so good and he just couldn't squeeze Bellivieu or Rusin in, I'm not certain that Cales is too good to pass. But, you may well be right. And he has been one of the guys that BA has kind of been tagging for a while, so maybe yes.

 

Actually, a different candidate who I've forgotten about completely is Marcos Mateo. Would he still have rookie eligibility? He ranked higher than Cales last year (24 vs 28), and has a big-time big-league arm that often appeals more to scouts, with two potentially plus pitches (slider). He had some eye-catching numbers, too, 45K/7BB/34IP in minors. Counting his Cub innings, he was 71K/16BB, with a WHIP in the 1.2's (better than Cales). Maybe Callis kept him on the list?

 

I wonder how a younger arm like that might do with Riggins and Quade. Riggins is probably pretty familiar with him and what he can (and can't) do from their work in the minors. Might he think he can work with him and get the best out of that arm? Or might Quade be a little more patient? Might also be that Riggins already knows that Mateo just isn't going to figure it out, really, and maybe would be less likely to fall in love with his potential based on a couple of spring training appearances. Will be interesting to see how the Quale/Riggins decision-making goes. For all we know Quale is a big do-it-right kind of guy, and maybe he'll be less interested in carrying guys who are more talented but don't have the head or talents for the more finesse parts of the game?

Edited January 6, 2011 by craig

[davell]

Mateo will be 27 next year. I definitely think he'll fall of the list now. He's just a bullpen arm, probably with very little hope of being a closer. I know he has good stuff, but I don't see them ranking him at this point, because of his age and the fact that he's a setup guy at best, most likely. Chirinos will be 27 too, but still looks like he may be a starting C at some point soon, even if it's not for the Cubs. In the end, I think our system is too deep for a guy like Mateo to hang onto a spot again.

[sneakypower]

Best Defensive Infielder: Darwin Barney

umm...

[toonsterwu]

Best Defensive Infielder: Darwin Barney

umm...

 

umm what? I don't see anything wrong with that, in all honesty. There are guys with more upside ... namely, Lee. But Darwin's more consistent, and as I've always said (mostly elsewhere), his athleticism is a bit underrated. He's not a top shelf athlete ... but some folks made him out to be a lot worse.

[toonsterwu]

Also, as it stands now, Szczur needs to tell the Cubs in writing if he'll stick to baseball and then drop football completely. Unless the Cubs give him an extension or overwhelm him financially (a la Samardzija), I think he's going to try the NFL. He can always go back to baseball like, say, Pat White.

 

I think the Cubs need to overwhelm him (say 1 million plus) for him to pass up football. His stock is quite solid in a crop of WR's that's top heavy and drops off real fast. Add in the proliferation of spread offenses, and the success of "Wes Welker" types like Danny Amendoala (and I think Szczur is a better athlete), and I think if he wants to play football, plenty of NFL teams will give him a long look early enough.

 

To be honest, 1 million might not be enough. And if it is ... the Cubs should do it. It's only 500K more than they are promising.

[toonsterwu]

I think Cales is a lock to be on there. He was on the top 30 last year and did nothing to hurt himself.

 

I doubt Beeler makes it. I think Wallach is pretty likely to be on there since BA has liked him in the past.

 

I get the feeling that Cales is either underrated (perhaps by fans - a lot of folks seemed to want to push Shafer over him) or overrated (by Cubs). It feels like the Cubs love him a lot ... but his ceiling is basically that of a setup man, and realistically, he's probably more of a middle relief type. I think he could be a rather effective to good pen arm.

 

Considering how these lists are made, if the Cubs are high on him, I think BA would put him on the back end of a top 30.

[TruffleShuffle]

It feels like the Cubs love him a lot ... but his ceiling is basically that of a setup man, and realistically, he's probably more of a middle relief type. I think he could be a rather effective to good pen arm.

 

last year's bullpen was a nice illustration of how producing effective middle relievers is important, even if they don't have high ceilings or very bright futures.

[craig]

Mateo ... is just a bullpen arm, probably with very little hope of being a closer. I know he has good stuff, but I don't see them ranking him at this point, because of his age and the fact that he's a setup guy at best, most likely... In the end, I think our system is too deep for a guy like Mateo to hang onto a spot again.

 

I'd guess that the same all applies to Cales, other than:

1. the good stuff. (Mateo's arm, fastball, and slider are all much bigger than Cales)

2. The age. Mateo is 26, Cales will turn 24 this summer)

 

But neither is going to be more than a middle reliever/setup guy. If that role keeps Mateo from the list, it also should preclude Cales, only more so.

 

I'm not lobbying for Mateo, by the way. I actually prefer Cales, myself, because he's younger, because his control is better, because he's something of a groundballer, and because the prospect of a quirky delivery appeals to me and could give him some deception. But for no good reason, I'm trying to analyze/guesstimate who their list will include. (For no good reason; who cares what they think or which not-perfect-but-got-a-chance guys they have at 29 and on the list, versus at 33 or 37 and not on the list? Their slotting Mateo at 29 and Cales at 39 would have no impact on whether or not either guy becomes a useful setup guy.)

 

Like I say, I prefer Cales myself, because of the control factor and the possible HR avoidance.

 

Just as an entertainment thing, a cookie-cutter fastball/slider Mateo with not enough command, that a common story. But the prospect of the short overweight Cales who doesn't throw that hard but with a funky delivery, that's a much more interesting and entertaining story.

[craig]

...

last year's bullpen was a nice illustration of how producing effective middle relievers is important, even if they don't have high ceilings or very bright futures.

 

Amen. Bad 6th/7th inning relievers can kill you as much as bad 8th/9th inning guys.

 

Sometimes worse, I think. When the 6th/7th inning type guys are bad, managers like Dusty tend to keep their Priors in for 130 pitches. Or go to their one or two capable setup relievers so often that by July they are fried and they aren't any good anymore either.

[sneakypower]

Best Defensive Infielder: Darwin Barney

umm...

 

umm what? I don't see anything wrong with that, in all honesty. There are guys with more upside ... namely, Lee. But Darwin's more consistent, and as I've always said (mostly elsewhere), his athleticism is a bit underrated. He's not a top shelf athlete ... but some folks made him out to be a lot worse.

Lee's what, "Omar Vizquel with a better arm" or whatever, but not even our best infielder?

[Rob]

Best Defensive Infielder: Darwin Barney

umm...

 

umm what? I don't see anything wrong with that, in all honesty. There are guys with more upside ... namely, Lee. But Darwin's more consistent, and as I've always said (mostly elsewhere), his athleticism is a bit underrated. He's not a top shelf athlete ... but some folks made him out to be a lot worse.

Lee's what, "Omar Vizquel with a better arm" or whatever, but not even our best infielder?

 

And Brett Jackson was rated the Best Power Hitter in our system despite the fact that Golden has a ceiling of a plus-plus power. The ranking is based on current skill level, not ceiling.

[toonsterwu]

Best Defensive Infielder: Darwin Barney

umm...

 

umm what? I don't see anything wrong with that, in all honesty. There are guys with more upside ... namely, Lee. But Darwin's more consistent, and as I've always said (mostly elsewhere), his athleticism is a bit underrated. He's not a top shelf athlete ... but some folks made him out to be a lot worse.

Lee's what, "Omar Vizquel with a better arm" or whatever, but not even our best infielder?

 

Lee has loads of defensive potential, but he's really raw in some areas and has work to do. If Darwin Barney was starting next year in the bigs (not that he will be), I think there's a chance he's a top defensive player at short. As rob notes, the rankings are a reflection of current ability and potential.

[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

 

With the trade of Archer, Lee, Guyer and Chirinos, here's what BA's list would look like:

 

1. Brett Jackson

2. Trey McNutt

3. Josh Vitters

4. Chris Carpenter

5. Hayden Simpson

6. Matt Szczur

7. Rafael Dolis

8. Alberto Cabrera

9. ?

10. ?

13. Welington Castillo

17. Logan Watkins

18. Ryan Flaherty

27. Matt Cerda

 

And, of course, Szczur might not be in the organization by next month.

[davell]

Yeah, we need a hell of an IFA period and draft in order for this system to replenish what we lost. Of course, we could still wind up as sellers at the deadline, helping this cause out as well.

[CubsWin]

This just makes it all the more important to sign Szczur. If Ricketts meant he's all about building through the system, then do what it takes to sign him.

[davell]

I was looking through our system last night and thought we needed to go hitting heavy in this upcoming draft. Losing Lee, Guyer, and Chirinos makes me think is a true necessity now. I know Archer is the top guy, but we've still got plenty of intriguing arms. You move past Brett and Vitters and our system is pathetic as far as hitting goes, unless Golden comes through and even if he does, it's still weak as hell.

 

If one of the bigtime pitchers is there for us in the 1st, I think you have to take them. And that's where the strength of this draft is at. But, after the 1st round, I can honestly say I hope we take hitting with maybe 8 of our next 9 picks.