Cubs on deck for Sickels

[Little Slide Rooter]

Somewhat surprised by some of Sickels list, but I like it. Rather surprised that he puts Jackson ahead of Rizzo as being a more complete player. That's pretty good considering that Rizzo is said to be a top 40 guy. Also surprised that 3 of the top 20 are guys acquired in the past few weeks (Cates, Sappelt, Torryes). Have any other lists rankes Vogelsbach or Rhee that high?

[toonsterwu]

General sentiment on Ha is that his defense in CF was at least good this year. Some had it plus, and some suggested he was perhaps the best defensive CF in the system, which is heady praise. The tweener label gets thrown on him by folks, though. Didn't feel like questioning him on it, but maybe someone should.

 

I honestly thought I would be in the minority with Jackson ahead of Rizzo, but it seems like a lot more people like Jackson than I thought. He's ahead of Rizzo on KG, Callis, and Pilere's lists.

[Guest]

The one I just don't get is Ha. I guess with his tweener comment Sickels must not be high on his defense in center. Because other than that, you have a center fielder with decent power. Doesn't walk much but doesn't strike out that much either. He put up ok numbers last year, and will be 21 all of next year in AA. I don't see how a guy like that doesn't crack the top 25 unless you just absolutely believe he has to move to a corner. Haven't we heard by some scouts that he's an excellent defender in center and by others that he'll have to move?

 

Agreed, that comment made no sense.

[craig]

I think the Cub prospects are so bunched that it's hard to really organize, so I can't much fault Sickels a whole lot. Plus it's hard to know where to rank so many of the guys who haven't played above Rookie ball. Of his front 24, Baez, Maples Vogelbach, candelareo, Hernandez, Amaya, Zych, and Dunston have at best rookie league experience, and really Hernandez and Amaya are the only ones who even have any positive rookie-league performance. Add in Wells and Golden, and basically half of the list aren't full-season. So it's really tough (as we all understand), and I can't fault Sickels for maybe having some that will look goofy later.

 

Given those factors, and given the usual issues of hitters vs pitchers, and where to put guys with more physical gifts but poorer performance or control, I don't have too much fuss with his list.

 

But things I definitely disagree with:

1. Torreyes not being higher. I'm almost certain from comments from Cub personnel and scouts that they value Torreyes more highly than Sappelt. I have no reason not to go with the Cubs view and to have torreyes higher. I'd certainly put him ahead of Hernandez (as well as Amaya.)

2. Dunston being listed. Several of you have fussed about Ha not being higher and being viewed as a tweener. Given all the other CFers in the system (Jackson ahead, Szczur behind, and others further behind...), I have serious doubts that Ha is going to play much CF for the Cubs. And the doubts about his ability to hit for RF power for the Cubs is more than fair. But, jsut as a pure prospect, he's a mile ahead of Dunston on my list.

3. Reggie Golden. When you have so much trouble hitting the ball, and has other problems (defensive issues, perhaps weight control), I'm not putting you ahead of Ha or Beliveau.

 

 

I don't think Sickels's lists are that great; I don't think he knows a whole lot of scouts. So to some degree, I get the feeling his lists are n't really any more authoritative than any of us could create. I think he has his age/stats saber stuff, and he reads some scouting stuff, and makes his list. Not much different than what I might do, except that I probably follow Cubs prospects closer than he does. And while he may not have tons of scouts, he probably has at least some, unlike me.

[craig]

You know, if there's one thing I don't like about the list, it's his suggestion that Beeler isn't a C+ and that Cates gets ranked that much higher. Most suggestions are that Beeler didn't lose stuff in AA - he just wasn't polished enough. That said, deeper arsenal (3 pitches he can go to, compared to 2.5 for Cates), only 6 months older WHILE having missed some time due to TJ, gets ground balls, arguably better life on the fastball, and better control (suggesting a better chance at developing into a starter). I really wonder, as Sickels seems to suggest it's performance related why he downgraded Beeler, if Beeler had chewed up Low A all year at his rates of 7+ K/9, sub 2 BB/9, if Beeler would've been higher.

 

A bit nitpicking, but that's the only thing that really, really, stands out to me.

 

That's interesting. You seem to have gotten some much more favorable buzz on Beeler's stuff than anything I've read. I think the 3 vs 2.5 pitches argument for Beeler over Cates is good, but it depends on how good the pitches are. I wasn't under the impression that Beeler had any signature good pitch. Whereas I get the impression that Cates's changeup might be quite good. And I also had the impression that Cates's fastball might be better, in terms of velocity and perhaps also movement.

 

I may be wrong for sure. But Cates would be ahead of Beeler on my list too. Not sure how much McLeod likes Beeler, but I wouldn't be surprised if he went after Cates because he too thinks his potential is pretty good.

[jumbo]

But things I definitely disagree with:

1. Torreyes not being higher. I'm almost certain from comments from Cub personnel and scouts that they value Torreyes more highly than Sappelt. I have no reason not to go with the Cubs view and to have torreyes higher. I'd certainly put him ahead of Hernandez (as well as Amaya.)

 

I posted this on another site about Torreyes:

 

 

Player Age Level KRate BB Rate AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS

Player A 19 A+ 10.6 4.9 299/334/388/722

Player B 18 A 6.3 4.6 356/391/457/848

 

Player B is Torreyes (fueled by a 375 BABIP)

Player A is Starlin Castro (with a 331 BABIP)

 

I'm not saying Torreyes will be in the majors in two years like Castro, but they both possess a great contact tool. Torreyes may have a better contact tool than Castro if you believe that his strikeout rate can indicate that. Maybe someone else can provide some insight there.

I also was impressed that his slugging was so high, but I guess that is also impacted by his high BABIP.

 

My main point is that I'm excited about Torreyes

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But things I definitely disagree with:

1. Torreyes not being higher. I'm almost certain from comments from Cub personnel and scouts that they value Torreyes more highly than Sappelt. I have no reason not to go with the Cubs view and to have torreyes higher. I'd certainly put him ahead of Hernandez (as well as Amaya.)

 

I posted this on another site about Torreyes:

 

 

Player Age Level KRate BB Rate AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS

Player A 19 A+ 10.6 4.9 299/334/388/722

Player B 18 A 6.3 4.6 356/391/457/848

 

Player B is Torreyes (fueled by a 375 BABIP)

Player A is Starlin Castro (with a 331 BABIP)

 

I'm not saying Torreyes will be in the majors in two years like Castro, but they both possess a great contact tool. Torreyes may have a better contact tool than Castro if you believe that his strikeout rate can indicate that. Maybe someone else can provide some insight there.

I also was impressed that his slugging was so high, but I guess that is also impacted by his high BABIP.

 

My main point is that I'm excited about Torreyes

 

I really wish someone could come up with a good contact comp for Torreyes. Even guys with supposedly great contact tools struck out twice as much as he did at comparable levels.

[jumbo]

I really wish someone could come up with a good contact comp for Torreyes. Even guys with supposedly great contact tools struck out twice as much as he did at comparable levels.

 

http://firstinning.com/stats/?type=batting&min=350&lg=NL&season=2011&t=exp&asc=so

 

Last year, Jose Reyes had the lowest K rate in MLB at 7.0%.

 

Link above is players with over 350 PA. Only 9 players under 10%

[TruffleShuffle]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=callas001alb

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=keppin001jef

[toonsterwu]

You know, if there's one thing I don't like about the list, it's his suggestion that Beeler isn't a C+ and that Cates gets ranked that much higher. Most suggestions are that Beeler didn't lose stuff in AA - he just wasn't polished enough. That said, deeper arsenal (3 pitches he can go to, compared to 2.5 for Cates), only 6 months older WHILE having missed some time due to TJ, gets ground balls, arguably better life on the fastball, and better control (suggesting a better chance at developing into a starter). I really wonder, as Sickels seems to suggest it's performance related why he downgraded Beeler, if Beeler had chewed up Low A all year at his rates of 7+ K/9, sub 2 BB/9, if Beeler would've been higher.

 

A bit nitpicking, but that's the only thing that really, really, stands out to me.

 

That's interesting. You seem to have gotten some much more favorable buzz on Beeler's stuff than anything I've read. I think the 3 vs 2.5 pitches argument for Beeler over Cates is good, but it depends on how good the pitches are. I wasn't under the impression that Beeler had any signature good pitch. Whereas I get the impression that Cates's changeup might be quite good. And I also had the impression that Cates's fastball might be better, in terms of velocity and perhaps also movement.

 

I may be wrong for sure. But Cates would be ahead of Beeler on my list too. Not sure how much McLeod likes Beeler, but I wouldn't be surprised if he went after Cates because he too thinks his potential is pretty good.

 

After reading BA's writeup on Cates, I'm hard pressed to put him in our top 20. They have Cates as low 90's fastball with sink, decent change with average potential, and new breaking ball. Btw, most suggest that Beeler's sinker is a borderline plus pitch. From the stands, it looks to have a hard dropping action, but that could be flawed based on my angle seeing him.

[toonsterwu]

Btw, craig, there were many scouts this year that would swear that Ha was a legitimate plus CF (and there were guys that didn't think Brett and Matt were anything more than above average).

 

As for Torreyes, I think I'm one of the few that you'll find significantly bullish on Hernandez, enough to put him ahead of Torreyes by a fair amount (even in Sickels case, we're talking to C+ prospects for him, and he's always said that the C+'s could be ordered in any way). I guess KG falls in that group as well (he said, after the trade, that Torreyes would be 11th, and Hernandez was ahead of that), but based on the folks that saw Hernandez play this year, I'm bullish enough to put him a fair amount ahead of Torreyes.

 

The case for Torreyes ahead of Hernandez focuses on performing at a higher level and possibly having a better hit tool. I'd argue, though, that people that saw Hernandez play this year felt that his hit tool was potentially plus as well. He'll strike out more, but most project him to be a possible plus shortstop, so there's some additional positional value that he has on Ronald, and Hernandez has a bit more projection, along with power. Marco is a far riskier pick than Ronald, as he's a bit further away, but on upside and positional value, I think there's definitely a case for Marco ahead of Torreyes. Realistically, if I put aside "gut feeling", the two guys would probably have a similar report on their potential.

 

Btw, I'm about as lukewarm on Torreyes as you'll find, but he should definitely be a lock ahead of Amaya as of now. Amaya's lack of power potential really pushes his ideal position to 2nd, and Torreyes is simply more polished than him, with better upside, and less risky as a 2nd base prospect.

 

Oh, I agree on Dunston. As intriguing as he is, no way did I think he deserved to be listed. Golden, well, I can understand the case for having Beliveau lower (if grading based on future value relative to role a player might fill). I think placing Golden there isn't that bad - the fact that Golden, who was so raw out of HS, showed a better eye at the plate than we thought speaks well for him. It's much easier to teach a kid to fix his swing than to develop eye/instinct. I doubt Golden will ever be the type of kid that strikes out say, sub 20%, but I think a lot of the high rankings you get on Golden is focused on the upside, with the hope that since he was so raw, that he still has a lot of "baseball skills" that needs development, perhaps moreso than some other HS picks.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=callas001alb

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=keppin001jef

 

Those are some good ones.

 

I like the Callaspo comp a lot, but even he struck out a little more (4.6% to 5.0%) and was two years older when he got to the Midwest League.

[TruffleShuffle]

it's really less than a year and a half difference because callaspo has an april birthday and torreyes' birthday is in september. and callaspo jumped to AA in his age 20 season, so torreyes is likely to end up on about the same timetable. i like torreyes quite a bit - even though he's quite young, his hit tool is borderline elite, and guys like that tend to find a home in the majors, even if it's just as a utility guy like keppinger or a decent starter like callaspo.

 

plus they're the same height and they're both venezuelan; everyone prefers to compare brown guys to brown guys and white guys to white guys.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Looking over Sickels list for Tampa Bay, which is known to eb one of the strongest systems in baseball, they have Hak Ju Lee at 2, Brandon Guyer at 7, and Chris Archer at 11. Does this mean that assuming Matt Moore, their #1 starts the season in the big leagues, Lee will be their new #1. Just thought I'd bring it up. We have enough SS depth that I'm not too worried about Lee and I can't see Guyer becoming someone we'd ever really miss. I'm thinking his absolute offensive ceiling is Marlon Byrd which is nothing special for a corner outfielder.

[toonsterwu]

Rays system is more depth right now (and Sickels grades reflect that). They are really banking on guys coming through from this past draft, and maybe guys from last year's class.

 

I wasn't too keen on the Garza trade at the time, but if the Garza of last year is the Garza of the future, or if Garza nets us a heck of a package coming off his excellent year, then it's the risk you take, and it's a justifiable risk. Not too concerned about Guyer. I think he might be a decent starter for a few years, but not the elite corner OF bat that we need.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Sickels posted his ranking of the systems today. The Cubs come in at #20:

 

20) Chicago Cubs: Another middle-of-the-pack system with a lot of B-/C+ type prospects. Could rank much higher next year if some of the lower-level guys pan out.

 

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/1/23/2728027/2012-baseball-farm-system-rankings-prospects

[toonsterwu]

That seems fair to me. You could probably make a case for them to be a few spots higher, but it's a fair range for what I expected.

 

Still think this is a pretty odd time in the minors. I tend to think a couple of the highly praised systems are a bit over-hyped (heavy depth, few impact), but then, if you stopped and pondered it for a second, there does seem to be fewer elite prospects as compared to say some other years.

 

There's also a lot of systems heavily tilted one way, either towards pitching or positional talent.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Have until 1/31/12 to order Sickels' book IIRC. Always worth it...