Minor League Discussion & Boxes 5-22-12

[Splendid Splinter]

Brett Jackson getting the day off.

 

Hopefully they'll give him another day off tomorrow as well.

 

Why do you think that?

 

 

El Duderino already mentioned it... He sat out a couple days because of back injury recently and IMO it's bothering him more than he's letting on and his game suffers as a result. Just give him a couple days to rest up and get his mind off of the Ks/slump/etc...

 

Jackson struck out a ton in college and many questioned whether his lack of contact would be his eventual downfall. You have no clue on whether or not an injury is bothering him. This isn't some shocking evaluation - he strikes out a ton - always has.

 

Wilken has whiffed on pretty much every first round pick he chose here -- paint me pessimistic until proven otherwise. I mean just off the top of my head - Colvin (garbage), Cashner (struggling - but projects well IMO), Simpson (complete joke), Vitters (close to chalking this one up as a loss), etc.

 

Really.... Really??? Well... duh. I know he strikes out a ton. Dude also produced while striking out a ton for his entire minor league career. I'm also pretty sure he never had a slump like this (with a HUGE % of the outs being Ks). Of course I don't have a clue if the back injury is bothering him or not. I'm just guessing it is because it "probably" started when he first hurt it (I'm guessing early May) and he's been racking up Ks since then. It's to the point where it's out of the norm... even for a guy like B Jax. I mean isn't his K% is like at 45-50% since he came back? That's unreal and no way it'll stay up there.

 

I'm not sure why you went on and talked about Wilken afterwards.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Junior Lake is 2-4 with a HR tonight.

[toonsterwu]

What's always bothered me about BJax's K's is this - what's his fault? You can usually find some sort of glaring fault. Yes, he has a little hitch/hole in his swing. Yes, he occasionally chases.

 

But ... he isn't a hacker, he has a decent eye at the plate, and the swing hole isn't that big, to my understanding. Leaving aside his little spell of late, it's always bothered me why he couldn't bring that K rate down to around 25% or so.

 

I'm sure maybe someone more knowledgeable has a good answer, but on the surface, always wondered why he K'd so much.

[RammyFanny]

Whitenack to Daytona.

[toonsterwu]

Whitenack to Daytona.

 

nice ... but with Whitenack and Francescon ... someone's getting dumped. My guess is one lefty, one righty. Or maybe my other suggestion, Jokisch moving up to pen duty in AA, occurs.

[Guest]

Whitenack to Daytona.

 

Well never mind what I said a page ago.

[Guest]

Whitenack to Daytona.

 

nice ... but with Whitenack and Francescon ... someone's getting dumped. My guess is one lefty, one righty. Or maybe my other suggestion, Jokisch moving up to pen duty in AA, occurs.

 

You're kind of right - Brooks Raley to Iowa, Eric Jokisch to Tennessee. I'm guessing Jokisch will start still.

[toonsterwu]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

c) By 2009, I was a huge fan of the 2008 draft. Of course, a lot of it ended up floundering. I don't recall being gigantically huge on Cashner when the pick was made. Loved the fact that he went after athletic pitchers.

 

d) Felt lukewarm about the 09 draft. Jackson was my preferred target of the OF's being discussed. But the rest of the early picks ... wasn't in love with some of the top 10 round guys. Of course, if BJax makes the bigs, and if Whitenack finds his form, and if one of Rusin/Raley/Kirk see time in the bigs ... it's actually a pretty good draft.

 

Think it's early to judge 2010 and 2011, but I've been fairly clear that I quite enjoyed some of the arm gambles in 2010 and that I never had a huge issue with the Simpson pick. I recall feeling pretty good about our top 10 round picks. And obviously, with the money spent in 2011, well, we're all hopeful.

[toonsterwu]

Whitenack to Daytona.

 

nice ... but with Whitenack and Francescon ... someone's getting dumped. My guess is one lefty, one righty. Or maybe my other suggestion, Jokisch moving up to pen duty in AA, occurs.

 

You're kind of right - Brooks Raley to Iowa, Eric Jokisch to Tennessee. I'm guessing Jokisch will start still.

 

I hope he doesn't ... because if he does, that makes it seem likely that the Antigua thing was a one-off. That said, guessing Antigua goes back to pen duty.

 

A s a side note, someone still has to get moved from the Daytona rotation. Wonder who the unlucky chap is.

Edited May 23, 2012 by toonsterwu

[Guest]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

c) By 2009, I was a huge fan of the 2008 draft. Of course, a lot of it ended up floundering. I don't recall being gigantically huge on Cashner when the pick was made. Loved the fact that he went after athletic pitchers.

 

d) Felt lukewarm about the 09 draft. Jackson was my preferred target of the OF's being discussed. But the rest of the early picks ... wasn't in love with some of the top 10 round guys. Of course, if BJax makes the bigs, and if Whitenack finds his form, and if one of Rusin/Raley/Kirk see time in the bigs ... it's actually a pretty good draft.

 

Think it's early to judge 2010 and 2011, but I've been fairly clear that I quite enjoyed some of the arm gambles in 2010 and that I never had a huge issue with the Simpson pick. I recall feeling pretty good about our top 10 round picks. And obviously, with the money spent in 2011, well, we're all hopeful.

 

Or McNutt or Struck.

[Splendid Splinter]

What's always bothered me about BJax's K's is this - what's his fault? You can usually find some sort of glaring fault. Yes, he has a little hitch/hole in his swing. Yes, he occasionally chases.

 

But ... he isn't a hacker, he has a decent eye at the plate, and the swing hole isn't that big, to my understanding. Leaving aside his little spell of late, it's always bothered me why he couldn't bring that K rate down to around 25% or so.

 

I'm sure maybe someone more knowledgeable has a good answer, but on the surface, always wondered why he K'd so much.

 

Here's the thing... He was at or BELOW 25% until he got to AAA. Good thing is that he's at like 12% BB rate since A+ ball so he's still getting his walks. I can't tell you why he Ks so much because I haven't seen enough of him and the games I've seen of him so far (3 games in Peoria and 1 in Tennessee), he had good games. Could it be that he's a bad 2 strike hitter?

 

2009

A-: 88 ABs- 18.9%

A: 112 ABs- 25%

 

2010

A+: 263 ABs- 20.2%

AA: 228 ABs- 23.5%

 

2011

AA: 246 ABs- 24.9%

AAA: 185 ABs- 29.8%

 

2012

AAA: 153 ABs- 30.5%

 

 

 

I decided to check... This year B Jax has a 0:25 BB:K when he's behind the count.

[craig]

2009

A-: 88 ABs- 18.9%

A: 112 ABs- 25%

2010

A+: 263 ABs- 20.2%

AA: 228 ABs- 23.5%

2011

AA: 246 ABs- 24.9%

AAA: 185 ABs- 29.8%

2012

AAA: 153 ABs- 30.5%

 

I decided to check... This year B Jax has a 0:25 BB:K when he's behind the count.

 

Those numbers are per PA, right? I know he was at around 35% per AB at Iowa last year.

Those numbers suggest what's probably typical for the vast majority of baseball players: K's usually go up with level. As he's worked from A- to A+ to AA to AAA, the K-rate continues to grow. And 23-25% is very high to start with, especially relative to PA rather than AB. But the jump to AAA has been pretty severe.

 

Too many breaking balls? He's something of a guess-hitter, and it's harder to guess right against more experienced multi-pitch junkballing AAA guys? It's just gone to his head and he's just a mess now?

[Splendid Splinter]

2009

A-: 88 ABs- 18.9%

A: 112 ABs- 25%

2010

A+: 263 ABs- 20.2%

AA: 228 ABs- 23.5%

2011

AA: 246 ABs- 24.9%

AAA: 185 ABs- 29.8%

2012

AAA: 153 ABs- 30.5%

 

I decided to check... This year B Jax has a 0:25 BB:K when he's behind the count.

 

Those numbers are per PA, right? I know he was at around 35% per AB at Iowa last year.

Those numbers suggest what's probably typical for the vast majority of baseball players: K's usually go up with level. As he's worked from A- to A+ to AA to AAA, the K-rate continues to grow. And 23-25% is very high to start with, especially relative to PA rather than AB. But the jump to AAA has been pretty severe.

 

Too many breaking balls? He's something of a guess-hitter, and it's harder to guess right against more experienced multi-pitch junkballing AAA guys? It's just gone to his head and he's just a mess now?

 

 

Oops... those are ABs at each level, not PA. So it would be 106/128 in 2009, 312/268 in 2010, 297/215 last year and 182 so far this year.

[craig]

Cates got sent down from Daytona to XST.

[jersey cubs fan]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss.

[jersey cubs fan]

can we trade Castro ASAP and callup Lake?

[Guest]

can we trade Castro ASAP and callup Lake?

Nah, we'd get even more teeth gnashing about having to move our SS to a different position. But they'd probably be right in that case. Lake made two more errors yesterday to bring his total to eight. For the month.

[davell]

I'm not going to give Wilken a pass here at all. To me, the record speaks on it's own. And that's what we have to go off of. But, I do wonder if JH helped out in all of this a little too much. We typically would only be good for one solid overslot guy and they always would hang their hat on how many "major leaguers" are getting produced. Even if it were role players galore. The philosophy seemed to be a mixture of safe and cheap, for the most part. Whether it was more Wilken or Hendry is irrelevant to me honestly. But in the end, since Wilken's the scouting director. I put the blame on him. Because if he didn't agree with the philosophy, he didn't have to be here.

[StarlinOnYou]

El Duderino already mentioned it... He sat out a couple days because of back injury recently and IMO it's bothering him more than he's letting on and his game suffers as a result. Just give him a couple days to rest up and get his mind off of the Ks/slump/etc...

 

Jackson struck out a ton in college and many questioned whether his lack of contact would be his eventual downfall. You have no clue on whether or not an injury is bothering him. This isn't some shocking evaluation - he strikes out a ton - always has.

 

Wilken has whiffed on pretty much every first round pick he chose here -- paint me pessimistic until proven otherwise. I mean just off the top of my head - Colvin (garbage), Cashner (struggling - but projects well IMO), Simpson (complete joke), Vitters (close to chalking this one up as a loss), etc.

 

Really.... Really??? Well... duh. I know he strikes out a ton. Dude also produced while striking out a ton for his entire minor league career. I'm also pretty sure he never had a slump like this (with a HUGE % of the outs being Ks). Of course I don't have a clue if the back injury is bothering him or not. I'm just guessing it is because it "probably" started when he first hurt it (I'm guessing early May) and he's been racking up Ks since then. It's to the point where it's out of the norm... even for a guy like B Jax. I mean isn't his K% is like at 45-50% since he came back? That's unreal and no way it'll stay up there.

 

I'm not sure why you went on and talked about Wilken afterwards.

 

I didn't mean for my post to come across so rudely. I typed it in a rush. What I was trying to say is that over the past month or so many are coming up with excuses for him about his strike outs whether it be he's injured or pressing for the new bosses.

 

It is one thing to make these excuses if he didn't normally strike out a bunch, but this is exactly who he has always been.

 

As for why I brought up Wilken - I have no respect for his eye as a talent evaluator. So, color me pessimistic until he drafts something even close to an impact player. His track record here is beyond poor. I don't see any reason on why he should have a job here in Chicago still.

[scarey]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss.

 

 

The thing is... what player that was drafted in the first round after Colvin would you have rather Wilken drafted? Drabek looks like he may have things figured out and Kennedy had a good year last year but is off to a rough start this year. There is absolutely no success outside of those two.

 

There were a whole lot of misses in the first round of the '06 draft. There often is, but the '06 draft was especially dreadful.

 

Also, after last year's draft, it sounds like Wilken and RIcketts were insinuating that there were major financial restrictions put on the draft pre-Ricketts ownership. It's a shame that over slots won't be a major component in drafting going forward, because it seems like Wilken is quite productive with some money to spend.

[rawaction]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss.

 

 

The thing is... what player that was drafted in the first round after Colvin would you have rather Wilken drafted? Drabek looks like he may have things figured out and Kennedy had a good year last year but is off to a rough start this year. There is absolutely no success outside of those two.

 

There were a whole lot of misses in the first round of the '06 draft. There often is, but the '06 draft was especially dreadful.

 

Also, after last year's draft, it sounds like Wilken and RIcketts were insinuating that there were major financial restrictions put on the draft pre-Ricketts ownership. It's a shame that over slots won't be a major component in drafting going forward, because it seems like Wilken is quite productive with some money to spend.

 

That's not really a good argument either.

[scarey]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss.

 

 

The thing is... what player that was drafted in the first round after Colvin would you have rather Wilken drafted? Drabek looks like he may have things figured out and Kennedy had a good year last year but is off to a rough start this year. There is absolutely no success outside of those two.

 

There were a whole lot of misses in the first round of the '06 draft. There often is, but the '06 draft was especially dreadful.

 

Also, after last year's draft, it sounds like Wilken and RIcketts were insinuating that there were major financial restrictions put on the draft pre-Ricketts ownership. It's a shame that over slots won't be a major component in drafting going forward, because it seems like Wilken is quite productive with some money to spend.

 

That's not really a good argument either.

 

The fact that Wilken wasn't the only guy that missed in that draft isn't a good argument? Everyone wants to complain that he reached for Colvin, but the guys that he should have picked like Travis Snider, Matt Antonelli, and Hank Conger were also misses too.

 

Everybody makes a big deal about where draft gurus say a certain player should go and take it as gospel. The fact is, this isn't the NFL draft where the talking heads are able to at least see hours of game footage on these players to make their judgements. Making a big deal about who is and isn't a reach just seems like you're placing a whole lot of faith in guys that, don't have a whole heck of a lot to go on despite the fact that they may know more than you and me.

[sneakypower]

how is Conger a miss? he's 24 and has already acquitted himself very well at AAA; that's probably ahead of the curve for a catcher prospect

[toonsterwu]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss.

 

Sorry, what I meant to say is I never faulted him for the 2006 draft because of all the picks that he were pissing. THat would've been the keypoint. I had no real big issue with the Colvin pick at the time ... he was going to go in the next 10-15 picks, so it wasn't a horrible reach (he was picked mid first, all indications are that he was going to go late first). We don't know the dynamics behind a Colvin/Samardzija decision that, in that, we don't know if the latter led them to save money on the former and go with a 10-15 spot reach (which really shouldn't be considered a reach ... at least, relative to football drafts, most teams go by tiers of talent, so a 10-15 spot gap isn't considered an issue). It should be remembered that the Shark pick was something that surprised most Cubs fans (on most of the sites I was on at the time) because the general thought was that he would be hard to sign, and it was assumed that they had insider knowledge of some sort (because of Hendry-Maineri's relationship), which allowed them to plan accordingly.

 

So no ... I did not fault him for the 2006 draft because of all the picks missing, and I didn't mind the Colvin pick. That's my take. I'm sure others, like yourself, may feel different.

[toonsterwu]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss.

 

 

The thing is... what player that was drafted in the first round after Colvin would you have rather Wilken drafted? Drabek looks like he may have things figured out and Kennedy had a good year last year but is off to a rough start this year. There is absolutely no success outside of those two.

 

There were a whole lot of misses in the first round of the '06 draft. There often is, but the '06 draft was especially dreadful.

 

Also, after last year's draft, it sounds like Wilken and RIcketts were insinuating that there were major financial restrictions put on the draft pre-Ricketts ownership. It's a shame that over slots won't be a major component in drafting going forward, because it seems like Wilken is quite productive with some money to spend.

 

Here's my general thing - I didn't mind Wilken's philosophy on what type of guys to take because of the limitations that he had. Scouting directors will miss like crazy (what's the old saying, get 2 major leaguers in one draft and it's a success?). If I'm really going to fault anything about Wilken, it's that he didn't spend a bit more effort trying to find power bats ... but admittedly, a lot of key power bats are the expensive prep guys in the draft, guys that we would've had a difficult time picking considering the budgets and limitations that we now knew were in place pre-Ricketts. Now, that doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried ... something ... I don't know what, but something , but he did take Vitters and Jackson, and Jackson was one of the better power bats available at the spot.

 

But his philosophy on taking up-the-middle guys and athletic pitchers? Vaguely similar to McLeod's philosophy. Wilken's guys might have a bit more risk in them, but how much of that was Hendry influenced, I don't know (Wilken once gave an interview saying that Hendry's influence had him going with arms ahead of bats, IIRC). Probably not completely, as he took some risks in his successful tenure in Toronto, and even with Tampa Bay.