Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters called up!

[KingCubsFan]

We're totally going to platoon Vitters so he can OPS .900 for 2 months and then trade him for someone that would've seemed impossible in May.

Exactly what I thought when I read Sveum's quote.

[Theo]

Has there ever been a Cubs team this bad, that is this fun to watch? It's seriously going to be fun as hell watching the last two months of the season to see how Rizzo, Jackson and Vitters do. I love this new regime.

[Irishoshea21]

Has there ever been a Cubs team this bad, that is this fun to watch? It's seriously going to be fun as hell watching the last two months of the season to see how Rizzo, Jackson and Vitters do. I love this new regime.

 

I don't know man, watching Jose Nieves mature was a blast.

[Theo]

I preferred the baton pass to Julio Zuleta

[toonsterwu]

I seem to be late to every exciting Cubs news, but my 2 cents -

 

This is as excited as I've been about a stretch of Cubs games in a couple years now. It's not that I have superbly high expectations for what Vitters and Jackson can do in 2 months. I mean, I'm not expecting either of them to hit the way that Rizzo did at the start of his run. I think I expect Jackson to be a solid defensive player who should do enough offensively, at least, relative to moderate rookie expectations (if i had to use a number as a measuring stick, I'd say I'm looking for a .725 to .750 OPS, with a low batting average, say, in the .240-.260 range). I don't know what to expect out of Vitters, particularly after reading Sveum's comments on how he's going to be used, but I am curious to see what Vitters might be able to offer.

 

I'm more excited because this means that we, as fans, will get some better clarity on the future, and in all likelihood, so will the front office. Rather than utilizing 2013 as a partial trial year on Vitters/Jackson, we get to see them now. While the SS may not be enough to make any final judgments, it could help clarify expectations for these guys, and particularly, whether or not they are a part of the long-term future. If they don't look to be potential core assets, then the FO can plan accordingly. They got Villanueva in as another third base option, and Junior Lake is still hanging around. CF is obviously a deep spot in the system. Maybe this gives the FO more flexibility in moving them for other pieces.

 

But ... if they succeed, or do well enough to anticipate them being core pieces for the future? Then, with Castro/Rizzo and these two, or 1 of the two, they could conceivably contemplate accelerating the rebuilding process. Maybe that would give them more motivation to keep Garza around, if they feel the offensive pieces are better than expected. Maybe that would push them to be more aggressive in FA this winter, to add to the core.

 

Either way, by the end of September, we should have a bit more clarity on the future, and that is exciting. Here is to hoping that the clarity these two months will bring is positive news, but it's a good step.

[Guest]

this will be an interesting experiment for cubs fans. a highly rated prospect is coming up and is undoubtedly going to strike out at a ridiculous rate. however, he's white. so will he still get booed?

[rawaction]

Question mark removed. I think we can call this official at this point.

[Little Slide Rooter]

In a corresponding move, the Iowa Cubs have been demoted to the CanAm League.

[Irrelevant Dude]

These call-ups makes the Cubs much more interesting for the rest of the year, but if the they were really high on Vitters I don't see the point in mixing and matching him against certain pitchers. That makes me think they aren't high on him at all and the offseason trade scenario may be likely.

[El Duderino]

For some weird reason, I think Brett will now have had a different number for every level he's played at since college.

[Irrelevant Dude]

I'm feeling a Soriano trade next to continue the youth movement.

 

I don't think so actually. The Cubs would have a huge power void in the lineup without Soriano. And while it's not ideal to have him on a rebuilding team, it's less ideal to trade him for nothing and still pay him to play for another team. The power/production isn't likely to be replaced by anyone the Cubs can reasonably sign or trade for this offseason, so Soriano does have a clear purpose on this team.

I agree. I can't believe how much my opinion of Soriano has changed over the past year, but at this point I see absolutely no reason to dump him. Unless he is clearly blocking someone, which he isn't, then the Cubs might as well keep him as their starting Left Fielder. If he can put similar numbers up next year, he should have even greater trade value at the deadline with only the 1 year remaining on his contract.

[Theo]

Why didn't Brett take #3

[Guest]

shades of dero

[Vinestal]

Pointless and detrimental to Vitters development to call him up to sit on the bench, they must really not think much of him as a prospect. *sigh* oh well

[Guest]

i'm still convinced they're going to trade him.

[KingCubsFan]

Pointless and detrimental to Vitters development to call him up to sit on the bench, they must really not think much of him as a prospect. *sigh* oh well

My guess is what they'll say is they want him to work more with the coaching staff on his defense before he plays every day. In actuality, they're picking their spots to inflate his numbers for trade purposes.

[23sharks]

Glad they called them both up. I'm heading to San Diego tomorrow to catch the Mon and Tues games, gives me something to look forward to...

[Guest]

It's also quite possible that they are easing him into the lineup because of Vitters' history of struggling at a new level. Perhaps they feel it will be an easier adjustment for him this way.

[toonsterwu]

It's also quite possible that they are easing him into the lineup because of Vitters' history of struggling at a new level. Perhaps they feel it will be an easier adjustment for him this way.

 

I'm not exactly on the Vitters bandwagon, but while I think the trade potential is likely, I think Tim's point here might be a big part of the reason as well. See if he can't get some positive things going before putting him in there against tougher righties.

 

So far, good start for Brett Jackson ... while I thought the repeated mentions of the Hanley situation was a bit overboard ... here's hoping (although I'm not expecting).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not convinced either can hold a starting job in 2013, or that the Cubs front office is interested in letting either try. But it'd be awesome if both just came in and played well from day one and got the jobs. The frugality nerd in me is fascinated by the lineup they could put out there next year, with five pre-arb guys (Vitters, either catcher, Jackson, Rizzo, Barney), plus Castro in his first arb year.

[Theo]

A warm corpse could win those two jobs considering your competition is Luis Valbeuno and Brian LaHair.

[Guest]

HOT SPORTS OPINIONS

[biittner77]

It's also quite possible that they are easing him into the lineup because of Vitters' history of struggling at a new level. Perhaps they feel it will be an easier adjustment for him this way.

 

Isn't Blanton the exact guy that you'd want Vitters to face though? Not overpowering, usually around the plate, gets hit pretty hard at times. If they were trying to inflate his stats to raise trade value, why not just leave him in the PCL?

[BCVM22]

Brett comes with a ready-made nickname, I'd think...

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r71/bcvm22/sigzeon/action_jackson_small.png

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'm starting to think that the starting offense we see over the next 2 months is very similar to what we'll see next Spring. The only difference is that either Soriano will be traded by the deadline or DeJesus in the winter. They could be replaced via trade or FA, but I could also see Vitters moved to the OF with Stewart back at 3rd. Yup, still rooting for Stewart.