Who is the #40 Prospect for the Cubs?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Please vote for the Cubs #40 prospect (serious votes only, please!). Please post your rationale below.

 

If someone convinces you that someone else should be higher, please feel free to change your vote anytime between now and Friday.

 

For this vote, you should select the players you feel should be #40, #41 and #42. If we end up with multiple players having similar vote totals at the end of the voting period, there will be a run-off with just those players.

 

Results so far:

 

#1: Javier Baez

#2: Jorge Soler

#3: Albert Almora

#4: Arodys Vizcaino

#5: Dan Vogelbach

#6: Brett Jackson

#7: Juan Paniagua

#8: Christian Villanueva

#9: Dillon Maples

#10: Josh Vitters

#11: Pierce Johnson

#12: Junior Lake

#13: Jeimer Candelario

#14: Duane Underwood

#15: Matt Szczur

#16: Arismendy Alcantara

#17: Ronald Torreyes

#18: Marco Hernandez

#19: Gioskar Amaya

#20: Alberto Cabrera

#21: Logan Watkins

#22: Rob Whitenack

#23: Barrett Loux

#24: Ben Wells

#25: Paul Blackburn

#26: Hector Rondon

#27: Tony Zych

#28: Jae-Hoon Ha

#29: Trey McNutt

#30: Steve Bruno

#31: Michael Jensen

#32: Trey Martin

#33: Tayler Scott

#34: Jose Arias

#35: Ryan McNeil

#36: Jose Rosario

#37: Shawon Dunston Jr.

#38/#39: Austin Reed/Nick Struck

[Cubswin11]

Penalver

Hatley

Golden

Edited February 28, 2013 by Cubswin11

[Little Slide Rooter]

40. Golden: Same as before.

41. Torrez: Was intrigued by his numbers last season. BA write up makes me even more so.

42. Rodriguez: DSL numbers are to be taken with a grain of salt, but still.

[Guest]

Golden/Loosen/Hatley for me.

 

I know we're down to 40, but some of you are way more willing to pick DSL arms than I am.

[toonsterwu]

Very surprised Torrez is getting so many votes.

 

I went Golden, Hatley, and then ... I wasn't sure. I like Loosen ... said it last year. But ... we're talking about a college guy that really doesn't have a plus pitch and without a dominant fastball. Add in a relatively high walk rate for the stuff set. If he put up those numbers in AA, I'd be more inclined to give it a nod here, but I just ... can't for now. I do like him a fair amount.

 

I'm going with Pin-Chieh Chen for now. He starts the year 21, hitting 22 mid-season. There's a solid approach, above average-good (but not plus) speed. There were moments in the last year where you wondered if he had a tiny bit more pop in him, enough to make him a more legitimate threat. I really do wonder if might have a mini-breakout in A+, out of the MWL.

 

There are some similarities to Szczur here, which says as much about Szczur as it does about Chen, but in this case, I'm utilizing it as a plus for Chen. There's solid potential to be a depth OF, and if there's a bit more power, there's a slim chance he has the makings of a starter. The depth of CF talent in the system makes it unlikely he would see starting opportunities here, but that shouldn't impact his ranking.

[Guest]

Very surprised Torrez is getting so many votes.

 

I assume it's SNTS, given his write up by BA earlier this week.

[davell]

Based on reports, the first DSL guy I'll vote for is De La Rosa. And it likely won't be within my next 5-6 guys anyway.

[toonsterwu]

It's pretty amazing that there are guys on this list that a year or two ago, were solid top 30 prospects for the system ... and they didn't take massive steps back this past year (for example, Dallas Beeler took a step back perhaps, but not significantly.)

[craig]

Heh, I'm one of the impulsive voters for Latin and completely unproven guys! My three this time were delaRosa, Torres, and Castillo. One hasn't played in a pro game; one hasn't played one in the US; the 3rd has but hasn't hit much at all.

 

On Torres, being Top 20 in DSL might be pretty significant. As cal mentioned, Candelario and Amaya made that list and have fairly quickly moved into our top-20. It's further down, but in some ways top-20 there may mean a lot more than top-20 in AZL or Northwest, where there are only like 8 teams providing candidates. The DSL had 35 teams. I'd assumed he was just a strike-thrower with little projection; but if he's a true strike-thrower who throws in the 90's with a good and projectible frame, that sounds more interesting to me than Struck or Beeler. Not likely that any of struck/Beeler/Loosen/Torres will end up being above-average major league starters; but while the chance is very small for Torres, it may be almost zero for Struck.

 

In a sense, I'm going for unknown distant guys, who have some favorable scouting and are too unseen or too distant to be sure they'll never be more than mediocre or anti-awful, over guys who seem pretty remote to ever become above-average starters. Of course, I'm not even remotely consistent. I voted for Loosen a few times earlier, and I think Hatley also. But having done so when he wasn't getting voted in, I've gotten bored with that so want to vote for some other guys!

 

I'm also impacted by toonster's posts. He's comped Struck and Loosen a few times, and has persuaded that Struck may be as promising as Loosen. But I'm already certain that Struck's potential is very limited, and he's got no chance to ever become an above-average starter; so if Loosen is really on that par, then I'd rather take a shot on some younger, more distant, more unknown, but somewhat less limited guy. Or at least a guy whose limitations are currently less known to me.

[craig]

It's pretty amazing that there are guys on this list that a year or two ago, were solid top 30 prospects for the system ... and they didn't take massive steps back this past year (for example, Dallas Beeler took a step back perhaps, but not significantly.)

 

I think Beeler took a huge step back. If you're a projection prospect and you aren't improving, you go back. His prospect-hood was based on the premise that he'd improve. His slider would get better, his K's would go up, his HR's would go down. Instead he was basically the same guy, maybe worse: no K's, high HR's, high WHIP, gobs of hits, no K's.

 

Kind of how I've felt about McNutt. Three years ago he was a hot projection guy who was combining good arm and good results. But as with any prospect, the assumption is that he'll continue to improve. Three years later with no improvement evident yet (and off to a dismal first week in exhibition games), he's going back.

[toonsterwu]

I get what you are saying on projection prospects, but I never viewed Beeler in that way (at least, as of right now, I don't think I did ... maybe I'm blanking). I always viewed him more as ... hmm ... polished isn't the right word ... developed doesn't sound right either ... whatever the opposite of projection was, but had the slim hope that he might be able to move fast as an older arm. I wasn't really looking at him to be more than an end of the rotation guy (although off the top, I think there was one positive report last year, or the year before?, from, I want to say, Callis?, that got me a tiny bit hopeful).

 

As a side note, this seems weird, so I wanted to clarify.

 

and has persuaded that Struck may be as promising as Loosen

 

I perfectly understand what you are taking away from what I am saying, but that just seemed weird. I view it more as I don't think Loosen's ceiling is that high, and as such, if I'm looking at two similarly low ceiling guys, I'll take the younger guy with some performance record in AA over the High A guy. As for why I don't think Loosen's ceiling is that high - fastball, at last check (wasn't exactly keeping tabs over winter or anything this spring), sits more low 90's, doesn't really have a plus secondary offering (I guess I can buy someone arguing that he might have an above average breaking ball, although neither seems to be consistently above average), and doesn't exactly have sharp command to overcome deficiencies. I hope he proves me wrong, but my hopes aren't huge on him - sort of how I viewed Beeler, an older arm that I hope can move fast, with some end of the rotation potential. Now, if Loosen put up a comparable performance last year in AA (obviously, a hypothetical that we will never be able to know) ... I might've been inclined to put him ahead of Struck, because he has a deeper arsenal.

 

All that said, BA is far wiser, and if they have him in their top 30, there must be some justification for it.

[toonsterwu]

Two random comments:

 

It's 4am, so I'm not inclined to count days to see if he's still eligible ... and I also have no clue where I'd put him, but wasn't Lendy Castillo on a prospect list this year? If so, sounds like he should be in the mix.

 

Speaking of older arms/lower levels/moving fast (okay, it was mainly me talking about it), one guy I still wonder about is PJ Francescon. Now, I have a hard time slapping breakout/sleeper labels on guys at times (for example, I keep using breakout with Chen, but I don't really expect him to have a dominant year, just wonder if he can make some improvement that catches an eye ... I mean, I'm more inclined to slap a legitimate, wonder if he'll break out label on Shawon Dunston Jr.), and I don't think Francescon is a breakout guy, and sleeper seems a bit odd, as I don't have high expectations for him, but I do, for lack of a better term, wonder about him. Decent-solid slider/change combination, fastball can get into that 94 range on the 4-seamer, 90-92 on the sinker. That said, due to his age, plus a lot of competing arms for A+ slots, and some young arms pushing up to Low A ... if Francescon was a cut, I wouldn't exactly be stunned.

[Guest]

Two random comments:

 

It's 4am, so I'm not inclined to count days to see if he's still eligible ... and I also have no clue where I'd put him, but wasn't Lendy Castillo on a prospect list this year? If so, sounds like he should be in the mix.

 

Speaking of older arms/lower levels/moving fast (okay, it was mainly me talking about it), one guy I still wonder about is PJ Francescon. Now, I have a hard time slapping breakout/sleeper labels on guys at times (for example, I keep using breakout with Chen, but I don't really expect him to have a dominant year, just wonder if he can make some improvement that catches an eye ... I mean, I'm more inclined to slap a legitimate, wonder if he'll break out label on Shawon Dunston Jr.), and I don't think Francescon is a breakout guy, and sleeper seems a bit odd, as I don't have high expectations for him, but I do, for lack of a better term, wonder about him. Decent-solid slider/change combination, fastball can get into that 94 range on the 4-seamer, 90-92 on the sinker. That said, due to his age, plus a lot of competing arms for A+ slots, and some young arms pushing up to Low A ... if Francescon was a cut, I wouldn't exactly be stunned.

 

Lendy Castillo was on BA's list but they ignore service time. Castillo exhausted his rookie eligibility per MLB rules so we didn't include him.

[Rob]

Concepcion, Devoss, and Golden. Same rationale as before for the first two. Golden I have very little faith in due to his piss-poor approach, but with his tools he presents an interesting challenge for the coaching staff.

[craig]

Concepcion, Devoss, and Golden. Same rationale as before for the first two. Golden I have very little faith in due to his piss-poor approach, but with his tools he presents an interesting challenge for the coaching staff.

 

Nice point, Rob. If the new development approach can do miracles, Golden would be a nice challenge.

[Guest]

That's a little harsh on Golden, isn't it? His K rate is higher than it should be, but he has a pretty strong walk rate to go with it.

[craig]

That's a little harsh on Golden, isn't it? His K rate is higher than it should be, but he has a pretty strong walk rate to go with it.

 

His walk rate was great. His BP power is also nice.

 

No sign early that he can really hit the ball, though. .240-type guy. So if the development guys can turn a guy who can't hit into one who can, that would be pretty impressive testimonial.

[Guest]

Right, this is a conversation about the 40th best prospect in the system after all. I just think calling his approach garbage isn't fair. The approach appears to be relatively sound, but we'll have to see if his hit tool is good enough or elite power develops to make him a complete offensive player.

[craig]

Right, this is a conversation about the 40th best prospect in the system after all. I just think calling his approach garbage isn't fair. The approach appears to be relatively sound, but we'll have to see if his hit tool is good enough or elite power develops to make him a complete offensive player.

 

Not sure I'm following your points here. "I just think calling his approach garbage isn't fair." Who called his "approach" "garbage"? I didn't. I think his approach is excellent, if "approach" means choices/plate discipline/anti-hacking.

 

I just think he can't hit. I guess I don't think he "has the hit tool".

 

But I hope I'm wrong. It would be pretty cool if good development could coach it into a guy who showed no hint of possessing it.

[Guest]

Right, this is a conversation about the 40th best prospect in the system after all. I just think calling his approach garbage isn't fair. The approach appears to be relatively sound, but we'll have to see if his hit tool is good enough or elite power develops to make him a complete offensive player.

 

Not sure I'm following your points here. "I just think calling his approach garbage isn't fair." Who called his "approach" "garbage"? I didn't. I think his approach is excellent, if "approach" means choices/plate discipline/anti-hacking

 

Rob did, sorry if that wasn't clear since I didn't quote anyone.

 

Golden I have very little faith in due to his piss-poor approach

[Rob]

That's a little harsh on Golden, isn't it? His K rate is higher than it should be, but he has a pretty strong walk rate to go with it.

 

Yeah, I suppose. Piss-poor strikeout rate moreso than whole approach. I was just going off memory.