BA Top 31/system ranked 20th....

[davell]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2016/02/baseball-americas-top-31-cubs-prospects-for-2016.php

 

So Toonster is definitely right on the system ranking. I guess there's not separation between quite a few teams. It's odd that BA had them this low though, as I'm fairly sure Manuel said they'd be 7-10. Maybe I'm confusing them with Callis, BP, or Law. But I thought it was Manuel anyway.

 

By the way, their ceilings and risk factors look way off to me.

[David]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2016/02/baseball-americas-top-31-cubs-prospects-for-2016.php

 

So Toonster is definitely right on the system ranking. I guess there's not separation between quite a few teams. It's odd that BA had them this low though, as I'm fairly sure Manuel said they'd be 7-10. Maybe I'm confusing them with Callis, BP, or Law. But I thought it was Manuel anyway.

 

By the way, their ceilings and risk factors look way off to me.

 

Think you are thinking of the others.

[toonsterwu]

I'm not that surprised by this. When I took a look at the systems awhile ago, I thought we might be a touch higher, middle of the pack perhaps, so this makes sense.

 

Thing is, if there's one way to note our system right now, it is perhaps to say that it is depth of all-around decent quality. We've got decent quality all over, up and down the ladder, at differet positions, and the arms. Problem is, depth, as it comes to these rankings, never gets valued as highly as potential ceiling (and justifiably so). I don't know BA's overall team rankings, but you can take a system like, say, the Padres, and make a case that, with the Kimbrel trade, that their top grouping is better than ours (Guerra, Margot, Renfroe, a couple arms, a couple shortstop prospects), and despite the rest of our system being significantly deeper and better, that group of guys has enough of a case to be put on par with our system.

 

Beyond that, you can really pick apart all our top guys. We might have two corner OF's that end up being Nori Aoki/Nick Markakis types in a positive scenario. Much as I like Gleyber Torres, one can say broad based toolset, while another can say here's a kid who really lacks a plus tool and might not stick at short, and hasn't shown power. Arms are far away, ceiling with the arms is more ... dime-a-dozen ... than we really acknowledge, and power is a significant question.

 

That said, when you look at the broad landscape of the minors, and the fact that we graduated so many guys who would be our top overall prospect and a possible top 25 prospect, this is just fine and dandy. There are few systems that can survive the major shock that ours went through last year as it pertains to graduations, and the fact that we still have depth is awesome. It's a weird year in general in the minors - a handful of good systems (I think 6-8), 5 -7 systems that I thought was really bad, but everything else felt like it could get bunched together.

 

Skimming through their top 31, looks fine. Now, Caratini at 24 seems low if he's the best defensive catcher. Blackburn at 19 surprised me a touch.

 

Also mildly surprised that Candelario got best infield arm. I would've figured one of the shortstops. Like the nods to Trevor Clifton and Matt Rose - the former seems to get lost in the shuffle with the crop of guys that were at Eugene last year, but along de la Cruz and Cease, he's one of the few arms in the lower levels that really, as of now, seems to have exciting potential, and he has steadily improved. I think we talked about Rose as a sleeper/breakout guy when there was that thread about the next Willson.

[toonsterwu]

I'm not that surprised by this. When I took a look at the systems awhile ago, I thought we might be a touch higher, middle of the pack perhaps, so this makes sense.

 

Thing is, if there's one way to note our system right now, it is perhaps to say that it is depth of all-around decent quality. We've got decent quality all over, up and down the ladder, at differet positions, and the arms. Problem is, depth, as it comes to these rankings, never gets valued as highly as potential ceiling (and justifiably so). I don't know BA's overall team rankings, but you can take a system like, say, the Padres, and make a case that, with the Kimbrel trade, that their top grouping is better than ours (Guerra, Margot, Renfroe, a couple arms, a couple shortstop prospects), and despite the rest of our system being significantly deeper and better, that group of guys has enough of a case to be put on par with our system.

 

Beyond that, you can really pick apart all our top guys. We might have two corner OF's that end up being Nori Aoki/Nick Markakis types in a positive scenario. Much as I like Gleyber Torres, one can say broad based toolset, while another can say here's a kid who really lacks a plus tool and might not stick at short, and hasn't shown power. Arms are far away, ceiling with the arms is more ... dime-a-dozen ... than we really acknowledge, and power is a significant question.

 

That said, when you look at the broad landscape of the minors, and the fact that we graduated so many guys who would be our top overall prospect and a possible top 25 prospect, this is just fine and dandy. There are few systems that can survive the major shock that ours went through last year as it pertains to graduations, and the fact that we still have depth is awesome. It's a weird year in general in the minors - a handful of good systems (I think 6-8), 5 -7 systems that I thought was really bad, but everything else felt like it could get bunched together.

 

Skimming through their top 31, looks fine. Now, Caratini at 24 seems low if he's the best defensive catcher. Blackburn at 19 surprised me a touch.

 

Also mildly surprised that Candelario got best infield arm. I would've figured one of the shortstops. Like the nods to Trevor Clifton and Matt Rose - the former seems to get lost in the shuffle with the crop of guys that were at Eugene last year, but along de la Cruz and Cease, he's one of the few arms in the lower levels that really, as of now, seems to have exciting potential, and he has steadily improved. I think we talked about Rose as a sleeper/breakout guy when there was that thread about the next Willson.

[toonsterwu]

Tried looking around for the list I made awhile ago, but could only find some notes. This is a quick and dirty effort at loosely ranking the systems.

 

Very top

 

Rockies/Dodgers - The impact potential and depth of these two systems has to be at or near the top of my lists this offseason. I actually prefer the Rockies system overall a bit more for their overall depth and diversity of talent.

 

Very good

 

Phillies - Can get if someone wanted to lump them with the above group, but I think they are a bit more riskier than the Rockies. Still, trades have rapidly rebuilt the system.

 

Nationals - Tough system to rank this high in some respects, but that top shelf of 6-8 guys is very exciting for it's ceiling and readiness.

 

Braves - There's a part of that's wary of this group, as there's a lot of risk involved, but you can't deny the depth of young talent they've slowly accumulated in the system, and it's a nice mixture of readiness and risk, ceiling and floor. I can get folks lumping them with the Rockies, but I think the Rockies impact potential at the top is far better, and far less riskier overall.

 

Indians - That top 8-9 is very exciting, with a balance of bats (although maybe too many OF's), risky arms and arms.

 

Good

 

Brewers - Sort of like a super-charged version of our system right now. Arcia's further along than Torres, there's good depth in the system, but I do question how much impact potential is in the system.

 

Twins - System seems to thin out very quickly after the top few guys, so had a tough time deciding where to throw them right now.

 

Pirates - The top of the system carries it a lot.

 

Rangers - Considering the Hamels trade, the fact that they are still up here is a testament to their previous depth. I may be over-rating the top of this system a tiny bit right now.

 

The big mosh pit of organizations

 

Athletics/Astros/Reds/Yankees/Cubs/Red Sox/Padres/Cardinals/Rays/Blue Jays/Giants (not in order)

 

I get why we are at the back of this list (I could see a couple organizations here swapped out with ones above, or just pushed up, ad I can see maybe a few lists having the Giants below), but I think I could make a decent argument to put the Cubs ahead of most of these teams as well. I mean, the Rays system isn't all that enticing right now.

 

Below Average

 

Mets - Hard to excited about what's left, but like us, they graduated impact.

 

Royals - System seems to thin out real fast, but the top few guys are intriguing.

 

White Sox - The top few guys in the system are intriguing. After that, not so much.

 

Diamondbacks - They've thinned out the system, but there's still some arms.

 

Struggling

 

Mariners - Kept expecting decency, but this is a pretty bad system right now, IMO. Their top two guys are far, far away and struggled last year.

 

Orioles - System has some plus points - Jomar Reyes and Chance Sisco look intriguing. Still too dependent on the health of Bundy and Harvey, and the rest of the system are dime-a-dozen types.

 

Tigers - They manage to squeeze out a few intriguing guys each year (UVA product Artie Lewicki's pro potential still intrigues me), but overall, in terms of rankings, it's a lot of mediocrity.

 

Angels - Uh ... nothing really needs to be said, and they know it.

 

Marlins - See Angels.

[CubsWin]

I'm not that surprised by this. When I took a look at the systems awhile ago, I thought we might be a touch higher, middle of the pack perhaps, so this makes sense.

 

Thing is, if there's one way to note our system right now, it is perhaps to say that it is depth of all-around decent quality. We've got decent quality all over, up and down the ladder, at differet positions, and the arms. Problem is, depth, as it comes to these rankings, never gets valued as highly as potential ceiling (and justifiably so). I don't know BA's overall team rankings, but you can take a system like, say, the Padres, and make a case that, with the Kimbrel trade, that their top grouping is better than ours (Guerra, Margot, Renfroe, a couple arms, a couple shortstop prospects), and despite the rest of our system being significantly deeper and better, that group of guys has enough of a case to be put on par with our system.

 

Beyond that, you can really pick apart all our top guys. We might have two corner OF's that end up being Nori Aoki/Nick Markakis types in a positive scenario. Much as I like Gleyber Torres, one can say broad based toolset, while another can say here's a kid who really lacks a plus tool and might not stick at short, and hasn't shown power. Arms are far away, ceiling with the arms is more ... dime-a-dozen ... than we really acknowledge, and power is a significant question.

 

That said, when you look at the broad landscape of the minors, and the fact that we graduated so many guys who would be our top overall prospect and a possible top 25 prospect, this is just fine and dandy. There are few systems that can survive the major shock that ours went through last year as it pertains to graduations, and the fact that we still have depth is awesome. It's a weird year in general in the minors - a handful of good systems (I think 6-8), 5 -7 systems that I thought was really bad, but everything else felt like it could get bunched together.

 

Skimming through their top 31, looks fine. Now, Caratini at 24 seems low if he's the best defensive catcher. Blackburn at 19 surprised me a touch.

 

Also mildly surprised that Candelario got best infield arm. I would've figured one of the shortstops. Like the nods to Trevor Clifton and Matt Rose - the former seems to get lost in the shuffle with the crop of guys that were at Eugene last year, but along de la Cruz and Cease, he's one of the few arms in the lower levels that really, as of now, seems to have exciting potential, and he has steadily improved. I think we talked about Rose as a sleeper/breakout guy when there was that thread about the next Willson.

I agree. Once you get into that middle pack of systems, it's in the eye of the beholder. Those teams are pretty interchangeable.

 

Given all the top end talent has graduated (and unprecedented amount at that), a big step back was predictable. What I like is that this system didn't become devoid of talent afterwards. If some of that depth continues to progress, they sees poised to be right back in the lower top 10 in a couple of years, maybe even next year.

 

There are a lot of players poised to move up in the rankings. If Contreras hits well in AAA and improves his receiving and game-calling, or Almora and Candelario continue on their trajectory of last year's 2nd half, or Torres puts together a solid season in High-A (usually a pretty pitcher dominant level), or Underwood pitches well in AA with an uptick in Ks, or McKinney dominates in AA with the bat and a few of Cease, De La Cruz, Martinez, Happ, Wilson, Jimenez, Clifton, etc. break out, things will look pretty different.

 

There's a lot of depth, true, but there's some higher ceiling depth as well.

[toonsterwu]

I really should've rephrased. By decent quality, I wasn't speaking only to ceiling. Every system has high ceiling guys, even the hapless Angels and Marlins systems. I was speaking to a combination of all the factors, if that makes any sense this early in the morning (that is, a combination of ceiling/floor/risk/performance/progress). We definitely have a lot of guys that can get jump up big in the next year. I mean, a monster year from Eloy Jimenez would probably put him up there, due to his ceiling. Of course, there's a lot of risk/question marks with our guys entering the year, and as it usually is with prospect, we'll probably get a mixed bag of results.

[CubsWin]

We definitely have a lot of guys that can get jump up big in the next year. I mean, a monster year from Eloy Jimenez would probably put him up there, due to his ceiling. Of course, there's a lot of risk/question marks with our guys entering the year, and as it usually is with prospect, we'll probably get a mixed bag of results.

There will always be that mixed bag. Some will regress, some maintain, some progress incrementally and a few will breakout. Two things make me more optimistic than in years past, though. One is the Cubs' developmental team, system, infrastructure, technology and philosophy are much better and more consistent from level to level than ever before. Two, the list of players with upside is fairly long. Someone's bound to pop.

[CubsWin]

The verdict on the "draft pitching in volume strategy" is still out. The Cubs don't have a TOR type in the upper levels and only a few that might ever become that. Cease and De La Cruz seem to be the only ones described with that kind of potential but they're so far away, anything could happen. Injury. Ineffectiveness. Move to the pen. That's the system's biggest weakness right now as I see it. I'd love to see them sign someone like Ronald Bolanos and/or Adrian Morejon to deepen that list. Seeing how Cease and De La Cruz do this year will tell us a lot.

 

I'm interested in seeing who, if anyone, from the list of Underwood, Clifton, Steele, Sands, Kellogg or even Stinnett, Null, Paulino, Alzolay, Twomey or Bloomquist can unlock something and take it up a notch. I think Hudson will move more slowly but he's obviously on that list as well. Williams went from afterthought to BOR prospect and a mention on BA's top 31. Markey emerged as a middle relief possibility or maybe more. Who will it be this year? The sheer volume of guys improves the chances of someone surprising us.

 

As a deep sleeper, I'm interested to see what Luis Hernandez will do.

[davell]

Yeah, I think our approach will definitely change now. I think we'll target pitchers with bonus demands that caused them to fall and TJS guys that fell. Probably won't be too exciting this draft, with our limited budget, but I could still see us use rounds 6-10 on college seniors to give us the ability to get a guy that fell somewhat.

 

But yeah, we need to add a Cuban or 3.

[toonsterwu]

We definitely have a lot of guys that can get jump up big in the next year. I mean, a monster year from Eloy Jimenez would probably put him up there, due to his ceiling. Of course, there's a lot of risk/question marks with our guys entering the year, and as it usually is with prospect, we'll probably get a mixed bag of results.

There will always be that mixed bag. Some will regress, some maintain, some progress incrementally and a few will breakout. Two things make me more optimistic than in years past, though. One is the Cubs' developmental team, system, infrastructure, technology and philosophy are much better and more consistent from level to level than ever before. Two, the list of players with upside is fairly long. Someone's bound to pop.

 

For every argument about a good developmental system, all systems can go through bad downswings, even with the brightest minds involved. I would note that the Red Sox system went through some lulls when Theo was in his final years there. I never liked the Padres system, when Hoyer/McLeod were running it, as much as others, and it's been, to say the least, a mixed bag of results, despite their year where they had a ton of early picks (want to say 2011?). Andrew Friedman's final years in the Rays organization really saw them falter a bit, and Billy Beane's Oakland systems have gone through lulls before.

 

As for the list of players with upside ... we're obviously better than the bad systems right now, but all decent-good systems have a fairly solid list of guys with some level of upside. There's only really maybe 6-8 guys in our system who seem to, as of now, have upside that is unique/exciting (and that we can hold out some hope for as of now ... I mean, Jeffrey Baez has upside, but no one is really, despite his strong finish, expecting Jeffrey Baez to really take off in that fashion as of now).

 

Again, I'm not trying to be negative Nancy here. I think that the system is in a great shape considering the losses.

[CubsWin]

We definitely have a lot of guys that can get jump up big in the next year. I mean, a monster year from Eloy Jimenez would probably put him up there, due to his ceiling. Of course, there's a lot of risk/question marks with our guys entering the year, and as it usually is with prospect, we'll probably get a mixed bag of results.

There will always be that mixed bag. Some will regress, some maintain, some progress incrementally and a few will breakout. Two things make me more optimistic than in years past, though. One is the Cubs' developmental team, system, infrastructure, technology and philosophy are much better and more consistent from level to level than ever before. Two, the list of players with upside is fairly long. Someone's bound to pop.

 

For every argument about a good developmental system, all systems can go through bad downswings, even with the brightest minds involved. I would note that the Red Sox system went through some lulls when Theo was in his final years there. I never liked the Padres system, when Hoyer/McLeod were running it, as much as others, and it's been, to say the least, a mixed bag of results, despite their year where they had a ton of early picks (want to say 2011?). Andrew Friedman's final years in the Rays organization really saw them falter a bit, and Billy Beane's Oakland systems have gone through lulls before.

 

As for the list of players with upside ... we're obviously better than the bad systems right now, but all decent-good systems have a fairly solid list of guys with some level of upside. There's only really maybe 6-8 guys in our system who seem to, as of now, have upside that is unique/exciting (and that we can hold out some hope for as of now ... I mean, Jeffrey Baez has upside, but no one is really, despite his strong finish, expecting Jeffrey Baez to really take off in that fashion as of now).

 

Again, I'm not trying to be negative Nancy here. I think that the system is in a great shape considering the losses.

No, I agree with you. The Cubs development system and staff isn't perfect. They'll have there hits and misses like everybody else. I just feel better about their chances of having some of their upside guys pop now than before the new regime arrived.

 

And, the Jeffrey Baez thing was funny. No, he's not on my list of guys with upside who could breakout. It depends on how you define the word, I guess, but for me upside means you have enough talent to be a starter 2nd division or better/high-leverage reliever/MOR or better and aren't an extreme long shot to get there (re Jeffrey Baez).

 

For me, that group looks like Torres, Contreras, Underwood, McKinney, Almora, Happ and Edwards (in the highest ceiling/lower risk category), Zagunis and Pierce Johnson (in a slightly lower ceiling/similar risk category) and a higher ceiling/higher risk category group of Cease, Martinez, JImenez, Steele, De La Cruz, Clifton, Wilson and Hudson.

[CubsWin]

Yeah, I think our approach will definitely change now. I think we'll target pitchers with bonus demands that caused them to fall and TJS guys that fell. Probably won't be too exciting this draft, with our limited budget, but I could still see us use rounds 6-10 on college seniors to give us the ability to get a guy that fell somewhat.

 

But yeah, we need to add a Cuban or 3.

I fully expect it to change, or at least I'm hoping it will. I'm looking forward to a TJS upside guy or a prep upside arm being selected in the 1st round in coming drafts. I also think they continue to dedicate much of the middle rounds to pitching no matter who they select in the 1st.

 

And, true, this draft will definitely be less exciting. I'm hoping the Cubs are playing so well that the draft passes and I didn't even know it. In years past, June 5th or thereabouts was a big day in my life. Now I'm hoping that day will be in late October/early November!

[toonsterwu]

So, just toying around with Jeffrey Baez for a second (and I think I said this in another post awhile back, but while I think there's a chance he could "breakout", I certainly wouldn't "buy" him - it's akin to how I felt about Arismendy Alcantara in some respects).

 

Baez has tools to work with. I mean, you take the raw physical tools, he has the potential to be a 2nd division starter. There's power, there's defensive ability, some speed, and unless I'm mistaken, the bat speed is fine, perhaps not top shelf, but solid. So, then it becomes an issue of risk. There's a tendency to aggressively attack at times, which can get him into trouble, but when he locked in last year, his walk rate and his K rate were certainly fine, with the only issue being his overall hit tool. Considering his age, it's not unfathomable to think that he may just be mentally maturing.

 

Again, not really betting on Jeffrey Baez. I do wonder if he might put up a big year in Myrtle Beach next year, but I'm not exactly jumping on the "Jeffrey Baez - future MLB player" train. This is simply an exercise.

 

____

 

Based on your definition of upside, I would certainly add Caratini into how you view things. If Caratini's defensive development continues, and he has the tools to be decent, he certainly could be a viable 2nd division starter. Still wouldn't be surprised if Caratini passes Contreras next year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't have a huge issue with the system being ranked as below average, there's a lot of depth but I'm not overly bullish on many of those players. What will be interesting to see is if BA is consistent with that bearish outlook when it comes to the Top 100. The Cubs, for their lack of elite talents, have had 5 or more consistently show up in those Top 100 lists from other outlets, which seems incompatible with a bottom half system overall to me(at least given the state of this particular system where there isn't a chasm after those 5-7 guys).

[CubsWin]

Based on your definition of upside, I would certainly add Caratini into how you view things. If Caratini's defensive development continues, and he has the tools to be decent, he certainly could be a viable 2nd division starter. Still wouldn't be surprised if Caratini passes Contreras next year.

I should've included Candelario in the first group of guys with high-ish ceilings but lower risk than the guys still so far away in A-ball. The Cubs had him working on adjustments to tap into more power. As can be the case when re-working your approach/swing path, it was one step back at first before the two steps forward. What I like about him is that even with the struggles in High-A and the demotion thereafter, he never got down and stuck with the plan. It paid off big time once he hit AA and that power performance carried into his AFL performance. Also, by most accounts, his defense improved over that period. That tells me he's got strong make-up and work ethic.

 

I think Caratini is in a similar position going into this year that Candelario was in last season. If he has a semi-breakout with the bat, and as you said, improves behind the plate, he'd move into that first group for me. He got hot the last month (August 8 - Sept 7) going .329/.384/.506. That may have just been a fluky streak, but when they come at the end of a season, I tend to give them a little more weight.

 

It could be nothing, but there might be a bit of a trend with the Cubs developmental process. Maybe it's part of the Cubs Way. Maybe it's just coincidence, but it seems like at the lower levels (mostly High-A) they have their better prospects really working on developing their weaknesses. Almora and Candelario retooled their approaches. Underwood worked on developing his other pitches. Like a racehorse being held back and once they hit AA, it's more about in-game performance. Just a theory. Picking up tidbits here and there. Some reading between the lines with certain comments but also with some underlying statistics. Definitely need more data. It'd be an interesting question to ask a Cubs scout. I usually get to talk to a couple during spring training. I'll try to track one down and see what they say.

[CubsWin]

Double post. Edited February 9, 2016 by CubsWin

[toonsterwu]

I don't have a huge issue with the system being ranked as below average, there's a lot of depth but I'm not overly bullish on many of those players. What will be interesting to see is if BA is consistent with that bearish outlook when it comes to the Top 100. The Cubs, for their lack of elite talents, have had 5 or more consistently show up in those Top 100 lists from other outlets, which seems incompatible with a bottom half system overall to me(at least given the state of this particular system where there isn't a chasm after those 5-7 guys).

 

Assuming that the BA guys put in 4-8 Cubs in the top 100, I think their argument as to why the system, despite having depth, is ranked lower would probably be along the lines of the lack of impact talent at the top of the system right now. Most rankings tend to skew towards giving impact talent more weight, top 20/top 30 type guys. For example, the Oakland Athletics. I don't find that system to be particularly exceptional by any standards, but I imagine that if we are 20, they are ahead of us, perhaps safely so. Both systems have some depth to it, and talent wise, the top of the systems are ... relatively close, IMO. That said, Franklin Barreto is viewed as largely a better prospect than Gleyber Torres (tools and production wise, also being a level ahead), and Manaea is better than any arm in our system, and would rank ahead of our 2nd prospect, whoever one feels that is. I could see them giving Oakland the nod as a result of that (to be quite honest, I'm not too big on that A's system right now, outside of Barreto and Manaea. I like Chad Pinder, but I also wonder if he's a utility guy.) The Rays system isn't one I am really big on right now, but I could see the argument that Blake Snell plus Wily Adames is a big jump ahead of our top 2, so let's go there. The Padres system thins out, but again, the top talent argument could factor in here, with Margot/Guerra/Renfroe.

 

Not saying I agree with it, as I'd take the Cubs over a few systems, but I could see that being their argument. That said, I also think this is such a messy year for farm rankings due to graduations that it could simply be a case of guys having drastically different rankings and the results getting screwy as a result (IIRC, BA asks their top guys to send in their top 100 lists, and then they cull and work through it?).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Assuming that the BA guys put in 4-8 Cubs in the top 100, I think their argument as to why the system, despite having depth, is ranked lower would probably be along the lines of the lack of impact talent at the top of the system right now. Most rankings tend to skew towards giving impact talent more weight, top 20/top 30 type guys.

 

If they have 5 or 6 Cubs guys in the Top 100(including a couple likely Top 50 guys in Contreras and Torres), then I'd find that to be a specious argument. Reason for the Cubs not to be in a Top 10? Sure. But 20 is another standard deviation below, at which point you're basically saying that having the #27 prospect v. the #42 prospect outranks having much better depth. I get the point on upside, but at a certain point you're being blinded to it.

 

Again, this isn't to say that skepticism isn't warranted(personally I'm bearish on at least half of BA's Top 10 for the Cubs), but if you're going to say the system is down, then make the system down and don't give them 2x the average in the Top 100.

[toonsterwu]

Interesting. The BA order is up online now:

 

1. Dodgers

2. Astros

3. Braves

4. Red Sox

5. Nationals

6. Rockies

7. Rangers

8. Phillies

9. Brewers

10. Twins

11. Pirates

12. Reds

13. Rays

14. Cardinals

15. Mets

16. Indians

17. Yankees

18. Athletics

19. Giants

20. Cubs

21. Royals

22. Diamondbacks

23. White Sox

24. Blue Jays

25. Padres

26. Tigers

27. Orioles

28. Mariners

29. Marlins

30. Angels

 

Interesting list. A bit higher on the Red Sox and Astros than I had it. I get it, as they seem to have weigh the top prospects heavily there (Astros with Tucker/Cameron/Martes/Bregman/Reed and Red Sox with Moncada/Devers/Espinoza/Kopech/Benintendi). A lot lower on the Indians, which I'm a little befuddled by. I guess the ceiling of the Indians guys aren't through the roof, Bradley Zimmer did struggle in AA and has some swing and miss concerns. A bit higher on the Mets ... Matz/Nimmo/Molina/Rosario is a nice foursome at the top, but Nimmo''s still trying to tap into his power, and Rosario's a slick-fielding shortstop with the tools to be a potential plus defender there but is still a lot more projection on offense. Much lower on the Padres/Blue Jays than I expected. I like the Padres, but I get that after the top 3, it's a lot of unrefined talent. Looking at the Blue Jays right now, I probably way over-rated that group when I went through it the other day.

[craig]

3 Cubs in BA's top 100:

 

Torres 41

Contreras 67

Happ 87

[toonsterwu]

Interesting list.

 

If they have Torres with 60's in so many places, I'm a bit befuddled why he is so low.

 

Overall, I think it's a fairly solid list. I think the Cubs are probably reasonably placed. You could go higher by about 15 slots or so for Torres, but looking at the names they've grouped him with, his spot is reasonable.