Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 9-5-16 (Regular Season Finale)

[davell]

So, what exactly does a resume get you in baseball, if you've got no plus pitches and no velo? I'm not even trying to be a smart ass.

 

Well significant HS draft year attention, a scholarship to one of the handful best programs in the US as a Canadian player, and a top 5 round selection and full slot from arguably the best PD and overall org in the league at the time. Since I don't buy that you're not being a smartass, no worries as I'm used to the attempts, what exactly should it get you?

 

Actually, I wasn't trying to be a smart ass. In fact, I've purposely tried staying away from stupid horsefeathers like this all season. If anything, i respected the idea you were trying to change peoples opinions of you online. Oh well, guess I was wrong to think that. I asked a legit evaluator of talent about your hand chosen guy and its literally the only thing close to info we've gotten on him all year. What I asked was a legit question.

 

Again, I asked what that means.....Not for you to recite it. Unless you think it matters to hitters and some of them are terrified of his accomplishments, making his average stuff and velo play way up? And holy horsefeathers at full 5th round slot as a college junior being an accomplishment. Especially since he literally went into the season as a projected 1st rounder.

 

Again, its a legit question. Reciting past accomplishments isn't remotely close to a real answer.

[davell]

You added more on an edit. The Longenhagen thing is nice, but its from college. I know you expected the velo to increase once we got ahold of him. That's rare when you're going from once a week to every 5th day. I'm waiting to see if it even held at 88-91, since the only true reading we've had all year was 84-87.(very early in year and not taking it seriously-but its not a stretch to think he's not been sitting 88-91 this year either.)

 

4 average pitches isn't nothing. But I don't see why you give him that kind of attention, if that's what you actually see out of him.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

He has an incredibly low bar to clear. Our pitching prospects right now are either bad, dead, both, or showing promise in short season ball. If I actually went down the list I probably wouldn't put Kellogg as the #2 SP in the system, but I'm sure not going to beat the drum for anyone in particular that he needs to be behind.

[craig]

I think Jokisch is a good comp. Kellogg is 22 with 3.03 ERA in Midwest; Jokish had a 2.94 ERA as a 21-year-old in same league, with similarly good K/BB splits. Jokisch than followed that up with a 2.91 ERA in AA at age 22. So, in terms of accomplishments, Jokisch and Kellogg basically have identical years in Midwest League, although Jokisch was a little younger and confirmed with another effective year in AA at the age Kellogg is doing it in A. So if we're looking at accomplishments and performance, Kellogg doesn't look better. I thought mention of touching 90 was a little more common with Jolisch than what we've heard from Kellogg, but that's probably mostly because we don't get many reports on low-velocity college guys.

 

That Jokisch didn't make it doesn't mean that Kellogg won't. Sometimes performance guys are able to carry it up the ladder. Hendricks is the exception not the norm, of course; but perhaps when a guy without velocity somehow keeps getting guys out, eventually we come to realize that there is reason. So long as Kellogg can perform effectively, I'll keep an open mind that he might have a chance to be effective. Good luck to him. Hopefully the Cubs can somehow help him add a little good velocity before it's all said and done.

 

If the change is really good (see Hendricks), and the location is consistently masterful (again see Hendricks), you can have good results even without much velocity.

 

But the emphasis on velocity sure helps to explain why so many pitchers took steroids. Temptation has to be pretty strong.

[craig]

He has an incredibly low bar to clear. Our pitching prospects right now are either bad, dead, both, or showing promise in short season ball. If I actually went down the list I probably wouldn't put Kellogg as the #2 SP in the system, but I'm sure not going to beat the drum for anyone in particular that he needs to be behind.

 

I'd sure put Clifton ahead. Plus curve, plus results, plus K-rate, plus velocity, more success in higher league at younger age.

[davell]

He has an incredibly low bar to clear. Our pitching prospects right now are either bad, dead, both, or showing promise in short season ball. If I actually went down the list I probably wouldn't put Kellogg as the #2 SP in the system, but I'm sure not going to beat the drum for anyone in particular that he needs to be behind.

 

Clifton and De La Cruz are in a different stratosphere than a guy like Kellogg. They both have higher than 6th starter upside. Paulino has much better stuff and has shown quite a bit of improvement from last year. I'm not an Underwood fan currently, but he's actually younger than Kellogg and has upside that Kellogg doesn't. Zastryzny is still going to be prospect eligible. I doubt he's ever a starter for us, but I'd say his chances are greater than Kellogg's are. Tseng is a pitchability type that is 2 levels ahead of Kellogg and is younger, plus put up as good as, or better of an A Ball season at 20, than Kellogg did this year.

 

Those 7 are guys I'd definitely put ahead of Kellogg, along with the low level guys like Albertos, Manuel Rondon, maybe Erling Moreno, and a few drafted guys. Hatch, for sure, with a possibility on Miller, Clark, and Mekkes, depending on any reports that are interesting.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

He has an incredibly low bar to clear. Our pitching prospects right now are either bad, dead, both, or showing promise in short season ball. If I actually went down the list I probably wouldn't put Kellogg as the #2 SP in the system, but I'm sure not going to beat the drum for anyone in particular that he needs to be behind.

 

Clifton and De La Cruz are in a different stratosphere than a guy like Kellogg. They both have higher than 6th starter upside. Paulino has much better stuff and has shown quite a bit of improvement from last year. I'm not an Underwood fan currently, but he's actually younger than Kellogg and has upside that Kellogg doesn't. Zastryzny is still going to be prospect eligible. I doubt he's ever a starter for us, but I'd say his chances are greater than Kellogg's are. Tseng is a pitchability type that is 2 levels ahead of Kellogg and is younger, plus put up as good as, or better of an A Ball season at 20, than Kellogg did this year.

 

Those 7 are guys I'd definitely put ahead of Kellogg, along with the low level guys like Albertos, Manuel Rondon, maybe Erling Moreno, and a few drafted guys. Hatch, for sure, with a possibility on Miller, Clark, and Mekkes, depending on any reports that are interesting.

 

We can agree to disagree, but I think you're making the same mistake as Law of overvaluing traditional stuff. To spin it in the opposite direction as Kellogg, I have no idea what to do with Cease, because I'm incredibly pessimistic on him being much of an MLB starter, but other teams will clearly value the velo enough to see if he can figure out how to hit the strike zone a few times every at bat. But more to the point, Clifton and De La Cruz might be better prospects(gun to my head I probably have both of them in front of Kellogg right now), but there isn't a huge gap between them and the Kelloggs of the world. That's part "there are no special pitchers", part "The Cubs have no special pitchers", and part "Kellogg is checking all the boxes of someone who can succeed without insane stuff".

[davell]

He has an incredibly low bar to clear. Our pitching prospects right now are either bad, dead, both, or showing promise in short season ball. If I actually went down the list I probably wouldn't put Kellogg as the #2 SP in the system, but I'm sure not going to beat the drum for anyone in particular that he needs to be behind.

 

Clifton and De La Cruz are in a different stratosphere than a guy like Kellogg. They both have higher than 6th starter upside. Paulino has much better stuff and has shown quite a bit of improvement from last year. I'm not an Underwood fan currently, but he's actually younger than Kellogg and has upside that Kellogg doesn't. Zastryzny is still going to be prospect eligible. I doubt he's ever a starter for us, but I'd say his chances are greater than Kellogg's are. Tseng is a pitchability type that is 2 levels ahead of Kellogg and is younger, plus put up as good as, or better of an A Ball season at 20, than Kellogg did this year.

 

Those 7 are guys I'd definitely put ahead of Kellogg, along with the low level guys like Albertos, Manuel Rondon, maybe Erling Moreno, and a few drafted guys. Hatch, for sure, with a possibility on Miller, Clark, and Mekkes, depending on any reports that are interesting.

 

We can agree to disagree, but I think you're making the same mistake as Law of overvaluing traditional stuff. To spin it in the opposite direction as Kellogg, I have no idea what to do with Cease, because I'm incredibly pessimistic on him being much of an MLB starter, but other teams will clearly value the velo enough to see if he can figure out how to hit the strike zone a few times every at bat. But more to the point, Clifton and De La Cruz might be better prospects(gun to my head I probably have both of them in front of Kellogg right now), but there isn't a huge gap between them and the Kelloggs of the world. That's part "there are no special pitchers", part "The Cubs have no special pitchers", and part "Kellogg is checking all the boxes of someone who can succeed without insane stuff".

 

Yeah, we look at this differently. I brought up Jokisch though, as a guy who did the same thing early on. I don't give a lot of credence to A Ball results, unless they're bad or its someone extremely young that's doing great.

 

If it comes out over the winter that he's got something going for him, I'll amend my opinion. But I won't be ranking him very high until he's doing this in AA.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That's fair, I heavily weight MLB readiness myself, especially for HS draftees or internationals(which just so happens to be all of DLC, Cease, and Clifton), so I get the wait and see approach. If he does start repeating that performance though, I think the positive outcome is similar to what you'd expect from any of those names(sans Cease, wildcard of wildcards).

[davell]

TT, my general approach on rankings is my guess at a prospects trade value. (Ie- I definitely think a guy like Clifton or Delacruz would bring more of a return than Kellogg currently)The tools play big time into how I look at prospects. Then proximity comes next for me, since teams definitely prefer dealing for guys closer to the majors. Stat lines just don't play into things for me, unless they're ridiculously awful or the polar opposite.

 

I bet there's quite a bit of difference, as to what we all value, when coming up with lists.

[davell]

That's fair, I heavily weight MLB readiness myself, especially for HS draftees or internationals(which just so happens to be all of DLC, Cease, and Clifton), so I get the wait and see approach. If he does start repeating that performance though, I think the positive outcome is similar to what you'd expect from any of those names(sans Cease, wildcard of wildcards).

 

Has your opinion on Zastryzny changed, since his callup? Or thinking that he's going to be effective in a non starting role? Valuing readiness, I could see him being a borderline top 10 guy for some, if they think he's better suited out of the pen.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That's fair, I heavily weight MLB readiness myself, especially for HS draftees or internationals(which just so happens to be all of DLC, Cease, and Clifton), so I get the wait and see approach. If he does start repeating that performance though, I think the positive outcome is similar to what you'd expect from any of those names(sans Cease, wildcard of wildcards).

 

Has your opinion on Zastryzny changed, since his callup? Or thinking that he's going to be effective in a non starting role? Valuing readiness, I could see him being a borderline top 10 guy for some, if they think he's better suited out of the pen.

 

As a Mizzou grad I'll forever be a Zastryzny fan, but I don't think my opinion of him has changed much. His MiLB performance paints the picture of a poor man's Travis Wood, and Wood has definitely had spells where he's been very effective as a swing man. That said, it's certainly possible that he could pick up a trick or two from Bosio to keep RH off his case, which would mean he could be a solid reliever if he continues to throw strikes like he has so far. He has thrown a bunch of cutters for what that's worth.

[davell]

 

Clifton and De La Cruz are in a different stratosphere than a guy like Kellogg. They both have higher than 6th starter upside. Paulino has much better stuff and has shown quite a bit of improvement from last year. I'm not an Underwood fan currently, but he's actually younger than Kellogg and has upside that Kellogg doesn't. Zastryzny is still going to be prospect eligible. I doubt he's ever a starter for us, but I'd say his chances are greater than Kellogg's are. Tseng is a pitchability type that is 2 levels ahead of Kellogg and is younger, plus put up as good as, or better of an A Ball season at 20, than Kellogg did this year.

 

Those 7 are guys I'd definitely put ahead of Kellogg, along with the low level guys like Albertos, Manuel Rondon, maybe Erling Moreno, and a few drafted guys. Hatch, for sure, with a possibility on Miller, Clark, and Mekkes, depending on any reports that are interesting.

 

We can agree to disagree, but I think you're making the same mistake as Law of overvaluing traditional stuff. To spin it in the opposite direction as Kellogg, I have no idea what to do with Cease, because I'm incredibly pessimistic on him being much of an MLB starter, but other teams will clearly value the velo enough to see if he can figure out how to hit the strike zone a few times every at bat. But more to the point, Clifton and De La Cruz might be better prospects(gun to my head I probably have both of them in front of Kellogg right now), but there isn't a huge gap between them and the Kelloggs of the world. That's part "there are no special pitchers", part "The Cubs have no special pitchers", and part "Kellogg is checking all the boxes of someone who can succeed without insane stuff".

 

Exactly this, at least if you want the short response - though gun to head I'd go Kellogg over de la Cruz right now. de la Cruz missing so much of the season to an elbow issue makes him a legitimate candidate to miss time in 2017 as the #1 predictor of injury is a recent and previous injury.

 

I still think all the ingredients are there for Kellogg to increase velocity btw. That doesn't go away because Law didn't correct a leading question or there weren't any reports this year (in either direction, as I believe 84-87 only to be polite - we'd have heard about that kind of velocity long ago). That he fielded a question at all about Kellogg shows that we're not looking at a non-entity like Jokisch, same on Kellogg being a possible first in the preseason last year. I don't tout the guys I tout randomly and have a solid track record with prospects - especially the Cubs system in recent years - so I look forward to this playing out. I expect him to finish next season with a successful run in AA and a track to at least debut during 2018 at 24.

 

I'll also mention that that question was more a trap question than a legit one. There is no real answer to that beyond the same expectations for everyone - do not suck. He held up, even got better as the year went on, and a high pedigree guy like him performing well is always a good thing.

 

To address individual arms:

 

de la Cruz - Missed half the season to elbow injury, two pitch guy right now, far off

Tseng - Blew chunks this year, mediocre stuff on a short RH. I am confused on how his solid but unspectacular age 19 is relevant but Kellogg's entire amateur career is not.

Zastrzny - Limited repertoire, command and control are mediocre at best

Paulino - Command and control, keeps repeating levels, is not a nuanced pitcher and his run prevention reflects it, profiles as a reliever - though I really could like him as one

Clark - Arm problems in the past, command and control problems, throws funny, straight reliever, what is even the appeal here? He throws hard? So do alot of guys, plus but not elite velocity is a fairly common trait these days - especially amomg RHs - and there's more to life

Mekkes - Could be pretty fun as a reliever actually, but is a straight up reliever and those are hard to believe in

Miller - His goal is to not be the next Skulina. I like him more coming out of school, but he's still more generic than his size lets on.

Moreno - Maybe before the TJ, now he's boring too

 

Like I said, for me, a guy like Kellogg, with average stuff(at best) needs to prove it at a higher level than A Ball, before he should even hit the radar. That's just my opinion obviously. If we hear something positive on him other than stat scouting, my opinion will change. Wasn't a trap question or anything, I still have no idea why his HS or college career matter, now that he's in the pros, considering he was highly thought of due to people thinking he would start showing more stuff. Until that's shown, I don't see why to think it'll just happen.

 

De La Cruz- He's got actual upside that's higher than Kellogg does. The injury stuff is an issue, but Kellogg is a pitcher himself and this could happen to him too. Its not like he's out of danger yet, nor do we know how cautious the Cubs were with DLC either. At any rate, I definitely think he's got more trade value than Kellogg currently.

Tseng- You kind of answered your own question with him. He did it at a much younger age than Kellogg did and he's struggling at advanced levels now. They're on the same level, stuff-wise, but since he's levels ahead, I'd err on his side.

Zastryzny- He's looking like a fairly capable reliever already. Fairly decent chance Kellogg never throws a major league pitch, so again, I'll take the proximity, plus the idea that Z can produce more velo at this point. Although I'd be remiss to mention I'm a bit surprised to see his average FB in the majors is sitting slightly under 90. Especially after seeing reports of him hitting 95 at times.

Paulino- I'll take the stuff over Kellogg's and think he's a potential breakout guy next year, because of it.

Clark- Like I said, I need to see reports on him. But he did go into his junior year as a potential 1st rounder too. So I'm curious.

Mekkes- I'm not sure what I want or need to see with him. He's a prove it guy too. I doubt I can see me putting him higher than Kellogg, unless he's got some sort of ridiculously great buzz that he was a steal. Which I doubt.

Miller- Need to see reports, what I've seen so far wasn't noteworthy. But I'll be curious on his Instructs and placement next year, since he's considered an upside type.

Moreno- I'm not as anti TJS as you and look at the age, relatively solid stuff, and wonder what else may be in there. More so than with Kellogg, age being a main reason.

[CubsWin]

A player's resume matters now? Okay...

 

1. USA Baseball's athlete of the year after leading the 18 and under team to a 9–0 record and being named the tournament MVP.

2. Played on six national teams while in high school, tying a record.

3. Won the USA Baseball Richard W. "Dick" Case Player of the Year Award in 2011.

4. Drafted 6th overall.

5. Received a $3.9 million signing bonus

6. Ranked 18th best prospect in baseball by MLB and BP.

7. Ranked in the top 40 by BA, MLB and BP 7 times.

 

I have no problem if someone thinks Almora won't amount to much, but if a player's resume matters for one guy, it matters for everybody.

[CubsWin]

A player's resume matters now? Okay...

 

1. USA Baseball's athlete of the year after leading the 18 and under team to a 9–0 record and being named the tournament MVP.

2. Played on six national teams while in high school, tying a record.

3. Won the USA Baseball Richard W. "Dick" Case Player of the Year Award in 2011.

4. Drafted 6th overall.

5. Received a $3.9 million signing bonus

6. Ranked 18th best prospect in baseball by MLB and BP.

7. Ranked in the top 40 by BA, MLB and BP 7 times.

 

I have no problem if someone thinks Almora won't amount to much, but if a player's resume matters for one guy, it matters for everybody.

 

Quick - now look at his performance in the minors. I liked Almora plenty on draft day. Since then he's shown one consistent offensive skill in that he does not strike out. Duh it matters for everybody, feel free to name the player I also don't look hard at performance for as well. Kellogg performed this year, plain and simple, and has the background of a guy who can continue to do so.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think will put up a greater career fWAR and be a more valuable major leaguer, Almora or Kellogg?

[ddwyer]

And yet I find it interesting that Kellogg is a couple of months older than Almora. Almora has played in the majors and Kellogg has not played above low A ball yet.

[davell]

I'm done. Guys with actual stuff appeal to me much, much more than ones that don't. When Kellogg is pitching well in AA, I'll start to care. Until that happens or he's recognized for something interesting by an actual evaluator, he's just a guy that's probably 50/50 to even make BA's top 30 Cubs prospects. Which certainly isn't worth having endless discussion over.

[Tim]

I need to take the time this weekend to update the prospect ranking page. I was going to wait until the minor league seasons were completely over, but it might as well be done now.

 

Can we start making a list of who needs to come off the list and who needs to get added?

 

Players to come off:

 

Contreras

Almora

Vogelbach

Torres

McKinney

Edwards

 

Players to add:

 

Hatch

Miller

Clark

Mekkes

Manuel Rondon

 

That was off the top of my head, so please add to the list.

[davell]

How are we classifying rookies? Almora doesn't have the AB that'd take him off BA's list, but he definitely has the service time. Edwards would fall into the same category, whichever way we go.

[Tim]

How are we classifying rookies? Almora doesn't have the AB that'd take him off BA's list, but he definitely has the service time. Edwards would fall into the same category, whichever way we go.

MLB Rookie eligibility rules.

[davell]

And Manuel Rondon definitely needs to be added.

[Tim]

hmm...which of the July 2 guys should be added?

[davell]

hmm...which of the July 2 guys should be added?

 

Eugenio Palma is a smallish lefty that put up a solid season at 19 in Arizona. That may be worth putting him on the list for.

 

Javier Assad is a J-2 guy that put up a solid stateside season. He probably should go on.

 

Personally, I'd be tempted to put Brailyn Marquez in my top 30. But I can go either way on whether to add the DSL guys or not. But I'd say, if you do add them, just go ahead and add all the guys that got listed bonuses. Which is a bunch, but it'd conceivably be fun to have us all pick a guy or two and see who winds up being right.

[Tim]

I'm done. Guys with actual stuff appeal to me much, much more than ones that don't. When Kellogg is pitching well in AA, I'll start to care. Until that happens or he's recognized for something interesting by an actual evaluator, he's just a guy that's probably 50/50 to even make BA's top 30 Cubs prospects. Which certainly isn't worth having endless discussion over.

 

It's in question what even counts as stuff, that solely seems to mean velocity from my understanding of your opinions, when you think Jen Ho Tseng is clearly better. Not to mention you greatly exaggerate Kellogg's stuff to fit your narrative in the first place.

He never said Tseng's stuff was better (that I recall). He brought up Tseng as someone who did better than Kellogg at the same level (at a much younger age) as reason to prefer him as a prospect.

[davell]

I'm done. Guys with actual stuff appeal to me much, much more than ones that don't. When Kellogg is pitching well in AA, I'll start to care. Until that happens or he's recognized for something interesting by an actual evaluator, he's just a guy that's probably 50/50 to even make BA's top 30 Cubs prospects. Which certainly isn't worth having endless discussion over.

 

It's in question what even counts as stuff, that solely seems to mean velocity from my understanding of your opinions, when you think Jen Ho Tseng is clearly better. Not to mention you greatly exaggerate Kellogg's stuff to fit your narrative in the first place.

 

Narrative? I doubt you understand the meaning of the word. The dude doesn't have a plus pitch. He's got an incredibly average arsenal. All i did was ask a question about the guy. The answer obviously set you off, you wouldnt have went into full defense mode otherwise. I love the fact you're still talking this guy up and digging in even more when you said before the season that you expected an add in velo(now backed off to it can happen anytime) and that you expected him to rocket thru the system and finish the year in AA(I'm sure there's some reason on that not happening too yet, you're still trumpeting an Eric Jokisch A Ball season as some magnanimous success on your end.(yeah, I saw your self congratulatory post on always being right about prospects, before you deleted it).

 

So who's got a narrative here? A guy that asked a question to an evaluator or the guy who's propped up this guy all season long and has gone into defensive mode because the answer doesn't fit what he's been saying everyday since we drafted the guy.