NSB Cubs Top 25 Prospects 2017

[Tim]

For this prospect ranking season, I'd like to use the prospect ranking page I built for the front end.

 

I propose that we do several rounds of voting, each round lasting a week. Between each round, we can argue the merits of our choices, lobby to have people moved up or down in the rankings, etc. Each person can vote multiple times each week, but only each person's final vote each week will count in the rankings.

 

1) does this process sound good or should we do it in the more traditional way?

2) what changes / enhancements should be made to the rankings page and the analysis page before we get kicked off? I know I'll need to add support to the analysis page for "Ranking by week"

 

There aren't nearly as many blue chip prospects as in years past, but there is still some good talent in the system. It should be fun!

[davell]

Eloy, Happ, Cease, Candelario, Clifton, De La Cruz, 7-25 are damn near interchangeable

[CyHawk_Cub]

Eloy = the only prospect I'd be bummed to lose in a trade, especially if it's for a pitcher

Happ = ehh, switch hitter, so cool I guess. Most Cubs fans I know love him though, so what do I know.

Jeimer = love him, but wouldn't hate to see him moved w/ his stock likely as high as it'll ever be

Paredes = love

 

A bunch of pitchers that I just can't get myself to care about much.

[craig]

Your tool works really well, Tim. I like the format.

 

To me, I see

clear 1: Jiminez

Clear 2: Cease.

 

3-5 definite: Clifton, de la Cruz, and Happ. (That's my order, but any order is fine I think. Although at this point I'm thinking Clifton has the edge here.)

 

6-9, I've got Zastryzny/Hatch/Albertos/Candelario as a group. I can understand tom or others wanting to bump Paredes or Kellogg, for example, into that group.

 

10-17, Guys I see as possible if unlikely starters, as opposed to role guys: Paredes, Eddy Martinez, Paulino, Kellogg, Hudson, Clark, and Zagunis.

 

17-21, I've grouped a bunch of long-distance but-who-knows-who-might-work-out Latin guys. Who know which might emerge as a serious guy, perhaps a good or even impact starter someday? Galindo, Marquiez, sierra, Amaya, Ademan.

 

22-24: Position bench/utility/role guys: Caratini, dewees, Wilson

 

25-41: Pile of pitchers. Variably distant; variably plausible for relief versus rotation; variably wild; variably good velocity. steele, Rivero, Williams, Pierce Johnson, Underwood, Moreno, Carrera, Miller. Who knows who might emerge? Last year Zastryzny and Pena would have been in that crowd for me; both ended up pitching for the Cubs, and Zastryzny is now probably #6 starter.

 

Perhaps several of these belong higher. For me I just found it helpful to group "types" of guys, and then try to rank within their sub-group.

 

Not sure how much star-power there is, outside of the Eloy/Cease. Hopefully one of the far-away Latin kids will emerge with some star-power. But still some guys with opportunity to become useful major-league guys.

 

I also suspect the Cubs development program may be helpful. May do a better job in optimizing guys compared to the Fleita program.

[Post Count Padder]

Here's my hastily made Top 40. Let the hot takes fly.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I haven't given a ton of thought to this but Eloy and Happ are 1 and 2 with a bullet. I'm not all that high on Cease but there's also a dearth of players to really claim spots after Happ too. I will probably continue my Ryan Williams crusade by putting him way higher than most everyone else.

[craig]

I'm not sure about Kellogg and Paredes in the 6-9 range, maybe since I don't love the system right now (do like it's potential, but they're clearly turning over), but soooooo many pre-injured pitchers at the top of the prospect pitching depth. Cease, de la Cruz, Albertos...I think Caratini needs more top 10 love, he's an age appropriate, steady climbing, switch hitting catcher with no questions about staying at the position and a patient approach at the plate. He seems to get penalized in the site rankings due to his fit on the Cubs' roster being bench/role, but he has a starting catcher's profile. I also believe Wilson has a higher ceiling than role player.

 

I have serious questions about Clark and Zagunis being starter quality prospects one day. I feel like Clark gets oversold from last year's draft, he's been bad so much more often than good as a pitcher. I don't see what makes him better than a Hockin or Mekkes.

 

Fair point. Of course, anybody beyond the first one or two guys, there are serious questions about whether they'll be starter-quality guys. Even if healthy, who knows if de la Cruz will have the command or the diversity of pitches to start? Most good relievers were once variably good rotation prospects.

 

Will be interesting to see how other people place guys. Everybody has their own views, of course.

1. I don't have Caratini as high as you because I perceive him as a 2nd-catcher. Little power, and I don't get the sense that his defense is excellent or above-average. Obviously starting catchers sit more than other players, though; so being a 2nd catcher can be a very important guy. A 50-start second-catcher, that's still a lot of games. So, perhaps I am undervaluing him on that basis. I just struggle to envision him being an above-average starting catcher.

2. Clark, I don't know that much. I'm interested in Clark because he throws hard and has excellent stuff; but also largely because IMO he hasn't failed yet. Maybe just a novelty factor, but I tend to rank guys up a little bit who are too new for me to know their faults. Clark may well have some, at which point he'll drop on my chart. But for now I'm not sure he does, and until they manifest I'm ranking him up some.

*My understanding is that Cubs thought his 2016 college season was compromised by injury. (Was it his ankle or knee ? Don't remember, but it was NOT his arm.) So I'm kind of passing off his mediocre college season to health rather than concluding that he's prohibitively wild and always will be.

*Maybe the "hasn't failed yet"/"hasn't shown his limits yes" is dumb. But until a guy fails or shows what he can't do, it gives the possibility that his ceiling is higher.

[davell]

I read somewhere that Caratini's D regressed to below average. That said, he's still got time. I THINK he's in my 7-10 range, with Zastryzny, Paulino, and Zagunis.

 

My 11-15 currently has Albertos, DeWees, Paredes, Hatch, and Ryan Williams if his shoulder is still attached.

 

16-20 is Wilson, EJM, Young, Kellogg, and Pena

 

21-25 is Moreno, Underwood, Rondon, Ademan, and Marquez

 

 

But this WILL change fairly often, as 7-25 seems interchangeable, but I'll probably stick with 7-10 as my actual top 10 long term.

[Tim]

In this system, I'm probably higher on Zagunis than most. I think he'll hit enough to have at least some kind of a role. He could probably step in for Szczur today and do just as well with those 200 AB. I could see him as a respectable starter for a second division team, so someone that will carry at least a little trade value.

[craig]

In this system, I'm probably higher on Zagunis than most. I think he'll hit enough to have at least some kind of a role. He could probably step in for Szczur today and do just as well with those 200 AB. I could see him as a respectable starter for a second division team, so someone that will carry at least a little trade value.

 

Zagunis career .836 OPS with .401 OBP. In five minor league stops of >2 games, his worst OPS is Myrtle at .818; the other four have all been .846 or higher. This year he slugged .469 with 10 HR in 101 games. He's 23, so not old for an AAA guy. Don't see why he might not project to potentially have enough bat to be a starter in the majors.

 

I'm still curious how the power will go, up or down. Better pitching in majors, it goes down for lots of guys. (Baez thus far, for example.) But quite a few guys get stronger after age 23.

[Tim]

Tim, I can neither use the ranking page on my iPhone or iPad.

Yeah, javascript drag and drop doesn't work nearly as well on IOS.

[craig]

I'm thinking maybe something like....After the first four I am thrown off and will have to reshuffle and rethink:

...Happ - I'm most concerned about swing and miss.....

 

I'm hugely concerned about that. He's K'd a ton at every level, just as he K'd a lot in college. No hint that this is a correctable problem. Huge red flag for me. Statistically, not sure he's got the HR power to justify so many K's. But even more than the K's as a number, I wonder if that isn't just a manifestation of a scouting/tools problem. You don't continuously K that often without there being a reason, or perhaps several reasons. Sometimes the higher you go, the more the reasons get exposed or perhaps taken advantage of. Without either a strong defensive position or a strong HR rate, I'm pretty cautious on his ability to work around the contact problems that cause the high K-rate. I've got some Brett Jackson concerns, honestly.

 

That said, I'm hopeful I'm just paranoid, and that somehow the problem will be somewhat correctable. Scouts and stuff don't seem to view his contact problem as being acute and prohibitive; he still ranked shockingly high in the Southern League BA rankings, for example, and smart Cub fans like you still have him as high as #2. So perhaps my concerns are misplaced in some way.

[ddwyer]

I tried to rank the prospects but my browser does not allow the drag and drop. I tried using Explorer, Edge and Firefox. Maybe I have a setting goofed up? thanks for any help.

ddwyer

[craig]

I'm thinking maybe something like....After the first four I am thrown off and will have to reshuffle and rethink:

[#10]. Clifton - How much did he benefit from pitching MB all year? He wasn't so much better than last year when hitters were league average against him. So far I think of him as a possible Justin Grimm type RP.....

 

Not sure I'm tracking the MB logic here. Are you arguing that hitters were league average against him at SB, and that he isn't really much different/better now, his reputation/stats have just gotten deceptively padded by park/league effects? You've got him only #10, behind guys like Pena. I've actually got him higher, I had him 3rd on my list (behind Cease, in front of de la Cruz/Happ).

 

Couple thoughts:

1. You may be right. His numbers are as nice as they are in part because he allowed only 4 HR's, despite having only a 0.68 GO/AO ratio. May have gotten park/League lucky/protected, and it's a lot easier to pitch when you're not scared of HR's.

2. I thought his SB season showed considerable improvement. My recall is that he was wild and wildly inconsistent early, but that during July/August he was much more consistent. So even if his SB season was hitters-league-average, I think his late-season was probably much superior. And I think that continued and further-improved at MB.

3. One of the late scouting reports evaluated him as having 3 solid-to-plus big-league pitches, in the fastball, the curve, and the change. Can't remember, was that an announcer or manager, so perhaps baloney? Or perhaps the BA Top-20 or something?

4. His K-rate is solid. More than K-per-inning. So, good stuff seems to be there.

5. HIs 2016 couldn't have all been park/league. He was league pitcher of the year, and led that league in WHIP, BA-against, ERA, and was 3rd in K's. So, the league saw him as unusually good relative to the league.

6. I think his consistency and control improved as the year progressed. Over his last ten starts, he was 63K/10BB. That is VERY good. His stuff was good enough in SB, but he was too inconsistent. If the good-stuff 3-solid-pitches guy is able to fairly consistently access those pitches, there's potential there.

7. Young. He'll still be only 21 for first quarter of next season. So there's still time to continue to work on consistency and control. Obviously younger than Hatch (who I like very well) and de la Cruz and Kellogg and guys like that. So, young enough that there may still be a little more physical optimization and delivery optimization/consistency-improvement left for him.

8. One advantage as a starter is that he's got some interesting splits, or lack thereof. He was actually better versus lefties. May be coincidence, but doesn't appear that he'll get killed by the higher volume and quality of lefty hitters that big-league teams can stack against RHP.

9. He's had control issues in past. Those seemed to diminish a lot late last season, but that control/consistency is really a key question. Easy to have it when you're in a groove, when everything is going well, and when you're facing crummy Carolina-League hitters where even if you make a mistake they won't hit it over the wall. I think it will be huge question whether his control/command will be good enough going forward, and consistent enough. Easy come, easy go, I think.... That's where your Justin Grimm analogy may prove true. Grimm can look terrific on days when he can locate and throw strikes; but that ability can vanish in an instant, it seems. We'll see with Clifton, whether the strong control he showed 2nd half this year will be the steady thing from now on, or whether he'll be off-and-on.

10. The curve and the change, those are two very hard pitches to control and command. Easy to envision those being hard to consistently throw for strikes.

11. Clifton is now a pretty well built guy. I'm not sure there's any inherent reason why he'll be physically unable to sustain a rotation workload. Plenty of 6-inning starters around.

12. To my knowledge, he's pretty much fastball/curve/change. Don't think he's added the cutter yet. Sometimes when a guy finally adds the cutter, a pitcher can significantly improve his arsenal and effectiveness. So, it's possible that he's still got another positive step to take.

[craig]

....Jackson did strike out relatively more ....

 

You are correct. Happ is >22% K-rate; Jackson was <24% K-rate through AA. <2% difference through the comparable levels, but maybe even that is significant. It wasn't really till Jackson hit AAA that his K's went nuts.

[craig]

... Are you arguing that hitters were league average against him at SB, and that he isn't really much different/better now, his reputation/stats have just gotten deceptively padded by park/league effects? ..

 

..The bold is correct. ....

 

Tom, is this primarily a park thing, as opposed to a league thing? If it's a league thing, shouldn't all pitchers have received those league benefits?

[Little Slide Rooter]

1. Eloy

2. Happ

3. Candelerio

4. Cease

5. DeLaCruz

6. Paredes

7. DeWees

8. Zagunis

9. EJM

10.Caratini

11. Moreno

12. Zaz

13-whatever: put Sands, Steele, Williams, Tseng, Underwood, Mitchell, Wilson, Hatch, Twomey, Mekkes, Kellogg, Clifton, and some other dudes in a brown paper bag, shake it well, and take your pick.

[TruffleShuffle]

1. eloy

2-25. who cares, we just won the freaking world series.

[toonsterwu]

This offseason is more exciting than last offseason. There's the obvious - the World Series ... but I'm far more intrigued with where the system is this offseason compared to when it entered last offseason, from a prospect perspective. Simply put, there's more ceiling to be excited about (and specifically, pitching), but I think, compared to where the system was a year ago, there is a better blend of ceiling/floor in the upper levels as well.

 

I'm sure if I thought long and hard, I could come up with a recent Cubs grouping of arms that excites as much as Cease/de la Cruz/Albertos do (and I'm loathe to not include Clifton in that grouping, but much as I like him, his ceiling is just that tiny tick below). I mean ... 2003 was a good, deep group of arms, but the ceiling is tough to compare. To be honest, I think that trio of guys, ceiling wise, is near the top for any trio in a system in the minors (the one trio that comes to mind and tops the list, for me, is Giolito/Lopez/Fedde. The Braves have insane depth, but ceiling wise ... I'd take our trio over any trio you can come up with in their system. Brewers come to mind, with Hader/Ortiz/Bickford.) Add in Clifton to that mix ... and the fact that we'll need some young arms sooner than later ... and it's exciting. Sure, there's probably as high a chance that their best value is as a trade asset, but it's exciting.

 

Eloy offers us monstrous intrigue, and there's enough upper level guys that look like they can contribute positionally (Zagunis/Candelario/Caratini) or be positive trade assets. I mean, I was probably higher than most on Zagunis last offseason ... and now that he's performed in the higher levels ... I still say that if you just looked at Zagunis' attributes and forgot the name for a moment (potentially strong defensive OF, great approach/discipline, has some gap power), you'd think him to be a far more intriguing asset than most view him to be (now, there are some questions on that swing, unless something changed that I wasn't paying attention to). For the first time in a long time, our MI depth looks fairly thin, but Paredes is there, although I'm still sort of wait and see on what he becomes. The system entering last offseason, simply put, was not as exciting as it seems now, IMO.

 

If I had to stab at a top 10 ...

 

1. Eloy - Happ bothers me, and Eloy's ceiling is really that big.

 

2. Happ - I don't particularly love Happ, but I think he settles down in AA in 2017 and is knocking on the door as another multi-position guy for Maddon by year's end. Anyhow, the arms are too far away.

3. Cease - Ceiling is huge, but far away. Was tempted to go with Cease over Happ.

4. de la Cruz - The strong run, albeit SSS, at SB, and his ceiling, has me intrigued to see if he can follow up on it in 2017 and perhaps see AA at some point. I see Tom's point, and I guess we'll have to wait and see how de la Cruz's FB plays as he moves up, but I think at this stage,nothing's really changed in how I view his ceiling.

 

5. Zagunis - I started Zagunis really high last offseason as well (higher than this) and eventually talked him down a bit ... but again ... strip away the name, and the attributes are that of a solid OF prospect who has reached the upper levels far faster than anyone really thought.

6. Clifton - Really hard to deny what a wonderful year he had in MB. I still sort of waffle on him as a future rotation asset, so am very curious how his stuff plays in AA.

7. Candelario - I really like him, but it was such a up and down season for him. Still, youth, offensive upside, defensive improvement is on his side. Clearly tops the list of possible mid-season trade asset to fill position of need, so really hoping he gets off to a huge start.

 

8. Hudson - I somewhat overlooked him earlier, but he was always a work in progress, and so far ... nothing has been that alarming to jump off the upside.

9. Albertos - somewhat cautious, but yeah, the reports did seem that good. Once upon a time, Jen-Ho Tseng hit upper 90's as well. Now, different situation, as this was done stateside, but really want to see more before I get that excited.

10. Paredes - If I got that excited over Marco Hernandez reports from Arizona way back in the day ... then I should be intrigued enough with Paredes now (and I am ... far better system now). I was tempted to go Jose Paulino here. Was actually pondering DJ Wilson here briefly. Thought about Hatch as well.

 

____

 

Last year, I thought the system was more in that 15-22 range. We're in the era where really good or really bad systems (depending on the state of the major league team) will occur more, but this feels like, at a quick glance, a borderline top 10 system depending on how you view the ceiling. Considering the immense losses, the young ML squad, and the lower drafting positions, that's awesome.

[CubsWin]

For this prospect ranking season, I'd like to use the prospect ranking page I built for the front end.

 

I propose that we do several rounds of voting, each round lasting a week. Between each round, we can argue the merits of our choices, lobby to have people moved up or down in the rankings, etc. Each person can vote multiple times each week, but only each person's final vote each week will count in the rankings.

 

1) does this process sound good or should we do it in the more traditional way?

2) what changes / enhancements should be made to the rankings page and the analysis page before we get kicked off? I know I'll need to add support to the analysis page for "Ranking by week"

 

There aren't nearly as many blue chip prospects as in years past, but there is still some good talent in the system. It should be fun!

Fun set up, Tim. Looking forward to see how this week's final list looks.

[Guancous]

John Sickels asked for input on his Cubs list at Minor League Ball: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2016/11/19/13686610/chicago-cubs-organization-discussion

[toonsterwu]

The Braves have insane depth, but ceiling wise

 

I'd take the percieved ceiling of any of Newcomb, Allard, Anderson, Muller, and Wentz over the perceieved ceiling of any Cubs arm prospect. Right off the bat all three in this system have missed all or most of a season to an elbow or shoulder issue, a nice way to put a dent into ceiling.

 

8. Hudson - I somewhat overlooked him earlier, but he was always a work in progress, and so far ... nothing has been that alarming to jump off the upside.

 

The 41/41 K:BB in 58 IP in a pitcher's park isn't alarming? Even the 4 HRs...What are the ceilings of de la Cruz and Hudson?

 

On the Braves - fair enough. Everyone will view it differently. I really don't love the ceilings of some of the Braves arms. If we expand it out to 5 or more arms, sure. But I like the ceilings of Cease/de la Cruz/Albertos stacked up against any threesome of that system. Obviously, ceiling in of itself has very little meaning, as you note about injuries. My point wasn't necessarily to say that any of these guys will make it (as I noted, at the end of the day, could be that the most value that these guys bring is trade value), just that the ceiling of those three guys is, IMO, that high.

 

As for Hudson, and I could be wrong, but I think I might've been the low man on him last offseason ... but what did folks expect? A lanky, 6'8" breaking ball reliant kid was going to be a work in progress. I'll probably flip him and Albertos, as that makes zero sense looking at it now (I think Albertos' ceiling is higher), and may move guys a spot or two here and there ... but I'm not terribly alarmed on much about Hudson as of now. If he doesn't show improvement this year? That'd be a slightly different story.

 

I was very strong last offseason that I thought de la Cruz's profile was that of a potential TOR type arm, but with a little more volatility in what he could potentially become, and with the solid run at SB, I still view him that way. Hudson's ceiling ... I'd probably put it at a notch above mid-rotation arm, depending on how his fastball consistency/changeup development goes.

[craig]

...As for Hudson, and I could be wrong, but I think I might've been the low man on him last offseason ... but what did folks expect? A lanky, 6'8" breaking ball reliant kid was going to be a work in progress. .....

 

Hey, toonster, thanks for the input. Fun to see your optimism and enthusiasm!

 

I expected (and hoped) for more velocity out of Hudson. The nature of a HS projection guy is that he gets faster.

 

I was disappointed that there was no evidence that happened, and instead that the actual guy this past season appeared to be slower than what the draft summer, fall instrux, and spring camp reports had suggested. Hopefully he adds a bunch this season.

 

If you go 2-3 years into your career and no added velocity has come yet, then it's probably not going to.

Edited November 22, 2016 by craig

[davell]

Hudson regressed by what we've seen out of BA this past season. Supposedly, he had a very solid Instructs.

[Hrubes20]

The Braves have insane depth, but ceiling wise

 

I'd take the percieved ceiling of any of Newcomb, Allard, Anderson, Muller, and Wentz over the perceieved ceiling of any Cubs arm prospect. Right off the bat all three in this system have missed all or most of a season to an elbow or shoulder issue, a nice way to put a dent into ceiling.

 

8. Hudson - I somewhat overlooked him earlier, but he was always a work in progress, and so far ... nothing has been that alarming to jump off the upside.

 

The 41/41 K:BB in 58 IP in a pitcher's park isn't alarming? Even the 4 HRs...What are the ceilings of de la Cruz and Hudson?

 

I'm with you on Hudson. That was truly as horrific of a year as you could have while still staying healthy. Can only hope they had him working on something very specific that was causing the walks and hard contact.

 

This is one of the most difficult Cubs farms I've ever ranked in the offseason.