Diffusion

Giles for Marquis? If the Padres are even considering that, Hendry has to be on the phone offering Mitre... But why on earth would the Padres be considering that? They'd have effectively traded Giles, Chick and Germano for Randa and Marquis. Giles is better offensively than Randa, Germano is probably about as good as Marquis long-term, and Chick is a decent prospect. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Am I the only one who doesn't get the big stink about this guy? Yes he has pretty good power, but his plate discipline is poor (averaging a strikeout a game this year and throughout his professional career) and he's really only having a solid year at a level he played at last season. At least Brandon Sing walks a lot and destroyed the levels that he's repeated. I feel like if Moore had been drafted in the 20th round instead of 8th overall, nobody would think anything of him. Erm........ AgeLevelABAVGOBPSLGHRBBKBABIPBrandon Sing24AA316.304.415.601236485.340Scott Moore21High-A359.273.347.490174197.320 Sing walks more, is getting somewhat luckier on balls in play going for hits and has more power. They're striking out at very similar rates. Moore though is a level below Sing and is, crucially, three years younger. I don't see the great difference here. I always find making these kind of lists difficult. So much floor and ceiling to balance. Where does a guy like Harvey rank compared to someone like Cedeno and where does he rank compared to someone like Greenberg? My personal assessment of these players is that you're looking at a huge upside but extremely unlikely to ever make the major leagues (Harvey), an absolute lock to make the majors but probably not be that great even for a shortstop (Cedeno), and a very good bet to be one of the best fourth outfielders in the game (Greenberg). Now which would you rather have? I'm really not sure I'd say Harvey.

Hehe. I am very grateful I'm not 2000 miles away myself, because in my case that'd put me in a dinghy in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. :shock:

I didn't say that he wasn't a prospect, if that's what you're implying with that final sentence. I said he was an "okay prospect", as opposed to the very good one that Truffle seemed to be arguing he was. Typically the adjective I use to describe a prospect correlates with the kind of major league career that I think they're most likely to have. In other words, I can see Sing having an okay major league career for a first baseman (or corner oufielder). Not special, not terrible, just okay. Let me see, something like Richie Sexson-lite. Your thoughts? No problem. I accept your apology, I tender a counter apology for being a bit aggressive in replying, I applaud you for your great work in the booth, and I respectfully disagree that I'm not allowed to formulate any opinion on a player without having seen him play.

Which, with all due respect, Ron, I've said pretty much one thing and one thing only about Sing that's subjective, and that's that he's "an okay prospect". I'm not quite sure why this infuriates you so much. I don't need to broadcast the game to be able to come to such a conclusion. You can look at the numbers, you can hear what people who have seen him play have said, yourself included, you can read BA, John Sickels, scouting reports, there are a lot of ways of finding out about a player besides going to the game. Every single other thing that I've said in this thread about Brandon Sing has been to dispute Truffle's usage of numbers, which I think is slightly flawed. I haven't tried to pass off numbers as the be all and end all - in fact, quite the opposite. I said very specifically that "it's about looking at a player's game and seeing how it ties in which the numbers that he puts up and therefore what he projects to." I made it just as clear that I don't know exactly how things do tie in with regards to Sing. The rest of what I've said has been disputing numbers and usage of numbers, not passing judgement on Sing's abilities. I know how to use numbers. They tell you quite a bit, and they're a great predictive tool if you know what you're looking for. Sure, it's not ideal that I can't watch the Jaxx games, or any other minor league games for that matter, it'd be great to be getting a fuller picture. But what do you want me to do? Commute 4000 miles every day? I find that your broadcasts quite suffice actually, they're excellent. I also find it ironic that you state "numbers don't give you the entire story...", and then argue your case using, er, numbers, just numbers... All of which is true. I've already retracted by "ancient" comment, which was as much an exaggeration as Truffle's original "he's a little old for his league", and which did undermine my point. But my point is that being a) 24, b) drafted out of high school and c) in Double-A makes him more than just "a little old for his league". You're not wrong, the average age for Double-A is 23. However, I'd be willing to stake quite a bit of money on the average age of high school drafted players in Double-A being lower. Well, high school drafted players in Double-A that are still prospects. And, incidentally, I'm well aware of the park factors involved with the Cubs' minor league system. Besides Peoria, actually, I'm not entirely sure how that plays. Compare levels and ages: Sing: 24: Double-A Dunn: 25: Majors Slight difference. The point is that Sing is going to have to continue to show herculean levels of power and patience at the major league level, as Adam Dunn does, if he's to be a productive hitter at 1B in spite of hitting for a low average. That's a whole lot easier said than done.

So do I. But if you're looking at numbers guys, one of the first things you have to consider and lend a huge amount of weight to is age relative to the league. And Sing is old. Secondly, strikeouts for me are a big factor, and Sing does quite a bit too much of it. Strikeouts suppress average, and they mean that to be an impact player you need to have obscene plate discipline and power. Does Sing have enough plate discipline and power that it projects to carry over in similar quantities to the major leagues? Because it'll need to if he's only hitting .260, and that's what his K's will do to him once he reaches the majors. And it's not so much about "potential" guys. It's about looking at a player's game and seeing how it ties in which the numbers that he puts up and therefore what he projects to. Not doing so would be negligent. Why is Sing striking out so much? Does he have poor hand eye co-ordination? Does he swing hard even with two strikes? Does he chase outside the zone? Does he have a long swing? Does he have problems hitting a certain pitch? I don't know, never seen him play, but you can't just say with a prospect "he's hitting .298/.406/.586 in his second shot at Double-A aged 24, therefore he's a good one".

Er, for someone drafted out of high school, 24 is ancient for AA. "A little old for the league" would be a little more accurate than "ancient", wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't. Brandon Sing will be a minor league free agent at the end of this year if he's not protected on the 40-man roster. That's quite a bit older than "a little old for his league". Maybe it's not quite ancient, but it's getting there. Obviously. And 4 years being a lifetime when it comes to prospects, that's why they're not freaking out about those numbers. OK, well let's look at it this way. Matt Murton played three years at Georgia Tech, which most people compare to playing at a level of competition similar to Low A baseball. Murton is 6 months younger than Sing. Murton 2000: DNP (between high school and college) 2001: Low A 2002: Low A 2003: Low A/Advanced Rookie League 2004: High A 2005: Double A Sing: 1999: Low Rookie League 2000: High Rookie League 2001: Low A 2002: High A 2003: Double A -> High A (washout due to mono) 2004: High A 2005: Double A So Sing has advanced a bit more slowly, but essentially Murton repeated the same level three times in college. Sing put up better numbers than Murton at the same level last year, and he's putting up numbers at least as good if not better than Murton at AA this year (after all, his OBP and SLG are better than Murton's at WTenn). So why do people consider Murton a strong prospect, and Sing a marginal prospect, when they're 6 months apart? Matt Murton is "a strong prospect"? Since when? Matt Murton won't ever be much less marginal a prospect than Brandon Sing until he either learns to hit for power or shifts himself to the opposite end of the defensive spectrum in a hurry. The second isn't going to happen. Just because Murton has an okay, what, 20 PA in the majors hasn't changed the first one either. Seriously, where do you get this impression than "people" think Murton is "a strong prospect" from? "People" are wrong. He's an okay prospect, probably a bit more okay than Sing, but not by much. Secondly, the career paths for college and high school players are completely different and you know that. In college you play how many games a year? You're playing professionally are you? The level of instruction is exactly the same as in the minor leagues? The level of competition is comparable, is it, in Freshman, Sophomore and Junior years? Murton, a college draftee, at age 23 in Double-A is roughly where he should be. Sing at age 24 in Double-A, drafted out of high school, is completely different. You know that. I don't know why you're going so out of your way to insist that Brandon Sing is some sort of prospect that's really worth getting excited about. He's not, he's just okay. What? Walk and strikeout rates going in the wrong directions at first when promoted to the big leagues is what's happened to just about every single hitting prospect that has ever lived. How on earth can you say that they aren't likely to happen to everyone? They have, they are and they will. In the minors, Dubois had a BB/K ratio of 201/430 in 1633 ABs. This year he had a 7/49 ratio in 142 ABs. See where I said sharp decline up there? You mean to tell me that most guys start striking out about 50% more frequently when they get called up, and they walk less than half as much as they did in the minors? No, I don't mean to tell you that. Dubois' is an extreme example to be sure. But that doesn't change the fact that for Dubois, if you read a scouting report on him, such struggles weren't "hard to foresee" as you claim. Sure, you can look just at the fact he put up superficially great numbers at Triple-A, or you can also look at his game and his swing. I can't say I picked Dubois' enormous decline myself, I didn't get to watch him play in Iowa last year, but I know plenty of people myself who did and most of them saw Dubois' struggles coming a mile off. Declines in BB/K are absolutely commonplace with prospects. Most hitters struggle in a similar fashion to Dubois early on, if not quite as extreme. Take a look at Felipe Lopez of the BlueJays (now Reds), as an example off the top of my head. Of course, he was a lot, lot younger when struggling. That's an enormous advantage. But one Sing doesn't have himself. Didn't say otherwise, did I? In fact, I said exactly that. I don't disagree with that necessarily. However... 1) I bet I can find you plenty that slipped that badly, but then didn't go on to have a good major league career. All those 4A players. 2) I bet I can find you plenty of very young prospects whose numbers slipped that badly. Of course, that's irrelevant to a discussion about Dubois and Sing, who, incidentally, I didn't actually compare myself. 1) College guy 2) Still younger than Sing at the same levels 3) Has raked his entire minor league career, no exceptions 4) Strikes out significantly less than Sing

Er, for someone drafted out of high school, 24 is ancient for AA. Obviously. And 4 years being a lifetime when it comes to prospects, that's why they're not freaking out about those numbers. What? Walk and strikeout rates going in the wrong directions at first when promoted to the big leagues is what's happened to just about every single hitting prospect that has ever lived. How on earth can you say that they aren't likely to happen to everyone? They have, they are and they will. Why? Because major league pitchers typically have better stuff than minor league counterparts, they throw harder, they control it better, they make less mistakes, they mix up their pitches better, they notice weaknesses faster and then exploit them more efficiently. That, after all, is why they're major leaguers and why the minor leaguers aren't. If you read the scouting report on Dubois, it's always said that he's had some trouble hitting breaking balls. Major leaguers have make a mockery of that weakness. And they're not hugely afraid of his strengths, either, not enough to pitch around the guy just because he slugged .630 in Triple-A aged 25 in a real hitter's league. Sing's an okay prospect.

Carlos Marmol at West Tenn First 3 starts: 13.1 IP, 17 H, 2 HR, 15 BB, 7 K, 6.08 ERA Last 3 starts: 19 IP, 10 H, 3 HR, 6 BB, 22 K, 1.42 ERA All about the control. In those last three starts, the three solo shots are the only runs he's given up.

I'm sorry, Truffle, but ever since you put Josie Maran in your sig I've been finding it hard to pay any attention to a word you say. But keep posting though...

So for now, until they trade one of them, the Reds get two Adam Dunns? Poor them, "two players hitting .240 with 400 K's between them yadda yadda...." Yes, I still want Adam Dunn. Thats not what he's saying at all. He's saying the reds, with dunn are not as good as the cubs would be, if they had dunn. Er, thanks, Roast, I think. I know what he was saying. All I was saying was that "The Reds Lineup" features one Adam Dunn as it is, and then you've got "+ Adam Dunn" as well, making two Adam Dunns. That's a thought that'll blow the mind of many around here. So I was joking.

No way Dusty benches Hollandsworth for another lefty-hitting outfielder. I think you are wrong. Check back w/ me in six weeks. Gerut has much more talent than Holla does. Yet their performance throughout their careers has been fairly similar. Well, that is a somewhat deceiving point considering that Gerut has less than two full season's worth of at bats in his career and Holla has been up for about 8 seasons (or whatever) now. Also, when comparing the two, I think it is fair to say that a guy like Gerut fits into the team's plans next year while Holla likely does not. Gerut has better minor league numbers, but he was at older ages for the levels. Their career major league numbers are nearly identical, even though Hollandsworth has a longer career to draw from. Gerut may be a better defender, but there's really not much in their numbers to conclude that Gerut will be any better than Hollandsworth. Bah. Gerut was only older because he missed about 18 months with a serious double surgery on his left knee. He was no more experienced than most of the guys he was playing against in AA and AAA. Their career major league numbers are similar. That said, Gerut has more pronounced splits. Gerut really really hits righties well, and he can't hit a lefty to save his life, hugely dampening his overall numbers. That in a way is more useful than Hollandsworth's less pronounced split, at least if you have a manager intelligent enough to exploit the opportunity. The difference between Gerut and Hollandsworth defensively is pretty significant, and one thing that has been constantly overlooked in this discussion. People are quick to point that Dubois completely undermined whatever little good (though more bad) he did at the plate with very poor defence in left, and they're right. Likewise, people here should be able to appreciate more than while Hollandsworth is an average defender, Gerut is something pretty special in the field. Gerut can also play CF, and can be trusted to do so well. Good defence is criminally underrated by people around here when it comes to assessing a player's value. Some people really take the whole OBP and SLG thing are the be all and end all far too far. There's important, very important. But there are other aspects to the game... Gerut can also steal the odd base. Gerut is three/four times cheaper than Hollandsworth, at least this year. Gerut is a lot younger than Hollandsworth. We own the rights to Gerut through 2009. We own the rights to Hollandsworth through 2005. If you have a choice between Gerut and Hollandsworth, you take Gerut every single time. He's many times over a more valuable an asset than Hollandsworth. All good points. I guess what I'm getting at is Gerut that much better than Hollandsworth, that it was worth giving up Dubois to get him? If they make Gerut the starting centre fielder against right-handers, yes, definately. If not, then probably not. But it won't be a bad trade because of Gerut or Hollandsworth, it'll be bad managing by Dusty that'll have made it not worth it. Then again, Dubois wasn't ever going to help this team this year. In the short term at least, Murton is more likely to make an impact than Dubois, because he's a far more polished and refined hitter. And there's only room for one of them, and the Cubs can't be having Dubois learning on the job. We're trying to win a pennant, and our lineup has too many holes elsewhere to carry him. In the longer term, if Dubois ever learns to hit a breaking ball, he could be a dangerous hitter. But Dubois is old, and he's had plenty of time to learn already, so you have to wonder whether he'll ever be able to achieve that, or whether he'll flame out at the major league level. A 4-A guy. There is of course an opportunity cost with every player you trade away. Could Dubois have been better used to net a reliever, or used in a package to net a bigger fish? Maybe, I don't know. All the same, I'm happy with Gerut.

So for now, until they trade one of them, the Reds get two Adam Dunns? Poor them, "two players hitting .240 with 400 K's between them yadda yadda...." Yes, I still want Adam Dunn.

No way Dusty benches Hollandsworth for another lefty-hitting outfielder. I think you are wrong. Check back w/ me in six weeks. Gerut has much more talent than Holla does. Yet their performance throughout their careers has been fairly similar. Well, that is a somewhat deceiving point considering that Gerut has less than two full season's worth of at bats in his career and Holla has been up for about 8 seasons (or whatever) now. Also, when comparing the two, I think it is fair to say that a guy like Gerut fits into the team's plans next year while Holla likely does not. Gerut has better minor league numbers, but he was at older ages for the levels. Their career major league numbers are nearly identical, even though Hollandsworth has a longer career to draw from. Gerut may be a better defender, but there's really not much in their numbers to conclude that Gerut will be any better than Hollandsworth. Bah. Gerut was only older because he missed about 18 months with a serious double surgery on his left knee. He was no more experienced than most of the guys he was playing against in AA and AAA. Their career major league numbers are similar. That said, Gerut has more pronounced splits. Gerut really really hits righties well, and he can't hit a lefty to save his life, hugely dampening his overall numbers. That in a way is more useful than Hollandsworth's less pronounced split, at least if you have a manager intelligent enough to exploit the opportunity. The difference between Gerut and Hollandsworth defensively is pretty significant, and one thing that has been constantly overlooked in this discussion. People are quick to point that Dubois completely undermined whatever little good (though more bad) he did at the plate with very poor defence in left, and they're right. Likewise, people here should be able to appreciate more than while Hollandsworth is an average defender, Gerut is something pretty special in the field. Gerut can also play CF, and can be trusted to do so well. Good defence is criminally underrated by people around here when it comes to assessing a player's value. Some people really take the whole OBP and SLG thing are the be all and end all far too far. There's important, very important. But there are other aspects to the game... Gerut can also steal the odd base. Gerut is three/four times cheaper than Hollandsworth, at least this year. Gerut is a lot younger than Hollandsworth. We own the rights to Gerut through 2009. We own the rights to Hollandsworth through 2005. If you have a choice between Gerut and Hollandsworth, you take Gerut every single time. He's many times over a more valuable an asset than Hollandsworth.

I don't know exactly how it works with Japanese free agents and options etc. All the same, he can't possibly have had them or the White Sox would have optioned him instead of DFA'ing him. Unless they were that desperate to get him out of town.

Yes, two. Two injuries, one very serious (torn labrum), and this one. Yes, in that a few months ago, in Spring Training, the optimism here regarding Guzman was enormous. He even ranked 3rd in the pre-season rankings here at NSBB. Not debating that, Raw. Well, 56.1 if you include ST. All the same, it is pretty hard to get over. As has been pointed out, that's not true. He threw 156 innings in 2002. He suspect that if he gets healthy before the end of the year, he'll pitch Winter Ball and Spring Training. He's out of options next year, and so will need to make the big league team. Put him in the back of the bullpen, break him in the Earl Weaver way. Really don't see that at all. Yes, there are a lot less talented pitchers than him. There are enough more talented that I don't see him ever becoming more than a fifth starter. I'm take the gamble on a pitcher with greater upside than I'll take a surer thing fifth starter. The situations aren't even remotely comparable.

I wonder if we don't tend to overrate our own guys and underrate those of other teams? Julio is having a reasonable year (WHIP of 1.20, and excellent K/BB), is young, and has a big arm. Marlins need a strong reliever. Equating Julio with Hawkins is silly, IMO. Why? Both are guys with heavy fastballs that they feel most comfortable reverting to, and they also both throw sliders. Their contractual situations are reasonably similar. The biggest difference is that Hawkins is a lot older. Both have shown a tendency to be a bit eratic. Maybe. Penn's a nice prospect. But I'm a big Marshall fan too. At least Dubois can hit. Well, kind of. Bleh, okay, he can't hit, but at least he's cheap. I consider Marshall a better prospect than Hill. Murton I prefer to Dubois, but I don't think either will be a great major league hitter. Dempster's out of contract at the end of the year. It's still a bad haul for the Marlins.

One of the issues here is that you're overrating Burnett. Not talent wise, talent wise I think he's still underrated, he's a legitimate low-3.00s ERA pitcher. But Burnett is a free agent at the end of the year, so you're talking about a 2-3 month rental. So the Marlins will only be able to command cents on the dollar for Burnett. All that said, Penn, Bigbie and Julio, that's roughly equivalent to Marshall, Dubois and Hawkins really. Marlins are getting fleeced. The decisive factor in the fleecing though is Lowell, not Burnett. I really have no idea why the Marlins are trying to shift Lowell so desperately. Yes, he's expensive, yes he's underperforming, but they'd be much better off waiting until his value isn't at rock bottom. He's a good 3B. They're selling him as though he's Mo Vaughn, as though getting rid of him is a plus for them. That's rubbish. C Lopez 1B Lowell, 2B Roberts, SS Tejada, 3B Mora LF Surhoff, CF Matos, RF Sosa DH Palmeiro That'd be a nice lineup. And Burnett in the rotation. And they keep Daniel Cabrera. Good trade for the O's. And if they can re-sign Burnett at the end of the year, great trade for the O's.

Unless Hill can throw either his changeup or his cutter to major league righties, and he didn't in his recent stint with the Cubs, he has no future in a major league rotation. He simply cannot go through a major league lineup three times with a curveball, however good, and a merely okay fastball that he works up in the zone too much with. That combination is good enough for the minor leagues, because the reason most minor leaguers are minor leaguers at all is they can't hit a good breaking ball. When they sit on the curve, not only can they still not hit, but they make it easy to sneak a fastball by them. They don't stand a chance, hence the huge K numbers. The same isn't quite as true for major leaguers. Hill will strike out a lot of major leaguers too. But when he doesn't induce swings and misses, he'll get hit hard. In fact, that's true in the minors as well - Hill has given up 19 home runs on the year already to minor leaguers, 14 of them to righties. If minor leaguers can do that, a good major leaguer, particularly a righty, will have a field day. Hill right now is hugely overrated. Right now, until his changeup and/or cutter are good enough that he can throw them to righties when and where he wants, and developing pitches until they're that good takes time, a commodity that Hill, already 25, doesn't have much of, he actually projects as a LOOGY. The only hope I hold for Hill becoming more than that is that there was a reason he didn't thrown the changeup and cutter in the majors besides them not being good enough pitches. We'll see...

Erm you guys do know Angel Guzman is still alive, don't you? Injured or not, there is no way you can make a top prospect list for the Cubs and not have him somewhere near the top of it. The kid's still just 23 and his stuff, control, makeup, polish are off the charts compared to some of the prospects you're ranking ahead of him. Some of you are seriously saying you'd take the likes of Nolasco over Guzman? If Guzman gets healthy, he has a bright major league future. Nolasco doesn't even have a major league future. I'll take the chance on Guzman then. Is it even that big a gamble? Guzman's been injured twice. He tore his labrum in 2003, and he's had this nagging injury this year, which the Cubs diagnosed as having something to do with a childhood injury. You're going to write off Guzman on the basis of two injuries? Fair enough, but I'll write off Dopirak and Harvey on the basis of their all or nothing approach probably making them less likely to reach the big leagues than Guzman even. And where will that get me? Not far. This system isn't anywhere near deep enough that you can ignore potential impact pitchers just because they miss a few months with injury or they strike out a bit too much. We don't do can't miss prospects.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. You're thinking of when a player is outrighted for the second (or third or fourth etc) time. Corey's just been optioned. And you can't refuse an optional assignment unless you have 5 years or more of service time. So if the Cubs recall Corey and then option him again before he has 5 years of service time, Corey still can't refuse.

Wouldn't mind having him, actually. He's a very limited a hitter, he's a slap hitter without great contact skills (!), but he beats out a lot of cheap hits and he draws a few walks and so gets on base, and once on the bases he's a difference maker (gets caught a bit too often, he relies on his speed as opposed to great jumps, but nothing too bad). His blazing speed I'd assume also translates to good range in centre, but I don't know much about his arm or the routes he takes on balls and the rest of his defensive package. So, then, his upside is a poor man's Juan Pierre, and that's nothing to get too excited about. All the same, the Devil Rays seem utterly clueless and unintent upon actually using him (despite him being useful in his time in the Majors and Baldelli being on the DL). If we could get him reasonably cheap, he'd be a nice acquisition.

They're rushing Hill. I guess he had nothing left to prove in AA, but the quick cup of coffee in Chicago was dumb. I hope it doesn't put Rich in the wrong frame of mind, I can't believe the Cubs really expect anything from Hill before 2006. Oneira should tell him you're here in Des Moines until September, then the Cubs will bring you in with the September call-ups. Instead, maybe he's thinking if I just have a good game tonite in front of this scout, if I strike out a couple more batters, maybe I get back to the bigs.....wrong attitude for Hill. Rich Hill is at the level he should be at right now. And how long have you been a psychoanalysist? Maybe he's thinking that, and then again maybe not. Either way, I doubt they're the reason for him giving up home runs. That has more to do with his fastball not being an average above pitch and/or him hanging that gorgeous curveball. If he's giving up all these home runs on the fastball, he's going to have to learn to control the pitch a lot better so he can put it exactly where he wants it when he wants it, and continuing to work on an effective changeup would help too (and what's happened to his cutter, anyone?). If it's the curveball he's giving up the home runs on, I don't have as much of a problem with that, because you can't exactly tell him to stop throwing that curve. Anyone know off which pitch these home runs are mostly getting hit?

More Rich Hill longballs :cry:

right. Torre abused him and now he is done. That excuse would wash a bit more if it wasn't for the fact that Quantrill have been just as useless this year as he was at the end of the last year, despite the five month winter break.