craig

3 thoughts: 1. Manuel suggested 7-12 for Cubs placement. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although perhaps a little high. I think often the guys who write up a particular organization tend to fall in love with their guys a little bit. Some of the other BA guys might not value the Cubs as much, so wouldn't be surprised if they ended somewhere more around 15, but whatever. Doesn't matter much either way. 2. Much of Manuel's info comes from other scouts, but also talking to internal Cubs people. That's especially true for low-exposure guys like DelaRosa, Jiminez, Cease, and instrux-level Happ. Not tons of premier scouts flocking to Northwest-League games. I suspect Cubs sources probably pump their guys pretty much, even if not necessarily as flagrantly as Hendry and Fleita did. When you look at Manuel's info, several key evals hinge on Cub sources: *Torres: "Some club officials give Torres plus future power" *Happ: "He focused solely on playing second base in instructional league and impressed club officials with his athleticism, making throws from all angles and improving his footwork." *De La Cruz: "His fastball sits in the 92-93 mph range but bumps 97 regularly when his delivery is in sync" (seems like Cubs info....) "Club officials try to rein in their enthusiasm with regard to de la Cruz, but they clearly have high hopes for him." Cubs know more and give more thought to their guys than anybody else. So, honest internal eval is probably more valuable than any other source we have access to. And given the recent success the Cubs have had with their evaluations and development, plus how articular Cubs guys tend to be, I can see how Manuel would tend to respect their input. Still, it does make me wonder if what Manuel hears and what influences his rankings, whether all of that really is honest or not? Call me guarded.... :) 3. Pretty impressive/encouraging to have a system with so many impact graduations, and then still have possible impact guys like Cease/DelaRosa/Jiminez still hanging out in the 5-9 range, and still have many possible perfectly-solid-regulars prospects like Contreras/Almora/McKinney/Candelario still included, and to have a possible impact-reliever like Edwards not even make it. And to have a guy like Eddy Julio Martinez who may be JAG but perhaps will be a special athlete who perhaps will also hit besides waiting behind, and a nice prospect like Steele waiting to perhaps earn solid top-10 future. Good place to be.

I think Manuel has Happ too high. I included Edwards in my top ten; Happ, Candelario, and DelaRosa were three who I didn't include. Why is Happ too high? 1. So many K's. He's got the nice stroke that appeals to scouts. But, he's consistently been a high-K guy in college, and he's been a high-K guy in his first pro summer, even against short-season and A- pitching. K-issues are a concern to me for a guy who's gotten quite a few post-HS AB's. There might be some good underlying reasons why he so frequently swings-and-misses. And swing-and-miss issues usually get worse up the ladder, particularly in the majors. 2. Overrated Defense. I think Manuel seems too favorable about Happ's defense. Manuel casts his 2B defense in a favorable light, and made Zobrist allusions, and hopefully for good reason. But I'm pretty guarded/skeptical there. I know he played 2B in instrux, and he played center in minors, but I'm somewhat doubtful that he'll really be big-league average at either 2B or CF, or anything like Zobrist who's a super fluid/coordinated/instinctive guy everywhere. Az Phil is of course no scout; but his comment on 2B Happ in instrux was "looks stiff". I'm guessing that perhaps Happ will blossom defensively and perhaps be able to give LaStella-caliber 2B, or Denorfia-caliber CF. But I'm guessing that really LF/RF are the only two positions where he's got much chance to ever be a big-league asset defensively.

I'm not that big a Candelario guy. So I had Edwards ahead of him. Seems like a decent-across guy, but not sure I see anything special. *Manuel has his defense and arm really good. Just this week Law thought his defense was a limitation, rather than a significant asset. I assume he's got a good chance to be fine, but not a "because of his glove" guy. I'm a little guarded there. *I'm optimistic about his power. But none of the scouting reports really describe him as a HR-guy. He's been a 10-11 HR guy, while young. So, I'm very optimistic that he project the raw power and hitting skill to eventually be a 14-24 HR kind of guy. But none of the scouting reports seem to scout as having big power in the Baez/Soler/Schwarber/Bryant/Jiminez mold, or even in the Addison Russell mode. I'm guarded their too. *His K/BB are solid, very much so if he was a HR guy, but at the same time not amazing or anything. And his average hasn't been anything wow. .270's this year, .250 previous season. I'm pretty optimistic; K/BB is controlled, and having 8/1 K/HR ratios at 20/21 gives him a serious chance to maintain respectable K/HR ratios future. But I don't get the sense that his wrists and bat-speed have the "pop" that really good hitters have. So, again I'm guarded. Seems like a very nice prospect, but maybe more a guy who might be an average-across-the-board guy rather than good-at-everything-and-special-at-something. Overall a very good prospect, and we'll see what the new summer brings. Hopefully he'll step everything up, the more Manuel-like defensive evals will become the norm and win out over the Law-view. Hopefully his BABIP will look better, and he'll bump his HR's a little further. I admit a certain level of hypocrisy, probably. Candelario has a chance to be a solid/average starter. I see Almora as having a chance to be a solid/average starter. I've got Almora in my top 5, because given the Cubs present layout, a capable solid/average CFer projects to be a very valuable commodity. And with Soler/Schwarber having defensive limits on one or the other or both sides, having a good-D CFer seems especially important long-term. Perhaps if 3B was to Candelario what CF is to Almora, perhaps I'd have Candelario securely in my top 10, and Almora on or off the bubble too.

There aren't many teams looking hard to trade for DH's whose only skill is walking. I don't really see any problem with Vogelbach being outside the top 30. (He's at #40 on my list! :)) I have Edwards well into my top 10. But really, other than Candelario, I don't see compelling reason to flip Edwards over the guys BA included. *The info Manuel got on de la Cruz was pretty enthusiastic. "Beast", "stud", plus movement-plus-velocity fastball that touches 97, throws strikes, I can see why Manuel ranked him ahead of a wild reliever if that's his intel. Maybe his info is baloney, and the scouts he talked to weren't really that smart, so Edwards as a 7th inning reliever may have a much more valuable career, very possible. But I can see how a possible rotation asset would rank ahead of a wild reliever. *Likewise Jiminez, with his power potential, I don't think it would have been wise to exclude him from the top 10. So if those guys are coming in 8th/9th, I don't see huge argument about posting 42walk/53inning Edwards behind them. It's maybe the nature of the ranking/projecting business to try to ID and rank impact players. Cease, Jiminez with his Bryant/Schwarber-level raw power (and no attitude/effort/intelligence/contact/K issues thus far), and DelaCruz (given the "stuff" evaluations Manual was working with), those three have shots to be stars or high-impact guys. I think BA doesn't want to omit possible impact guys like that, and if they do their is no shame there, since they obviously mention how distant and raw and short-season each of those three guys are. But If Edwards becomes an effective setup reliever, I don't think BA would have the same "How did we miss that guy?" shame. Miss on setup reliever, o well. Miss on a big star? Big miss.

Back to Edwards, unpredictable things happen in this crazy game, and unpredictable management decisions as well. But I think at this point, whether it was Theo-team-dumbness or whatever, I think it's relatively unlikely that Edwards will be realigned onto rotation track. Rotation-track guys, they typically want guys who can eat innings and have diverse repertoire. Edwards is slight, wild, and thus far can't control any pitches much less three different ones. I'll be pretty surprised if they realign Edwards back to rotation track. Like it or not, disagree with it or not, he's probably on the relief side for good. Very good relievers are super valuable. I'd be happy if he could be a really good reliever. Whether he'll have enough command for that to prove true, time will tell, I have no reason to assume he will and none to assume he won't. We've seen Grimm and Strop be super valuable as wild man relievers with very good stuff. So it's not like it's impossible to be variably successful despite control issues. Or, maybe Bosio will be able to clean him up and his control really won't be that bad long-term, who knows.

In their projected tools, they have Gleyber with 60's on everything (including power) other than speed (55). Not sure I've projected his power to be as good as his defense, for example. But if so, that would explain why he ranks so favorably. And if that projection proves correct, he'll be a very fine player.

But it isn't "nuts" to skip over a reliever who can't throw strikes. You can make most of the top 10 sound similarly undesirable if you want to frame things that way. ..... I agree with Tim's note. True, most of these guys can be framed in a negative way that could justify excluding them. That said, I don't think it's "nuts" for BA to hold that view. We can disagree. (I included Edwards in my top 10, certainly, and I think really good stuff and really good relievers are very valuable.) But it's not "nuts" for a contrasting opinion to be lukewarm about a reliever who can't throw strikes. Hardly "nuts" to consider a 41BB/55IP reliever to be too wild to be very good. And not "nuts" to exclude a guy because they believe he's going to be a reliever (lots of people do), and because they think he's too wild to be an excellent one.

Thanks for list. Agree, interesting that good-stuff-wildman Edwards off. Interesting that DeLaCruz included. I'll be interested to see what their comments are about him. (Please share if/when they post some.) Surprised that KHapp was so high. Surprised that Candelario was included.

Thanks, Tryptamine, nice writeup.

True. Age 18, A-ball: Torres: .722 OPS, Profar .883 K/HR ratio: Torres 38:1 Profar: 5:1 (115/3, versus 63:12) XBH: Torres 32, Profar 57 K/BB: Torres 3:1, Profar 1:1. Torres is an excellent prospect, but looking at what Profar did at same age reminds why Profar was such a buzz back then. I guess I'd be more excited about Torres if either it was widely projected that he'd have pretty good power, or if he profiled as an excellent contact guy. Hopefully the contact will grow steadily. But early on, his K-rate has been a red flag, particularly for a modest power guy. I never really like to see 38:1 K/HR ratios. For him to tighten that up quite a bit next year will obviously be one of the things I watch for.

Agree, I don't see why this would be a top-10 system now, or why it should become one next year unless a lot of maybe guys break through. (Which is probably true for most orgs.) But, I admit I don't know other orgs that well. Maybe I'm underestimating us. But seems like nobody in Full-season who projects any star-power. 1. No TORP guys in full-season, 2. No middle-of-the-order hitters either. Torres projects nicely, but nothing special, and with bad K/HR ratios thus far, he's shaky. Contreras looks nice.... for a catcher. But neither has the power nor the special defense to have any "wow" potential. When very limited guys like Almora are fitting in as high as #3 (my own list) or Zagunis as high as #5 (toonster list), or Underwood top 5, or a wild Edwards, it speaks to a lack of top-end talent anywhere close to graduating. There are guys who might contribute, but just not a lot of potential impact guys. Seem more like complementary pieces or support guys than front-line asset starter prospects. Basically seems like a fairly average list to me. Which is pretty nice considering all the guys we've graduated. Not sure I see much reason to expect any major jump. Eloy, Cease, Martinez might perhaps be high-ceiling guys, but that's partly because we know too little to know what their limits may be. I'm not faulting. To still be solid/average, maybe better, after so many impact graduations is pretty impressive.

Agree that high-ranked teams rarely stay on top, because the guys that get them ranked high either graduate or else lose their luster. Since we probably won't graduate many impact guys, we probably won't lose talent. I see four top-ten guys who might leave the list. But maybe not.... 1. Contreras. Good chance that if he has a good year and remains a list difference-maker, that he'll graduate this summer. But, that may depend on other contingencies. (Health for Montero and Ross; development and adequacy of Schwarber as a catcher.) It's possible that he'll have a very good season, but still last in Iowa long enough to remain listed next year. 2. Almora. Again, if Fowler is resigned, or they get some other CF who stays healthy and plays well, perhaps Almora will stay at Iowa all summer an just be a Baez-like September call up. But, not hard to imagine a situation where they go cheap and roster-fill at CF, such that IF Almora is performing at a high level at Iowa, that he'd get a summer call up and be off the lists. Obviously more likely that he doesn't hit well enough to make a compelling case for a call up, and as a result is just a guy on lists next year, and his presence or absence won't really impact much where the Cubs might rank relative to the league. 3. Edwards. Pitchers are always in short supply. With 12 big-league pitchers, somebody will get hurt or will pitch badly. If Edwards is still on these lists next year, it probably won't do much to put us into the top 5... 4. Similar for Johnson. Either he'll pitch well enough to graduate, or be mediocre enough that he'll have little impact on league listings.

1. Contreras 2. Torres G 3. Almora 4. Jiminez 5. Billy McKinney 6. Underwood 7. CJ Edwards 8. Tseng 9. Pierce Johnson 10. Cease 11. Happ 12. Eddy Julio Martinez 13. Zagunis 14. De La Cruz 15. Steele

Good point on trade comment.

Thanks, Dave. Glad to have some conclusion, in Cubs favor, on that signing. Now lets hope he actually becomes a good player.

Wow, fun to see Candelario so hot. If you add his fall league numbers to his Myrtle and Tennessee stats for the summer, his 2015 composite would now be over .800 OPS, at age 21. With a batting average up around .288, and good K/BB/HR splits. Normally middle not corner is prototype for utility player. But in the hypothetical that he could become decent at LF/1B, a switch-hitting 3B/1B/LF guy could be pretty useful, if he was a pretty professional hitter from both sides. He's got some pretty inconsistent lefty-righty splits, so not clear if he's got a definitively stronger better side.

It's $6, not $3 cost to Cubs. Agree with spirit of post, though.

Totally not surprised that williams got negligible attention. In a large, 5-star league, why would managers even be talking about a part-year control pitcher? 2.76 ERA, he was nice performance-wise, but that's not super-amazing, or ballpark to Kyle Hendricks who was 1.85 ERA at same level/age, and that wasn't even enough to get on the list. If a Cub pitcher was to get consideration, I expect Pierce Johnson would have gotten more. My friend is friend with one of Cubs top pitching scouts. He claims that Williams can get it up to 94-95, but usually runs 91-93. (I think he's a bit of a fast-gun velocity-inflater...) But, it's not like Williams doesn't have anything to work with. If he's got five pitches and can command all of them variably well, that's not bad. In a world where the Cubs traded for Dan Haren, an anti-awful back-end guy on a team with lots of offense and a strong bullpen can help. Not expecting Williams to ever do much for us, but you never know. Thing with Hendricks is that the change is/was SO good. It helps to have one plus-plus pitch, one put-away pitch, one pitch that hitters fear. I don't think Williams has any individual pitch that is really good. One other note on BA lists: BA guys invest a lot of time on draft. So if there was a pre-draft guy who scouts thought might project into something, I think then that name is already in BA's head. If the guy then emerges in the minors, he's already in memory bank. Or if he's been in a league list or team list a previous season, the BA writers will all be familiar.

Thanks for list. That's a very, very strong league. Heh heh, when Schwarber is #4, and justifiably so, it speaks to that. BA gives "ranking" to it's league lists; Southern was 5-star, Midwest was 2-star, for example. Twins with four top-ten guys there, pretty nice. As I mentioned in other thread, I'm surprised/pleased that in such a deep list, Almora was able to make it at all. The comment about him having a "carrying tool" is well taken; he doesn't have to hit a lot to become a long-term major-leaguer. Defense and contact can keep you around. We know McKinney isn't power or speed or cannon or defense. If he's going to have a carrying tool, the tool that needs to carry him will obviously need to be hit bat. So some scouting concerns about his bat are concerning. But, given the depth/quality/talent in that league, not surprising that a contact-hitting LFer who hit a good but not-amazing .285/.766 didn't make it. Next year is another year. McKinney has been moved very rapidly, playing AA season at age 20. But, I wonder if the Cubs won't take it reasonably slow with him from this point. With Schwarber/Soler/Coghlan, plus Bryant, LF/RF should be well stocked for the short term. So I would expect McKinney to start again at Tenn next spring, and rejoin the championship Myrtle guys. McKinney will obviously need to hit >.300 or bump up his HR's somewhat.

Just to follow up on CubsWin's post. Montero is old for a catcher, his years are numbered. Whether or not Schwarber is going to be a high-usage catcher is very much uncertain. His defense may be too poor; his hitting might be so good they don't want to wear him out there; the may be so World-Series-Nowacrat that they don't want to invest big-league development time on him as a catcher? So, I think there's a very clearly open path for Contreras to become a Cubs "starter". Whether that's a "share-time" catcher with Schwarber, who knows. Maybe Contreras plays a lot, Schwarber plays some and plays a lot of OF. Or, maybe Schwarber plays a lot at catcher and Contreras a little. I think this year has been interesting; Montero is clearly the primary guy, but Schwarber and Ross have combined to catch a lot of games and get a lot of catcher-AB. I'd guess that even if Schwarber does become the primary guy in future, that he might like Montero get a lot of days off. If some future Contreras was to basically pick up the equivalent of all the Ross-Schwarber starts from this year, that might not be "starter", but that would be a very significant player over the course of a season or 6 club-controlled years. We'll see. At Zagunis, agree that a good-OBP 4th OFer would have value. Fowler has played a significant role as leadoff guy; if he goes, not sure what happens next or who's leadoff. In time perhaps Almora will be an outstanding fielder and a capable hitter, but he may profile more as a #9 or #7 hitter in Maddon's usage. If Zagunis turned out favorably, he might be a nice leadoff guy on days when he started? Again, we'll see. Obviously these aren't in the Russell/Baez/Braynt/Soler/Schwarber class of future-starters-who-could-become-stars. But, you need support players, and Maddon uses the bench a lot.

Contreras was #11. Pretty good in a strong, deep league. To put the depth into context, Schwarber was only #4 on the list, despite posting a 1.000+ OPS there with .430 OBP and 16 HR in 75 games, and then hitting another 16 for the Cubs. If the league has 3 guys better than Schwarber, and only six guys between Schwarber and Contreras, that's pretty favorable for Contreras. I also suspect that there's some "where did this come from and will it last" questions with Contreras. Fifth season in the states: .333/.413/.891 (2015) .242/.320/.679, (2014) .248/.320/.742, (2013). .273/.316/.673, (2012) .261/.305/.652. (2011) When a guy's been in the .240-.275 batting average range, and suddenly he hits .333, can you believe it will last? When a guy's been in the .305-.320 OBP for four years, and suddenly flashes .413, can you believe it will last? When a guy's been in the .650-.750 OPS window for four years, and suddenly he's .891, can you believe it will last? This year's numbers are just so wildly out of line with his past history, I suspect there's some natural and very appropriate hesitation on the kid.

No.

Tim, what did they think on Zagunis's power projection? And his defensive profile future?

Candelario, Almora, and Contreras are all guys whose first halves could be interesting. None have been consistent or sustained prior to the last month or two of this year, except Contreras who did it all year, but had never been good before. Career year for Contreras, or reproducible? Career months for Candelario and Almora, or reproducible? Will be fascinating to see what carries over for these guys, if anything..

Almora is 19th on this year's Southern League List. McKinney isn't on it. Schwarber, Contreras, Almora, those are the three, obviously in that order. Agree, toonster, McKinney doesn't have real signature tools, and the league was very deep with quality guys. As I said, I was actually surprised Almora still made it, even though his late rush has him back very high on my Cubs list. Doesn't mean McKinney won't have a good chance. I also agree with your point on Candelario: not much point in trading now. 6-hot weeks at Tenn isn't going to get very strong value now. But if he was able to sustain that for 2-3 months while playing respected defense, his value by next July could be more substantial. I think it probably makes more sense to hold, and hope he improves enough to make it worthwhile. Assuming he doesn't sustain and we end up with nothing for him, not much lost because we'd not get much for him now anyway. Tim, thanks for the Candelario comments. As with most anybody, HR's are kinda significant. Every HR is a hit for BA/OBP and 4 bases for slugging. Every HR justifies about 8 K's or whatever. So, the difference between a Candelario with 9 HR vs 18 HR is huge. That approaches 40-50 OPS points, all else equal. As a mid-teens HR guy, if the glove is now viewed as solid, he's a solid/decent starter. As a 6-10 HR guy, probably hard to be an intended starter for long.