toonsterwu

The talk is that the swing is shorter and improved. From the little I've seen (and there are far more knowledgeable people here on swing mechanics), he seems to have a shorter load than before, but at times, the swing is still a bit loopy and similar to what I recall seeing of him coming up in Boston and San Deigo's system (but again, very SSS that I've seen of him this year). I know there are some folks that still wonder how he'll do against big league pitching that can run the ball in at higher velos and better command than the guys in AAA, so really, we won't know that much about Rizzo until he gets to the bigs. But he probably needs the repetitions in the minors. I do agree with the sentiment that it's a "small" chance that he'll bust (as Matt Eddy notes below). there's just not enough dominant pitchers on a consistent basis to think that he'll be exposed daily through the course of a season. Whether or not he's an elite bat, only time will tell. Total side note - I've always felt that Jackson's ceiling was higher than Rizzo's, but Rizzo's floor was higher than Jackson's. Was reading some comments on another site, and it feels like a lot of people feel the other way around.

Yeah, that's exactly my point, we have to go down to XST to find potential 3rd base prospects (notwithstanding the fact that all signs point to the Cubs keeping Baez at short for now). Of course, there is the possibility that Castro moves to 3rd down the line.

There's a decent chance of building up some value with Wells and trading him, so I imagine that's why he gets the first call. I doubt they are in a rush to bring up any of the young talent in the minors. Edit: Before I get a comment about Wells sucking or something along those lines, there are a lot of teams looking for pitching. Heck, John Lannan has gotten a fair amount of interest, and he's not better than Wells. At 2.7 million, if Wells strings together a few decent starts, it's not impossible that some team might take a look early and hope that he finds his form from two seasons ago.

I'm not worried, just disappointed that there isn't that much to be really happily surprised about so far. In some cases, one can rationalize it (for example, while the MWL is typically tough on bats, as the weather heats up, I imagine some of them may start swinging better bats). As for Vitters, I'm just okay that he's afloat. I guess my expectations have never been that high on him for awhile now, and the fact that he's afloat is enough for me as of now, since he's really the only legitimate 3rd base prospect in full-season ball right now, which is a sad comment about the position in the system.

I was just pondering this morning how disappointing it's been that we haven't really had a lot of positive surprises in the early goings to get excited about. I mean, Rizzo/Castillo/Valbuena have hit AAA well before. Cardenas doing well in AAA isn't that surprising. All the "new" guys besides Rizzo (Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes/Cates are struggling). McNutt isn't averaging 4 yet. I'm not really going to hang my hat on hoping Burgess' improvement lasts as of now. I guess ... here's hoping that the increased K rate (and slightly lower GB rate) for Beeler is real and that it's a sign that the breaking balls are sharper. Well, Rubi Silva's improved discipline and overall performance is one thing to get excited about. And I guess there's Michael Jensen and Patrick Francescon (although I somewhat expected the latter to hold his own and show well against the raw bats in the MWL). Tis early, hopefully. Edit: Completely forgot about Kyler Burke. It's been nice to see all the excitement about his potential as a pitcher is showing well in the early goings. Part of me would like to see him get more innings, to see if he can handle the load and still do well (and the switch I'd make is to make Cruz into the "piggyback" guy and give Burke a rotation slot).

No need to sell me on Wells. I'm higher than many on him, as I do believe in the breaking ball's potential. Admittedly, it's average at best right now, but there are times where it flashes plus ability. Wang's slider was never bad, but the fact that the sinker was so good, IMO, led to the Yankees not calling for the slider as much when he got to the bigs, and it just never developed. I think Wells spent last year figuring out how to pitch in regards to what velocity is best for him and how he can harness it. At least, that's my hope. I like what I've heard about the plan in Peoria this year, trying to get him to focus on first-pitch strikes and become more efficient. But he does have a legitimate power sinker, like Wang did. Whether or not he can control it well enough at the higher velocities, only time will tell.

Right now, I think a good comp for him would be Chien-Ming Wang (assuming positive outcome and he works his way up the ladder). They are roughly the same size (Wells might be a tad bigger in real life, although on listed weights, Wang is bigger). Wang, with the Yankees, had a legitimate power sinker that was nasty. To an extent, his power sinker was so good that they never needed him to improve his secondary stuff significantly (Wang's slider showed fairly well last year). Right now, Wells seems to be finding a good rhythm on the sinker, knowing that it's nasty movement is better off without over-amping (for lack of a better term) the velocity, but his secondary stuff is still a work in progress, so hence, why I make the comparison. That said, much as I was a Wang fan, I believe Wells ceiling is higher than that. The development on the breaking pitch will have to come, though. For an ultimate ceiling comp ... I think Derek Lowe is fair. I could go higher than that (on ultimate ceiling), as I believe in the potential of his breaking ball, but that's me.

Here's my counter-point (fully acknowledging that it might be until the off-season before they consider that) - most of our guys are end of the rotation profiles with mid-rotation ceilings. When it gets to the offseason, some teams may not want to deal for that type of player when they could go spend a couple million in free agency to fill said role. Furthermore, most teams have at least 2 or 3 guys in their upper levels like that (can only think of a couple organizations that seem pretty thin in SP in the top levels), so by the off-season, whoever our guys are that are doing well that might get a look might not be as enticing anymore (I can't think of the word choice I want to use right now ... a "strike while the iron is hot" thought is what crosses my mind, but can't frame it correctly for some reason). Anyhow, I understand the other side of it. Tis just a thought. Furthermore, what we need might not be attainable through this type of deal, as no one's going to trade better young pitching talent, and probably not some sort of young guy with slugging potential/ability (unless there's some market dynamics at play), and we'll likely give our guys at C, 1st, CF a look, leaving questions at 2nd/3rd, and the 3rd base market is slim to begin with.

If the FO shares this thought process, they're going to take some time to get closer looks at what they have, and who they feel comfortable dealing.. No doubt. I'm not suggesting anytime soon. But around the trade deadline, if they feel like they have a good grasp on the guys, moving some of them around to gain value elsewhere would be an interesting idea. I wouldn't make the move haphazardly, but with Wood/McNutt/Whitenack/Rhee/Beeler/Struck, we have 6 guys in the upper levels who have mid-rotation ceilings, and if they feel like they have a good grasp on the guys, we should take advantage of value, if possible. One of the moves I've always respected was the tough decision the Yankees made to deal Sterling Hitchcock. By most accounts, they loved his potential, but they liked Pettite more and took advantage of Hitchcock's potential to net Tino Martinez/Jeff Nelson (I think that was the main components of the deal).

Didn't realize this was being discussed here ... I'd take a chance on both kids if we had the opportunity. Bowden's sort of stuck in no-man's land as a pitcher in some respects - he's an end of the rotation type, basically Jay Jackson, a flyball guy with a fastball and very average secondary pitches. The curveball simply wasn't working for him - I recall hearing how they scrapped the curve because the quality wasn't there anymore. As a pen arm, he's not really an end of the pen type arm, as the fastball really doesn't have the juice, and with his mechanics, consistency would be an issue, something you really don't want. But ... considering the sad state of our pen ... why not? He has decent enough stuff with the 4-seamer, cutter, and slider options available, and he's young enough that it's worth a flyer. Shawn Camp and Nate Robertson are filler guys (along with a few others). Don't see any harm with cutting one of them and testing Bowden out. Ideally, I'd send him to AAA's pen, but if you need to keep in the bigs, okay. (hmm ... more I think about it, never realized that Jay Jackson was a fairly decent comparison for him pitching-wise). I'm far more interested in Bell. The power is still there. He's struck out far more in the bigs than he did in the minors, which I think is attributed to his swing. Sure, he's a butcher at 3rd ... but it's not like the top 4 levels of our system have studs defensively at 3rd base (Vitters/Cerda/Rohan, amongst others). I mean, 3rd isn't exactly a deep position in the system. With Cerda on the DL, there really isn't a natural 3rd baseman in Tennessee, Daytona, Peoria right now (Rohan really should be at 1st/LF, but is passable for the needs at 3rd), with a lot of middle infielders kicking over there (Nate Samson played third the other day, Dustin Harrington has manned some third, and well ... Zapenas/Darvill have played some third at Peoria off the top). Why not take a flyer? Ideally, you'd stash him in AA somehow, as Vitters will likely be given as much time as needed. Unless the organization is ready to push Candelario to full-season (and he might not stick at 3rd) or move Javier Baez to 3rd (and they shouldn't move Baez to 3rd unless they are absolutely certain he can't stick at short), the system is really devoid of intriguing third base options. Bell would likely rake at AA, which wouldn't mean much (other than giving the solid pitching staff there some additional help), but ... why not see if you can fix that swing? In saying all that, I don't expect Bell to happen. I think someone will give him a look for AAA, in all likelihood, and I don't see us creating space for him in Iowa right now.

Beeler's secondary pitches are probably average, flashing some above average potential, but haven't heard anyone suggest plus potential on it. Off the top, it's a curve and a changeup, with the curve probably a tick ahead of the change-up. WIth his sinker, if he has an above average breaking ball, he's got a shot. He's your classic end of the rotation profile with a mid-rotation ceiling if all goes well. A better version of Randy Wells (and that's meant as a positive). 23 in AA and holding his own is fine, particularly when he missed time due to surgery. Quick random thought - We do have several guys that are end of the rotation with mid-rotation ceilings, particularly if Whitenack shows as well as he did last year. We won't need all of them, and I wouldn't mind it if the front office became proactive in trying to package several arms to fill another void/grab a better talent. In recent years, we've seen a quantity of pitching prospects, even if they lack high ceilings, generate some decent returns.

He's intriguing because he's not that old (granted, 26 isn't young either), plays a position (2nd) where our starter is pedestrian (to say the least), and has had offensive success in the PCL and IL. It sure seems like some poor luck with batted balls has hurt him in his last 2 trial runs in the majors in the last 2 years (along with a surprising lack of pop). Considering that it is a rebuilding year, giving him a look at 2nd at some point (and perhaps as the number 2 hitter?) should definitely be considered if he keeps this up. It's not as if we have better options kicking down the door for the position.

I can't say I know how they did things, although it sure would be nice, but from my experience, as much planning was organizations make for the future, it's really hard to have a definitive idea on things 1 year ahead of time. Anyhow, I feel like the Simpson thing has been beaten to death. Here's hoping he builds up strength and improves his velocity.

Tough loss in Game 1. We had 2 men on with 1 out, but couldn't drive anyone in. Prince tripled off Rhoderick, and Gennett gave Huntsville the victory. Here's hoping for better in Game 2.

I think there's some misunderstanding. The 2011 class was thought of as strong for awhile. I was referencing the eventual amount of money we spent in the 2011 draft in response to your comment (that is, I'm not sure it was known that we would make such a jump in draft spending last year compared to before).

Beeler's done. Gave up 9 hits, but only 2 were XBH's. 5.2 ip, 9 h, 1 bb, 1 unearned, 5 K's, 90 pitches, 8:1 GO/FO.

Painful to watch the AA and A+ lineups at times. They sure aren't helping Beeler ... he's pitched a heck of a game so far, but it's only 1-0, and a man on 2nd.

Sure, but I don't think anyone then anticipated the level of jump that eventually occurred last year. If so, then I must have missed something. I guess my thing is this - if they knew that there was an anticipated significant jump, then the idea of killing the pick isn't the worst thing, although I still don't think it's a prudent way to develop things (and I think there are very few teams, if any, that would willingly throw away a mid-first pick now for unknown future value - I think the uproar would've been far higher here if we'd spent a pick on Lee, failed to sign him, and then we resigned ourselves to a signability pick the following year).

Wouldn't surprise me if they kept Bundy like this all through April, before letting him work deeper. I tend to think that they may keep him at Low A longer than people think, perhaps waiting until late May/June before giving him a bump. With the shaky weather in the East in April, I think this is actually a smart way to go about things. Now, if he's still going 3 innings in mid-summer, that's a whole different issue, but I'd be a bit surprised if he was.

So far, so good for Beeler (albeit, only through 2). Here's hoping he can develop his secondary stuff a bit more this season. He sure can get guys to pound balls into the dirt - a few more swing and misses would really go a long way for him.

To be fair, I think the Spangenberg situation is slightly different. That was a compensatory pick for not signing Whitson, IIRC, and so they had to go for a guy they could lock in. Whether or not Spangenberg's talent level justifies a nod is a slightly tangential, albeit not entirely unrelated, issue. For all the talk about taking a gamble, we did end up gambling on a guy that was viewed as a borderline 1st round possibility in Reggie Golden. It just happened in the 2nd.

sneaky - how many of those guys were a) Considered solid first, and not in that compensatory-2nd round range like Simpson. AND b) Likely able to fit into our limited draft budget that year, which was still a bump from 2009, IIRC. Taijuan Walker was a prep arm coming off a mildly disappointing final high school season, iirc. Castellanos/Lee/Yelich/Cox/Jenkins likely wouldn't have fit inour budget. Ranaudo was seriously hurt and demanding the moon. I don't recall the demands/eventual contracts of Syndegaard/Sanchez off the top, but in regards to Syndegaard, I'm pretty sure he was a late bloomer and didn't gain velocity until late in his senior year (recall reading that somewhere). If the Cubs didn't see him with his plus velocity gain, then I can understand not gambling on a prep arm like that that high. Sanchez was far more projection, as he was low 90's with fringy secondary stuff and inconsistent command coming into the draft, iirc. In retrospect, I would've liked Olt. To be fair, though, he was lumped in that same range as Hayden, compensatory to 2nd round. That leaves, what h Brentz/Asher/Gary Brown. I can understand passing on Gary Brown after drafting a fairly similar kid that high a year ago in Brett Jackson, but okay, I can understand saying that the system could use another OF talent so that one's fair game (and I also still think we need to take a wait and see on Gary Brown develops outside of the Cal League ... think the hype is getting a bit ahead of reality for him right now). The chances of Wilken drafting Brentz - not high, and I can't really fault that, as there is value in prioritizing up-the-middle guys and arms ahead of corner guys. I would've been intrigued with the pick, but can't find a big issue there (also feel that Brentz's hype is getting a bit ahead of reality ... let's see how his K rate looks at the end of the year, after striking out 25% of the time last year). It's easy to forget now, but Asher was projected as a closer by some (and, not that it is relevant, but as a starter, he looks like who many thought he would be ... an end of the rotation type arm with mid-rotation ceiling). Hayden wasn't my preferred pick or one of my favorites at the spot, and I don't think anyone but a few guys thought he was first round (there was considerable buzz from D2 folks, IIRC, that they thought Hayden was first round material), but I think we're letting what has happened to him after the draft, particularly the fracture, impact our opinions on the situation then. Sure, there's an argument to be made that maybe we should've gone with one high cost pick and gone low-ball on the rest of the draft, but considering the attrition rates of prospects, there's a counter argument for quantity. There's an argument, based on hindsight, for junking the pick and taking a 2011 ... but unless Wilken and Co. knew then that the budget was going to jump significantly, I don't know if I see the validity for that argument, because had they pondered that, then they probably would've also thought (again, unless they knew that the budget was jumping) that the extra 2011 pick would've been a signability pick (see ... Cory Spangenberg). When you winnow the list down based on the reality of the situation then, as far as we knew about it, it seems like you are left with either taking a signability prep reach (I can imagine some of us would've complained then if they had gone for someone like Aaron Sanchez there), a low ceiling/high floor collegiate arm (Asher/Alex come to mind, and I didn't care for either at the time of the draft), or a relatively cheap collegiate positional player. The last thing is the one that, I think, probably merits the most consideration, but some of the key names were either pure corner guys (Brentz), or guys who played the same positions as then top Cubs prospects (Brett/Josh). Viewed within that framework, which I think is a fair way to analyze the situation, taking a gamble and trusting their scouts isn't a bad idea.

Not really a good place to put these random thoughts, but - I wonder if the new regime will pursue Michael Bowden. Of course, it's a waiver issue, and really, I'm not that enthused about him, but it's a guy they know and the pen is a concern. - Orioles released Josh Bell (in claiming Luis Exposito). He's lost some luster, but there's still good pop in the bat, and the approach isn't that bad. He's 25, and hasn't really handled third all that well, but with the 3rd base options in the top 4 levels of the system fairly iffy, if we could sign him and put him in AA for a bit, I'd be ... mildly intrigued about going after him. Yes, Bell's pretty poor at 3rd (defensively), but ... well, it's not like the top 3 levels in the minors has a real quality 3rd base prospect defensively.

As intrigued as I would've been with the idea of a Zach Lee gamble (I assume that's who you were referencing), and taking a pick in 2011 if he didn't sign, I don't know if any of us knew, in 2010, that the Cubs were going to significantly bump their draft spending in 2011. I also think most teams don't like the idea of missing out on a draft pick in the first round. You'd rather get a guy in and develop him than hoping for a good talent next year. There's something to be said for trusting your scouts, even if they miss, and I believe, off the top, that the same guy who scouted Hayden was the same guy who scouted Ben Wells. As a side note, off the top again, but I think Taijuan Walker struggled in his final year in HS, and thus, went from a possible first to compensatory.

It's hard to buy that we could've fit Whitson in there and convinced him to turn pro. Even if we could, considering the final layout, financially, that year, that, based on the rumors of what I recall on Whitson's demands, would've significantly limited the entire draft. Anyhow, it wasn't an option. I'm not that down on either Sale or Allie, but I don't buy that we could've taken them for the same financial reasons. The Rays tend to slowplay prep guys, and Allie was a big, young arm - willing to give it time on that one. Would getting Wimmers have made things any better in retrospect? He's looking awfully pedestrian right now.