toonsterwu

Who, though? I saw the names that people mentioned the other day about guys drafted after Hayden - most of them were high cost prep picks that, realistically, we probably couldn't take due to cost. 2011 was the only year they publicized how the strings were significantly loosened - for all the talk from Wilken about how cost wasn't an issue, the reality is, when the strings were loosened in 2011, he talked openly about the freedom to get guys, so all his talk about previous year picks not being money related seem to be more "toeing the company line" type comments. Take aside the how cost prep guys (and I know I was actually pushing for O'Connor that year), and what's left? Zack Cox can be ruled out for a similar reason. That leaves ... Gary Brown? Alex Wimmers? Kyle Parker? A few others that aren't coming to mind? Parker was risky due to not playing the sport full time. We just drafted Brett Jackson the year before. You could make a case for Wimmers, but Wimmers was viewed, IIRC, as more of a high floor pick.

Considering his age, I really wouldn't mind seeing Greg Rohan up at some point in Tennessee, if he keeps up his hot start. It'd be a lot of corner guys in AA, but I'm sure there's some way to mix Rohan at 3rd with Cerda, a dash of Rohan in LF, and maybe an occasional look at 1st.

100% agree. And I'd have been perfectly content with it for the 3rd or 4th round, but with the 15th pick in the draft, a risk like that is idiotic especially considering the state that the Cubs farm system was in at the time. It that if Theo were around at time it wouldn't have happened. As a side note, the state of the system in 2010 was that, perception wise, we were on an upswing. Brett Jackson was making waves, Starlin Castro had emerged, and there was a lot of hope on the 2008 pitching class from the draft (Cashner, Jay Jackson, Carpenter, Justin Bristow, and so forth). Kyler Burke had a big year in Peoria the year before, Junior Lake was an intriguing raw talent that we hoped could develop, Vitters was fairly well-regarded, Lee was an up-and-comer, Archer had a big year in Peoria, Rhee got hurt but impressed in his brief time, Huseby showed a flicker of hope, Flaherty looked like a potential solid contributor and so forth.

Soft-tossing lefty from Kentucky. Tops out largely in the high 80's, solid 4 pitch arsenal with good control. Best case feels like a 5th starter, and may be more of a long man type in the pen, but there are exceptions that can get by with that type of stuff.

I've loosely defended the Simpson pick before, but one thing to keep in mind is that the money didn't really jump until last year, so it's reasonable to assume there was some restrictions in that first Ricketts year. If they thought Simpson was even close to the other reasonable options there (in retrospect, there was no way we were going with one of the high cost prep guys and really, how exciting were the other arms available), then going slot and getting Golden/Wells later (amongst the few key overslots they did) might've been the plan, and that isn't a bad idea. Furthermore, even the most negative reports on Simpson pre-draft didn't have him this bad, so this feels less to do about scouting and more to do about what happened after he joined the system.

I'm still in wait and see mode on McLeod the drafter. Well, sorta. He did fine work in Boston, but I still think the Padres system is a bit over-hyped right now, but particularly the guys they drafted. The 2010 draft looks very pedestrian. The 2011 should be good to great with 5 picks in the top 58. That said ... even taking the best case scenario for the raw talent drafted with those 5 picks, not many really project to an elite level of talent, IMO.

ugh ... although there is a part of me mildly impressed that he can be productive at that junk speed. Even the most negative pre-draft reports on him had him in the 90's, so this seems like a byproduct of the mono/fracture combination. Here's hoping he can get it back up, but it feels very Bobby Brownlie-ish right now.

Just guessing but it wouldn't surprise me if szczur was... told... to take more walks and is trying to find a balance b/w instincts and discipline. Just a guess, tho.

I could see them deal byrd as soon as a decent deal comes. They'd probably slide campana in temporarily.

How much longer does Geo get? Midseason at least. Theyll probably want value if possible so theyll probzbly give him time.

To be fair, I think most are waiting to see what rizzo does in the bigs to gauge if he has improved, What is Law's problem? So what if Rizzo is repeating at age 22; he's still young for the league. It's like anytime a Cub prospect is doing anything positive, Law finds a way to dismiss it.

On roadso quick response on tablet.. I actually don't recall where I heard the thing about silva's d at 2nd. Its possible that im thinking of someone else. If I recall more specifically when I am home, ill bring the topic back up. I have an idea who I heard it from, but not certain enough.

To be fair to Bryan, Micah always had a power stroke. LaHair, up to a couple years ago, was viewed as more of a gap power guy who could hit maybe 15-20 HR's. His power stroke has really developed in the last few years (at least, most scouting reports seem to buy that his power stroke has developed), so I think there's a greater chance that LaHair is a "late bloomer". That said, I don't see a significant future for LaHair here either. If he is "legit", then it'd be better to deal him away for some assets. Considering he's still team-controlled salary wise, if he is "legit", I wouldn't rule out the idea that some smaller market team may deal something decent for him (obviously not talking about an elite return here, maybe a couple low level lottery tickets, or maybe a high floor upper level guy and a low level lottery ticket). If you don't get anything decent, then yeah, sure, kick him to LF for a few years and see how things flow. It's not as if we have corner OF/power options clearly knocking on the door. But anything decent? I'm inclined to deal him, unless Rizzo is slumping/struggling.

His defense, IIRC, at 2nd was at best, average (someone noted this somewhere, don't recall right now, will look around). Another issue people had last year was his poor walk rate. That said, someone was noting the development of the BB rates of Vitters/Ha/Szczur in the early going. He walked 18 times in 495 AB's last year ... he already has 2 in his first 24 AB's. Let's see if that can hold up, because if it does, he's got a shot to do something.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but if you're going to copy/paste AZ Phil's posts and comments you should acknowledge that he is the source. If I'm out of line on this I'll show myself out. It's not like he's taking credit for someone elses intellectual property for personal gain. He's passing on some stats. I didn't realize we needed a bibliography. I really don't care either way, but honestly, I don't think jumbo is wrong on this. Whatever one may thinks of AzPhil's "scouting" (referring to the dialogue earlier), he provides a service to Cubs fans and should probably be acknowledged for it. I think, though, most of us here generally accept that the majority of XST/Rookie League (spring/instructs/fall league as well) news comes from AzPhil (I'm also not sure if Rob G has any copyright things listed on his TCR site).

I honestly only see him making that kind of progress if the Cubs move him to 3B or the OF. If the Cubs have any intention of keeping him at SS, I think that sort of thing will require a good amount of time and patience in order for him to become an acceptable defender at the major league level. It's possible, but I think 2015 is best case scenario for Baez at SS at this point, unless he's a hell of a lot better defensively than the pre-draft reports led me to believe. The one x-factor with the whole Baez sticking at short thing, IMO, is still the development of Marco Hernandez, since by most accounts, Marco has a better shot of staying there and being a quality defender. If Marco excels, it could force Baez, assuming they keep him at short, to work his way up the ladder one rung at a time. That said, with how the Bogaerts development has gone (and having seen Bogaerts, I'd be floored if he made it up as a shortstop), I expect them to Baez at short for at least this year, and perhaps next. Personally, I think you keep Baez at short this year, all year. If Marco's offense picks up and is consistent, I think you consider dabbling Baez at 3rd in Peoria, and to start 2013, you dabble Baez at short and 3rd, either in Peoria or Daytona, and wait to see how Marco does. If Marco is doing well/excelling, then I think you transition Baez to full-time third at some point in 2013.

My random Saturday morning thought is that the better Garza pitches, the tougher the decision becomes. This isn't a bad thing, obviously, but if he's just "good", then you deal him and reload. If he's dominating akin to last year? Tough choice. A big package becomes possible, and could really jump-start the rebuilding process (and also allow us more flexibility in FA), but keeping Garza would make it easier to build a strong staff sooner than later. I tend to think that the development of Shark, Vitters, Stewart, Rizzo, etcetera will play a big factor in all this. How many pieces do we need with rebuilding could be the deciding factor in all this? A quality third baseman from Stewart/Vitters, coupled with the fact that this regime is likely to give Rizzo every chance possible, would ease the needs a lot (because then, you're looking for corner OF's and maybe 2nd). If, by mid-season, things look bleak at spots (particularly 3rd), I could see them rationalizing the idea that Garza might be able to get "plug-and-play" guys at 3rd and maybe a SP. I could see Shark impacting the decision both ways - if he's so good that he can be the 1-2 punch in a winning rotation, then it wouldn't stun me if they dealt Garza to reload the system and to go after another TOR arm in FA, rationalizing it as the best way to rebuild the team quicker. Of course, they could also decide, in that scenario, to keep Shark and add another SP (and perhaps see if Dempster is willing to come back on a team-friendly deal). That leads to the final point. We have a general understanding of what payroll/budget may look like, but that will probably impact a lot of decision-making. Can we afford to land 1 impact SP and bat, and perhaps some secondary pieces, along with keeping Garza? ___ My gut says that we should keep Garza, hope Shark is a "3" capable starter, and try to sign Dempster on a team friendly deal. Go out in FA and try to add a "2" to Garza, jettison Soriano (preferably by not eating the deal, but if so, okay), and add one solid bat somewhere (preferably a righty, with Rizzo/Jackson and maybe Stewart, we finally have middle of the order lefty bats - although Jackson will probably bat at the top when he comes up). My head says we really need to see how certain players look at midseason, because dealing Garza might be the quickest way to retool at multiple spots.

Well, the thing is, can Jay ever find a breaking ball? Because if he can, he becomes interesting. Now, his starter ceiling is probably a 5th/6th guy, but say he he moves to the pen and finds a breaking ball. Then, he can ramp up the fastball to the mid-90's (and unless his arm gets hurt, he can easily do that, as he has ramped it up before and still had him in the low 90's last year as a starter), and then his pen ceiling becomes a borderline setup type guy.

They sure do, and moreover, there's some guys that show late inning potential. I think Cabrera/Hatley have the raw stuff to be late inning type arms but don't have the consistency yet. Frank Batista and Kevin Rhoderick both seem a bit borderline as late inning arms, although I like both of them quite a fair amount. Searle looks intriguing as an aggressive middle reliever, and if Antigua is stuck in the pen, he could be an interesting asset there.

Well, the issue that goes along with that is how long do the Cubs keep him at short? Along with that is how Marco Hernandez progresses, as if he's showing well, then he carries potential starting shortstop ability. But roughly speaking, yeah, late 2014 is probably as optimistic as I can envision (rough guesstimate path - summer call-up to Peoria and stay there for this year, in 2013, do some combination of Daytona/Tennessee, and maybe a Tennessee/Iowa combination in 2014). He would have to roar his way up, and we still don't know how he'll deal with tougher pitching. But it's hard to envision a scenario FASTER than late 2014.

Marco! Solo homer on top of his walk and double.

Solid start for Rhee. Will be curious to see how his stuff looked late. The top two hitters on Daytona scuffled. Unfortunately, they are the two more intriguing guys at Daytona.

Not surprising, but Hultzen's really mowing through our Smokies lineup.

Last I recall, AzPhil indicated he was in rehab.

Pretty sure it was the Angels and one more team. There was some post-draft rumors that some team was considering him in the first, but I don't recall if a specific team was ever attached to it. You know, I still don't have as big an issue with the Simpson pick as others did. They saw him when he was throwing mid-90's with 2 good breaking balls and a decent change. That's a tempting combination. Then, IIRC, they saw him late in the year, when he was still throwing in that 92-94 range again, after going through his mid-season lull. The board wasn't exactly eye-dropping at the pick. There were prep bats (O'Connor, Sale, Cowart, and a few more), the prep arms weren't exactly eye-dropping at that spot (Foltyniewicz). From what we know now, there were clear spending limitations pre-Ricketts, and I'm assuming that the first year of the Ricketts regime, while the pockets were loosened, that there were still some limitations. While we eventually over-slotted a few guys, we were probably out of the market for the high cost options, like Zack Cox, Zach Lee, and some of the prep guys available. That left some questionable collegiate picks at the time - I have never been a big fan of Vitek and Wimmers, then and now. I don't think I said it was a great pick then, but I also said I didn't mind the pick that much, IIRC, and the pick itself (and not what's occurred afterwards), is still not something I look back at and am troubled over significantly. Relative to what was on the board then and what we could do, okay, it was a nice gamble on a guy who, when they saw him, seemed to have a high ceiling and could come cheap. Not bad considering the other realistic options.