toonsterwu

I posted this somewhere, but I could see James Russell perhaps having some interest to the Tigers as a matchup lefty to give their pen that additional depth.

I'm not the best for this, but everything out there suggests that if he hits his ceiling, he could be a dominant hitter with a plus contact ability and plus power. Of course, it's the exception that hits the ceiling. It's early for comparisons, but maybe an Aramis Ramirez type hitter. Oh, I think the ceiling for Baez, if the reports about how he looked after he signed are true, might be superior Aramis. But that's ceiling.

I am a bit surprised that the Tigers seem to want to protect Castellanos more than Turner. I know Castellanos is their best positional prospect in a fairly awful positional system, who also happens to be at a position of need soon, but Turner is a far superior talent. I mean, I would rather just get impact talent, and Turner has that potential. Any deal with Turner will pretty much make me okay with the deal (obviously, I hope for good 2nd/3rd pieces, but impact talent should be the focus). I wouldn't mind grabbing Rob Brantly as a 3rd piece in a deal.

I'm not the best for this, but everything out there suggests that if he hits his ceiling, he could be a dominant hitter with a plus contact ability and plus power. Of course, it's the exception that hits the ceiling.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me that, if there was any truth to this package (and again, doesn't sound like Kaplan is suggesting that's a package, sounds more like he's saying, hey, here's three names to consider), that the Cubs might send some major league pieces to them, along with a prospect or two. Guys like James Russell and Jeff Baker cross my mind.

Thanks. I'm still holding out hope that if/when Baez moves off SS, he'll be able to stick at second instead of having to move to third (his bat would play better at second). That's why I brought up the Vitters/Castellanos comp, along with both Vitters and Castellanos being rather impatient. Baez's bat, if it's as good as people suggest, should be able to play anywhere. It's arguably one of the elite potential bats in the minors in terms of bat speed and power. I would rather have Baez at 3rd and Castellanos shift to the OF, I think, then Baez at 2nd and Castellanos at 3rd. But that's me.

Off the top (and guys I don't follow closely, my information could be off, as I haven't had a BA/BP subscription in ages), Vitters raw ability all around profiles as probably better, but probably not enough to overcome his approach issues when making a comparison btw their offensive ceilings (that is, Vitters raw ability is better, but realistic ceiling for both, offensively, is probably vaguely similar). Castellanos probably doesn't have Vitters "raw" power or hitting/"contact" ability. I think, as of now, Castellanos' power projects more as slightly above average, perhaps 20 HR pop. Defensively, as a former shortstop sliding over, so far, to what I understand, he shows a good ability to stick at 3rd. Good arm, so if Baez develops faster than expected (and moves to third), it's possible that Castellanos could get plopped in LF I guess. A more interesting comparison/discussion might be Baez/Castellanos, because there's a chance that Baez hits Low A this year while Castellanos is likely slated to start in A+. Edit: Meant to say realistic ceiling, not expected ability.

I'm not all that concerned about the 40. I think there are plenty of guys that could be released, including the guys signed this winter, Bianchi/Corpas types. I think the chances are high that we'd probably flip them a young player or two if we got this type of package in a return though. Put it this way - if Turner/Castellanos/Crosby happened (and I still have my doubts), I think that would be the best prospect package traded for a starter this offseason. I'd like that deal far better than the Nationals/A's deal, and I love AJ Cole. Turner is upper level impact stud. That trumps Peacock/Cole individually for me, and Crosby is another upper level, high ceiling arm.

Heck, BA is saying we're a borderline top 10 system right now. I don't know how many Cubs fans felt that way. The best thing is, even with graduations, there's a chance, albeit slim perhaps, that the system could be better next year because the depth of the raw upside in the system is fairly strong.

Turner/Castellanos/Crosby would be a really good haul, it seems. How does Castellanos' patience profile going forward? He's only 19 and has just played one full season in the minors, but he didn't seem to show a lot of patience in that one season (.056 IsoD). Alright. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, as I don't follow Castellanos all that close, but there's a level of Vitters in him in that he gets swing happy at times, but he's viewed as having far better discipline (albeit, without Vitters raw hit tool). He had a bad April (looking at firstinning) marked by him pounding the ball into the ground, but the K rate was also a bit higher then as well. It'd be dang fascinating if we could get Castellanos here, but my focus would still be on the pitching. If it's an option of a 2nd high ceiling arm or Castellanos, I think I lean arm. Obviously, it'd be great to get all three.

Does that article read as more speculation by Kaplan than some sort of package? Reads to me like Kaplan heard they were far down the line, and noted some of their top prospects. Here's hoping that really is the package, as I still prefer Crosby to Smyly (a bit).

If the third baseman they are known to covet isn't Castellanos, then I don't know who else in that system would really qualify as someone to "covet". Sounds like the Cubs may be angling for an Oliver or Smyly/Crosby/Castellanos deal. I'd be fine with that if they could get it.

He's 10/5 Ah thanks. Can't check Cots right now. I do wonder, post-Kuroda signing, if they'd shop him and then see what Demp would say about it. I'm fine with him being back, but there does seem to be a chance that some teams, post Kuroda and wary of a long term Edwin Jackson deal, may be interested.

I have absolutely no idea how Fuld and Sappelt are remotely comped. I just don't see it at all. But if you are talking about the Sam Fuld who put up 1.9 fWAR in 105 games last year (career fluke, but nonetheless), then that's not damning of Sappelt in any way. I'm comping Fuld's line to what I expect Sappelt to do, but we've had the conversation on Sappelt vs. Fuld before. I don't know many Reds fans that really thought he would put up ISO's anywhere near what he did in Louisville. So you have two similarly sized guys, considered slightly average in CF, good to plus in LF, below average power, and some speed. It's not the best comp out there, but it's hardly bad. That said, considering Fuld's significantly better discipline/approach at the plate, yes, it's not the best comp.

His decreased season was *still* right around league average, aka a No. 3 pitcher. His "struggles" were not all that struggly. 94 qualified pitchers last year. Had he qualified and somehow kept the same numbers, His SIERA would've ranked 87th. His xFIP would've ranked 90th. tERA would've been 80th. Even FIP only comes in tied for 62nd. I only point this out because you're making the argument that you can judge Sappelt as a possible league average starter off of baseline measures of players that qualified last year. I'll pre-empt another point - additional innings for Wood could've led to better results, BUT the likelihood (using 3 month data points) is that he would've had worse results. From April-June, he was trending the wrong way performance wise each month, with FIP/xFIP getting progressively worse each month.

You know, it crossed my mind right now, but I wonder if the Cubs may wait out a Kuroda signing ... and then try and trade ... Dempster. Perhaps Rothschild convinces them to gamble on Dempster in NY for a year. Perhaps the Tigers, who some have speculated would be more willing to consider reliability, would take a look. Edit: Off the top, I think Dempster would have to approve the deal, right?

BA really loves the Cubs system huh. 14th pre-trades? Wow. I always thought I disagreed with Callis, for some reason, but boy, everything he says falls in line with how I feel about some of the new acquisitions. Intriguing guys, but it sometimes feels like a lot of people are buying the new acquisitions more because they are TheoJed's acq's.

I like Sappelt fine, and would rather he get at bats than Campana or Johnson or Soriano, but it's not really a difficult path to Dave Sappelt: sub-2 WAR player. There'd be a lot more to discuss if someone would actually post that path instead of just spamming "Everyone thinks he's a fourth outfielder" or whatever. There were 20 qualified left fielders last year. The midway point was between Josh Willingham (2.1 WAR, .809 OPS, bad defense) and Martin Prado (1.6 WAR, 685 OPS, good defense). Both played in about 130 games. Prado at 260/302/385 with good defense is actually a pretty good downside projection for Sappelt, imo. I think a solid Sappelt guess for next year would be Sam Fuld with a bit less power (before we go into the minor league profiles again, I'm point to Fuld's .120 ISOP last year) and a less walks and less SB's (Fuld had 20 last year, which personally, I doubt he repeats). Rough paper guess on his WAR would put him roughly in that 1.5-1.6 category, probably a touch below average (so if standard is average, then using the term substandard is fair). It's possible that Sappelt has a hot season. I'd hardly call Prado's 2011 season as a downside projection for Sappelt. I'd call it a pretty middle of the road projection. Expecting Sappelt to be an elite LF is plausible, but I don't think you ever project anyone to be elite at something, and Prado was, relative to UZR, one of the best in LF. Prado has more power and struck out a lot less than Sappelt's profile projects that he would. If people that are arguing that Sappelt is substandard as a starter utilize standard as average, then I think there's easily a case that Sappelt could be a substandard LF. It's possible that he has a really hot year and is above standard. If the argument is whether or not Sappelt can be a decent starting LF, particularly in a rebuilding year, then without a doubt, he can.

Career FIP- 92. He's a strong No. 3 right now. This has nothing to do with his potential. He's already performed at an above-average level for a starting pitcher. This is what Moneyball was all about, and it's amazing that a decade later our front office is still able to take such great advantage of it. Lazy thinkers try to slap labels on guys instead of getting down into the nitty-gritty of what they have produced and what they project to produce in the future. You are really going to pimp his FIP- till the start of the season aren't you? I'll point out some points I've made elsewhere - - We've got 2 partial season data points. Leaving aside the whole 2 points issue, I still think it's risky to presume that you can combine 2 partial season data points into 1 whole season and make an assumption on that (which then negates the value of the 2 data points for analysis if you want to presume it to be one) - Since you want to mark out on career FIP- off 2 partial season data points, then I'll make a flawed argument. He's trending the wrong way. Decreased K rate, increased BB rate, ERA-/FIP-/FIP/xFIP/SIERA/tERA any stat you want is headed in the wrong direction. Yes, flawed argument ... BUT with young pitchers in baseball, guys who struggle in their 2nd season like this often have scouts wondering whether or not teams simply figured him out. My point isn't that I think negatively of Travis Wood. I think Wood/Volstad/Randy Wells/Maholm (if he's signed) are all 4/5 starters who could put together a strong year and be closer to a 3. My point is, though, that B2B's statement that he is more of a potential 3, and not a lock to be a 3, has enough statistical support to make an argument for, and that your assertion that he's a strong 3 also has enough statistical support to be argued against. All your usage of Career FIP- as a factor to define him as a strong 3 can be challenged. * A mildly interesting note on Wood's first two seasons is that his strikeout rate was a fair amount higher on the road than home. Probably nothing, but would be curious if there was some data on pitch usage home vs. road, which I'm too lazy to try and find right now, to see if he was a different pitcher.

I don't mind this considering where we're heading for 2012, but am curious what the next move is on the 40. With hopefully a Wood return on the horizon, there's a couple moves that need to be made. Assuming a Garza trade doesn't come out of LF, I'd guess maybe a Bianchi or one of the arms we signed gets released. Speaking to jcf's point, it wouldn't exactly stun me if any of Volstad/Wood/Maholm were flipped mid-season if they were having strong years and could net solid talent in return. As for a Garza trade, I agree with jcf - ideally, we'd get a ready stud, someone able to go on the 40 right now, but if they make a decision to move him now and get the best talent in return, then we simply need to get the best package of talent possible and build from there.

There is the same level of risk for the teams not trying to trade for him now. If Garza is solid, which he most likely will be, someone else could step up at the deadline to fill an injury vacancy in order to stay in the playoff race. Theo has no reason to jump the gun on moving Garza. He has tremendous value if they extend him and he should return tremendous value if someone steps up with an acceptable offer. Sure, there's some risk. But a solid Garza is actually a downgrade. We're selling elite Garza right now, coming off a dominant season, a guy a team can control for 2 years (albeit expensive). Solid Garza, 2008-2010 Garza, isn't nearly as enticing, and with a half year less, should get significantly less. As you can probably tell from my comments, I'm leaning towards move Garza for a package pre-season, but I feel like the decision to be made is either to move Garza now or to sign him down now. I guess there's an argument that you sign him down now and try and ponder dealing him, but for some teams, taking on multiple years of a contract isn't that appealing, depending on the situation.

I don't know how many people are concerned about his bat speed. It's more the long looping swing that he has, which almost everyone acknowledges. This feels like a case of a bad question.

I saw Machado play a few times this year, and man, I think he's going to be something special. I think his glove is under-rated - hard for me to not see him as a good defensive player, perhaps plus, but not bad, as some suggested/thought. It's a bit ridiculous to say this (acknowledging how stupid it sounds ahead of time), but boy, he really reminds me of a young Alex Rodriguez.

Btw, craig, there were many scouts this year that would swear that Ha was a legitimate plus CF (and there were guys that didn't think Brett and Matt were anything more than above average). As for Torreyes, I think I'm one of the few that you'll find significantly bullish on Hernandez, enough to put him ahead of Torreyes by a fair amount (even in Sickels case, we're talking to C+ prospects for him, and he's always said that the C+'s could be ordered in any way). I guess KG falls in that group as well (he said, after the trade, that Torreyes would be 11th, and Hernandez was ahead of that), but based on the folks that saw Hernandez play this year, I'm bullish enough to put him a fair amount ahead of Torreyes. The case for Torreyes ahead of Hernandez focuses on performing at a higher level and possibly having a better hit tool. I'd argue, though, that people that saw Hernandez play this year felt that his hit tool was potentially plus as well. He'll strike out more, but most project him to be a possible plus shortstop, so there's some additional positional value that he has on Ronald, and Hernandez has a bit more projection, along with power. Marco is a far riskier pick than Ronald, as he's a bit further away, but on upside and positional value, I think there's definitely a case for Marco ahead of Torreyes. Realistically, if I put aside "gut feeling", the two guys would probably have a similar report on their potential. Btw, I'm about as lukewarm on Torreyes as you'll find, but he should definitely be a lock ahead of Amaya as of now. Amaya's lack of power potential really pushes his ideal position to 2nd, and Torreyes is simply more polished than him, with better upside, and less risky as a 2nd base prospect. Oh, I agree on Dunston. As intriguing as he is, no way did I think he deserved to be listed. Golden, well, I can understand the case for having Beliveau lower (if grading based on future value relative to role a player might fill). I think placing Golden there isn't that bad - the fact that Golden, who was so raw out of HS, showed a better eye at the plate than we thought speaks well for him. It's much easier to teach a kid to fix his swing than to develop eye/instinct. I doubt Golden will ever be the type of kid that strikes out say, sub 20%, but I think a lot of the high rankings you get on Golden is focused on the upside, with the hope that since he was so raw, that he still has a lot of "baseball skills" that needs development, perhaps moreso than some other HS picks.

That's interesting. You seem to have gotten some much more favorable buzz on Beeler's stuff than anything I've read. I think the 3 vs 2.5 pitches argument for Beeler over Cates is good, but it depends on how good the pitches are. I wasn't under the impression that Beeler had any signature good pitch. Whereas I get the impression that Cates's changeup might be quite good. And I also had the impression that Cates's fastball might be better, in terms of velocity and perhaps also movement. I may be wrong for sure. But Cates would be ahead of Beeler on my list too. Not sure how much McLeod likes Beeler, but I wouldn't be surprised if he went after Cates because he too thinks his potential is pretty good. After reading BA's writeup on Cates, I'm hard pressed to put him in our top 20. They have Cates as low 90's fastball with sink, decent change with average potential, and new breaking ball. Btw, most suggest that Beeler's sinker is a borderline plus pitch. From the stands, it looks to have a hard dropping action, but that could be flawed based on my angle seeing him.