toonsterwu

I'd argue the problem for the Orioles right now is a) Some of their young arms have really faltered and have serious concerns (Matusz/Tillman). They had four young arms they were looking forward to ... right now, of that foursome (the aforementioned duo and Britton/Arrieta), they look to have 1 good starter, 1 inconsistent starter, and 2 gigantic question marks. No team should ever realistically hope that 4/4 top prospect arms should hit, but it sure feel like they expected 3 of them to. b) A relatively weak system. A couple stud guys in Dylan Bundy and Manny Machado, but really, this system is pretty bad right now. There's Schoop, a whole bunch of folks from this draft class (which doesn't look that great), Bobby Bundy. c) (and why I responded) A lack of quality trade chips/trade chips they over-value. I'm not sure too many teams are going to fork over the quality assets that the Orioles believe they should get for Nick Markakis and Jeremy Guthrie, but the Orioles aren't moving them unless it's a quality return. Markakis' power decline has a lot of folks alarmed, and he's signed down for fairly big money (3/42 left with an additional option year at 17.5 or a 3 mil buyout). Guthrie's a Randy Wells/Chris Volstad/Travis Wood level pitcher masquerading as an ace and not exactly cheap. Brian Roberts is an injury prone 2nd baseman now, past his prime, and still locked down for 2/20. Reynolds is Mark Reynolds, a poor fieldng slugger. One of the few guys they should trade (only 2 years until FA) is Adam Jones. Jones, though, is a tough guy to value. Orioles look at him as an emerging stud, while a lot of folks look at his as a poor fielding, questionable discipline guy. They want elite chips ... I'm not sure teams are going to give elite chips for him. Good, perhaps. One guy I would move, if I were them, is JJ Hardy, but I doubt they'll do so. I don't know if he can replicate the offensive season he just had, so this might be peak sell time. If they're really worried about Markakis, I'll gladly do a Markakis for Soriano + $10-$15 million trade. Somehow I don't think they're that worried. I don't think the Orioles are THAT worried (and I'm more speaking to general people feeling that Markakis has peaked and is on a decline).

Sure, I expect us to be competitive sooner than later (and I could see us hang around .500 for part of the year, depending on how the SP goes), but my point, or at least, what I think my point is, is that resigning Garza should probably be a decision made in conjunction with whatever expectations they have on a timeline. If the legitimate window opens too far down the line (and that's for them to determine), then perhaps it would be smarter to take the young assets now, whatever it is, and build up from there. Much as I want a bang-up Garza deal, if their expectations on when this machine will be in place are too far down the road, I'd rather take a quantity of solid quality, even if it's chips that are farther away, and build from there. After all, I think many of us are expecting that, if they struggle, that some more veterans, like a Dempster or a Soto, will be dealt mid-season if they are performing well enough to attract assets. I guess what I'm trying to say is that signing Garza only makes enough sense if they believe they can open that window sooner than later. Doesn't mean you deal him now, I guess, as you could wait mid-season, but there is a level of risk on waiting until mid-season.

There's risk to keeping him for a variety of reasons that have been discussed elsewhere, but here's what's crossing my mind right now. For all the talk they have, along with Ricketts, about rebuilding/building step by step, and that there's process (or words to that effect), what is their timeline? Obviously, that's something they won't share with us, but I'm sure, being the smart guys that they are, they've somewhat mapped out an idea of what they hope to achieve and what direction. A roadmap of sorts, not something rigid. I mean, it seems clear they are trying to repeat, to a certain extent, what they did in that first year in Boston (when Theo took the actual reins), trying to find some under-valued/under-appreciated pieces to and, for lack of a better term, fit the puzzle together. Back then, they had a core of top talent in place already, so they made a push right away, but 2012, barring some absolutely fluky development, is pretty much building/rebuilding. Do they think they can, perhaps, make a legitimate WS push by 2014? If so, then signing Garza down to 3-5 years makes, having an anchor in the rotation, and being able to sell FA's on Garza as a part of the core. He'd still be in his prime when the window would open. If they believe that the system is that weak, and that a legitimate WS window might not open until, say, 2015, then maybe you figure differently. 1 year doesn't sound like much, but it's hard to say, this is the start of our window, and on paper, so far ahead of time, expect to win that year. Add in that any extension would be near it's end when that window opened, and you'd almost be better off trying to get whatever assets possible for him before the season, and avoid the risk in-season, while also allowing you to perhaps plan accordingly with said talent base in place in the minors. Or maybe I'm running on fumes and coming up with smoke.

Sure, I understand that. Former catcher IIRC. I guess I'm still thinking about Sickels placement of him, with respect to arms that he dropped off the ladder. But that's for another forum. Edit: As I typed that, you know ... Blake Parker crossed my mind.

That report on Cates is about as weak as I've seen anywhere. If that's the report on Cates, 91-93 with some late action, potential average split-change, and a new slider, then I don't see the case for him as a top 15 prospect in our system (this really should go in the minor league forum probably). Other places were saying plus change, which would be a big difference. An intriguing arm, but that write-up is a lot less intriguing, for lack of a better way to phrase it right now. Still like Beeler a bit more than him.

I'd argue the problem for the Orioles right now is a) Some of their young arms have really faltered and have serious concerns (Matusz/Tillman). They had four young arms they were looking forward to ... right now, of that foursome (the aforementioned duo and Britton/Arrieta), they look to have 1 good starter, 1 inconsistent starter, and 2 gigantic question marks. No team should ever realistically hope that 4/4 top prospect arms should hit, but it sure feel like they expected 3 of them to. b) A relatively weak system. A couple stud guys in Dylan Bundy and Manny Machado, but really, this system is pretty bad right now. There's Schoop, a whole bunch of folks from this draft class (which doesn't look that great), Bobby Bundy. c) (and why I responded) A lack of quality trade chips/trade chips they over-value. I'm not sure too many teams are going to fork over the quality assets that the Orioles believe they should get for Nick Markakis and Jeremy Guthrie, but the Orioles aren't moving them unless it's a quality return. Markakis' power decline has a lot of folks alarmed, and he's signed down for fairly big money (3/42 left with an additional option year at 17.5 or a 3 mil buyout). Guthrie's a Randy Wells/Chris Volstad/Travis Wood level pitcher masquerading as an ace and not exactly cheap. Brian Roberts is an injury prone 2nd baseman now, past his prime, and still locked down for 2/20. Reynolds is Mark Reynolds, a poor fieldng slugger. One of the few guys they should trade (only 2 years until FA) is Adam Jones. Jones, though, is a tough guy to value. Orioles look at him as an emerging stud, while a lot of folks look at his as a poor fielding, questionable discipline guy. They want elite chips ... I'm not sure teams are going to give elite chips for him. Good, perhaps. One guy I would move, if I were them, is JJ Hardy, but I doubt they'll do so. I don't know if he can replicate the offensive season he just had, so this might be peak sell time.

I don't see them moving Arrieta in a Soriano type deal. He's raw, and there was always some question if he was a starter or a pen arm long term (debatable change and control), but he's a lock for their rotation right now. "Stuff" is still there.

I said it about Tillman already, but I'd be very, very wary of Matusz as well. There's some strong concerns about his arm. The arm was weak all year, and the velocity was steadily getting worse. I think one of them might bounce back (money would be on Matusz), but I'd be very wary of either. All that said, I don't see Duquette dealing either in a Soriano deal barring the Cubs giving up a good talent as well. And that sort of doesn't do the Cubs any good to do that. Britton is going to be really good. Still prefer him over Jacob Turner, to name another young pitcher that's been bandied about. I'd take Britton over a whole heck of a lot of young arms that get bandied. Don't think he's going anywhere, and anticipate him to be at least a solid 2/3, and should be the top pitcher in their rotation this year.

To be fair, the Z situation was significantly different, though. Many organizations may ponder eating the money on a player like Z because it is only 1 year and it is viewed as a sunk cost. In Soriano's cast, I wouldn't discount the need for the Cubs to take back a contract to make a trade work because 3/54 is a lot do deal with and sort through. I'd rather eat money and take some low level lottery ticket, but we don't know the internal numbers for the Cubs, and well, many other organizations this year, let alone 3 years down the road. Can the Cubs eat the entire deal? Is another organization even willing to pay a tiny amount (seems like Balimore isn't)? A lot of variables that make it tougher, so another bad contract would help alleviate things.

Much as I'd like an upgrade from Barney at 2nd, I'm not sure Roberts is a good enough upgrade at this stage of his career. I'm not particularly sold that he'll show more power than he did in 2010. He'll be in his age 34 season. I think I'd rather take some low level lottery ticket than Roberts.

I think LaHair would have to have a really monstrous year, but it's not impossible. ryan Ludwick didn't get it going, until what, he was 29? Enough folks seem to buy that LaHair's approach has changed and that he could be a late bloomer. If he has a monster type year, though, I think the Cubs keep him around, though.

If I had to take a guess, I'd guess that we'll have two guys end up more as "4" types with one "5". Although my guess is that one of "4's" would be traded (Wells probably, though I don't discount them moving Volstad mid-season if he pitches well enough. As I noted elsewhere, Fister got a decent return, and teams will probably overpay (not suggesting elite talent in return) for a guy like Volstad if he pitches well (since he has two team-controlled years left).

That's probably because Volstad has been terrible in the majors and Wood hasn't. Eh, I'll bite one more time. First let me say I think both are lottery tickets (although if I'm gambling on someone to be close to a "3" next year, it is, without a question, Volstad). My point isn't who I personally think is better, though. My point is that there's very little differentiation b/w the two in terms of performance record (not stuff) to believe one is definitely better than the other. Volstad SIERA 2009-2011 - 4.49/4.59/3.84 Wood SIERA 2010-2011 - 3.88/4.55 Volstad FIP (09-11) - 5.39/4.34/4.32 Wood FIP (10-11) -3.42/4.06 Volstad xFIP (09-11) - 4.29/4.43/3.64 Wood xFIP (10-11) - 3.97/4.61 Volstad ERA- (just using fangraphs, 09-11) - 122/112/126 Wood ERA- (10-11) - 85/124 Volstad FIP- (09-11) - 123/101/111 Wood FIP- (10-11) - 84/104 We can delve further into the stats. Wood is awfully tough to use any of these statistics to judge him by, so the positive attitude by folks as a result of the stats has me scratching my head. First and foremost, it's two data points. I'm sure many of you did much more statistics than I did back in college (or do these days in real life). But when you couple two data points on with partial seasons (I think it's always flawed to say X player has accumulated a full season's worth of data ... over two separate seasons and assume that anything judged from combining the stats into one season holds, there was a Cubs player a few years back people gushed over in a similar way on another site) and some bothersome numbers last year, it's hard for me to see Wood as the lock that people seem to be claiming above (okay not really, but someone wrote that he is far safer). With Volstad, there's three data points (I left out his 08, since it was less than 100 innings and I wanted to try and look at the same window). Volstad's peak potential and performance could be argued to be better than Wood's usiing SIERA/xFIP (can certainly take the argument that FIP- and ERA- suggests that Wood's peak was better, but that would open it up to discussions on two point validity and trending in the wrong direction, which is certainly flawed as an argument because it's only two points, but from a baseball perspective, I can ask the question whether or not opponents simply got a better read on him). Volstad's scouting profile has always been a touch better than Wood's (before anyone jumps into this, the concern with Volstad as a prospect was that he didn't have the elite stuff to dominate like the ace he looks to be, but for a pitcher, he was always viewed as a relatively "safe" middle of the rotation projection, as safe as prospects can get). With three data points, I can make the argument that Volstad is trending in the right direction, and throw in side notes like his K rate increasing and his BB rate decreasing over the last three years. Yes, I think Volstad is a safer bet for 2012 than Wood and has a better chance to be a "3". I think the chances are high both are more 4/5 guys than 3 guys. My point isn't that. I just find it odd that people are using metrics to claim that Wood is clearly a better bet than Volstad, when I simply think both are 4/5 guys with the potential to be a touch better. But this topic's been beat to death and I'll probably avoid delving back into it in all honesty. Edit: Actually, one last point I'll make. A long time ago, someone, a touch more old school, told me that most players have the ability to adapt to a new environment. Not all, and it takes time. Two examples - Alfonso Soriano - I doubt many remember this now, but there was a lot of people that doubted his ability to adapt from the Rangers home park to the Nationals old park. I believe Brad Wilkerson was in that deal, and there were folks upset that wilkerson was swapped for Soriano (keep in mind Wilkerson had some decent slugging years with the Expos). He adjusted (and that adjustment put us in our predicament in some respects). Chase Headley - Easy to forget, this was a slugger coming up in the minors. There was even some question on his hit "tool". You look at the numbers now, and most would be like, dude has no power. But he, as noted in interviews, had to adjust for his park. This isn't to diminish the importance of park factor in assessing players. That's important (and it's arguably easier for hitters to adjust than pitchers, in some respects). It is to say, though, that we shouldn't take those statistics as some definitive sign of a player's troubles, or some sign that a player can do better because of a park switch.

General sentiment on Ha is that his defense in CF was at least good this year. Some had it plus, and some suggested he was perhaps the best defensive CF in the system, which is heady praise. The tweener label gets thrown on him by folks, though. Didn't feel like questioning him on it, but maybe someone should. I honestly thought I would be in the minority with Jackson ahead of Rizzo, but it seems like a lot more people like Jackson than I thought. He's ahead of Rizzo on KG, Callis, and Pilere's lists.

really? You'd pass up 3 high upside upper level arms for a package around 3 low level guys where, particularly on the arms, their upsides aren't necessarily bigger than the Det guys? I mean, I've followed Nicoliino for a long time now (as he was slated to go to UVA), and I like him a ton, but hard for me to see his upside as being significantly higher than Smyly's, if at all. Edit: this isn't meant to criticize, btw. Just surprising that you'd feel that way, particularly in this day and age where upper level arms with upside are well-protected and arguably overvalued. I also don't think Detroit will even remotely ponder giving us 3 of those arms (and I'm not sure they'd give us 2 of those two ... ).

There's 10 different scenarios you can come up with with the Jays, on 3 man packages, that tops Turner/Smyly/Crosby?

Sure, Montero's probably out (although I still subscribe to the belief that you go after the best talent possible, so if they wanted to land him and figure things out later, I'm fine with that) but after reading Dave Cameron's valuation article on Garza, and thinking about how teams are all using advanced metrics these days, I wonder if a Banuelos/Betances/Sanchez type deal might be the best we can get. I still have my doubts the Yankees move both B's, though.

The NSBB community list? yup ... unless there's another list I'm forgetting about? Heck, even read Jaypers list this year. I was going over my personal list earlier and I was shocked at how many guys in this system I find interesting. I think there's gonna be a lot of varying opinions on who belongs where in the NSBB list. Oh, btw I didn't mean to exclude or devalue personal lists. I was just focusing on the big lists (BA/BP/Sickels/Fangraphs, I think I'm missing one, but can't think of it. Does thehardballtimes still do it, or did they fold those efforts in with Hulet at fangraphs?) I think the top of the list, outside of my aggressive rankings, should go fast. Once we get into the teens, we may simply decide to call it quits, as I could see a ton of varying opinions there. Heck, even Sickels has the Cubs C+'s running down to the mid-late 20's.

Well, I'll say this about Sickels - he seems to have contacts in the mid-west a bit more, and some guys know him well (Jason Grey, I believe?). That said, Jason Churchill took a shot at him years ago that still resonates in my mind - roughly paraphrasing, but he basically said that anyone who grades by letter grades isn't worth following, and the intimation I recall was that the comment was directed towards Sickels. What I like about Sickels the most isn't Sickels - it's a forum for prospect followers to discuss things. I said it in his thread, but this is the first year that I really liked his list, that I can recall.

You know, if there's one thing I don't like about the list, it's his suggestion that Beeler isn't a C+ and that Cates gets ranked that much higher. Most suggestions are that Beeler didn't lose stuff in AA - he just wasn't polished enough. That said, deeper arsenal (3 pitches he can go to, compared to 2.5 for Cates), only 6 months older WHILE having missed some time due to TJ, gets ground balls, arguably better life on the fastball, and better control (suggesting a better chance at developing into a starter). I really wonder, as Sickels seems to suggest it's performance related why he downgraded Beeler, if Beeler had chewed up Low A all year at his rates of 7+ K/9, sub 2 BB/9, if Beeler would've been higher. A bit nitpicking, but that's the only thing that really, really, stands out to me.

The NSBB community list? yup ... unless there's another list I'm forgetting about? Heck, even read Jaypers list this year.

I mean, if I was nitpicking, leaving aside grades on Rhee/Vogelbach/Castillo, I'm not too enthused with the placement of Antigua/Beeler/Struck/Whitenack, and he seems to suggest that not all three were C+'s for him. I'd definitely take all four of those guys on a ranking ahead of, say, Sappelt, but that's me. Anyhow, only one list left. The only important list in all honesty.

Since there's a specific Sickels list, we can work with his for now, but at some point, this should probably get merged with the other thread. Anyhow, Sickels has his list up. No need to post it completely here, I think, but someone can feel free and go ahead. No real surprises - only a few worthy of B- or higher, and he was bullish on Vogelbach. I can understand concerns with Castillo's work behind the plate to bring him down to a C+. His review at the end seems like something Cubs fans have been trying to tell general minor league fans all 2nd half of the year -

I know Callis has him outside of his top 20 (and I don't recall seeing Callis' full top 30 list this year), but I've got a hard time not putting Cates in the same range as Beeler, in the mid-teens. I like Beeler a bit better, but it's close.

Sounds like Cates could be a good reliever if he is in the mid-90s and has a good change up. If that third pitch never develops I'm sure he'll be moved to the pen. He'd probably move fairly fast in the pen, but there's enough righty pen arms that I'd be surprised if he isn't in Daytona's rotation, which was a bit iffy when you start listing possible names there (in terms of talent), and had a lot of lefty options potentially penciled in there.