toonsterwu

Technically, I don't think Rizzo is a rookie anymore, as he passed the AB limit (I think), but I think most lists are counting him as a prospect. BA certainly did. Just speaking hypothetically out of tiredness right now - Turner/Montero easily top BJax for me. I'm not so sure Banuelos would, though. Let's see, Smyly wouldn't for me. Oh, I wouldn't put Rizzo ahead of BJax, for roughly the same reasons I argued against a BJax/Rizzo straight up trade - I don't buy Rizzo as a significantly better bat, if at all, relative to what we believe will happen on paper, to compensate for BJax's positional value. I'd take BJax over Yelich. Who else has been rumored? I'd put him ahead of Marisnick and any of the arms in the Blue Jays organization.

Here's a simple question that can be asked of anyone, as nsbb loosely gears up for a list- is there any opposition to Brett Jackson as the top prospect this year? I get the feeling that the majority of folks will have Jackson/Baez as the top two, and so far, most pubs are putting them in that order, but Marc Hulet did argue for Baez ahead of Jackson. Is there any other candidate that threatens those two in anyone's minds?

It's quite possible that Phelps or Warren will have better/longer pro careers than B&B, but I think you have to gamble on upside in a deal like this, and when that upside is in the upper levels, I think you have to fight for that. Ideally, we'd get something like Montero/Banuelos (I like Betances, but not that much in a deal like this) and Phelps/Warren.

Too far away, though. Who becomes the centerpiece? Banuelos? I like Banuelos, but I don't know if I like him as the centerpiece to a Garza deal.

Well, there are those in the Yankees organization that still cling to the idea that he can be a catcher. I think he's improved behind the plate, but he's not a guy I want there other than in an emergency.

To me, that's fair. I know the Yankees are going to balk initially, but a risky arm (and I really, really like Banuelos, but he's a bit risky) and an elite bat. I'm assuming there would be other guys to fill out the trade, but a Montero/Banuelos package is one of my preferred choices.

Eh, I hope we pass on Jose Fernandez, even as a PTBNL. Never was that big a fan of the pre-draft reports. I have a hard time seeing them accept him in a deal and waiting that long to get their hands on him to indoctrinate him in their ways.

Porcello and more for Rizzo? I mean, if it helps us and the Tigers are willing ... okay. I don't love Rizzo, but he'd be a nice get. That said, if I took a step back and looked at it neutrally, I wouldn't give up Porcello for Rizzo straight up. A young team-controlled starter that was showing signs of improvement with his secondary stuff is a valuable asset. Rizzo's nice, but I agree with JeffH in that I don't know if he's that elite corner slugger some folks are making him out to be. He's still unproven at the big league level.

If they fast-track him as a pen arm, wouldn't surprise me if he saw Iowa this year, but that assumes a lot goes well. I'd love to see them at least give him a look as a starter, though.

I wouldn't be surprised with anything, but I still feel like, at the end of the day, a move probably happens. This front office isn't dumb - Garza's value is arguably at his peak, coming off his best year with two team-controlled years left. You are taking a risk that he can repeat his strong performance (I think he can, because there were notable reasons developmentally that led to his success, but it is fair game), and you'd be taking a chance that there would be a bigger market at the deadline. I still don't see them signing Garza down, not due to desire, but more because I don't see them giving him the years that they'd likely want, combined with the money. But again, won't be surprised with anything. Wouldn't surprise me if a darkhorse shot out of somewhere and landed him.

I've never been big on Robinson Lopez or Michael Burgess. Burgess is more a case of seeing him enough and just not buying that he can put it together. Lopez is more a case where, sure, great fastball, but I never saw the intrigue beyond that (granted, that, in of itself, is intriguing). I can't think of who else would fit for comeback right now. I should've put in Kyler Burke as a possible breakout and sleeper. Goofed and completely forgot.

I'm not anticipating Rendon or Harper up at any point early in the year, and of the two, I think Harper has a better chance to be up this year. That said, that lineup, even without Fielder, is one top of the order hitter away from being good. Sure, any rotation that loses their ace is going to struggle, but Stra/Zim/Gonz is one of the better trios out there, and Wang looked really good down the stretch last year. Add in Detwiler and Lannan, and there's good rotation depth. The middle relief options are a question mark, but really, how many teams have solid middle relief, on paper, entering the season. Having a dominant back two is what it's about. Add in a system that's still fairly solid, and an aggressive GM, along with an owner willing to spend, and not to mention, two elite prospects in the wings, and I think they are up there. The Phillies probably enter the season as favorites, but a weakened system and an aging core means some big question marks. On paper, the NL East might be the best overall division in baseball. It's close btw them and the AL East, but I tend to think the Mets will be more competitive than the Orioles.

Oh, my hunch on Sickels is B+ - Brett/Javier B - Szczur (maybe), Maples (maybe) B- - McNutt, Torreyes (wouldn't surprise me if he went B on him), Hernandez, Antigua (he mentioned once that he really liked him so if there's a surprise, that could be it) ________ I haven't contemplated all of Sickels grades, but I'd guess that we're 20-24, but after a Garza trade, we could go as high as 12-16, depending on the return. Adding a Soler perhaps kicks us up to 10-14. Again, a lot of hypothetical guessing on a Garza package, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Cubs decided to hold firm and not deal (although I think they will, his value is at a peak here, where teams have 2-team controlled years and he's coming off his peak season, showing development).

I tried my best to avoid my own biases in "grading" and "ranking" these guys (I mean, I think I've made clear before how lukewarm I am on Ha. Lake was a case where I think the issues are so great based on repeated years of problems that it's hard for me to buy it until he shows otherwise), but obviously personal bias factors into these things, particularly if I see a guy. What I will say is - my gut instinct was to place McNutt 2/3. I really believe that a lot of his issues were due to injury. Like I've said before, I think he was over-hyped after 2010, so it's not like I'm expecting an ace quality arm here. But I believe that a lot of the inconsistencies on the breaking ball and mechanical issues had more to do with the blisters and rib injury, thus disrupting his ability to develop a rhythm. - I still, "gut instinct" would go Ben Wells ahead of Maples and Castillo. Tis me, and I understand the arguments for Maples/Castillo ahead of him (the former is "upside" in the form of development of the breaking ball, the latter is pure readiness at a high value position). - To be honest, I'm not sure how much higher I could've gone with Candelario. If my comments seemed to suggest that I was leaning to putting him significantly higher, oops. Didn't mean to. Maybe ahead of Vogelbach, and Whitenack is that odd anomaly in ranking this year. I don't think I could put him ahead of Beeler/Golden because of long term positional uncertainty and the fact that his power is a lot of projection right now, whereas, we know with Golden, that the power is there. - I still would like to put Struck higher. I've been a fan of his through and through, but it's just heard to justify it, despite the good numbers. A couple spots, perhaps. Depends on how one views the pen arms ahead of him, but Dolis does have legitimate closer potential if all goes well, and Beliveau was simply too dominant, in the end, for me to slide Struck ahead of him when Struck has to work on his secondary stuff. - I have a tough time putting pen arms too high in general, but in general, I don't see a pen arm that I could really justify, off their stuff or recent efforts, to go significantly higher than where I have them. - I can see people putting Torreyes really high. With guys like Torreyes, I tend to want to see it to believe it sometimes (outside of irrationally liking someone - for example, I still irrationally like Matt Cerda at 2nd to an extent, despite the fact that he's poor defensively there and has no pop to threaten). - I really wanted to put Antigua higher. In an earlier run through (and I think I posted that here), I had him 13th or 14th, but at the end of the day, even accounting for some reports I got of him touching 92/93, he's still a soft tossing lefty with a limited ceiling (best case seems to be a 4/5 that has a couple good years at a "3"ish level). - I really wanted to put Amaya higher, but I want to see what positional route they go with him and how his bat develops. - I really didn't want Sappelt in the top 30. Just don't think he's a starter, but he's close enough, with a strong enough track record, that I could only go with so many upside guys ahead of him. - I really, really pondered Logan Watkins a long time, but how much of that summer surge was real? I've looked at the numbers, and I remember seeing him hit during that stretch, and I just don't know if I buy it more as a fluke couple months (with a huge spike in power in July). I can see a case for him top 30. - I really wanted to get Aaron Kurcz in the top 30. I really like him a lot, but the flyball issues bother me enough, and combine that with my distaste for ranking pen arms high, he was out. - Off the top (and I have a list somewhere of guys that were borderline but don't have it in front of me), Chen was another close case. I'm not sure I'm a believer yet that he's a "soft" hitter that can make it up the ladder, but he was impressive offensively and defensively. Still, only so many light-hitting guys that you can put in the top 30 and feel all that comfortable. - To be honest, I pondered Rebel Ridling quite a bit. Besides the cool name, he bookended his season with strong months, but the disappointment in between, particularly on the power front, made it tough to buy him as more than a corner bench guy. A useful asset, but it was tough for me to squeeze him in. - In an initial run through, I went from 9-50 as C+'s, and I think there's a case for the guys I turned into C's to be C+'s, but I decided to be a bit tougher. - Kevin Rhoderick was awfully, awfully close to squeezing in. 92-94, plus slider. Is Tony Zych's better velo enough to compensate? I admit, I might've let draft status and where people are placing him influence me. - Tough for me to squeeze in any other draft guys. Too raw, or too little known.

yeah, that's going to change things. i think a lot more changes are likely to happen, but i put up what i had on account of sickels list coming out soon, meaning almost all of the major cubs lists from this off-season will largely be done. heck, i expect changes to happen throughout the year. the system might look fairly different by mid-season compared to now.

and I already want to change some things but headed out to a fricking January 2nd meeting. Anyhow, doubt anyone reads through that gigantic thing.

I was thinking Jed & Theo asked for two of the three (which is what I would ask for) but all three? Wow. Bravo for them, though. I like B&B, but Betances could be headed to the pen and Banuelos came off some inconsistencies this year. That said, if they said no to two of the three (as that's the wording the writer had), then tough luck for them. There's no way that Garza shouldn't net two of them. If they simply won't deal, then good for them, but if they are trying to bring the price down, tough luck, imo.

My hunch is that, assuming they aren't top talent that we give up, that the Cubs might do something like that. Not sure the Tigers need Blanks, though, and not sure they'd give up 4 of their top 5 young arms for that return.

Anyhow, I decided to "finalize" my temporarily final rankings, considering the calendar has turned and spring will be here sooner than later. I posted on Sickels, so I ended up tagging in grades. 1. Brett Jackson, B+. 2. Anthony Rizzo, B+. I'm just not buying that Rizzo is a substantially better bat than BJax, and if it's close, I think BJax as a CF gives better value. 3. Javier Baez, B+. 4. Marco Hernandez, B. 5. Matt Szczur, B-. 6. Kenneth "Trey" McNutt, B-. 7. Dae-Eun Rhee, B-. 8. Dillon Maples, B-. 9. Welington Castillo, B-. 10. Ben Wells, C+. 11.Josh Vitters, C+. 12.Jae-Hoon Ha, C+. 13.Reggie Golden, C+. 14.Dallas Beeler, C+. 15.Zack Cates, C+. Think I'm starting him here for now, but have to ponder more. 16.Robert Whitenack, C+.* 17.Dan Vogelbach, C+. 18.Jeimer Candelario, C+. 19.Rafael Dolis, C+. 20.Junior Lake, C+. 21.Jeffrey Beliveau, C+. 22.Ronald Torreyes, C+. 23.Nick Struck, C+. 24.Chris Carpenter, C+. 25.Jeffry Antigua, C+. 26.Gioskar Amaya, C. 27.Dave Sappelt, C. 28.Alberto Cabrera, C. 29.Ezekiel DeVoss, C. 30.Jose Rosario, C. _____ two who fell off 29.Luis Liria, C. 30.Tony Zych, C. * Edited my list for Cates/Rizzo.

I've sort of felt that Brett's ceiling, to some extent, has been under-rated as well. He has a little hitch in his swing that, combined with his aggressiveness, increases those K rates, but from an armchair analysis, I still feel like a good hitting coach should be able to iron that out over time (don't get me wrong, I don't think he's ever going to be, say, a sub 20% K rate guy, his aggressiveness simply will cost him at times). His power was always a bit under-hyped in past years (although more and more, people seem to recognize that he should have solid power as a regular). If he can cut down on his K's a bit, his production could jump up quite a bit, as here's a kid who handles the bat well and has good recognition at the plate. Now, ceiling is ceiling - it's not something everyone reaches, so don't get me wrong, my expectations aren't that high. But yeah, I still think, to a certain extent, that Brett's ceiling is a bit under-rated. Even the guy that he is expected to be right now, a guy who should be roughly a 2.5-3.5 WAR (based on past player markers to make rough judgments, as I never calculated it out on hypotheticals), is quite valuable. Any uptick would push him up a lot more.

Yeah, but we have 3 high celing CF prospects in Jackson, Szczur, and Ha, 4 if you count Rubi Silva but nothing in the form of corner outfielders. Part of me would just as soon get Drabek, Snider, and 2 young high celing guys. And personally I do think we have some high ceiling talent in the under 21 crowd, just none that we'll be seeing in the next 3 years with the possible exceptions of Jackson, Szczur, and McNutt. I've defended Szczur here and elsewhere, but he has big issues to address in the upcoming season. You know who he reminds me of - Ryan Sweeney, a guy who can be a good defensive OF, who shows some power in practice but might not have the ability to replicate that in-game with his approach. I've thought Law's commentary about Szczur to Pierre was a bit ridiculous, but he has always made some valid points. Add in a K/BB rate that was going in the wrong direction even when he was "hot" in Peoria, and while I think Szczur still has a good ceiling, I think there's a lot of work to do. Ha looks like a guy that might be someone that the new leadership might not be as high on as well, although to some extent, he might be more intriguing (arguably a better defensive CF than Brett or Matt, has more power than Matt). I just don't think you can pass on taking the best talent possible in a trade like Garza's. If that means a CF, so be it. At some point, Brett was expected to move off CF. I feel like, assuming no on forces him aside, that would be closer to his late 20's/early 30's. Putting him in a corner role could enhance the team if Brett's power comes through and there is a better CF option out there.

If it all pans out, I actually think Gose could be better than Crawford. If, for example, as the optimists on Gose argue, that he was told to just swing away, and that he has some more discipline inside him, those K rates could fall, and he could make better contact than he did. He has better raw power than Crawford put up so far during his career, and as of now, looks like a better bet to actually play CF, rather than have folks dream about moving him to CF, as folks did for some time with Carl. Not necessarily saying it will happen. I wouldn't mind Gose in a deal, as I'm a believer that in trades like this, you take the best talent possible, irrespective of whether or not you have a similar guy at the position (and Gose is behind Brett developmentally by a fair amount, IMO - that is, I'm not expecting Gose at any point in 2012, and I think expecting him to do anything before mid-season in 2013 would be expecting a lot - still think 2014 would be more realistic on Gose). As for Drabek, I'm really the wrong person to offer an opinion on him, as I've always felt that his combination of stuff and perceived upside was always a bit over-hyped. I'd be fine with him as the 3rd piece in a deal, but I'd want an upper level arm besides Drabek, and well, therein lies some of my issues with a Blue Jays deal (that their top arms are so far away). Not that the Blue Jays don't have enticing pieces, but that's part of why I prefer the Tigers, Yankees packages, assuming we can get some of those teams top guys.

Well, it's a fair point. I'd argue that the system has actually done a good job of identifying and finding coaches (Kopitzke and Johnson were, for the most part, lauded for their efforts this year. Listach came up internally. Bill Dancy, Dennis Lewallyn were well-regarded as coaches. Mark Riggins was great in the minors, and I thought did a better than appreciated job in the majors). What it hasn't had, on the positional/offensive side, is a more advanced/structured approach to hitting. That philosophy has to come from the top down, from the organizational heads to the hitting coach at the major league level (have often heard how the MLB hitting coach significantly influences orgs hitting philosophies). If there's any concern I have with all this turnover, it's that Jaramillo, on paper, is still the hitting coach, and he's more of an aggressive guy at the plate. It works for some situations, not all, but I think the positive is that Sveum was a hitting coach and will be able to implement his vision.

LaRoche would be an awful option at any price. If we're going with a 1 year option for a lost year just stick with LaHair. Any other option we acquire for 1st should at least be a possible option for the long term be it Fielder or audition someone like Lars Anderson, Anthony Rizzo, or Daric Barton depending on the price of each. Eh, if it's a meaningless prospect and somewhere around 5-6 mil for the year, I'm okay with going with LaRoche because he's a plus defensive player at first who has always offered some pop. LaHair is still a bit of an unknown. I'd be fine trotting out LaHair as a stopgap, but I don't think LaRoche, on the cheap, for one year, is that bad.

I like this move. I know, there's some folks that think he should've taken a supplemental pick for Frasor, but he gets two intriguing young arms. Webb was arguably the more hyped of the two out of the their draft year, but I'm far more intrigued with Jaye right now, a projectable kid with already solid velo and some makings of decent secondary offerings.