toonsterwu

Just not a big fan of Goldstein's 11-20. I also don't get the love people are showing Dolis - even Goldsteins PWP is that of a setup guy who can occasionally close. Don't like Zych at 15 - he acknowledges what everyone knows - below average slider - so what makes Kevin Rhoderick at 92-94 with a plus slider worse than him? Odd comment on Ha's defense - several people commented that he was playing plus defense this year in CF, and I know there are some that think he might actually be the best defensive centerfielder of the top trio (Brett and Matt). Now, if he thinks Ha grows out of CF, that's a different equation, but he doesn't say it. Rhee and Wells behind a guy that KG thinks will be a utility guy is questionable, to say the least (his comment on Marwin at the end). Now, I actually think that Marwin has some more potential, but whether or not he develops the pop is a legitimate question. It just seems like an odd list. Some upside gambles and yet, placed a lot of high floor guys in there. That said, it is a good read and his positive commentary on Marco jibes with what BA had about Marco.

As talented and intriguing as Mesoraco and Alonso are, I'd want quite a bit more than one more high upside prospect for Soto/Garza, in all honesty. The problem with a prospect trade like that involving Cincinnati is their thorough lack of quality arms in the upper levels to trade for. To be honest, I'm not sold that there is a package that the Reds could give involving prospects that would make me satisfied with dealing them Alonso/Mesoraco. I mean, Zack Cozart gets talked about, but that's more due to his readiness than some sort of elite potential (and I'm not sold that he's not better off at 2nd). Billy Hamilton is raw and so far away. Kyle Lotzkar looks promising, but is fairly far away in the overall development process (has to add workload more than anything, which will take time). Unless they gave us multiple guys after Alonso/Meso (say, 3-4 and thus gave us a high quantity of decent quality), none of the guys left in the system, individually, would make me satisfied with a deal (that is, I don't see any one guy that, with their addition to Alonso/Meso, would make me satisfied with the deal). But that's me.

I would love to get Holland in a deal, but I've got a tough time seeing them move Holland in any deal for Garza. I think/wonder if they might discuss Ogando, but is he a headliner in a deal at 28, with issues on consistency with his slider and a change that still needs work? For such a good team with such a good system, the problem I have with dealing with the Rangers is that a) As noted, in the system, IMO only Profar looks like a chip that you could have as a centerpiece to this type of deal. b) In terms of young guys on the 40, there are few pieces that look attainable unless Jon Daniels and Co. pulls another Otsuka/Eaton deal, which seems doubtful with the brain-trust development there. I'd love Holland, and he'd be awesome as a centerpiece, but would it make sense for them to offer Holland for Garza coming off the season Holland just had, particularly when you factor in that he has 3 cost-controlled years left (I think) and is younger. After Holland? Not sure Ogando is the type that can headline a deal, and same with Matt Harrison. Don't like Engel Beltre all that much. Not all that intrigued with Martin/Borbon/Moreland and none of the three seem like centerpiece type pieces to me. You've got some pieces like Font/Ramirez/Mendez that are intriguing in a depth piece type of way. Anyhow, should be interesting to see what rumors pop up in the coming weeks now that someone has thrown it out that Garza is available.

Why would Profar be too much, though? 2 cost-controlled years of a potentially elite starter should net an elite chip in return? To be honest, if we're just getting prospects in return ... I'm not sure I love any deal from the Rangers that doesn't include Profar. Their system is talented, but as of now, it just doesn't seem to have many chips that can headline a deal for 2 cost-controlled years of a possibly elite starter. I mean, Martin Perez looks nice, in a mid-rotation lefty type of the way. Quite valuable, but is that enough ceiling to headline this deal? Besides Perez, there isn't really another arm that could headline a deal. Robbie Ross? His floor seems high, but what's his ceiling. Positionally, I really like Olt, and would want him as the 2nd/3rd piece in a deal, but too far away and with big question marks on the bat. Don't know enough about Leonys Martin to really comment, but not sold the ceiling is that quality to justify him as the headline piece to a deal. There's some raw assets further down that might make a case for headlining a deal by midseason of this year, but as of now, just not sure who offers that besides Profar (unless they go bucket full - that is, offer us, say, a choice of 5 guys besides Profar, as the sheer quantity of decent quality might be enough). But that's me. I just can't see a prospect deal that doesn't involve Profar. If they involved major leaguers, that might be a different story depending on who, but not sure they would do that.

Love the move. Nathan still looks like he can be a quality closer, and Feliz may give them a quality starter. They can still bid on CJ if they want, but now, they aren't forced to try and over-spend to keep him.

I think Oakland's in a spot where they recognize that, once again, they aren't in a position to make a push in the next year or two, particularly with Texas developing into such a strong organization. For the Reds, I think this is an issue of a FA closer being too expensive along with the fact that they have a deep system (but I still hesitate to call it quality, as a lot of folks are doing these days - a lot of highly intriguing pieces, a lot of raw assets, few arms worth mentioning.) As a side note, love the Rangers move for Nathan. I think there's going to be one or two guys that will swallow hard and either take a setup role or settle for less money than they expected.

Debatable. I kept saying awhile ago to not rule out Fielder and the Nats. They reportedly like Espinosa long run at short, and have Desmond/Lombardozzi/Rendon to fit in the middle infield (it's possible Zimmerman moves to first and opens up 3rd for Rendon as well). Moving on a middle of the order bat makes sense, although I don't know if they can fit Fielder/SP unless they move some money (which is doable, DFA or trade Lannan/Gorzelanny and then look to shop LaRoche). Now, a top of the order bat should be a higher priority, but if they like their MI options, they may pursue a CF instead (but the Twins wanted Storen for Span, and they weren't willing to do that). The Lerners want to win ... and win soon. With Philly aging, the Nats may see an opening. True, but Atlanta and Miami feel the same way. Could be an interesting shift of power in that divison in the next few years. Assuming the Lerners are willing to keep payroll high, which is debatable considering attendance hasn't been great, the Nats are as well positioned as the Braves. System is strong, albeit not as strong as the Nats, but they have elite chips. The rotation looks good in the short term and the long run, the lineup has the big bats in the middle, and the pen looks good. The Braves will always have some payroll restrictions with current ownership, and I'm in a wait and see mode on the Marlins.

Debatable. I kept saying awhile ago to not rule out Fielder and the Nats. They reportedly like Espinosa long run at short, and have Desmond/Lombardozzi/Rendon to fit in the middle infield (it's possible Zimmerman moves to first and opens up 3rd for Rendon as well). Moving on a middle of the order bat makes sense, although I don't know if they can fit Fielder/SP unless they move some money (which is doable, DFA or trade Lannan/Gorzelanny and then look to shop LaRoche). Now, a top of the order bat should be a higher priority, but if they like their MI options, they may pursue a CF instead (but the Twins wanted Storen for Span, and they weren't willing to do that). The Lerners want to win ... and win soon. With Philly aging, the Nats may see an opening. ________ I keep wondering why a lot of the media is suggesting the Cubs won't pursue a big ticket signing. Makes me wonder if there's some leaks that they've been getting from the front office. There seem to be a lot of folks that are suggesting that the Cubs won't push.

Don't quote me on rule 5 rules, as I could be way off, but if you have to expose a player to waivers to send them back to the minors, then any team could pluck him up and take control of the Rule 5 rights, right? Anyhow, I think it's probably wishful thinking on my part. The chances of them changing their mind and plucking Rhee back seem slim to none. I like Antigua, but I doubt he sticks for an entire year right now, so I'm not too worried, and if he does, then you move on, I think.

You can pick your own guy, but then you'd have to keep them on the roster all year as well. It's admittedly doubtful that they'd take that risk now that they have left him unprotected. More wishful thinking on my part.

Thinking about this, the random thoughts coming to my mind are 1. Theo's first year as GM in Boston also involved heavy investment in Rule 5 picks, 3 in the major league phase. and 2. They have a plan for this year that they've put together in the last few days and they believe they can execute it, and furthermore, they believe they can be competitive this year. You don't leave that many spots open on the 40 for just FA's, Doesn't necessarily mean big signings - maybe they have a list of gambles that they are comfortable making and wanted the spots. This is clearly a smart group of people working in the front office, and I find it hard to imagine that, for their previous clubs, they hadn't already come up with a list of potential intriguing Rule 5 targets this off-season. They know they likely won't find starters there, but could find guys to fill roles. 3. This does sort of feel like a potential stab to resolve the compensation discussions in some manner. I can't say there isn't a part of me that's mildly disappointed with a few of these decisions (actually, I'm only really disappointed in one and that's Rhee). We were bound to lose some guys this off-season. I count roughly 8 guys of some intrigue (positives/negatives below and possible reason as to why I think they might've been left off/why they might get picked). 1. Ryan Flaherty - A potentially valuable utility guy, but the Cubs have one in Jeff Baker and Ryan's not young. Question I have is - are you going to find someone better in Rule 5 to jump him? 2. Dae-Eun Rhee - Can hit mid-90's with a plus change and decent slider as a starter, but can he sit mid-90's out of the pen? Furthermore, is he ready next year? 3. Jeffry Antigua - Lefty with solid stuff, but is there a plus pitch to put in the pen next year? 4. Blake Parker - Wouldn't surprise me if he goes higher than folks think. Dime a dozen middle reliever ... but has good pen stuff to perhaps take a chance on. 5. Jay Jackson - Showed mid-90's velo in short spurts before ... but slider isn't consistent, to say the least. 6. Marcus Hatley - Stuff is too raw ... but power stuff may tempt. 7. Marwin Gonzalez - I get why he's the chic name for a guy that might be picked, but he's not a plus glove, and you've got to buy the bat turning around. I remember when Diory Hernandez was a possible Rule 5 target, and he went unpicked, and he had a better glove. 8. Kyler Burke - Too raw ... but power lefty. To be honest, I'm not too sold that Gonzalez/Burke will gather that much attention. Sending Hatley to AFL may lead to a team pulliing the trigger if a scout saw something, but if that's the case, you tip your cap if he succeeds, and you move on despite all the work the Cubs have put in on Hatley. Same with Parker. I'm not too concerned about losing Antigua for good - I have high doubts he'd make it on the roster the entire year. If he does, I think you swallow hard and just tip your cap again. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Cubs got wind about Rhee being a potential pick and picked him themselves. Edit: In case it wasn't clear (as someone else misunderstood it as well), I meant I wonder if the Cubs might ponder pulling Rhee back with their pick in Rule 5. Admittedly doubtful, and perhaps more wishful thinking on my part, but it has happened before (once or twice, off the top).

I thought Rhee had his fastball back into the mid 90s and had a plus change at the end of the year. If what your saying is true then I guess I don't worry so much about him getting picked up. Yup, by season's end he was hitting mid-90's with regularity and had a plus change to go with a decent slider by most accounts. Now, he still sat more 92-93, as it gave him better movement, but he could reach back and gun it. Rhee's the biggest surprise to me ... I think there's a decent chance someone takes a gamble on him. Now, I think the Cubs thinking is that the stuff came late in the year, and not many teams may want to stash a starter like that on the roster, particularly someone that hadn't reached AA yet. Antigua not getting protected doesn't surprise me as much. Short run of positive starts, plus while he has 2 good secondary pitches, it's debatable if he has a plus secondary pitch. Without it, he would really have to excel on command/control to make it as a starter, and a lefty pen arm without a plus secondary pitch is a minor leaguer.

Jackson is probably the most likely guy not to stick due to ineffectiveness. He's been bad enough long enough to make it somewhat unlikely that any team selects him - and even if they do, it's pretty unlikely he sticks. Well, the one thing I've been curious about the last two years is whether or not a move to the pen would be the best thing for Jay. In the past, he's been able to ratchet up the fastball velo to the mid-90's, occasionally topping high 90's, in short bursts. I could see a team looking for a cheap arm to develop stash him as a long man/middle relief power arm. That said, if he does make it, you tip your cap and move on. Not a big loss.

I haven't gone through the questions, so there may be some repetition.

as a total side note, Starlin played some third base down in Arizona. And I don't want Jose Reyes unless it is far, far cheaper than the rumored offers out there right now.

Thanks for the post Raisin. Hmm ... this isn't the first time that I've heard someone definitively say that Ha is a better defensive player than Szczur, but it is the most public one. I'm mildly intrigued with his remarks about Ha in that question - it seems to say that he doesn't have the ceiling of Jackson and Szczur in specific categories, but it doesn't seem to address whether or not he has a better blend of skills. I say this as someone who is decidedly mixed on Ha, but the response seems limited to portraying the answer he wants to suggest, but if he had said that Ha was better than Jackson with his hit "tool", and had more power than Szczur, along with being the better defensive CF, well, no one would argue that either. Also, a guy entering AA with a chance to be a No. 3 starter (Rhee) is behind a borderline closer? I gave up my BA subscription, but I'd be dang intrigued to find out what they wrote about Dolis. If they had concerns about Rhee's ceiling, then okay, I can understand apprehension, but it doesn't seem like they have concerns about Rhee's ceiling. As for the answers on Hernandez and Candelario, I still submit that I think there's a level of draft pick bias involved. To suggest that neither guy is a top 15 candidate (said Candelario was middle of the 11-30 group, and that Hernandez wasn't one of the 15 he thought about for the top 10) seems to belie the scouting reports that BA put out in reference to these guys, particularly the reports they put out on Hernandez, which are as strong as some of the stuff put out there on some top draftees, guys who will rate far higher. Doesn't mean I can't see the case for these guys out of the top 10 - I can, just think there's a level of draft pick bias.

Well, if Dolis does get consistency on his breaking ball/slider, then he could be a closer-type of guy. He has good life on the 4-seamer, can run a good 2-seamer in there, and has a usable changeup, but he needs the slider to be consistently plus. The potential is there, though.

Here's the thought running through my mind - I wonder how Epstein/Hoyer would view the top 10. We know that BA's Top 10 lists heavily weigh in organizational voices, and as of now, most of those voices are from the old regime. I'd be curious how the new regime looked at things, but we probably won't know for awhile. I guess the one I have the biggest problem with is Dolis. I am okay enough with the rest (think Castillo is a touch high, wouldn't put Lake or Vogelbach that high but can understand why someone might), but this seems to be heavily buying in that Dolis' can find consistency with his breaking ball. I mean, if he does, he's a late inning, possible closer type arm, but he hasn't shown it yet. Oh, mildly surprised Rhoderick got the best slider nod. Didn't think it was that good.

I think we're generally viewed as more a system in the early 20's right now. To be honest, I don't care that much about system rankings, other than the discussion it fosters.

I hope things turn out as well as you think, but a lot of things have to go right for our system to be top 10. I think a positive outcome, in terms of system rankings, would be if we were in the top 15. At the end of the day, it's hard to see the Cubs having too many high impact guys reach the upper levels in 1 year, so the bulk of our guys will still be in the lower levels.

I'm actually starting to lean towards Francona as my preferred choice as well. This isn't Boston brought back together again - it's a brand new dynamic and everyone understands that Theo is in charge, and Francona has shown a capability to blend in young talent. I'm not a big believer that teams necessarily need a Lou Piniella, in-his-prime, demonstrative type of GM, and I think Francona and Epstein would both be overly aware in regards to concerns about the clubhouse, due to how they finished in Boston. That said, all the guys sound like good candidates, in all honesty. I liked Maddux's media clips from the other day, and I'm sure Mackanin/Sveum were fine (never looked at it). I'm sure Sandy Alomar Jr. would be great.

Much as I've made some arguments this winter trying to argue that perhaps Jeimer was under-ranked, including by myself, I still tend to think top 10 is too high for him. I can see a justifiable case made for the next tier, but with question marks on his future position, along with the fact that, unlike Baez, we're really projecting power with him, and I think there's just too many issues to put him top 10. But that said, after about the top 5-7, the list gets really bunched from 8 or so to 22 or 23 for me.

I don't mind giving up either Clevenger or Beliveau, so if that's the deal, fine. That said, I'm a bit surprised that Beliveau's breaking ball isn't considered plus. There are enough pen lefties in the system, and I'm still not sold that Beliveau is anything more than a potentially good LOOGY.

There is going to be one more major commitment for the Yankees, and that's Cano's contract, whenever that gets done. That said, there's a reason Cashman has been pushing so hard to protect his chips unless it's for elite players. He wants to have young talent ready to balance the aging guys exorbitant costs.

A boatload. Yankees are one of the few teams that have the chips that could convince me to move him. Not many other teams do. Garza's value is equal, if not better, than last year's as he's coming off a statistically strong season (whereas, there were some question marks last year, but there was one extra cost-controlled year to balance things out). That said, this is such a bad pitching market. I'd want at least 1 elite chip, 1 plus chip, and at least 2 more solid assets to go with it. From the Yankees, I'd start by asking for Montero/Betances/Banuelos, and leave some leeway to get only one of Banuelos/Betances depending on who else was in the deal (not that I see Cashman even remotely considering that, I think he'd deal Montero in a heartbeat for the right pitcher, but not both of his prized arms). From the Royals, I'd start all discussions with Eric Hosmer or Mike Moustakas and work from there (not that I actually see the Royals pondering anything like that). I'd ask for Jurickson Profar, Martin Perez, Mike Olt and one more from the Rangers, perhaps a rotation arm (you know ... as good as Profar is ... this is one that I mildly wonder about whether or not Daniels and Co. may go all-in on the near future). Garza will still be cost-controlled and entering his prime. Ideally, I'd get 2 pitchers in any deal. If someone forks over a boatload, then I think you have to ponder it. But I doubt someone forks over that much. Not impossible, but I doubt it.