toonsterwu

Dump truck, hell, I've got three M88A2s. Those could tow Ft. Knox to where ever his house is. You've got three M88A2's hanging around the house? geesh ... but man, my buddy told me those things can tow a ton. I could probably google up the specs for what it can handle, but I figured I'd ask anyways out of curiosity.

There have to be some legitimate concerns with Epstein. Nothing too serious, but he's had a rough couple of years and has saddled them with bad contracts and a bad system. Part of that is definitely attrition, as they were well stocked a couple years back and made some moves/had graduations. Don't get me wrong, overall, I'd be pleased with a Francona/Epstein package. Just not sure I'm definitively rooting for anything right now, outside of perhaps Friedman, and I doubt he comes here. Sounds like Ricketts is doing a thorough job, though, so I think I should be pleased enough with the end result.

I think the thing to take away from Ricketts first year is that he tries to be good to people that he likes, even if he ends up firing them (by most accounts, he had a good relationship with Hendry). Thus, I wouldn't rule it out that he's already quietly told Quade he won't be back. I doubt it, but considering how he fired Hendry long before anyone knew, it can't be ruled out. More than likely, he simply wants to give a new GM the right to make these decisions.

As a total side note, I'm not sure I have a first choice. Maybe Friedman, but I doubt he leaves, and if he does, there's the hometown lure for him. I like the structured way they run their system, demanding accountability and performance from their talent. Part of it is out of necessity, due to their market limitations. I really don't know who would be 2nd for me after Friedman, assuming an "everyone is available theory" which obviously isn't happening. Cashman would be up there, I think people underestimate how hard he's worked to bring their system back up to snuff. Granted, money makes a huge difference there (with their international signings, but Ricketts is opening up the checkbook in amateur signings).

Yes, and yet he didn't shut down a pick we know he absolutely hated. So, maybe by the word active the rumor meant possibly present and moving, but not in the mood to say no to what his scouts were saying about him. I've done the same with the A's system. I remember the Richie Robnetts, Danny Putnams, and Javier Herraras of the world too. Michael Choice...Ryan Flaherty? Michael Choice is a CF possibly RF who projects to hit in the .240-.260 range, walk, and hit with power. Ryan Flaherty? He's also 4 years younger than Flaherty...Grant Green just won the MVP of the Futures Game this year...a lame award I know, but check out the alumni...guys like David Wright and Alfonso Soriano....Tyson Ross has been pretty good and might have good upside as a reliever...we're not talking a dead system here. We're talking about a system that just 10, 12 years ago was one of the most productive in the game, under the very same GM who was and is considered amongst the game's elite GMs. I have alot of trouble believing that this is anything more than a phase for their farm. They have the pitching, it's the bats that need to come around. Personally, I like Brandon Allen and I've always been a Chris Carter fan, so there's a chance bat talent will be coming through soon to go with Weeks. Choice is far more athletic than Flaherty, but most expect him to end in a corner OF spot, as you note, and his bat profiles similar to what expectations are for Flaherty right now. I'm not saying that's what Choice will be, but there's a decent chance he's just a slightly better Flaherty. Grant Green was moved to CF. Grant Green doesn't really have the tools to be a top tier defensive CF, and it doesn't seem like his bat is going to take a major step forward. Who knows, maybe something clicks, but at best, he's an average power guy. I wouldn't be surprised if Grant Green was moved to a corner OF role eventually, where he'd have far less value unless his bat dramatically improves (if he's moved to a corner role and his bat doesn't improve, I have my doubts that he's anything more than a minor leaguer that could get a cup of tea in the bigs). 10-12 years is a long, long time. It's not a phase anymore. It's not attrition anymore when we're talking 10-12 years. That's at least a good 2-3 cycles for most organizations, depending on what type of talent they target. It's been average or lower for a good 5-7 years, and it's been average not due to their draft record, but due to their trade record. I'm not bashing Beane. I'm just not going to hold him up to a pedestal when he hasn't done a lot to deserve it. I'm not going to bash him either, as they clearly have some market issues there that limit his capabilities. I would've been ... intrigued if he was our GM (and pair him with an old school scout type like Wilken could've been fascinating, although it could have been a very combustible situation). I'm just calling it as I see it -5 years of mediocrity or worse (which you've acknowledged above, personally I'd add another year or two onto that) isn't a short attention span anymore. His organization simply hasn't done well in the scouting area, and the overall system area. The buck stops with him. I am very much a fan of Beane and his trade acumen (even the Harden trade, while Gallagher fizzled out and Donaldson hasn't taken off, was a fairly solid move on his part), but you don't grab a Beane to come here because of his capability to do good firesales. I just don't see enough evidence to suggest that he's done well in the drafting area, unless the 2010/2011 drafts really come through for him. I like Allen, not so big on Carter but I see the potential (think he's more a DH, big bat off bench type unless a hitting coach can shore up some holes, even then), thought the gamble on Kila made sense for them, but they once again get to what I'm arguing - those are prospects that he's attained through trades because of internal failures to develop corner power guys. Sean Doolittle, a guy I liked enough, has been hurt (and even then, was grossly overhyped from his Cal League stats). Jeff Baisley is a quad A type it seems. Christian Vitters wasn't that good. Jason Christian doesn't really have the power for a corner role. Anthony Aliotti had an ISOP of .120 in the Cal League. Stephen Parker is probably the most promising of the corner guys they've drafted, and his power is questionable (although it'll probably play at 3rd). I'm not too enthused with Kirby-Jones, Cabrera has a lot of work to do. Everyone knows they can't land power guys in FA, and they haven't had a good offense in ... a long time ... but they simply haven't been able to draft the right guys to fill those voids. I will grant some talent issues were a byproduct of bad luck. Grant Desme looked intriguing, and he quit baseball. Nothing they could do there.

I know about Bonderman, but the rumor was that he was active in the draft room, moreso than other GM's, even up until the last few years. I've followed the A's system for the past decade. I've seen the ups and downs, thepositional talents that were supposed to come through (Javier Herreracomes to mind). Their farm system overall has had a couple bright years in the last decade, partly due to trades. Had we brought him here, well, we'd be hoping that he wouldn't need to firesale guys to rebuild the organization, as he's needed to in Oakland. Problem is, his track record in drafting, even after the philosophical switch has been fairly spotty. When was the last good draft he had? I'll leave 2011 and 2010 aside for now, as it's too early to really judge those drafts (and neither draft really blew my socks off when it happened, and neither one is exactly blowing anyone's socks off right now). I mean, one of the prime names from the last two drafts is Michael Choice. I know some folks really love him, but there's a chance that offensively, he's basically a slightly better Ryan Flaherty. Yordy Cabrera and Aaron Shipman have big question marks. Matt Thomson was someone that had some hype, but he got banged up. I mean, for a bad system, you need to draft well to turn things around, particularly for a small market club. Well, the 09 draft hasn't exactly done that. Grant Green is in CF. Max Stassi has struggled. Steve Parker is mildly intriguing and had some hype last offseason, but how much power does he have? Ian Krol may be intriguing, assuming he rehabs and works his way back. Justin Marks looks mildly intriguing, but in a back of the rotation lefty type of way. And he's in KC now anyways. The 08 draft does have Weeks to hang it's hat on and maybe Tyson Ross fits into the back end of the rotation. The rest of the draft was pretty eh. I mean, go through their drafts. It's not end of the world bad, as some recent drafts have been (what was it, Astros 2 years ago?), but it certainly hasn't been good. I mean, even going back to the 05 draft, Mazzaro and Italiano never really panned out the way some had hoped. You can chalk it up to attrition. I'm chalking this Cubs year up as attrition, as 08-10 saw positive growth for the system. 1 year, okay. 2 years, fine, we can still go with attrition. But they've been mediocre as a system, as you acknowledge, far longer than that. It becomes less an issue of attrition and more an issue of judgment, either with player development or drafts once the issues last that long. Sure, you can put some of it on bad luck - injuries (didn't James Simmons get hurt?), but it hasn't been a good run for them. If it wasn't for some positive trades by Beane, they'd be in a far worse position. Granted, money makes a difference, and it's possible they missed some guys due to money, but most of their top picks have signed over this stretch and it just hasn't worked out for them yet.

got you beat by a few years man. These days, I can legitimately call these athletes kids ... and it'd be justified. Happy Birthday man.

Ha, I don't expect it to change your opinion, or at least, that wasn't my intent. I know Antigua was 21, but it still seemed strange to see it because of how long his name has been tossed around now (at least a good 3 years).

I'm too lazy to go check right now, but I thought a couple pubs had us in the mid-teens? Don't be stunned if we are ranked in that 22-26 range. I like our system and am very intrigued with it, but the general feeling seems fairly down on it right now and I expect the rankings to reflect a mid-20's ranking. Anyhow, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and it'll be more in that 17-21 range.

The thing that troubled me about Beane is that, unlike most GM's, it was well known that he was more active in the draft room than many other folks out there, and they really haven't had many really good drafts in the past decade. Now, IIRC, some reports suggest he backed off in recent years, but as a franchise, they haven't had many drafts that looked really strong in the past decade. Their drafts struggled a bit until they adjusted their "Moneyball" philosophy to acknowledge speed, defense, and take some gambles on prep players. Even then, over the past 5-7 years or so, the system hasn't exactly been strong, and the 07-09 drafts look ... below average to pedestrian. All that said, I would've been intrigued with either guy, but both guys seem like they are staying put. It might be for the better for all we know. Beane backed off a big market job before and seems comfortable in Oakland, and Epstein's Red Sox are at a very dangerous spot, with some bad contracts and a weak system.

I'm going to semi-defend Cutler for a moment. I've been as frustrated as any Bears fan with his inconsistencies, but coming out of college, he was the most pro-ready QB that year (Leinart/V.Young) and one of the most pro-ready 1st round QB's in the past decade. His ability to see the field and attack the different planes of the field was exceptional. He threw a tight ball and fit things into windows. He wasn't dominant in Denver, but he was good. The consistent issue there was that he had good line play and a balanced attack. Right now, Martz isn't willing to commit to the run game. A Martz offense needs at least one above average pass pro tackle, and the Bears are quite questionable in that regards right now. There isn't a lead target that takes pressure off the slot guys. There's no big target that's consistent. Yes, Cutler is at fault for a lot of the inconsistencies here, but this Cutler is a far different Cutler than was in Denver. His comments make me think that, despite his "toughness" and unwillingness to back down, Cutler might be getting near shell-shocked. It's easy to forget that David Carr was once considered a very good QB talent. Shell-shocked QB's can really suffer. All in all, I put a lot of the blame on Angelo and Lovie Smith. They simply don't have the personnel to consistently run a Martz offense, and Martz isn't consistently willing to forgo the principles of his offense. This is an offense that's better for a Mike Tice, pound it away, try and occasionally stretch the field type of game. I wasn't even too bothered by the Greg Olsen move, as Kellen Davis had intriguing athleticism to attack the seams (not Olsen-like of course, but good enough) and was a better blocker, and yet, they don't utilize Kellen Davis enough in the passing game as a big target. Angelo has failed to address the OL, failed to add weapons because he believes that OL can be developed and WR can be found. I'd be okay with this if he was excelling in the draft in other areas, but he hasn't exactly knocked things out of the ballpark. ______________________ As for the Cubs GM, sounds like some of the top targets may be out. Here's a name I'd toss out there for the heck of it to see some response, but what about Paul DePodesta. Not sure I love the idea, but curious what people think about him these days. I know he's indicated that he doesn't need to get a GM job to satisfy his professional urges (or something like that), and there's still a bad feeling from his Dodger days. That said, while his moves didn't succeed quick enough in Dodger-land, there was some solid rationale for the moves. That said, I still wonder if we're talking about Hahn, Cherington and those other guys in the end.

I'd add that I'd be just fine giving Bryan LaHair a look if the other option was Kila. Here's hoping for significantly better, or significantly more interesting, at the very least.

fair enough. The way I look at Antigua vs. Rusin is that Antigua's ceiling is just a notch better. I wish Antigua could generate more groundballs, but considering age and ceiling, that's why I lean that way. As a total side note, working through our system, it still surprises me sometimes how young these guys are. For some reason, I thought Ha was already 21, but he's only turning 21 later this year. McNutt's only 22. Wells is younger than Maples. Feels like Antigua's name has been there for awhile, but he's only 21 right now as well.

the biggest question I'd ask you is where you put Jeffry Antigua? I have him slotted in the 11-15 range right now. Lake, I have barely outside of the top 20 right now, but I work through it slowly so that is subject to change as I just finished 15. Rusin seems a few notches high. I like him, but Flaherty/Castillo were both guys I had temporarily placed ahead. Beeler's ceiling had me leaning towards putting him ahead of Rusin, and Struck might be an end of the rotation arm, but he's got a bit more ceiling than Rusin as well. I hate putting pen arms top 20, but the more I ponder Beliveau, the more I think his dominant season is going to have me sliding him inside the top 20, and I have him ahead of Rusin. I actually like Rusin a fair amount and have defended him, but I am curious about the placement there and the reason why. Granted, I think 6-25 is fairly close, so it's not like it's a significant surprise to me, but just curious why you have him ahead of certain guys.

I'm optimistic as well. It's odd ... our team rankings will likely be far lower than where we were last year, but this is a far more interesting system to me than last year. We still have a lot of "cup of tea ... or more" guys that will likely see the bigs in some role, but there's finally some upside in the lower levels. Furthermore, there's upside in arms and bats, a rarity for the system to have upside talent in both areas.

Pondering the end of the rotation and didn't have a better place to put this - This might be totally idiotic, but after their epic collapse, and with all the issues that he went through this year, I wonder a) If the Red Sox would shop John Lackey b) How much of the contract they would eat He's taking a beating in Boston, and a fresh start might not be the worst thing for him. Looking at the numbers, the BABIP went up twenty points this year, the HR rate went up, but the K/BB rates were fairly similar to last year, and the velocity is still there. He went to the slider a bit more this year. He's not an ideal option, and the only way you take him is if the Red Sox eat a gigantic chunk of contract (as I really don't see a bad contract swap happening, don't see the Red Sox going down the Z or Soriano roads). That said, there are few ideal pitching options this off-season. He wouldn't address the top of the rotation, but he would add some innings eating potential to the back end of the rotation. I don't think I'd want to pay more than 5-6 mil a year for him, though, so it might be too tough to work out (hard to see the Red Sox tossing in 10 mil a year). Anyhow, just a thought after the epic collapses tonight. Derek Lowe, assuming the Braves ate a little bit of the money, would be another possible innings eating guy to add to the end of the rotation if the price is right (and the Braves have incentive to shop him harder this offseason, with all their pitching depth and him on his last year of his deal). I wouldn't mind a gamble on someone like Chien-Ming Wang, but he looks likely to head back to the Nationals, if the rumors are true. I hadn't realized how ... decent a year Javier Vazquez had. He's leaning towards retirement (and if he comes back, my guess is that it'd be with the Marlins), but wow, he really had a strong 2nd half of the year. Not a long term solution, but if he would come on a 1 or 2 year deal, worth a thought.

I think I'm fairly set with my top 10, after going over it awhile. Still working on the rest of it, and reserve the right to change my mind, but I feel like I'm fairly set with 1. Brett Jackson 2. Trey McNutt 3. Matt Szczur 4. Javier Baez 5. Dae-Eun Rhee 6. Dillon Maples 7. Ben Wells 8. Josh Vitters 9. Marco Hernandez 10. Jae-Hoon Ha The main area I'm still debating are at 3/4. I thought I would like Szczur the more I pondered it, but that's not happening. I don't care about his overall struggles in A+ ... I'm more concerned with the declining walk rate in Peoria, and the low walk rate in Daytona. Still pondering if some upper level guys will eventually jump Hernandez and Golden for me at 9/10, but their ceilings seem higher than most of the guys I'm considering in that range, and Whitenack is going under the knife. Edit: Well, changed my mind already, and swapped Ha in for Golden.

In his latest AQA, John Sickels said he felt Rhee was still a C prospect. I posted a response, and he said he'd ponder it when he did the Cubs. Anyhow, thought it was mildly newsworthy.

Was never a big Kila fan. He got really hyped up on some Cubs sites as an option to look at, but always felt more like a 4A type to me. Makes some sense as a gamble for the A's, due to their limitations.

Despite their collapse, I'm still pushing DeMarlo Hale. I'm sure there's other quality candidates, but Hale fits what I'd want. I was disappointed they didn't consider him last year. That said, he's been a part of a winning organization that has been able to combine "old-school" and "new-school" thinking. He's relatively young (50). He's had successful managerial experience in the minors, and has been a successful coach in the bigs. He's viewed as a personable guy that can relate to his players. Granted, a lot of this was said about Quade, and I was a big supporter of Quade (and he's been a huge disappointment). On paper, though, Hale seems like the type of guy that fits what I'd be looking for.

I don't think it's unfair. He topped out 95, but mostly sat low 90's, a solid velo, but nothing exceptional. Fastball's a bit straight, as noted. Physically, there's not much that he's going to add. I hope he succeeds as a starter, but the concerns are fair about him. It's part of the reason why some of us had him behind the Peralta/Cruz/Liria group.

couple quick comments: 1. The first thing on Randy Wells is which Randy Wells. the Randy Wells late in the year looked remarkably similar to the guy from the previous two seasons. The best guess is that he was slow in rehabbing his way back. I feel like I'm fairly comfortable with Wells as a 4th/5th starter and unless they can do better on cheaper, he should be penciled into the rotation. Yes, his salary is going to go up, but the chances of finding a better guy than him at a cheaper price seems slim, provided he's more the guy in 2009/2010, and late in 2011. 2. I think Nolasco is better than Wells, but a lot depends on what it costs to land him. They want to free up some money, but they reorganized their front office this year in an effort to strengthen their system. If they demand a quality return AND we have to pay the contract, it becomes a debatable course of action. At some point, over-exerting on efforts this off-season becomes a dangerous course of action for the long range health of the club.

Burgess doesn't exactly fit into that group. He is relatively young, but he's not a CF, and he's not that athletic. At least, not the Burgess that I've seen the last few years. Physically, he fits in more with Reggie Golden.

I'm a bit surprised they moved Spencer to pitching. I thought he might've had a role on AAA's squad next season as a corner option guy. That said, his arm was always good (wasn't he a low 90's guy as a prep arm?). Will be interesting, but considering age, I'm not expecting too much. Interesting to see Baez here along with Candelario and Penalver (amongst others).

There's a lot to like about Rosario. I know a lot of folks are high on Wang's work this year, and I hope he proves me wrong, but his ceiling just seems ... a bit limited. That said, he's got a far higher floor than several of our higher end arms. This is going to be an odd comparison, or at least, it seems odd to me right now, but Rosario reminds me of Alberto Cabrera and how he eventually emerged onto the radar. The fastball's there, but will the other stuff develop? (That said, at similar points, I think Alberto's slider was better than Rosario's breaking ball).