toonsterwu

Morla was picked by the Mets in Rule 5. I forgot what level ... AAA level perhaps.

Agreed ... I like Raley enough, but top 10? If he has a report on Raley, I'd be curious to hear.

If we were just looking at ceiling, then sure, Lopez is probably deserving of a top 10 slot in the system at the back end. His fastball is reportedly elite, and there's enough promise on his curve. That said, he's awfully raw right now. Mike Newman over at Scouting the Sally had a good report on him, a report that indicated some positives as well as some negatives. Just google Scouting the Sally and Robinson Lopez. It'll pop up.

I'm not sold Smit is consistently that high either, but I didn't see him this year, at least not that I recall. I know Dodger fan reports put him in the low 90's, touching mid-90's, but BA seems to be loosely implying that he can sit mid-90's.

Law indicated that he was placing an emphasis on upside. He also indicated somewhere, I think in a chat, that he might be underselling Brett a bit. I don't get how a guy who can play a solid CF and offers above average bat potential slides to 101, though. You look at the numbers, and it's quite possible that he's a 3-4 WAR guy sooner than later, and at his peak, could be better. Hard for me to buy. It was an odd list from Keith Law this year, though. Hellickson was far lower than a lot of people's list. I mean, sure, ceiling matters, but a solid SP prospect with number 2 potential like Hellickson, and is ready? I'll take him in the top 10 of a prospect list.

Silva sounds mildly intriguing, and the money is big enough to make you take a peak, but after the Serrano hype, I'm not holding my breath. I don't see a point of pushing Gibbs to A+, but maybe he forces his way there. As of now, Flores will likely get the bulk of the time there. As for Silva, I guess we have to wait and see what position they play him at. It wouldn't surprise me if both of these kids went the XST/Boise route, though.

Looking at the overall BA list that Raisin posted, it's ... interesting. An odd list from BA, which perhaps reflects upon the Cubs organizational feelings? There's some "floor" guys much higher than I expected, and then there's some guys that are just higher than I feel. I've got to think that the Cubs are still higher on Watkins than most of us. Let's see, guys that I am mildly curious as to why they aren't on the top 30 - Rusin (imagine it's because of his ceiling, or lack thereof), Kim (lack of ... reports?), Struck (this one I am curious about, the performance didn't necessarily match up with some of the reports on his stuff, though (granted, some of the stuff reports were relative to level, IIRC), and Wallach. To a lesser extent, I'd be curious as to why Reed, Kirk, and Jung failed to make the list (the poster over at BCB these days really loves Jung). Always felt like Caridad was overhyped a touch from that AFL experience (where his velo improved a bit). Well, I wasn't here back then, so maybe he wasn't overhyped here. My guess is that Burgess will slot in around the mid-teens (probably ahead of Golden, after all, there's a chance that Golden is Burgess), with Morris probably in the late teens/early 20's, probably behind Smit. I still am more intrigued with Hicks than I am with those two, though. I know there's some reports of Morris with stuff in the mid-90's, but if he hit that, I didn't see it this year. Burgess is working hard, I'll give him that, but just not sold he can find a balance with discipline and instinct to go with his power.

Whoa ... Maine is back at 93-97? I don't recall that. I thought he was peaking in the mid-90's, not sitting in the mid-90's. If Maine is consistently in the mid-90's, closer to what he was back at the start of his college, before TJ and the terrible accident ... I'd rather see him get a rotation shot than Russell. It's easy to forget how hyped he once was.

I like Szczur and am excited that he signed with the Cubs. I'm also excited that the Cubs ponied up. That said ... I do wonder if the hype is getting a bit too much. The image I get when I ponder some of the positive reports on Szczur is ... essentially a slightly more athletic Brandon Guyer. That's a very intriguing asset to have, but I see some folks plopping him down as a top 3-5 guy in the system right now, and I guess I just don't have that level of SNTS as it relates to Szczur just yet.

Didn't really have any place to put this, but I really like the Gorzelanny deal (for both teams actually). Burgess is a good gamble to make, Morris is a polished middle relief pen arm. The guy that really intrigues me is Graham Hicks, as he has intriguing raw potential, a good frame, has dabbled with enough pitches, but is far away.

I'm still a bit fascinated by Marwin Gonzalez. He's a very good athlete who seems to, imo, be learning the nuances to baseball. His versatility is also nice. I mean, I'm not thinking breakout type season for him, but he still catches my eye. Granted, the cubs have given him plenty of AB's, so at some point, you gotta bust out or you won't go up.

Because right or wrong, most fans still judge players based on actual on-field results. And Wells didn't produce very good results last year. He was also very uneven with his performances, having decent starts followed up by getting tagged in the first inning which added up to meh results with good peripherals. Not going to endear yourself to the fans very much when you take that path to your results. Agreed. I'm not trying to say Wells was good. He was solid, but inconsistent, and with fans, I understand their frustration with that.

I've seen him work as a starter in the 92-94 range with consistency (that is, he's not peaking out there). To a certain extent, one has to question stadium guns, as minor league stadium guns tend to wacky, and "velocity" is dependent on where the gun location/aim and so forth (I mean, there was a starter in the Orioles system once who I saw at around 94 ... and then in another stadium he was working 88). I know folks have seen him in starts work around 95, but I've also heard from others that say that he peaked out at 92/93 in some starts. He's ramped it up to the mid-90's in short spurt outings. As for this fastball, in terms of life/movement, I don't think it's that well-thought of. I don't think it's bad either, but it is certainly not on, say, Archer or Carpenter's level. I've heard plenty of mediocre reports on his slider this year. Maybe others have seen differently, but the slider, once thought of as having plus potential, doesn't seem to have developed all that well.

I'm intrigued with the idea of Russell back in the rotation. When he was working as a starter in the minors, I had some hopes for him, as he had a solid arsenal for a lefty. More an end of the rotation lefty, but still, it was a solid arsenal. He never seemed to take to it too well, partly due to long ball issues. That said, if it's Cashner vs. Russell and both are going to make the big league squad, I hope they go Cashner. If the possibility exists that one of them would go back to the minors, then I'm fine with either one, although I personally think Russell is better in the pen as a "pure" LOOGY.

Thing is ... he really didn't have a bad year. He was inconsistent, but he sure got a bad rap from a lot of Cubs fans. Worked nearly 200 innings, improved his K rate without a significant BB rate increase. Posted real solid FIP/xFIP numbers. I never really understood the disappointment in him that a lot of Cubs fans had. Sure, wish he was better ... but he was plenty solid, and considering the type of pitcher he is and the type of arsenal he has ... really, I didn't expect him to all of a sudden be competing for Cy's.

It's a fun way to look at things, but it doesn't really look at fit for the personnel. Right now, my biggest concern for the 2011 Cubs is the top of the order. We're looking at some combination of Castro and ... Baker/DeWitt? Not exactly a great top of the order, and so the question becomes, how does this impact the rest of the lineup? On the pitching side, I'm fairly pleased. While I would rate the Cardinals and Brewers rotations easily ahead of us (I'd go Brewers ahead of Cardinals, on paper, but it seems like a lot of you would go the other way), the Cubs potentially have 4 guys who can log 180-200 innings, which will ease the burden on the pen. This could allow us to baby Cashner in the 5th spot (or perhaps the better move is to have him start at Iowa, see if you can get some early success from Silva (assuming Gorzelanny is gone before spring) and deal Silva and bring up Cashner around June). The pen should be fine, on paper. Marshall, Wood, Marmol from the 7th-9th in close games is fine ... on paper. If our starters work deep enough, the burden on the middle relief becomes significantly lessened. I think Pena will probably have a solid year, particularly on the power front. Right now, I'm thinking that the Cubs are an 80-85 win club. If the top of the order is stabilized, I could perhaps see a better season than that.

Well, couple points - a) I don't think Darwin Barney should be in the top 10 ... but I would also caution against labeling him as just a backup shortstop. He's going to be a solid defensive player, and he's good enough with his contact ability that, if in the right opportunity, I think he could perhaps start on a 2nd tier club. That said, no, Barney didn't even sniff my top 15. b) I think the issue with Jay is that, right now, he's a fastball guy that needs some mechanical work. He's got velocity, average movement on the fastball, and very inconsistent secondary pitches. There's potential with the secondary pitches, but his arsenal isn't great. Personally, I think he should be in the top 10.

umm... umm what? I don't see anything wrong with that, in all honesty. There are guys with more upside ... namely, Lee. But Darwin's more consistent, and as I've always said (mostly elsewhere), his athleticism is a bit underrated. He's not a top shelf athlete ... but some folks made him out to be a lot worse. Lee's what, "Omar Vizquel with a better arm" or whatever, but not even our best infielder? Lee has loads of defensive potential, but he's really raw in some areas and has work to do. If Darwin Barney was starting next year in the bigs (not that he will be), I think there's a chance he's a top defensive player at short. As rob notes, the rankings are a reflection of current ability and potential.

I get the feeling that Cales is either underrated (perhaps by fans - a lot of folks seemed to want to push Shafer over him) or overrated (by Cubs). It feels like the Cubs love him a lot ... but his ceiling is basically that of a setup man, and realistically, he's probably more of a middle relief type. I think he could be a rather effective to good pen arm. Considering how these lists are made, if the Cubs are high on him, I think BA would put him on the back end of a top 30.

I think the Cubs need to overwhelm him (say 1 million plus) for him to pass up football. His stock is quite solid in a crop of WR's that's top heavy and drops off real fast. Add in the proliferation of spread offenses, and the success of "Wes Welker" types like Danny Amendoala (and I think Szczur is a better athlete), and I think if he wants to play football, plenty of NFL teams will give him a long look early enough. To be honest, 1 million might not be enough. And if it is ... the Cubs should do it. It's only 500K more than they are promising.

umm... umm what? I don't see anything wrong with that, in all honesty. There are guys with more upside ... namely, Lee. But Darwin's more consistent, and as I've always said (mostly elsewhere), his athleticism is a bit underrated. He's not a top shelf athlete ... but some folks made him out to be a lot worse.

One thing I would caution against is reading too much into 40 times, and specifically, how 40 times translate into baseball speed. First thing, the only "official' 40 times are from the NFL Combine. Most NFL teams add an adjustment factor (+ or -) depending on the track and conditions at the local colleges. I believe that the Nova track was known as a slow track, but it's been awhile since I've been involved on that stuff, so my memory could be slipping me. 2nd, straight-line speed doesn't really translate into baseball speed. Heck, it doesn't really translate into football speed (this isn't to say the 40 isn't relevant, but it's value has to be put in context, particularly with the agility and quickness drills). Now, in general, I do think that Szczur is more quick than fast, at least, from what I've seen of him on the football field. I've heard people suggest that he might pop a low 4.4 number, if not 4.3, number at the combine, though, so who knows.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think if Lee develops, and Castro "owns" SS, Lee then becomes a prime trade chip first, I think (still have doubts he could "anchor" a package by himself, at least as of now). As for Brett, I think he'll be fine in CF through his cost-controlled years. In his late 20's? I could see all the possible scenarios play out - he's still solid in CF, but declines a bit, a younger emerges to push him aside, or skill deterioration simply forces the issue.

the way they made it sound, I wouldn't be surprised if Rhee was still hanging onto a spot in the top 30. Feels like they are willing to give him a mulligan on the season.

I've been trying to make this point over at Sickels in the CPL for awhile. We can comfortably project (and yes, it's still a projection) 20-25 HR power from Brett right now. Say he cuts down on his K's a bit without reworking his swing (not impossible, Brett isn't a hacker and is viewed as having a solid approach at the plate, so the K's declining to closer to 20% seems plausible). That might help things out a bit on the power front. The reports on his defense have been mixed all year (nothing bad ... but ranging from decent to good). Say the Cubs decide to go with someone else as a CF (as I've noted elsewhere, if the Cubs feel like Starlin "owns" SS in a year or two, I'd love to see them ponder Lee in CF). Moving Brett to a corner role and letting him bulk up a bit might help his power out. I think his power ceiling could be higher than what we are projecting. Of course, few players reach their ceilings, and few reach them for a good stretch of time. I don't think it's out of the question that we'll see Brett pop 25-30 HR's once or twice in his career (assuming positive development), particularly in his late 20's/early 30's, when he may have to move to a corner role.