toonsterwu

That's Hendry, though. He "respects" people and wants to try and do good by them. There's certainly positives in that, but there's been a couple moments in recent years where I wonder if that has hurt the Cubs (off the top, namely, the decision to let Kerry test the market because he deserved it, or whatever the stated reasoning was).

I think Mark Riggins would be a very interesting choice and one that I would support (particularly with the chances being high that we'll be using young arms in the near future). He has a good track record of fixing mechanics. That said, I'll be somewhat disappointed that he's not working with the prospects. He's done a good job with the arms that were sent to work with him.

I agree with Truffle here in that, while I would've been happy if they had taken that chance, Barrett did have serious enough medical concerns. The fact that a first round pick (even though he was over-drafted, he was still thought of as a first round possibility) ended up with 312K says a lot - it suggests to me that a lot of teams had concerns.

Micah to Nippon. http://twitter.com/CarrieMuskat/status/4992214677590016 That brings it to 35. Probably need to clear another spot or two. As of now, they could safely protect Archer, Guyer, Cabrera, Smit, and Smith if they wanted, but they'll probably want space for a starter, a pen arm, and a first baseman at the very least. There's more than enough guys that could still be on the chopping block, though, ranging from Sam Fuld, to Koyie Hill or Jeff Baker, and then a bunch of pen arms (Berg, Caridad, Diamond, Gaub, Maine, Mateo, Samardzija, Schlitter, Stevens).

I know there's a positive blurb about Guyer by Badler in BA, but since I've only seen it 2nd hand, I don't think it's appropriate for me to post it, on the off chance that someone else only chose to cut and paste certain aspects. I don't know why I found this interesting, but the latest AskBA http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2010/2610924.html showed that the average age of Cubs players on full-season squads was the 3rd youngest of any organization. For some reason, I had thought of us as middle of the pack, if not slightly older. We're younger on the pitching side of the equation.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/blog/2010/11/moore_signs_minor_league_deal.html Scott Moore back with the Cubs. Likely triple A. Barring a surprise Rule 5 selection or a surprise job winner in spring, the core of the I-Cubs for 2011 is probably set (Corner IF - Some combination of Moore, Marquez Smith, and Matt Spencer, Corner OF - Ty Wright/Brandon Guyer, CF - Tony Campana, 2nd - Tony Thomas, guessing SS Matt Camp, C Chirinos, Castillo and/or Robinson). Looks to be a pretty solid AAA PCL club that should be competitive offensively. I guess there's a chance that he might be a cheap utility option off the bench, particularly if the club decides to part ways with Jeff Baker to save some dough.

How many teams want a bench coach without major league experience? The only way that sort of works, IMO, is if you have a grizzled out vet who is fine with a guy like Ryno. There wasn't any situation like that this offseason. That said, he probably should've waited it out to see if got offered, say, a 3rd base coaching job or some sort of Sinatro like job. Of course, maybe he had gotten indications that he wasn't going to get that type of offer. Either way ... I think it's good that he's getting experience in another organization and I wish him the best.

I asked Bruce Miles on an updated take of the Rule 5 in his blog a few days ago and he thought that (along with Archer) Guyer, Cabrera, Smit would get protected, with Marquez borderline. I want Cabrera protected (along with Guyer/Archer. Smit and Smith ... I go back and forth about as of now. If there's the space, then I'd protect all of them, but they'll likely leave a spot or two open. Between the two, I think I'd rather protect Smith ... but I'd be fine either way. I would still love to see Marquez pick up an OF glove and get some work out there. My hunch is that Bibens-Dirkx isn't the type of guy that gets snapped up in the Rule 5. I'm not sure I'd be terribly disappointed losing him. Wasn't his velo peaking upper 80's and occasionally only in the mid-80's? I don't recall seeing him pitch this year (or maybe I wasn't paying enough attention) but I distinctly recall some people saying that, which goes in-line somewhat with prior reports on him. His deception helps him out a lot, but in the bigs, he feels like a middle relief arm at best, and we've got enough guys to rotate in there that if we lose him, I don't think I'd be that concerned.

I love everything I've heard about Casey (I view him as "next" if Quade doesn't succeed)... but AA right away? Seems like an awful quick push, but I'd be fine with that.

A lot of us posted our lists in the 2010 Cubs Top prospect list thread. I'll probably post a revised list at some point to get that thread going some more. I would trade B. Jax in that scenario. Wouldn't love it, but sure, I'd make that move. If Castro "owns" SS I'm still in the camp that I'd be more curious with a Hak-ju Lee move to CF (than to 2nd base). Wasn't Jay's issues with Lewallyn? If so ... not sure that would be an ideal situation, but what is best for the organization should trump what is best for Jay. That said, unless there's a negative about Mike Mason, I'd keep him in Iowa. I'd love to see Dancy at AAA. Any insight on who takes over the Smokies gig if that happens? Feels like an outside the org type move.

Don't get me wrong ... I think betting money is that both are probably off the 40 as well. I just think their chances of sticking around are higher than I expected entering the offseason (Fuld moreso than Hoffpauir).

Well, the 40 currently stands at 36. Some guys that might be considered borderline: Fuld, Hoffpauir, J. Baker (cost), K. Hill, Stevens, Schlitter, Samardzija, Mateo, Diamond, Berg, Caridad, Gaub, maybe Maine. More than likely, the org will leave a spot or two open for FA's. Random thoughts below: Fuld/Hoffpauir are more interesting cases than I initially presumed (I thought both were goners). Unless Guyer is ready (and he really should get a full year in the minors), the Cubs might have a need for a backup CF (particularly if Fukudome is moved and Colvin given full-time duty in RF). There's also no real upper level stopgap Hoffpauir-esque type on the 40 if the Cubs don't want to rush Brett or Brandon, although I don't think he has options left, so that may be an issue. I mean, we're looking at James Adduci, Ty Wright, Tony Campana, Matt Spencer types in AAA, none of them being guys that I'd want as a stopgap early in 2011 if an injury occurred. I want Baker back ... but I guess I can understand moving on if the costs are an issue. That said, if Baker leaves, the Cubs likely need a versatile backup IF/OF who can hit for some pop ... and I find it hard to see any vet FA's will be that much cheaper than Baker. Of the pitchers, if they feel something positive on Gaub, I'd keep him around since he has good lefty pen potential, better than, say, Russell or Maine. I wonder if diamond's relationship with Bush protects him somewhat.

In response to a question I had on his blog, Bruce miles indicates that he believes Cabrera will be protected, along with Smit and Guyer, with Smith as someone that could go either way.

Why is the 2 year deal odd? Std. practice for a inexperienced manager tends to be either a 2 or 3 year deal. He has a 2013 club option, so he got something in the middle. 2 years with a club option isn't really in the middle of 2 or 3. The benefits of a longer contract is you have more guaranteed. The benefits of the shorter contract is you can renegotiate sooner or become a free agent. I would assume he would have preferred a straight 2 rather than giving the team an option for year 3. Right now he's not getting the benefit of a 3 or a 2. fair enough. I guess my question was why it was baffling that he got a 2 year deal.

I completely forgot that Russ Canzler was a minor league FA. His performance this year has me mildly curious about him, and it'd be nice to have him in Iowa.

Tennessee is shaping up as a very intriguing club next year. The rotation should be fairly solid (Raley/Rusin/Cabrera/Dolis/McNutt would be my guess right now. Brenly gives them a decent minor league catcher. Marwin could conceivably grab some OF time there, perhaps RF, while floating around and spotting at other places, which might answer Raisin's issues when he was trying to mock out 2011 assignments awhile ago (and ran into problems with the AA OF). He is young enough and hasn't done much with the bat (maybe a measure of bad luck, but minor league data is sketchy to really go too deep into that). Discipline is decent enough. It's been interesting to see how the Cubs have given him chances, even though he hasn't done enough at any level. He's only 22, so I wondered if this was a Jericho Jones sink-or-swim type scenario, but it sure doesn't feel that way at first observation.

I've made my thoughts on this known at other sites, but I'll loosely chime in here. I thought Ryno was a decent candidate, but I thought Quade was clearly the better candidate and was very pleased when he got the job. As for Ryno ... I think it was in everyone's interest that Ryno left. For the Cubs, having the specter of Ryno hang out there was unfair to Quade. Now, I wouldn't have been against Ryno filling some role on Quade's staff, but Quade should have some say on who he wants. Furthermore, I definitely didn't want Ryno, an inexperienced coach, as the bench coach, often considered the next guy, as the advisor to a relatively inexperienced manager. That seemed like a bad combination. For Ryno ... I think, for lack of a better term, he needs to increase his network. I think he's often viewed as a Cubs guy, and learning about other organizations will only help him out. Personally, if I'm Ryno, I look more towards an organization like the Mets, with their new and "modern" leadership, than the Phillies, which is still more of an "old school" organization. One thing to be said that others have said in this thread - the Cubs were fair to Ryno. It seems like, in the immediate aftermath of the Quade move, that a lot of people thought Ryno had been wronged, and I kept pointing out elsewhere how ridiculous that was, and it's good to see others that feel that way. By most accounts, the Cubs never badmouthed Ryno. Unlike Quade, there simply wasn't anyone knocking on Ryno's door (there was some spec/rumors on Quade, nothing concrete). The Cubs rushed him up the ladder when many others have spent multiple years in the lower levels. His name recognition grew as a result of the Cubs pushing him. He lost a job, and everyone points out how he called Hendry's bluff, but no one seems to remember that Quade was basically told that he needed major league experience last time around, and he added that to his resume. All in all, it's for the best that both parties parted. I wish Ryno the best, and I could see a situation where he would be a solid manager somewhere down the line

Why is the 2 year deal odd? Std. practice for a inexperienced manager tends to be either a 2 or 3 year deal. He has a 2013 club option, so he got something in the middle.

I never read the BA stuff on Jay Jackson coming out. I think the only mag/site that I recall reading about Jay Jackson was PGcrosschecker. That said, there were numerous reports/comments when Jay came out that suggested that, at the very least, he didn't have bad character. Certainly, as noted, colleges often hide stuff/don't know enough, and that might be the case here. Just to be clear, I wouldn't have a huge issue with Burke at 25, but I also didn't have him in my top 40 either. Marquez is viewed as a decent-average defender at 3rd. He likely won't be a Gold Glove type, but defensively, he should be fine (and better than say, Josh Vitters, unless Josh improves in that regard). Super-util may have been the wrong choice for me there. I simply meant utility player. I could be wrong, but I think LeMahieu prefers to stay in the MI, but the Cubs view him as a better fit at 3rd, if the bat comes around (natural probably wasn't the best word choice earlier). As for LeMahieu's bat, the bigger issue is how the swing adjustment impacts his ability to hit for average. If he can add power and keep his contact ability, then great, but most people seem to suggest that he has to fundamentally alter his swing, which would seem to put at risk his contact ability. This leads to a total side point - the reason I am unwilling to put LeMahieu ahead of Flaherty is because I have a hard time seeing DJ add power in general, but specifically, add power without sacrificing his "hit tool" (and along with that, I think DJ needs to add power to have a good shot at sticking in the bigs). Most will agree that DJ will never be a prolific power guy even if he does add it, so we're essentially looking at ... Flaherty level power, but having to make a lot of changes to get there. Sure, he's 2 years younger, but that's a lot of risk, IMO. That said, if one thinks DJ can add said power and become Flaherty-ish offensively, then okay, I can understand slotting DJ ahead.

Actually, I'd be curious about your take on Frank Batista. I'm a big fan in regards to being intrigued with him. Nate did note in the other thread, and it's fair, that his size is an issue, but he does carry a good fastball that can touch 93 and a solid slider. Body makes it tough to think that he'll add a lot more, stuff or velo. I haven't gotten a good grasp on whether or not he has a usable changeup of some sort. Also curious if you had any thoughts on Ryan Searle.

Really, as a total side comment, Marwin could slot in at 3rd base in Daytona, with Cerda at 2nd, and Watkins in the OF (or Marwin in the OF, Cerda at 3rd and Watkins at 2nd). I'm not sure he's really blocked, since if he develops, I think he wouldn't be a FT MI, at least, not from what I understand, and the hope would be that the bat would develop enough. I mean, I'm not exactly hanging my hopes on Marwin developing, but he's always been so toolsy that I've always had him in the back of my mind, so hearing him succeed, even in Venezuala, perks my attention a tiny bit.

Nice, informative response. I'm taking a wait and see on Jay's character. It was interesting to me to see how the character issues rose dramatically after he turned professional. The reports out college were fairly positive on his character (at the very least, not negative). Now, certainly, colleges tend to hide some of these things, and they don't follow the guys everywhere. I guess, if I had any concern, it would be on the secondary aspect you mentioned, his coachability. It seems like he's a good teammate, but if he's more Ronny Cedeno uncoachable, that would be a bigger issue (even then, his raw arm would probably earn him a bullpen look). My bigger issue with Jay right now, though, is that his breaking pitches have all seemingly regressed (leaving aside the fact that last year, Badler called Jay Jackson's curveball a plus pitch, most people acknowledged that his breaking balls were above average, with his changeup average, and this year, everything I've heard and seen is that his breaking balls don't get folks to miss too much). I guess, to tie this in with this post, I'm wondering if you've heard anything. It's certainly possible that some of the previous reports on his stuff came as a measure of success against younger hitters. I know some believe that he worked very hard on his control (which is why I'm very curious about your coachability comment - since it's all out in the open now, I wonder how much of that is the issues with Dennis Lewallyn) and just lost some of the bite on his breaking pitches. Others here have mentioned it before, but I wouldn't mind seeing Jay work with Larry Rothschild on the slider. As for your overall list and other comments, it was a good and fun read. Everyone judges differently. I really like Nick Struck a ton and had him in my top 25. Granted, a lot of it is the potential he has, as his performance was good, but not great, but as he continues the transition to FT pitching, I'll be very curious if he adds velo or if his stuff gets sharper. I can't complain about Burke in the top 25. I didn't have him there, but he's young enough, and has a high enough ceiling, that I can understand the spot. There's few guys with his level of power potential. Has to show it soon, though. A bit surprised at Cales spot. I like him and believe he'll find a role in the bigs, but I'm just not sold an upper 80's fastball guy, even with the sink he gets, is a setup type guy, so had a hard time putting him that high myself, but I can understand it since he's safe and close to ready. I'm just not sure what to think on Marquez Smith. Well, I know what I think, and that's putting him on the outside of my top 30. I still have my doubts that the power he showed this year is anywhere near "real". I really liked your comment on Rusin. I don't love Rusin as a prospect, but it's really hard to ignore the numbers he put up. You are far higher on Kurcz than I've seen (including my own list). I can understand it, though, as he was dang intriguing. A bit surprised with your Flaherty comment - he doesn't have the range for short, but it seems like you are suggesting that he doesn't have the range for 2nd? I've seen him a few times play 2nd, and always thought he could stick. He wouldn't be great, but I always thought he could be decent there. That said, he's probably slated for a super-util Mark DeRosa/Jeff Baker type role. I found the LeMahieu comment quite interesting. You specifically note 3rd, which makes me wonder how things shake out. I know there are those in the org that feel like he'd be great there, and view it as his more natural position than MI, but that would push Vitters over to first full-time (assuming both are at Tennessee) and it seems a bit early to make that move. I also have my doubts on DJ's bat at 3rd, but hey, here's hoping I'm wrong on that front and maybe this strengthening regimen that they do can work wonders with LeMahieu and Darvill. I had been thinking (for Tennessee) that DJ was slated to play 2nd, with Lake at short, Vitters at 3rd, and Flaherty in a utility/LF type role, with maybe Samson as the MI backup. My issue with Dolis is that the secondary pitches are all ridiculously raw (which makes the fact that the Cubs kept him as a starter, even in AA, make a lot of sense, as it offered him the chances to work on things). Right now, I'm not sure he's any more intriguing than Francis Beltran was (granted, there was a brief period where Beltran had folks intrigued). I know he's flashed potential on the secondary pitches, but the consistency, by most accounts, isn't there. Overall, though, I like the list. I even understand Guyer at 5 (I think Craig had him that high as well). The only one where I was a bit more surprised was Welington, and I was beating Castillo's horn for a long time. That said, he seems like a backup backstop, and it's a bit hard for me personally to put him that high. Really nice list, though, and a good read.

I found the Marwin Gonzalez comments from AzPhil's post to be intriguing enough. It won't hurt if someone really decides to pluck him, but I'm mildly curious now if Marwin could continue the success he's had this winter. I'd like to see him back in A ball if he's in our system, getting AB's.

Carpenter's high 90's in Arizona have been reported in numerous places, by guys like Keith Law and Jason Grey. It's in the cubs prospects in the news thread. total side note, but I half wonder if Daniel Sanchez is going to end up ranking much higher than many of us have him, particularly with tools heavy folks. Not top 10 ... but I half wonder if he cracks more top 20 lists.

Other places have said Golden's power has plus-plus potential I believe. LeMahieu's power possibilities have been talked about for awhile. He needs to change his swing to get some more loft ... but if he does and the result is sacrificing the one thing that makes him somewhat intriguing right now (his ability to make contact), that doesn't necessarily make him a better prospect unless there's enough power to compensate. Now, if he can add power without sacrificing contact ability, then that'd be intriguing. As a side note, mildly intriguing to hear Carpenter was working high 90's today. Granted, short spurt work, so the fact that he could ramp it up a bit isn't surprising (considering he was peaking in the mid-90's as a starter).