toonsterwu

My thoughts on a Granderson trade that I've posted elsewhere: a) Most teams protect their top prospects. There have been few trades in recent years with elite prospects being moved (the Miguel Cabrera trade comes to mind, with Maybin and Miller both ranking quite high in back to back years - Granderson shouldn't cost as much, though). Add in that our system has improved quite a bit, and I don't believe we'll need to fork over Castro to make a deal, and there's been enough suggestions that Castro is close to untouchable. b) Teams rarely deal multiple top arms anymore. We're in an era where pitching prospects are protected, perhaps overprotected. Simply getting multiple arms in a deal is usually a coup. c) Granderson isn't a perfect fix. For all the talk about prospects being a gamble in their own right, two things need to be kept in mind: i) The current core is at the beginning of the end, with Lilly and Lee's contracts expiring after this year (although, a big year from Lee, and I could see the Cubs offering him, say, a 2 year deal). ii) Prospects have value. It seems like plenty of people want to get aggressive on Granderson. The Cubs have a top group of 7 guys or so (Castro, 2 Jackson's, Cashner, Lee, Carpenter, Vitters). I wouldn't give up 3 of those top guys, as some have sugggested. Even if you don't think these guys will pan out, there's better ways to maximize your value, particularly when you factor in that Granderson isn't the final piece (IMO). d) What would I give: i) 1 of our top 3 arms. If they want Cashner, I'm game. I'm still not sold Cashner is more than a pen arm. Either way, I wouldn't give up more than 1 of our top 3 arms. ii) 1 of our top positional assets besides Castro - that is, Vitters, Brett Jackson (although he can't be traded till midseason), or Hak-ju Lee. Lee seems to make the most sense for the Tigers, as they could use a top SS asset. iii) After that, I'd hold the line on anyone else from the top tier of our prospects. If they want a Kyler Burke or a Ryan Flaherty, I'd ponder it (depending on the rest of the package). If they want a young arm, like Jeffry Antigua or Justin Bristow, it's a thought. If they want stopgap assets, like Darwin Barney or Sam Fuld, fine. Pen help? Sure, go ahead. Granderson would be a nice get, but I wouldn't get ridiculous in making an offer. CG would be able to bridge this current core with our next potential core, but he isn't the final piece, now, IMO, and we need to loosely start pondering the next core. Honestly, I'm not sure that the price will be as high as some folks suggest. Detroit may want an elite return, and they might even be justified in asking for it, but who's going to fork over multiple top prospects, perhaps an elite prospect in the bunch? If someone does, then you move on. With the suggestion that the Cubs might be done with the pen (Wittenmeyer article the other day) and the suggestion that Castro could be up in 2010, the only spot left to figure out is CF, so I imagine we may put a full court press on if Granderson is available. We should be able, with our system, be in the conversation and be able to make a competitive offer.

If we trade for Granderson, I don't want him as a top of the order option. I'd rather have him hit 5th or 6th.

Paul Sullivan wrote an article the other day that touched on this, suggesting that Castro has a shot at breaking camp with the Cubs. Hendry suggests that Rudy Jaramillo will be a big voice in deciding if Castro breaks camp. Anyhow, they've already approached Ryan Theriot about moving to 2nd, which he seems to be open to, based on the article. This further suggests that the chances of a key MI acquisition seem slim, unless it's some sort of return from a Milton Bradley trade, imo. Anyhow, nothing really new in the article that hasn't been discussed this offseason, but it was an interesting read, particularly the Hendry quotes, which suggests that Castro is up, they'll let him stay up. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-27-cubs-starlin-castro-nov27,0,4875326.story

Looking at the pitch f/x stuff, it was interesting that, on the limited sample that they had, that Parker topped out at 94.3 mph, but his average was lower than Gaub's, who topped out at 92.9 but averaged 91.64 to Parker's 91.51. Shame there wasn't data on Cashner. If Parker isn't dealt (I could envision a situation where someone asks for Parker as a secondary piece), with Wittenmeyer saying that the pen is basically finished for now (after the Grabow signing), I imagine Blake may get a long look to make the squad. I am not comfortable with the back of our pen at all (Guzman/Grabow setting up Marmol) but here's hoping someone steps up.

Russell has been a tremendously frustrating prospect to follow. I mean, low 90's fb (pitch f/x from AFL had him at 90 for average fb I think), and two very good secondary pitches. He just hasn't really put it together, and it seems like the Cubs were a bit frustrated as well (I think Fleita made a comment about how he hasn't found a role yet). Issue has been fb command to work with the rest, by most accounts. I think he has a shot to be a good loogy, but I wonder, if Gaub is in AAA Iowa's pen, if Russell will be in the rotation. I'd like to see him in the rotation one more time.

Was listening to the podcast from baseballamerica on the nl central, with jj cooper and ben badler. they basically agreed that it was the cubs with the best system, although both of them liked the reds a lot (they feel the reds have a high floor system). Badler was big on Jay Jackson, as usual (made the case that he could get ranked ahead of Shelby Miller - JJ Cooper sort of agreed, but said that Shelby's raw potential would likely lead to several teams taking a chance on him over Jackson if they had a choice right now). Both made the case that a bunch of Cubs could fit ahead of Jamie Garcia - another way for them to show that the Cubs system was that much better. They said Pedro Alvarez was the best prospect in the NL Central (I agree), although, off the top, I think they loosely argued that Castro wouldn't be far behind. While they like some aspects of the Pirates system, they felt the talent dropped off too fast (discussed Tabata as the number 2 and how he was quicker than people expected, but if he can't stick in CF, then he isn't really a starting corner OF due to the lack of power). Surprisingly, didn't talk about the Brewers system much. They really liked Alcides Escobar and thought he could be better, next year, than Elvis Andrus was this year. Granted, this is all from the BA family, but for the most part, I think it's fairly clear that, as of now, the Cubs system is ahead of the Brewers.

He has the potential to be very good, but potential is the keyword. Keep in mind that a plus-glove, contact ability shortstop is still a valuable commodity. That said, with his wrists, his balance, he has the chance to develop power. Keep in mind that he's still physically maturing. Will he reach that potential? Only time will tell, but shortstops with elite potential are typically protected, and he has a chance to be an elite shortstop, hence why all the talk about not dealing him.

OOC, what was the story with Jordan Latham again? I remember trying to find out what happened, and then sort of lost track of it and just forgot.

As of right now, I don't think the two systems are all that close. In a year's time, who knows. There is a solid collection of young arms in the low levels for the Brewers, so they could bounce back in a year or two if those guys develop. But too few top level talent, average overall depth = weak-average system. That said, the difference between a weak system and a decent one, which is where we're at, is never as much as people make it out to be. It could be one draft, or in the Brewers case, it could be one developmental cycle. They have a really nice group of arms in Arnett, Odorizzi, Heckathorn, Scarpetta, Peralta. What they need to hope is that those arms develop fast enough to pair with their young positional talent that's up in the bigs (or at least, develop fast enough to create value to help them find pieces to pair with their young positional talent).

Gotta say, I was mildly surprised Adduci was protected. With Fuld and Colvin on the 40 man roster, and with Adduci's future limited to likely being a bench guy at best, I just didn't see the point of protecting him. That said, it's not a big deal. I guess if the Cubs didn't feel a big need to protect anyone else, then it's sort of a why not move, and I can't faul that. As for other guys, Maestri was too inconsistent, Diamond is too much of an unknown still, Chirinos/Clevenger/Robinson are backup catchers at best, Camp's a last man on the bench versatile option type, Papelbon can't really work in the pen due to his warmups, Reinhard's a middle reliever type. About the only guy I partially wish was protected, and I didn't even realize he was available, was Robert Hernandez, but there seems like a decent chance that he'll make it through, and it may be holding out on a past image of Robert that may or may not be true. Losing him would suck, but I'd turn the page and move on pretty quick. What will be interesting to me is if we end up cutting some guys off. Cotts and Marcos Mateo come to mind. The former, I don't see a point for and we could use the savings. As for the latter, if there's room, you keep him around. He did show progress late in the yea, so the raw ability is too intriguing to cut, unless a spot is desperately needed.

Here's a question - how concerned are folks about Jay Jackson's mechanics/delivery? I've never seen anything that would make me tremendously worried, and the common refrain has always been that he's a thrower more than a pitcher right now, with too much arm action and too little lower body movement. Most of the reports have always suggested that he had fairly solid mechanics/fairly solid delivery. Anyhow, I was looking at the clip on prospecttube put up by Kinslerhomer (over at SB Nation), and watching that short clip made me curious if somehow my eyes bought into the reports, because the lack of the lower body use was very pronounced in that clip.

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system. Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them. For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys. Can I ask why on Archer? I can understand Burke - the system isn't exactly overflowing with power prospects that really project well right now, and when you factor in his general toolsiness with his big season, there's a lot to like. I'd rank Burke higher than Flaherty or LeMahieu. That said, I'm curious why on Archer? As much as he has a nice fast/curve, and while he has shown improvement on his change and command, he's still far away and has a good shot of ending up in the pen. Giving up arms is always hard, but in the right trade, if a team came calling on Archer, I wouldn't mind giving him up. Flaherty, meanwhile, could really become a great 2nd base option. I mean, power and defense alone, and he's intriguing enough. If he can hit for enough contact, that's an excellent option at 2nd. Between Flaherty and Archer, Archer is the only one who has "star potential". Tbh, I don't think either one of them will be stars, but I'm not real sold Archer has star potential and I think Flaherty has more star potential than you think (again, don't really buy either as stars or guys with star potential; I think Flaherty will be more DeRosa than anything). At his best, the profile of a low 90's fb, plus curve, average change is what, more of a mid-rotation starter (oversimplifying it here). A very useful asset, a guy who, on the open market, could earn 8-12 million in AAV, but a star/star potential? Not sure I see it. When you factor in the control issues and change needing growth, I just have a hard time ranking him that high. I had him in the teens in the last go-through of it. With Flaherty, you are talking about a potential MI with pop in his bat. There's some star potential in that. But that's me.

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system. Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them. For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys. Can I ask why on Archer? I can understand Burke - the system isn't exactly overflowing with power prospects that really project well right now, and when you factor in his general toolsiness with his big season, there's a lot to like. I'd rank Burke higher than Flaherty or LeMahieu. That said, I'm curious why on Archer? As much as he has a nice fast/curve, and while he has shown improvement on his change and command, he's still far away and has a good shot of ending up in the pen. Giving up arms is always hard, but in the right trade, if a team came calling on Archer, I wouldn't mind giving him up. Flaherty, meanwhile, could really become a great 2nd base option. I mean, power and defense alone, and he's intriguing enough. If he can hit for enough contact, that's an excellent option at 2nd.

I'm not real sure where we'll rank. Even doing rough grades for us, I have a hard time arguing us as being definitively in the top half. I mean, we've got a good healthy front 7, but after that top 7, you could make a case that no one else really deserves a B- or higher (I'd make the case for Burke to be on the border, with an outside shot of Flaherty). I do think we'll be considered in that middle tier though, and we could end up in the top half. As long as the system is getting better and improving, while being a fit for the organization, I don't really care where we rank, though. I think what was nice was that there weren't many huge disappointments this past year.

To be real fair, I think Rhee was put in at the end as we were trying to find a guy that was a general consensus to be put around there. As for Watkins and LeMahieu, both are intriguing, but both have some questions. I really like both, but LeMahieu - Can he maintain his high contact ability? He'll need that, unless he increases his power, which would worry me a bit, as I think he needs to change his swing quite a bit to generate that power. I can live with his current power if he's playing MI. Watkins - I think here's a guy a lot of people liked, but we weren't sure how to rank him/where to rank him. Like LeMahieu, he doesn't hit for much power, but he doesn't really have the potential to generate more power. He does a lot of things well, and has a good approach for his age ... but he was at Boise. It's just so far away, and for me, I want to see how the bat plays before really moving him up. That said, for me, both guys were in the teens, and I could've gone wiht LeMahieu at 10 and been fine. In Rhee's case, before injury, he arguably has the best starting arsenal, and so it was more of an upside nod. He has questions, too, though, in regards to finding his stuff again and whether or not he is durable enough to be a starter.

I think that a lot of people sitll have hope on Lars. He's not as highly touted as he was a year ago, but I think people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a year. As for the 2nd part, that's a tough call. Comes down to team. I like Hudson a bit more than Kennedy, but both are mid-end of the rotation starters in all likelihood. Montero's bat is probably better than Flowers, and Jackson offers some value as a CF (most indications ar ehe can play there). I'm not a fan of Danks. In terms of overall ability, I'd give a slight edge to the White Sox package, but I think it really comes down to team needs to really judge that package. You also have the Yankees giving up 2 OF's, one of whom, in Gardner, has a Fuld profile of being a bench player in all likelihood, with a chance to start at CF if he fits the team needs. Whereas, Viciedo, if he pans out, is a solid starting caliber third baseman.

I want to reiterate that, my concern with Vitters isn't necessarily the walks, which I'd love to see more of, but it's how many pitches he sees per at bat. Obviously, there's correlation to walk rate, but for a guy that aggressive, I don't want him to completely neuter his instincts. That said, he can't simply (and this is simplifying it way too much) swing at the first pitch he sees that's decent. I also have some concerns about power and plane. I'm concerned about the injuries as well, but that's something that, as a fan, there's little, for lack of a better way of saying, that I can complain about. Seeing one more pitch - that's something that a player should be able to do. Staying healthy isn't something that is always in the player's control.

He'd also take Chirinos over Robinson. Interesting. I'm not high on Robinson/Clevenger, so that doesn't surprise me.

Yeah, they have Kyler in their projected starting line-up in 2012, but not in the Top 10 prospects. Seems like a disconnect there. Im really shocked that Jackson has leapfrogged VItters and Cashner in the BA list. Not a bad thing, just means that our system has some depth. Also, as far as the NSBB list, I thought that Coleman would have been there, but I have no complaints with the list. For once, Im really excited about our farm system and hope we dont trade any key players for rent a players. With Ricketts love for the farm system,, I wouldnt think that would be a problem anyway. Just out of curiosity, does Wellington Castillo even register anymore? I'm somewhat stunned by the Brett love. Ithink you can make an argument that, after Castro, you can rank our guys in several orders and have a fair case, but that was still high. I'm still high enough on castillo (top 15 prospect for me). He showed improvement offensively and defensively, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt due to the bad luck early. I Think you could find a Bengie Molina type guy, if all goes well (or a Hank White type of guy). That said, I understand why some folks are lukewarm on him. I think it was very telling that Jim Callis thinks Robinson Chirinos is the best catching prospect in the organization (and he projects as a backup). Very interesting considering Castillo, Clevenger and Robinson are all at AA or higher. That said, I'm sure the Cubs will add Castillo to the 40-man. Did he say something in the chat? Don't have a BA account anymore, because the only Chirinos thing I see is that he was rated as the top defensive catcher, which I can buy based on some of the reports out there.

half and half. I think Brett has done better than expected, and that Josh's failure to develop discipline is troubling, but the combination is probably what's at play right now, because if one or the other didn't happen, you likely wouldn't have seen Callis decide to rank it that way. I guess I just don't see it. The age is the big thing for me. Before Vitters was hurt he was destroying the Midwest League as a 20 year old. I guess it must just be a lot of people are scared by the wrist thing that Tim talked about. Either way it's a nice problem to have and we have really imporved the system this year. While I'm concerned about the injuries, I'm more concerned about the discipline. The chances just arne't that high, IMO, for a guy who averages 3.2/3.3 P/PA to reach his potential unless he's an exception to the rule, which he might be, but I'm not willing to bet on (and maybe there's research to show I'm off base on that assertion - I've never really researched it myself). The other thing is, I thought his strong Peoria season was overhyped. He had one extremely hot streak in Peoria, in May, but otherwise, was average to decent before and after, with a cold streak mixed in. I like Vitters potential a lot, but there are definitely areas of concern.

Speed, baby, speed - Hak-ju Lee might be faster than Tony Campana, and Jose Valdez got the fastest baserunner system. There was a Cubs minor league follower that argued that the Cubs system lacked speed. We've got speed. Usable speed? Only time will tell. Mildly surprised with the nod for best power hitter going to Brett. Not stunned, but mildly surprised. Best strike-zone discipline is to Burke? Interesting. I mean, I know he's got good discipline, but with a bevy of potential leadoff types in the system, I'm a bit surprised he got the nod. I don't care much for projected lineups, but it does show that a lot of people like Hak-ju Lee's shortstop potential, defensively. that said ... if Castro makes it up to the bigs and is solid at short, and if Lee is still in the system, I have a hard time seeing Lee push him off.

The only time I saw Castro this year, I was impressed by the fact that, even though he chased some pitches at times, he never really looked out of control.

half and half. I think Brett has done better than expected, and that Josh's failure to develop discipline is troubling, but the combination is probably what's at play right now, because if one or the other didn't happen, you likely wouldn't have seen Callis decide to rank it that way.

I'll second that. For a long time, I was searching for a good Cubs prospect discussion. There was some issue with my account previously, but Raisin helped fix it for me, and it's been great. Other sites are decent ... but NSBB is above all the other blogs out there in regards to Cubs prospect knowledge and discussion.

Well ... there's a chance that some graduations could happen to lessen our chances of getting back into the top 10. That said, as long as the system is producing, I really don't care where we are ranked.