toonsterwu

If the Orioles signed Gallardo and Fowler, aren't the reports that we'd get the 29th pick, with the 14th going to Texas for Gallardo? I thought I saw that in a report this morning, although maybe I misread that. Wait, that doesn't make sense, but I could've sworn I saw that in a report somewhere.

The Orioles rumor makes a ton of sense, and I think that's where the betting money has to be right now. They have a need, and if they go after Gallardo, they might as well spend and try and boost the team a bit more. Shame they are going after Gallardo - boy, would love that 14th pick (really am not a big believer that Gallardo is a big enough upgrade, particularly when you factor in the rumors of 3/45, which is essentially market value). Still, having a first rounder when all is said and done this winter would be ... the cherry on top. If they pass on Gallardo, then that throws things wide open, because I think the Orioles either do both, or they do none. Fowler could give them a nasty top of the lineup - Fowler/Machado/Davis/Jones would be a very good top 4. Don't know what the projection systems would do with the Orioles if they add two, but with a good manager in Showalter, it's easy to see them hanging around and being competitive for much of the year with that bullpen. Still ... I think they were better off collecting picks and rebuilding this winter.

He's really buying ceiling on Torres/Happ. It's possible, and as a Cubs fan, here's hoping, but I would certainly get folks wanting to be cautious in buying ceiling that hard. Torres as the 15th best prospect in baseball? He's borderline top 5 in shortstop (granted, 1 and 2 are so far ahead of everyone ... Seager/Crawford ... I would probably go Turner, Barreto, Rodgers for my top 5). Anyhow, if you have 3 guys in your top 50, then yes, ranking the system 4th makes a ton of sense. Here's hoping Law is right.

Somewhat surprised so few teams have interest. Although the team I wondered about (the Nationals), I sort of get, as they are going through their MASN lawsuit right now. Still, a bunch of teams seem to make sense, including some bad teams that could take a dip on Fowler on a short deal and then see if they can trade him at the deadline. Honestly, for example, with how much Maybin fell off the in the 2nd half, I mean, going after Fowler at that rate isn't the worst idea to boost their chances in the short term. They could probably even spin off Maybin for an asset to help.

Care to make the case? Willson was great, but last year was his first standout year in 5 tries at full-season ball so you'll forgive me if i'd like to see a little bit more...proof, that he's a changed man Torres is pretty firmly in the top-25 overall neighborhood; looking at his nearest contemporaries he's a better hitter than Ozzy Albies and has a more well-rounded profile than Rafael Devers, albeit without the power projection ceiling seems like there's a pretty distinct breakdown at the moment top-25: Torres top-50: Contreras top-75: Happ top-100: McKinney / Almora / Underwood / EJM I voted for Gleyber, but one could argue that Willson accomplishing it against double A pitching somewhat mollifies concerns that he's a one year wonder. I think that concern still exists, but his breakthrough didn't come against A ball pitching that often lacks something ... breaking balls, changeups, consistency, command, etceteras. ___ That said, I think this one is done. I'm curious, outside of perhaps a few votes for Happ/Eloy/Almora, I'm assuming we can get 2 done fast, as I think Contreras would take that.

Rockies at 7th eh? Guess I might be extraordinarily high on them. Still, I really like that system, with their blend of ceiling/floor, their blend of positional assets and pitchers. I mean, Jordan Patterson probably ranks in the top 10 for some of the bad systems this winter, and I could see Jairo Diaz pop forward as a surprise impact late inning arm for a year or two. Carlos Herrera is so far off their charts, and yet, I think he could be a breakthrough guy. I love Sam Moll as a late inning arm now that he's in the pen.

He has them #15. Going to be curious what his top 10's look like. Giolito is elite, and then you have Trea Turner/Wilmer Difo that are close to ready, if not ready. Lopez/Fedde seem like they are a year to two away, but both have high ceilings for arms. Cole/Voth are ready arms. Robles looks like he could be really good, but he is far away. There's some intriguing catching prospects. System drops off fast, but putting that at 15th makes me very curious about his Top 10's. In the end, everyone has their biases for certain guys, including myself. I guess he could see Lopez as a bit risky, not love Difo/Turner's ceiling, and as such, drop the system down.

Braves I can get. I don't love their system in some respects, as it's fairly risky, but the depth of intriguing quality is tough to overlook in a down year in the farm. Twins ... interesting. The quality at the top seems to be what he is betting on, or he really likes some sleepers in that system.

You know ... my only issue with Sickels (I don't check that site as much anymore, as it gets messy with all the different posts) is all the bickering between slight grade differences. Now, admittedly, Sickels was one of the first to use grades, which is a nice thing for fans, but with all the other sites betting 20-80 grades now, the whol A to C system seems ... outdated, and the bickering on a B- versus a C+ or whatnot, just seems unnecessary at times.

The issue I have with ranking us 4th is that you have to completely buy ceiling on guys far away ... and there are very few times where a farm system, as it currently looks, will have multiple guys hit close to their ceilings. It's not impossible, but it's tough sledding to bet that way. That said, Law sort of acknowledges that with his comment (that earliest help is 2017, and that you have to squint to see the pitching). I doubt Law has the Nationals top 3, but the number of quality guys at the top of the system that are close to ready makes it hard to bet against (that said, maybe I'm wrong and Law has them top 3). In some respects, I sort of respect the fangraphs kid for betting against the grain and trying to go with some high floor guys. I really don't have a huge issue with anyone, at least, not enough to rank who I prefer. The fangraphs guys, uh ... forgot his name right now, seems to try and balance things out and go with some high floor guys to mix in there. I think people, including myself perhaps, kept looking for perceived flaws, but he made some very valid points on swings and arm actions. Now, that said, I still completely disagree with the Ryan Williams ranking, and I think BA had him in a more appropriate spot, but everyone has their biases when it comes to these things. Law feels like he falls in love with certain guys, and that can be a double-edged sword at times. I actually like mlbpipeline quite a bit - they do the best job at trying to provide broad and continuous coverage these days, I think. That said, perhaps they try too hard - always found it weird when they rushed to shoehorn prospects into their top 10 rankings after a trade. Can't say I've read BP in awhile, so no clue how it goes there. BA's fine - don't love all their new writers, but it takes time and they still have some solid guys there in Manuel and Glassey (he's still there right?). As for the vast differences in people ranking, I think that's actually quite okay this winter, considering how close things are. As a result, some guys who like certain guys a lot will value those assets a lot more and push certain orgs higher. Eye of the beholder, individual preferences ... Can someone tell me what Law's top 3 are? I'm just mildly curious. I'm guessing Dodgers/Rockies and one more, but not sure which one.

I get what Tim is saying, that there isn't a number 1, but someone has to go there, and I have to vote Gleyber on this one. Obviously, there's two ways to look at the kid - a) a guy who lacks plus tools, and might have to move off short at some point yet hasn't shown power development b) a broad-based tools kid who has a shot at sticking at short who has shown an advanced feel at the plate so far and showed increased potential for sticking at short last year. A kid who should develop some power as he matures. Considering age, tools, reputation, and performance, it's easy to believe in B right now. I can see the argument for Contreras here, but if I were making an argument as to why I'm going Torres, I'd argue that Contreras' positive timeline isn't that much faster than Torres (if all goes well, Torres hits AA late in 2016, and has an outside shot in the bigs in 2017, while Contreras probably has to wait until 2017, which is justifiable as he is still developing behind the plate), and Torres' ceiling seems a bit higher if all goes well. That said, I get a vote for Contreras as well. With Happ, sort of want to see where his defensive position is and how he hits next year before pushing him ahead of two guys have solid ceilings and performed well this past year.

Very nice gamble on their part. If he's that big a clubhouse issue, then this isn't a long term or big money commitment. If not, this likely bolsters the back of their rotation, which was a concern.

No one too interesting this year for Fullerton. Sadly for you, the ASU, UCLA and USC games are midweek so those teams won't start their best pitchers. They do have some interesting prospects: ASU has SS Colby Woodmansee, USC has potential day one pick (and a Cubs draft pick out of HS) C Jeremy Martinez and UCLA has 3B Luke Persico and C Darrell Miller. Maryland's Friday starter, Mike Shawaryn, could be a first or second rounder this June. Edit: Crap, Miller tore his labrum and is done for the season. I think Shawaryn can succeed at the next level, but I'd be fairly wary of taking him in the first/2nd as of now. Good slider, fastball is still more high 80's and topping out low 90's. Saw a comp to Aaron Nola, which I don't really see as of now - Nola had a better fastball, arguably a better breaking ball, and a much better changeup. Velocity isn't everything, as Kyle Hendricks would attest to, but gambling on that pitch set in the first/2nd, I'd just be wary. That said, I do think he probably goes fairly high in this draft. If he fell to the late 3rd, I'd love the idea of the Cubs gambling on him, but barring a really bad year, he probably won't fall that far.

Assuming that the BA guys put in 4-8 Cubs in the top 100, I think their argument as to why the system, despite having depth, is ranked lower would probably be along the lines of the lack of impact talent at the top of the system right now. Most rankings tend to skew towards giving impact talent more weight, top 20/top 30 type guys. For example, the Oakland Athletics. I don't find that system to be particularly exceptional by any standards, but I imagine that if we are 20, they are ahead of us, perhaps safely so. Both systems have some depth to it, and talent wise, the top of the systems are ... relatively close, IMO. That said, Franklin Barreto is viewed as largely a better prospect than Gleyber Torres (tools and production wise, also being a level ahead), and Manaea is better than any arm in our system, and would rank ahead of our 2nd prospect, whoever one feels that is. I could see them giving Oakland the nod as a result of that (to be quite honest, I'm not too big on that A's system right now, outside of Barreto and Manaea. I like Chad Pinder, but I also wonder if he's a utility guy.) The Rays system isn't one I am really big on right now, but I could see the argument that Blake Snell plus Wily Adames is a big jump ahead of our top 2, so let's go there. The Padres system thins out, but again, the top talent argument could factor in here, with Margot/Guerra/Renfroe. Not saying I agree with it, as I'd take the Cubs over a few systems, but I could see that being their argument. That said, I also think this is such a messy year for farm rankings due to graduations that it could simply be a case of guys having drastically different rankings and the results getting screwy as a result (IIRC, BA asks their top guys to send in their top 100 lists, and then they cull and work through it?).

So, just toying around with Jeffrey Baez for a second (and I think I said this in another post awhile back, but while I think there's a chance he could "breakout", I certainly wouldn't "buy" him - it's akin to how I felt about Arismendy Alcantara in some respects). Baez has tools to work with. I mean, you take the raw physical tools, he has the potential to be a 2nd division starter. There's power, there's defensive ability, some speed, and unless I'm mistaken, the bat speed is fine, perhaps not top shelf, but solid. So, then it becomes an issue of risk. There's a tendency to aggressively attack at times, which can get him into trouble, but when he locked in last year, his walk rate and his K rate were certainly fine, with the only issue being his overall hit tool. Considering his age, it's not unfathomable to think that he may just be mentally maturing. Again, not really betting on Jeffrey Baez. I do wonder if he might put up a big year in Myrtle Beach next year, but I'm not exactly jumping on the "Jeffrey Baez - future MLB player" train. This is simply an exercise. ____ Based on your definition of upside, I would certainly add Caratini into how you view things. If Caratini's defensive development continues, and he has the tools to be decent, he certainly could be a viable 2nd division starter. Still wouldn't be surprised if Caratini passes Contreras next year.

There will always be that mixed bag. Some will regress, some maintain, some progress incrementally and a few will breakout. Two things make me more optimistic than in years past, though. One is the Cubs' developmental team, system, infrastructure, technology and philosophy are much better and more consistent from level to level than ever before. Two, the list of players with upside is fairly long. Someone's bound to pop. For every argument about a good developmental system, all systems can go through bad downswings, even with the brightest minds involved. I would note that the Red Sox system went through some lulls when Theo was in his final years there. I never liked the Padres system, when Hoyer/McLeod were running it, as much as others, and it's been, to say the least, a mixed bag of results, despite their year where they had a ton of early picks (want to say 2011?). Andrew Friedman's final years in the Rays organization really saw them falter a bit, and Billy Beane's Oakland systems have gone through lulls before. As for the list of players with upside ... we're obviously better than the bad systems right now, but all decent-good systems have a fairly solid list of guys with some level of upside. There's only really maybe 6-8 guys in our system who seem to, as of now, have upside that is unique/exciting (and that we can hold out some hope for as of now ... I mean, Jeffrey Baez has upside, but no one is really, despite his strong finish, expecting Jeffrey Baez to really take off in that fashion as of now). Again, I'm not trying to be negative Nancy here. I think that the system is in a great shape considering the losses.

I really should've rephrased. By decent quality, I wasn't speaking only to ceiling. Every system has high ceiling guys, even the hapless Angels and Marlins systems. I was speaking to a combination of all the factors, if that makes any sense this early in the morning (that is, a combination of ceiling/floor/risk/performance/progress). We definitely have a lot of guys that can get jump up big in the next year. I mean, a monster year from Eloy Jimenez would probably put him up there, due to his ceiling. Of course, there's a lot of risk/question marks with our guys entering the year, and as it usually is with prospect, we'll probably get a mixed bag of results.

Tried looking around for the list I made awhile ago, but could only find some notes. This is a quick and dirty effort at loosely ranking the systems. Very top Rockies/Dodgers - The impact potential and depth of these two systems has to be at or near the top of my lists this offseason. I actually prefer the Rockies system overall a bit more for their overall depth and diversity of talent. Very good Phillies - Can get if someone wanted to lump them with the above group, but I think they are a bit more riskier than the Rockies. Still, trades have rapidly rebuilt the system. Nationals - Tough system to rank this high in some respects, but that top shelf of 6-8 guys is very exciting for it's ceiling and readiness. Braves - There's a part of that's wary of this group, as there's a lot of risk involved, but you can't deny the depth of young talent they've slowly accumulated in the system, and it's a nice mixture of readiness and risk, ceiling and floor. I can get folks lumping them with the Rockies, but I think the Rockies impact potential at the top is far better, and far less riskier overall. Indians - That top 8-9 is very exciting, with a balance of bats (although maybe too many OF's), risky arms and arms. Good Brewers - Sort of like a super-charged version of our system right now. Arcia's further along than Torres, there's good depth in the system, but I do question how much impact potential is in the system. Twins - System seems to thin out very quickly after the top few guys, so had a tough time deciding where to throw them right now. Pirates - The top of the system carries it a lot. Rangers - Considering the Hamels trade, the fact that they are still up here is a testament to their previous depth. I may be over-rating the top of this system a tiny bit right now. The big mosh pit of organizations Athletics/Astros/Reds/Yankees/Cubs/Red Sox/Padres/Cardinals/Rays/Blue Jays/Giants (not in order) I get why we are at the back of this list (I could see a couple organizations here swapped out with ones above, or just pushed up, ad I can see maybe a few lists having the Giants below), but I think I could make a decent argument to put the Cubs ahead of most of these teams as well. I mean, the Rays system isn't all that enticing right now. Below Average Mets - Hard to excited about what's left, but like us, they graduated impact. Royals - System seems to thin out real fast, but the top few guys are intriguing. White Sox - The top few guys in the system are intriguing. After that, not so much. Diamondbacks - They've thinned out the system, but there's still some arms. Struggling Mariners - Kept expecting decency, but this is a pretty bad system right now, IMO. Their top two guys are far, far away and struggled last year. Orioles - System has some plus points - Jomar Reyes and Chance Sisco look intriguing. Still too dependent on the health of Bundy and Harvey, and the rest of the system are dime-a-dozen types. Tigers - They manage to squeeze out a few intriguing guys each year (UVA product Artie Lewicki's pro potential still intrigues me), but overall, in terms of rankings, it's a lot of mediocrity. Angels - Uh ... nothing really needs to be said, and they know it. Marlins - See Angels.

I'm not that surprised by this. When I took a look at the systems awhile ago, I thought we might be a touch higher, middle of the pack perhaps, so this makes sense. Thing is, if there's one way to note our system right now, it is perhaps to say that it is depth of all-around decent quality. We've got decent quality all over, up and down the ladder, at differet positions, and the arms. Problem is, depth, as it comes to these rankings, never gets valued as highly as potential ceiling (and justifiably so). I don't know BA's overall team rankings, but you can take a system like, say, the Padres, and make a case that, with the Kimbrel trade, that their top grouping is better than ours (Guerra, Margot, Renfroe, a couple arms, a couple shortstop prospects), and despite the rest of our system being significantly deeper and better, that group of guys has enough of a case to be put on par with our system. Beyond that, you can really pick apart all our top guys. We might have two corner OF's that end up being Nori Aoki/Nick Markakis types in a positive scenario. Much as I like Gleyber Torres, one can say broad based toolset, while another can say here's a kid who really lacks a plus tool and might not stick at short, and hasn't shown power. Arms are far away, ceiling with the arms is more ... dime-a-dozen ... than we really acknowledge, and power is a significant question. That said, when you look at the broad landscape of the minors, and the fact that we graduated so many guys who would be our top overall prospect and a possible top 25 prospect, this is just fine and dandy. There are few systems that can survive the major shock that ours went through last year as it pertains to graduations, and the fact that we still have depth is awesome. It's a weird year in general in the minors - a handful of good systems (I think 6-8), 5 -7 systems that I thought was really bad, but everything else felt like it could get bunched together. Skimming through their top 31, looks fine. Now, Caratini at 24 seems low if he's the best defensive catcher. Blackburn at 19 surprised me a touch. Also mildly surprised that Candelario got best infield arm. I would've figured one of the shortstops. Like the nods to Trevor Clifton and Matt Rose - the former seems to get lost in the shuffle with the crop of guys that were at Eugene last year, but along de la Cruz and Cease, he's one of the few arms in the lower levels that really, as of now, seems to have exciting potential, and he has steadily improved. I think we talked about Rose as a sleeper/breakout guy when there was that thread about the next Willson.

I'm not that surprised by this. When I took a look at the systems awhile ago, I thought we might be a touch higher, middle of the pack perhaps, so this makes sense. Thing is, if there's one way to note our system right now, it is perhaps to say that it is depth of all-around decent quality. We've got decent quality all over, up and down the ladder, at differet positions, and the arms. Problem is, depth, as it comes to these rankings, never gets valued as highly as potential ceiling (and justifiably so). I don't know BA's overall team rankings, but you can take a system like, say, the Padres, and make a case that, with the Kimbrel trade, that their top grouping is better than ours (Guerra, Margot, Renfroe, a couple arms, a couple shortstop prospects), and despite the rest of our system being significantly deeper and better, that group of guys has enough of a case to be put on par with our system. Beyond that, you can really pick apart all our top guys. We might have two corner OF's that end up being Nori Aoki/Nick Markakis types in a positive scenario. Much as I like Gleyber Torres, one can say broad based toolset, while another can say here's a kid who really lacks a plus tool and might not stick at short, and hasn't shown power. Arms are far away, ceiling with the arms is more ... dime-a-dozen ... than we really acknowledge, and power is a significant question. That said, when you look at the broad landscape of the minors, and the fact that we graduated so many guys who would be our top overall prospect and a possible top 25 prospect, this is just fine and dandy. There are few systems that can survive the major shock that ours went through last year as it pertains to graduations, and the fact that we still have depth is awesome. It's a weird year in general in the minors - a handful of good systems (I think 6-8), 5 -7 systems that I thought was really bad, but everything else felt like it could get bunched together. Skimming through their top 31, looks fine. Now, Caratini at 24 seems low if he's the best defensive catcher. Blackburn at 19 surprised me a touch. Also mildly surprised that Candelario got best infield arm. I would've figured one of the shortstops. Like the nods to Trevor Clifton and Matt Rose - the former seems to get lost in the shuffle with the crop of guys that were at Eugene last year, but along de la Cruz and Cease, he's one of the few arms in the lower levels that really, as of now, seems to have exciting potential, and he has steadily improved. I think we talked about Rose as a sleeper/breakout guy when there was that thread about the next Willson.

I was driving today, and for some reason, I kept thinking ... I wonder if Carlos Penalver could make a good option to transition to pitching. There's arm strength and athleticism to work with. Just don't see the bat developing enough that his defensive ability can carry him forward.

As a UVA fan, I'm cautiously optimistic about this season. I think one can make the argument that this UVA team might be the most well-rounded team in O'Connor's tenure. Sure, there's areas of concern, but that's always the case with college sports, as guys move on. The lineup should be really good. Pavin Smith looks like a potential top draft pick in two years, with such a sweet lefty swing. With Thaiss/Pinero/Clement/Coman/Haseley, there's a very good core in place. The freshman class of positional assets is supposed to be pretty good and able to fill in key spots. There's power, on base potential, speed. It has the makings of a very good lineup. The big question is obviously the pitching. The loss of guys like Kirby/Waddell/Sborz hurts any college team. Along with that, two arms with impact potential may be sidelined due to surgery (Derek Casey/Evan Sperling). That said, Kuhn's one of the best pitching coaches out there, and along with O'Connor, I feel confident that they'll get the bullpen in order. I mean, stuff wise, Alec Bettinger is pretty good. Question comes down to the rotation, but with Connor Jones, there's a legitimate staff ace, Friday starter. Adam Haseley worked freshman year in the mid-80's when he started, supposedly is in the upper 80's now. Tommy Doyle's breaking ball might be as good, or better than, Connor Jones, and he can run the fastball in that 91-93 range. There's a few other arms in the mix (Doyle could also be moved to the pen, it's not impossible Bettinger gets another starter look, although I'm not betting on it), but there's enough talent to work with. At the end of the day, O'Connor is still there, and he's earned enough trust that I think they'll figure out some of the areas of concern, and there's enough talent to work with. For the life of me, still not sure how Kuhn and McMullan haven't gotten offers to run quality programs, but as a UVA fan, glad they are still there. I get the disparity between Baseball America's ranking and D1Baseball's (the former gives a nod to the staff and the talent, the latter is concerned about some of the apparent holes), but I'm cautiously optimistic that this may be a better team overall than last year's.

Figure it was time to start a thread for the College Baseball season, with pre-season rankings and stuff coming on. D1 Baseball's Top 25 1. Florida 2. Louisville 3. Vanderbilt 4. Texas A&M 5. Oregon State 6. Miami 7. LSU 8. Oklahoma State 9. California 10. NC State 11 UCLA 12 Southern California 13 Virginia 14 Oregon 15 Mississippi State 16 North Carolina 17 South Carolina 18 Louisiana-Lafayette 19 TCU 20 Florida State 21 Cal State Fullerton 22 Houston 23 Texas 24 Coastal Carolina 25 Arkansas Baseball America Top 25 1. Florida 2. Louisville 3. Texas A&M 4. Virginia 5. Oregon State 6. Miami 7. Vanderbilt 8. California 9. Oklahoma State 10. UCLA 11. Louisiana State 12. Houston 13. Louisiana-Lafayette 14. Oregon 15. Michigan 16. Southern California 17. Florida State 18. Texas Christian 19. North Carolina State 20. Mississippi State 21. Oklahoma 22. Cal State Fullerton 23. Coastal Carolina 24. Mississippi 25. Kentucky

yep, no AL team projected to go worse than 6 games under .500. it's like the entire league is sort of up in the air. may be a fun trade deadline (well, i suppose they all are). I suspect that if so many teams are bunched together, the trade deadline may be quite boring, as too few teams are going to be willing to sell. That said, while I think the Orioles went the wrong way this offseason strategically, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were competitive and hung around (don't get me wrong, I wouldn't bet on them being .500 as of now). That back end of the pen (Brach/Givens/O'Day/Britton) is one of the best in baseball.

Hey was wondering if we were going to do a community list. We could set tighter rules to move it faster (say 24 hours and we move on if there are enough votes) and allow for anyone to start and run it.