toonsterwu

Looks like the Rangers got a quantity of solid quality rather than a top level guy. Duran looks like the top guy, but Pereira seems a lot more intriguing to me. Smith and Hauver are both interesting enough. Is it really that many players for Gallo and King? It's weird that they opted for this massive quantity. It's possible they have some of those guys graded higher, as it looks like many of them are having solid seasons so far. Edit: Based off the Adler tweet, the return is supposedly Duran, Pereira, Trevor Hauver, Glenn Otto, Randy Vazquez, and one more, and Passan puts in Josh Smith. Edit 2: I hate saying this, as I'm of the belief that you just trade and move on, but if that's the return for Gallo with another year of control ... I know I've said for a couple weeks that the return for Bryant is likely equal to the comp pick, but if Gallo had more "value", as most agreed, I'm wondering what the Bryant return possibilities are and whether or not the comp pick and extra pool money might be better.

That's an interesting offensive profile comp. At initial glance, I would've said that Coghlan had more "game power", but looking over the stats, Coghlan's "game power" wasn't as big as I remembered. It looks like a reasonable offensive profile comp - Cubs are hoping that the improvement in approach for Deichmann may mean something, and that he taps into his power more, but it seems a reasonable offensive profile comp.

I remember reading that and thinking that I'd pay more for Berrios than Buxton. I get Buxton's raw talent has and always will intrigue, but Berrios is a solid arm that is controllable for another year and has a better health history. Personally, I'd pay more for Berrios than Gallo as well. That said, I get why the Cubs players are positioned where they are.

I wonder what they gave up for him. While it's an entirely different situation for KB, it'll shed some light on whether or not quality assets are being moved. I mean, so far, there's been some solid prospects swapped, but you'd figure that Gallo might get something slightly more interesting than the parts being moved so far.

Can't complain about the deal at all. I am mildly curious why he signed so late in the cycle, but that's irrelevant. Still not sure what I really feel on Deichmann, but only time will tell. As a side note, boy, the A's system seems like it's fairly old for the level types. Obviously, circumstances, but it sure looks that way on paper. I wonder if all systems look that way now and I just never thought about it this year.

It's possible. I'm just not sure how "real" everything is in terms of his statistics this year. We'll have to wait and see I guess. The interesting thing on those splits is how his K/BB numbers are so dramatically split apart.

I don't mind the age that bad. Injuries and COVID are obviously factors there. That said, Deichmann is what he is - a corner OF with above average power but a questionable hit tool. I think it's positive that he's shown far better discipline this year, so maybe there are some legitimate changes, but his offensive profile feels like Adam Eaton in a positive scenario. Is Deichmann and whoever the 2nd piece okay for a pen arm that's likely to jump back into FA next year? Probably. Is Deichmann likely to be some asset in our next core? Unlikely, but I guess not impossible, depending on how fast the rebuild goes. I probably would've preferred two lottery tickets with upside, but all the trades so far, it seems like most teams are trying to balance the risk out in some fashion, which is understandable, but I'd rather see the Cubs gamble on upside and pay for stopgap role players. If you buy Deichmann as more than a 4th OF, then it's a fairly good trade. I'm not sure I'm there, so I'm more curious who the other name is.

Marcano's what, Nico Hoerner? I mean, it's a vaguely similar profile. I'm sure one could come up with a better comp but there's enough on the profile. Marcano is showing more pop this year, so maybe something changed, but it sure feels like the Pirates opted for floor vs. risk and made the trade off for a safer player. I find this mildly odd, as they are in full rebuild, unlike say the Twins (and even that Twins/Cruz trade, I think you can make a case the pitchers might be a bit better than their rankings ... and the Twins are trying to compete next year). Suwinski ... did he really find something or is this a hot streak? Miliano has a big time arm but the command might be a problem even for the pen. What I find interesting is that the Pirates, in full rebuild with 3 MI's at the top of their system, opted to get a guy that's young and can slot in now. Nick Gonzales hasn't looked that great this year, and Oneil Cruz probably has to move off at some point (can't remember a 6'7" shortstop, while Peguero is a few years away). Is this buying time and/or saving money, or do they really like the improvements they've seen in Marcano and Suwinski? It'll be interesting to follow. Marcano could probably replace Newman soon. Boy, Oneil Cruz is such a fascinating prospect. That size and raw pop, and enough athleticism. I guess it's sort of what we're hoping of Preciado.

It is mildly fascinating to me how it's caught on. I think they'll eventually have another name, due to marketing, but there seems to be a groundswell for keeping that name. I ran into some fans (at an Enterprise) and we were just chatting, and they said that it just seemed pretty cool to say the "Football Team" despite the ups and mostly downs of the Snyder era. Sort of giving some swagger back to the fans, particularly if Redskins was definitely out. All that said, I think they'll eventually pick a name for marketing purposes. At the very least, they'll pick a mascot, but I suspect they'll pick a new name. Too much money in it.

Yes, Knickerbocker is a reference to things in Manhattan before I certain date. I should've googled it up, but I didn't. I want to say 1850's? I think the name sounds pretty silly as well, but names take time to adjust to. We, as people, tend to cling to traditions despite traditions often losing their meaning and value over time, and we cling to names in the same manner. I mean, it took awhile for people to start calling the Bullets the Wizards, but eventually they did, despite how silly it is to have a name like Wizards. The mildly interesting thing on names is that there is a small groundswell to keep the Washington Football Team as the Washington Football Team. It's sort of catching on. I'll be curious what they do with that name. For marketing purposes, they'll probably have to pick one.

It's not ridiculous to say he's down there. I really haven't pondered it much, but you've typically got groupings of players where it's eye of the beholder, and after our top 5-6 or so, we've probably a grouping of 10-12 guys who get fairly similar grades/values, and after that, another 15-25 that are probably closely clumped together. Ball's got some ceiling to him because of the power, but based off his performance this year, he could be less than Brandon Sing, who tapped out at AAA and was steadily exposed. His performance this year will bring him down a bit in regards to those that don't view him highly. Based off his raw power, and the fact that last year was a lost year, I probably wouldn't put him that low just yet, but I think there's probably a reasonable defense of it if someone felt that way. Rebel Ridling had big time power too, after all.

To me the worst thing about Todd was that he was so bad with the Marlins in 03, they had to bring up a 20-year-old Miggy early and he helped them get them the WC and the rest is history. My memory is pretty fuzzy, but it seems like he was blocking some prospect from getting regular playing time while he was with the Cubs. Side note: Can you imagine any team trading a 25 year old with Miggy skills? I knew it was likely a bad trade, but wow. It looks really bad, but you have to remember, in 2007, Maybin and Miller were largely consensus Top 20 prospects that were considered ready for a look. Thus, in the scheme of how trades get done for prospects, it's not nearly as bad as it sounds with the benefit of hindsight. The idea that two Top 20 prospects would get moved in any deal is slim these days. I mean, the Marlins probably aren't moving Sixto and Max Meyer in any deal, Giants probably won't move Luciano and Bart in any deal. The idea of the Blue Jays moving Pearson and Martin in any deal is almost slim. Edit: I want to be clear, I'm not saying there isn't any deal that teams wouldn't move two top 20 prospects in all of baseball for. Just that, it would have to be a very unique deal for a young, likely cost-controlled top level player, and the idea that another MIggy situation exists out there, I just don't see it on the slate for this year.

I'm getting a serious Brian Dopirak vibe reading about him. It's not a bad thing, since sometimes those guys pan out. Even if we have a Chris Davis-type outcome, that can be useful when under team control. What's more intriguing to me is this helps get a picture of the current trade market for hitters. I had resigned myself to the outcome that the Cubs wouldn't get a Top 100 prospect for any of Baez/Bryant/Rizzo, but Joc for Ball suggests that might not be the case. I don't know how much to read into the Joc trade to judge what we can get for others. I think the Acuna injury and the desire to get someone in there probably prompted the Braves to make this move, and this is a price that, for their system, is probably well worth it to try and keep it going this year. I think, depending on the team, we still might be able to fish out a Top 100, but I just don't know how much correlation this trade has on everything else. Total side note, but because of the high walk rates, I had been thinking Brandon Sing, but Sing got better as he hit AA before flatlining. Micah Hoffpauir was another thought.

?? Why? I think the idea of trading off a chunk of the pen and staying competitive in the division is a lot easier to imagine in the East than the Central largely because I think Milwaukee is a notch above the teams in the East, and the Reds are a lot better than I thought. If you are talking simply competitive in broad terms, and not competitive for the division/playoffs, which was what I was assuming (which, in retrospect, you didn't really say), then no, it doesn't matter. Honestly, I think the Reds might be a pen arm and a starter away from being a better overall team than any in the East, which I still find mildly shocking this late in the year.

Meh, Pederson wasn't working out I think they could trade him, Davies, Brothers, Tepera, maybe Kimbrel, even more maybe Baez, and still be a competitive team for the division. It's wild out there. I'm not as big on trading Kimbrel as most, plenty big still, obviously have no real care to trade Baez barring something franchise altering for the better It's possible. If we were in the NL East, chances would be better, but you can probably find a cheap replacement for Davies and maybe get better performance. May be hard to move so many bullpen pieces and be able to replace them to stay competitive, but it's not that ridiculous to think (particularly since Adbert's innings may still be an issue later in the year. While there's no innings limit, if you sell off the pen and get a decent usable starter in return, moving Adbert to the pen at some point may be the best way to finish this year and prime things for next year). I do think Tom is right in that, this move really doesn't signal a sell-off. It's probably not a move you make if you are a lot closer, but you can find a replacement for Pederson one way or another. The return on Pederson might be better than I really thought/expected due to the situation. All that said, I do expect a sell-off to happen, and I'm okay with it. Wouldn't stun me if they tried to redo entire ship, although it's hard to think they can make that many trades. Still say if you get the right deal for Hendricks, you have to consider it.

Seems like a decent trade. I'm not bothered by the age that much due tot he lost season, but I really don't have high expectations for Ball. I think he's more likely a guy who, at best, gets up to AAA. That said, it's Joc Pederson. Getting a gamble on a plus power tool guy, if the scouts feel there's some hope on the hitting, is a solid enough return, perhaps even better than I really hoped for. I keep thinking that there's got to be another team or two involved in Bryant, but it seems like all the rumors still are on the Mets. I keep wondering, with the high cost of pitchimg, that there's maybe a team out there that will zig instead of zag, for lack of a better term, and look to pump up their offense. That said, you would figure another legitimate, solid team rumor or two would have popped up. I hope Kris can get hot a little so that the market can maybe cook a bit more.

It's nice that we got one of the prep kids out of those three. Had hoped for more, but looks like a good talent to develop. I'm not huge on Wicks, but he's better than Detmers as a prospect value. He's got a plus pitch to work with, whereas Detmers was more multiple above average pitches with plus command. I wonder if Detmers ends up having a more productive MLB career, but Wicks value should be higher than Detmers. (also, could be wrong, but I am under the impression that Wicks velocity might be a tick above Detmers out of college. I don't recall at the moment, though).

Well, that was quick. I had been mildly thinking that they had felt good enough about Banks in the 12th to nab him, but guess not. Makes me wonder about Ziehl and Rodriguez now. Banks did sound awfully fascinating so it makes sense for him.

I'm mildly curious how the Royals work things out. Mozzicato was assumed as big savings, but Royals fans seem to think it'll take around 3 mil to get Kudrna, which essentially eats away at most of the savings. Jensen, Wilson, and Panzini were all guys with leverage - even if money rumors are off for the three (kept hearing Panzini wanted 7 figures), I'm curious how they piece it all together. ____ As for the rest of the Cubs draft, looks interesting enough. I'm mildly more curious just how many guys from 11-20 sign with teams, since it's a new format. I've got to think 1 or 2 are just pure flyers, but I'm actually just curious to see how things shake out with the 20 round draft format. I've got to think 11-13 they feel comfortable about, but I guess you never know until the end.

As of right now, I can buy 3. I think, and I haven't thought about the system too deeply in ages, Wicks is probably top 5. Triantos and Franklin are borderline top 15, I think. I can think of cases for top 15 and cases against, but it's not like our system is that good right now that a prep bat with power potential and is a 2nd round pick should defnitely not be top 15 or a college CF with good tools.

The comments on Triantos are pretty much what I expect - they are making this pick based on the offensive profile, and I'm fine with that. There's power in that bat - may take some time, but there's pop. I thin the comments on Gray are fair - again, if he goes to college, and all goes well, it's a possible 1st round type profile down the line (you never know obviously, UVA got Vasil and Savino, and Vasil was an 8th rounder and Savino doesn't really look like first round right now and both would've gone high-mid first if they wanted to out of the prep ranks). The notes on Franklin obviously accentuate the positives, and there's definitely positives there. Possible boom/bust, so will have to wait and see how that bat plays. May be an odd comparison at the moment, but he sort of reminds me of Tony Thomas' offensive profile, so we're going to have to wait and see how he does moving up the ladder. I suspect he'll hit in the lower levels, but it probably won't be until South Bend where we'll get a good idea if the hit tool is good enough. As noted, I do like Spence a fair amount. That's probably less cynical than my liking Casey Opitz. I do think Spence is something - what, I don't know though. I mean, it's possible to see a profile where Spence develops into a good top of the order hitter that gets on base, is good defensively.

To be fair, we keep talking about this being a "safe" draft, but 3 of the first 4 picks are very boom/bust types. They should fill the system, so it's safe in that regards, but other than Wicks, the next 3 are more ceiling than floor guys. But yeah, again, I'm not saying it's a bad draft. I might just be a bit cynical with the benefit of hindsight on many of the recent drafts. To be fair, this is Kantrovitz's 2nd go around with us, so he deserves his time to make his mark.

I think "favorite" was more my attempt express some cynicism about the draft. You are right, I may be a bit quick to limit Triantos to a corner. I guess I could see a scenario where 2nd is possible. My main concern is that, while he's not a huge guy, he'll likely fill out a bit more, and he's already an average/below average runner. That tends to suggest he might be a bit more limited as he does more focused weight training and adds to his frame, but I guess it's possible. To be fair, he probably should stick at short until he proves otherwise. I don't think Triantos gets drafted because of his defensive profile, though. They must have all the numbers from his showcases and measurements. If they draft him, I think it's as much to do with the idea that they believe in the power, and they believe in the power development. And if that power does develop, it's fine for the corners. I mean, I can envision him as a solid RF if forced to move out there (arm, athleticism would tend to suggest he could handle it, and if the power develops, it'll play at the position). To be very clear, while I am cynical about this draft so far, it's not a bad draft (almost feel like I'm rationalizing things again). They didn't start from a position of strength (where they were picking that is), and in taking Wicks, they are taking a guy who should move up the ladder (I hate this idea that some people have put out there that suggest Wicks will definitely reach the bigs - the potential and tools are there, but we've all seen plenty of guys with the skillsets who never reached it for one reason or another). They did make two upside picks, and Gray is the type of arm that, had he gone to college (I guess I'm assuming he signs), you can envision a scenario where he eventually develops into a Round 1 type arm if all goes well. Just seems like there's a lot of work to do with Gray, and same with Triantos. That said, two upside picks are important, so much as we've sort of talked about this as a depth chart (at least some posts), if the Cubs are right on them, that could be two impact guys. I mean, if the Cubs are right, then there's a balance of floor, upside, and organizational depth in the draft, which is all you can really hope for with the way the draft system is set up these days.

Maybe I'm just cynical now with "old age" in following the Cubs, but I don't know how to feel that my two "favorite" picks for the Cubs might be Liam Spence and Casey Opitz (and I wonder how much my mild interest in Casey Opitz is because his brother was in the system and I remember the name). I view Spence as a guy who should be able to get to the majors in a backup role (watch me dead wrong, but here's hoping) as at least a pinch runner/utility player. Casey looks like he should move up the ladder to at least be a solid organizational catcher, and while that may sound insignificant, it would help our guys development to have a steady guy like Casey to throw to. If the bat improves a tiny bit, you can envision him as a backup backstop in the majors. Don't know ... I feel a lot more cynical about this draft because I sort of feel like almost every year, I tend to rationalized away picks, and let's face it, the record of picks in the TheoJed era hasn't been particularly great. I think Triantos/Gray offer good upside, but boy, they are very raw high upside, if you can have raw high upside. Gray feels like a long way off, and with the redone minors, I just don't know how development paths are going to be changed now if a guy struggles at any point. I really don't mind the Triantos pick, caught me off guard a bit. I really don't know if he's a 3rd baseman, though, so we'll have to see. Chavers makes me think of Donnie Dewees, but for a 7th round pick and a cheap senior sign, not bad. There's stuff to work with. It's not a bad draft considering where we were drafting, but I'm just not terribly excited. Here's hoping Kantrowitz and Co. are spot on and we get some strong producers out of this draft. Sometimes the exciting drafts turn out to be nothing, so who knows. Craig - I follow UVA moreso than VHSL, and any HS guys, I tend to not follow until their senior year, after they've committed and you know who's going where. That said, Named is correct - VHSL is split into 6 classes, and Class 6 is filled with the largest schools (I believe the smallest Class 6 has around 1900+ students). I believe it's not A, but rather D (that's not significant though). Triantos' reclassification might have kept him a bit under-the-radar, but he's a quality talent. I don't know how his reactions work at 3rd, and he's definitely not playing MI. He might end up in a corner role. He's got good bat speed, but the swing is a bit long at times, but I'm not particularly concerned because for a kid this young, you expect development is going to put a lot of work in. There's raw tools to work with, and he may have 50-55 power, so I don't mind the pick. I'm just not sure how enthused I am.

I don't mind the draft so far, but I can't say I'm terribly enthused about it. Oddly, my favorite pick so far might be Liam Spence, as I think he can find a role in the bigs, even if it's more as a depth utility player who pinch runs. I'll be curious about how Franklin hits - he's the guy that feels like there's some star power, although Triantos and Gray are interesting upside picks. It's a nice mix of floor and ceiling, and considering where we are picking in the round, it's not bad, and depth drafts are important.