toonsterwu

I'm not sure where any of these conversations are, so randomly putting in some thoughts: a) I don't love Schoop/Rodriguez. Actually, I'm just not huge on Schoop. He's an "upside" guy who really hasn't put together the offensive performance. Had that been our Garza package, I would've been ... eh. b) As for Wood, I've never been huge on him, but I do think we could probably net a decent return if we moved him now. I doubt we'll see that happen. c) Of the 5 teams rumored, the only two that seem appealing (and possible ... for example, I doubt we could get Aaron Sanchez or Trevor Bauer from the Blue Jays/Indians) would be the Red Sox and Rangers. The preference would be the Sox on my part, because of their depth of right handed and left handed pitching options to choose from, with several in the upper levels. I've just never liked the current Rangers pitching prospects that much.

I'm wondering why people have a problem with this? I really don't know what else he's supposed to say. It's not like Samardzija has promised to resign with the Cubs already. He's clearly taking it year-to-year. I mean, he did say he hopes the guys coming back are comparable and bring the same attitude. He also said he doesn't feel like they are that far away either. I really don't see how any of this is a problem.

I think all three need a change of scenery. Britton will probably be held as "depth" for another year, and Matusz is too good in the pen to think they'll ponder shopping him. I still wonder about Matusz as a starter, although I do prefer Britton over him as a starter. Anyhow, as for Arrieta, anyone that watches Orioles games could tell you some basic problems for Arrieta. The short of it is, leaving aside "mental" issues to work through when he hits rough patches, he seems to want to amp it up whenever it gets tough. Sometimes, you can get away with it, but his fastball loses movement and is a lot more hittable. I don't love Arrieta. I do wonder if he's better off in the pen. That said, it's not hard to imagine that, with some tiny tinkering (plus leaving the AL and moving to the NL), that Arrieta could look a lot better as a starter. There's better than mid-rotation potential, but I just don't know if I trust him. That said, hey, so far so good with Bosio, so here's hoping.

When I went to the game last week I couldn't believe how diminutive Torreyes was compared everyone else. He can't be taller than 5-4. tiny dude. Still, he has enough positives that this trade, moreso than Feldman, seemed to show their desperation for IFA money. I'm also mildly curious why Houston did this. As I'm not an Astros fan, I guess I really don't care, but it seems odd that a rebuilding team would, at the expense of IFA money, add a 2nd baseman in AA when their best MLB asset is a young 2nd baseman. Then again, don't care.

The Torreyes thing ... surprises me. I don't mind that much, but it surprised me. Wonder if that means Alcantara is going to be slotted full time at 2nd.

Late to the game, but I think this is a deal that makes a ton of sense for both parties. The Orioles didn't want to give up the top young assets (Eduardo Rodriguez) in a trade. They get a steady arm, someone that fits well there, someone Buck knows. Arrieta/Strop needed a change of scenery. Personally, I don't buy Arrieta that much as a starter. I think he's a pen arm, but then again, the stuff is so intriguing that you never know. To me, he's a "3/5" guy, a guy with 3 level potential but too damn inconsistent (Edwin Jackson is another that comes to mind). That said, the Cubs got the needed bonus money and two good gambles (because of raw stuff) for Feldman, someone they likely weren't going to keep. So ... sounds solid for both sides.

Gun to my head, I'd say it's because I'm far more familiar with the flaws of the people he's ranked above than I am with his. Fair enough. Skulina does have enough ceiling to be in the back end of the top 30. I just haven't had time to do a list to really ponder it. I may end up agreeing with you, although I'm not certain.

I completely forgot I posted something, and I haven't been around much anyways. wekim - I don't know if I love Zastryzny, but I don't know if you should get hung up on potential plus change. After all, Cabrera has a slider that flashes plus ability, but he loses his touch on it on occasion. To be clear, I don't love putting Zastryzny that high. I can see the case for Vizcaino to be ahead of him on stuff, but the lack of pitching in the last two years makes it a close call. I've pushed Cabrera for awhile, but he has some similar issues to Zastryzny - inconsistent 3rd pitch, inconsistency with his plus secondary offering. My reason for going Rob ahead has less to do with SNTS and more to do with that I've never really bought Cabrera as a starter (still think he's a pen arm long run, but I hope I'm wrong and he becomes a solid starter).

Skaggs and Bradley alone wouldn't do it for me. It would get my attention, but it's just not quite enough. Yeah. And this makes it sound like asking for either stopped the talks. That's pretty ridiculous, and surprising, considering how little it took for them to send Bauer away. But really, does Buster Olney know anything about anything? Well, before we try to connect the dots on Bauer with their willingness to trade Bradley/Skaggs, a couple points (as noted above, I don't think that'd be enough for me to want to move Shark) - a) The team made clear, even if almost everyone else (except for some Reds fans) disagreed, that they believed in Gregorius' offensive potential and that they believed Didi had a better offensive ceiling than given credit for (I believe Towers made a Jeter comp) b) They were looking specifically for a middle infielder, like when the Brewers traded for Segura. c) While you can never have enough pitching, once a team trades away a top pitching prospect, they tend to show some wariness on moving the rest.

Closer to possibly competing by 2016? Let's reel in those expectations a bit. Okay. I have a hard time seeing the organization build up enough assets to compete in 2014. 2015 seems possible, but trying to push for a playoff spot in 2016 seems a bit more realistic to me right now. This was the point of my other thread. The same things have been said about a bunch of teams that made significant jumps to make the playoffs, there is no threshold where you're "ready" to compete. More to the point, the idea that there's little to no chance of the team being competitive in 2014 is crazy to me. Let them find the new Feldman/Maholm/Villanueva to round out the rotation, use Marmol's money and this year's deadline to make the pen less of a disaster, put Garza's money to Choo, and have a good year of progress from young players. You don't need 95th percentile projections to make that happen, and that's really what matters when the decision here is about trading Samardzija. Leaving the Samardzija stuff aside for a moment, as I simply said it didn't hurt to ponder it if a great thing came along, but also that I don't expect anything to happen. First, to be clear, I'm talking about competing for the playoffs. And, it should be noted, I didn't say little to no chance. What I actually said was that I find it hard to believe that "the organization [can] build up enough assets to compete in 2014" for the playoffs. Yes, teams can make dramatic steps in one off-season. That said, as currently situated, I've got a hard time seeing it. You talk about some key components to making this happen. a) Garza money to Choo - If we can get Choo, great, but 1) Has the front office given any indication that we're likely to pursue someone like Choo? A 31, almost 32 year old player that will demand a major contract, with a high AAV and multiple years? This isn't exactly DeJesus that we are talking about. Every indication from the front office so far has been that they didn't want to head down the line of what Boston did in Theo's final days there. 2) Are you presuming that we simply win a bidding war on Choo? Perhaps I'm underestimating the appeal of coming to the Cubs now, or maybe Choo has an affinity for the Cubs that I'm not aware of, but with baseball flush with money, and multiple teams with money to spend ... b) A good year of progress from young players - Sure, but even then, as we both know, there really isn't, outside of maybe Alcantara, a key player in the pipeline that looks to have an outside shot at helping in 2014. Maybe Matt Szczur. Even my point above, about the Cubs top prospects potentially being ready in 2015, is probably slightly on the optimistic side. Even if Castro bounces back, as I expect, and Rizzo takes some steps forward, those were two guys considered core pieces to build around anyways. I'm not seeing the internal building blocks coming up by 2014. Maybe I'm under-estimating our ability to land a key free agent. I have my doubts that we have that ability, or that the front office will pursue someone like Choo. Certainly, if we do go that route, yeah, that would really help things out. Now, one thing to be said is that, at some point, a front office feels some heat and may deviate from their plan. __________________ This may get me into ... murky waters, but ... I'd argue that, for teams that build internally, akin to the way this front office is doing it now, that there's a threshold for when they start competing/believing that they can compete, and that is when there is an, for lack of a better term on a Sunday evening, accumulation of young talent in the upper levels, allowing the front office to add to the major league core, whether through call-ups or trades. Now, yes, most of these models lack the resources that the Cubs have, but again, I just haven't gotten the feeling that the front office is about to make big free agent splashes. Admittedly, I've been a bit busy, so maybe I've missed some stuff. Perhaps the best comparison for hope for the Cubs are the Rangers. Daniels managed to turn the Rangers around from their low point in about 2 years, but I'm not really sure we have the trade assets to make the big moves that Daniels made in 2007 (namely, no one to bring back a Tex return). Again, my main point was that I have a hard time seeing the organization add enough assets. As I noted, while I think 2016 is the more realistic year, I think 2015 is a reasonable possibility. I'm not disagreeing with you on the ability for a team to turn around their fortunes in a short order - it's definitely possible. And I have no interest in dealing Samardzija - I just would keep an open ear if it came along. I just don't know if we have the trade assets and the ability/desire to make the big free agent moves for older veterans. If I'm wrong on the latter, and they add a key arm and a bat, then sure, it's easier to buy that this team can be, reasonably, a playoff contender next year.

In terms of ... ability? ... Hale would be okay for a Gregg trade. I'd hope for more/better, as I still have some doubts that Hale is a starter. Add in that he's 25 and turning 26, Gregg's excellent year, and factor in the way teams overpay for pen arms at the deadline, I don't think waiting is the worst thing. To be quite honest, I'm really not sure what type of "expectation" to have on a Garza trade, in terms of the return. It's a lot of factors, plus and minus, running into each other. I think, speaking specifically on the Orioles right now, that it's hard to build a trade that really excites me, but then again, I'm not sure if I should be expecting an "excite me" trade on Garza. At the very least, I'd demand Eduardo Rodriguez as a center piece, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Orioles are going to balk at that as long as possible. I'm still not exactly on the Eduardo Rodriguez train, although I'll admit, he's a fascinating prospect. Problem is, I'm not sure what to slide in after that. I guess if we could get a Britton or Arrieta to work with, that'd be something, but I doubt the Orioles do that and I've never liked the raw potential of Arrieta enough. I guess something like Eduardo Rodriguez and either Zach Davies or maybe Branden Kline? as the key components of a package could be considered a solid enough return, but at the end of the day, nothing really jumps out at me.

Closer to possibly competing by 2016? Let's reel in those expectations a bit. Okay. I have a hard time seeing the organization build up enough assets to compete in 2014. 2015 seems possible, but trying to push for a playoff spot in 2016 seems a bit more realistic to me right now.

TT, was that a response to me? Because my point really was more that, in 2-3 years time, when the team might be closer to competing, Samardzija would've likely logged a ton of innings over that span. Thus, combined with his age (physical age still does matter some ... it's not like he never got dinged up playing football) and the likely wear and tear of these 4-5 years (this year/last year and 14/15), there seems to be potentially a slight chance that he might be near/past his peak. Anyhow, either way, I think we're in agreement that the chances of that big package seem rather slim.

What if they come back with Skaggs/Bradley and one of the other 3 whoever you prefer? That's pretty tempting to me. Guess I'll toss in my 2 cents on a Samardzija trade possibility. I'm open to it. It'd take a big deal, but I still have a tough time creating plausible scenarios that put the Cubs in WS contention in, say, 2 years. The glut of prospects are in the A ball ranks, and while I think Castro and Rizzo are better than they are performing this year, it's not as if we several core pieces in place already. Shark has been superb, but if you get a chance to get 3-4 quality pieces for him ... I think you have to consider it. In 2 years, Shark is 30 and likely would've logged a ton of innings over those two years if he stays healthy. The best case scenario would have Baez/Soler/Almora hitting/close to hitting the majors. It's hard to imagine that the youngsters would gel in their first year or two to make us a legitimate threat in 2015. There are very few teams that I think could realistically pull off a 1v1 (team wise) trade. The Diamondbacks, though ... would be tempting. You would absolutely have to have Skaggs/Bradley. I think you would almost need Holmberg as a lock there for me to really like the deal. If you move Samardzija, the point should be to get the best quality possible, but ideally, you'd try to address your pitching needs as fast as possible. Their pitching depth would fit perfectly. To be clear, it would have to be a big package, and as such, I really don't expect a deal happening. There's enough arms out there that teams can probably find other pieces. I mean, in Arizona's case, they have the pieces, but my guess is that they could probably get a deal for a separate top arm, for perhaps someone like Garza, without giving up both top arms (and maybe they can find a deal for an arm without giving up Skaggs/Bradley at all).

He's had a very impressive season, but I really want to wait to see how much of that power is sustainable. He's probably not going to be a high average hitter, and he's likely a 1st/3rd corner guy, so the power needs to be there. That said, their prospect pitching is very thin past Bundy/Gausman, and neither guy seems like they'll be moved. Is there enough to piece together, on paper, from a fan's perspective, a decent deal for Garza? Probably, but it might be more quantity of solid quality than higher quality players.

Rob, curious why Skulina at 25 for you? I was pushing for him in the draft, but even I'm not that high on him. Anyhow, if I get a chance, I'll try to do this in the next few days. Been busy. At first glance, I think Raisin's list would look fairly similar to mine, through, say, the top half of the list (although I don't know if I really want to put Watkins in the top 15ish ... ). Tough call at the top ... I think you can make an argument for any of the 4 to be at 1.

I'm not sure on the facilities. Epstein had a bad experience in the Cal League, with Lancaster (which led to Boston buying the Salem franchise). While the Cal League is a hitter's league, it's not like all the parks are clear hitter's parks. It's just, there are some bad spots (Lancaster, High Desert come to mind) that tilt so much so to the pitchers. I've wondered about the Cal League due to it's proximity to Arizona. Curious about their player development contracts there and what the affiliation shuffle looks like. That said, it's usually not prudent to have an entire level where you don't want to send your best arms to.

Does IU have any lefties, even in the pen? IIRC, FSU struggled against lefties this year.

I decided to try and do a top 20 for the fun of it ... and boy, after 8, it's not easy. Some random, pointless splits comments first: - Christian Villanueva should hit just on the road. I've got no idea why the splits are that wide. - If I didn't look, I wouldn't have realized that PJ Francescon was doing quite well on the road. Still think he might be an intriguing guy to ponder if moved to the pen. - Zach Cates and Barrett Loux shouldn't go on the road ... So, the top 8 shouldn't be an issue in terms of players Tier 1 1. Jorge Soler - Bat just seems more polished right now. 2. Javier Baez - Upside's higher than Soler's, but not as refined. Still, when he's hot, damn. 3. Kris Bryant - I can see him at 2, but Baez is still at a tougher position, power upsides seem similar, and there is, on paper, some questions on both guys. 4. Albert Almora - Could see him at 1, 2, 3, depending on your tastes, but just want to see more before I push him up. Tier 2 5. Arismendy Alcantara - Up the middle, young player who shows an intriguing offensive mix that should play if moved to 2nd. 6. Pierce Johnson - Can buy him at 5, just going with the positional player in a higher level. It's not fair, but I sort of want to see how Pierce does in A+. 7. Rob Zastryzny - Thought it over a bit. College lefty with at least 3 average pitches, good pitchability, and some velocity? It's a tough call, as Vogelbach has looked very solid in MWL, but that profile gets the nod over the first baseman in MWL. 8. Daniel Vogelbach - Could really see those numbers explode away from the MWL. If that happens, he'll go zooming up. then ... bleh ... bleh isn't a reflection on the raw talent/intrigue, but more ... that it's ridiculously hard to order ... 1 stab at it 9. Arodys Vizcaino - I tried to talk myself away from this. As talented as he is, having missed so much time is something that has to be factored in. Still, the upside got the nod, as I couldn't make a case for anyone else. 10. Alberto Cabrera - I don't want to put him here. I'm loathe to put guys that I think are pen arms this high. Still, who else? One of the following three bats? All three of whom who have big questions? Szczur? Cabrera feels like a guy who can at least be a pen arm. Furthermore, lefties aren't giving him the past problems that I recall (could be wrong, but I recall he struggled against lefties as a starter coming up. Maybe it's someone else) He's a better pitcher than when he was in AA in 2011, but that doesn't say much. 11. Christian Villanueva - I'm not exactly enthused by him, but he's hitting well on the road and he plays good D at 3rd. He might not be a long term option, but a year or two? I gave him the nod over Candelario because Candelario's still raw and developing into his offense (plus hot and cold this year) and Lake because I want to see how Lake does in his first AAA go around. 12. Junior Lake - Upside is ahead of Villanueva's, so I can see an argument to move him ahead. 13. Jeimer Candelario - Still growing into his offense. Upside's ahead of Villanueva's, offensively, so could see an argument here. 14. Matt Szczur - Can see an argument to put him at 10. Looks like a potential 2nd division starting CF, a stopgap type. To use a comp, a Brett Gardner type. 15. Kyle Hendricks - The plus command is holding, which is needed for him to be a starter. 16 - 18. Dillon Maples/Duane Underwood/Juan Carlos Paniagua - Grouping these three together. Maples should be ahead, as he's pitching in full-season and showing he can get K's. We need 1 of these guys to step forward, if not 2. 19. Ronald Torreyes - Hot and Cold. I hate that about offensive prospects. Wish there was some consistency. But the fact that he's shown he's hot at times is a nice plus. then .. ? I half want to throw Logan Watkins here, as I don't think the gap between Watkins and Szczur is all that much. Pondered Hanneman/Masek/Frazier, but don't think I can do that. Geiger? Amaya/Hernandez aren't doing enough to justify it (Amaya's K rate bothers me too much anyways). I think both can do better (particularly whenever they graduate from the MWL, if they do). Jokisch/Ha/BJax/Vitters are thoughts. Am I being too reactionary? Perhaps. I would lean to Ben Wells, but that's iffy. That said, his GB rate is basically the same, and that's a nice sight. There's a lot of depth. I mean, the talent at 35-40 in the system isn't going to be that significantly off from 10-11, and that's a testament to the guys there and not as much of a statement on 10/11. Could order this a ton of ways, but took a stab at it for fun. By the way, I'm blanking, but what happened to Michael Jensen again?

Crazy day of baseball tomorrow. I'm kinda worried - Miss St.'s lineup doesn't worry me a ton outside of Renfore, but their strong pen bothers me. Looks like it's going to be strength on strength - their pen against UVA's lineup. Realistically, I think this could go either way (obviously, if I made a pick, I'm going UVA if it's close). I'm very curious about UNC and South Carolina, primarily to see if there's any side effect from Fox's ridiculous usage of his pitchers. Kubitza vs. Rodon, whenver that happens, if it happens, could be fun. NC State has to be a pick to win it all, with the way Rodon is pitching and their lineup.

I wonder if Loosen could go to the pen and amp up his fastball a bit. If so, he could make an intriguing pen arm with multiple pitches.

Very nice pitching duel going on between Nola/Gray. Nola's going to be a fascinating 2014 prospect.

Random Thoughts on What I Missed: - As a total side note, I'm pissed the Astros took Austin Nicely. UVA didn't need him next year (not really), but I wanted him 2-3 years down the line. I hope they don't sign him, but taking him in the top 10 rounds, I'd be a bit surprised if he didn't sign. - So ... the Cubs went after pitching. In some respects, this feels like a McLeod draft, and in some respects, this sort of feels like a Wilken draft (2008 Cubs, 2005 Rays ... sorta). To be honest, the differences between McLeod and Wilken were never that huge, particularly on the pitching side. I think the 2008 draft holds some similarities - a lot of college arms, some relatively raw college arms. No one drafted really seems to have huge ceiling, but it's a draft that should add some needed pitching depth to the system. - Not flashy is not bad. I'm not going to be super-excited about this crop, but it's not a bad draft. It seems like they held to the idea that I suggested, that the depth of the draft meant punting picks didn't make sense if it was to gamble on tough sign prep kids. One could make the argument that if you cross out the tough signs that haven't been picked and the top tier college pitching, there wasn't a ton of exciting pitching ceiling in this draft. - jcf noted it a few pages back, but we've had problems developing positional players for so long. Look, I'm not going to suddenly change my opinion to toe the company line, so to speak, and I'm still a bit disappointed in Bryant over Gray. That said, we have a really exciting positional core to develop in the minors right now. If Baez stays at short, you give Bryant every chance to stick at 3rd. If Baez has to move to 3rd, then you have a ridiculously awesome OF to potentially hope on (Bryant/Almora/Soler). These aren't bad problems to have, considering our recent history with positional assets. Furthermore, with the elite guys often being signed down earlier these days, we often focus on how tough it is to get top pitching, but the same holds true for getting top hitting. If the FO holds to the idea that they aren't going to pay for past success, then getting our own impact bats is key. If they are right about Hanneman, and he's more Ellsbury than Szczur, then that's an exciting asset to have. If everyone develops, and the chances of that are slim, but if they do, that's awesome excess to move around. - I have wondered about the FO's long view of things. Epstein's repeatedly noted the financial side of things, and I wonder if this is more a long game to them, for lack of a better term right now. I wonder if this draft pushes us away from the Ellsbury and Choo's of the world this offseason. Although ... - With increasing focus on defense, folks like TT have noted how Bosio has increased the GB rates. Perhaps they are playing to Wrigley and playing to the fact that getting elite pitching is tough. - As for my top 10 right now, I'm going with what I said in a minor league thread if the Cubs picked Bryant, with 8 on very fluid. 1. Soler - Bat is just that much more polished right now. 2. Baez - Position value gets the bump for me. His power ceiling is close to Bryant's, and both have some questions. 3. Bryant - Power potential and perceived polish as a college bat get the nod over Almora. 4. Almora - I can see an argument for him at 2. 5. Alcantara - Can see Pierce Johnson here as well. 6. Johnson 7. Vogelbach 8. Zastryzny- Polished lefty with some ceiling. 9/10 - Some combination of Vizcaino/Candelario/Cabrera/Szczur as of now.

That seems like it's going to be *the* question for awhile now. We've got a league-average (slightly better even) offense in the majors, plenty of interesting young-ish MLB position players and a ton of top hitting prospects. But the pitching is very thin after the immediate major leaguers. Try to send multiple players out in trades(DeJesus/Feldman package?) to get best pitching prospect(s) we can? I still question if whether or not any of our chips, even bundled together, could really bring back high ceiling pitching prospects. Still, accumulating a bunch of solid guys is needed. Or we could take another gamble. He gets bashed a lot ... but maybe they decide to try and gamble on (just picking a name) a Jake Arrieta type. Dunno ... or maybe they decide they are going to focus on defense and grab a bunch of ground ball folks in the short term.

On Bryant First quote is very interesting. If this ABTY person is correct, then it sounds like what I've been saying. In a mediocre top end of the draft, what you end up having, in any sports draft, is a lot of guys bottled up closely afterwards. I can think of a few guys that are supposedly 6th-10th round guys that really aren't that far in talent from some of the guys going in the 3rd-4th. They could very well look at this draft as a way to build up depth in the system. Granted, one could argue that we had depth and needed ceiling, but perhaps they think we needed depth as well.