toonsterwu

I assume pedigree+speed was in response to Spangenberg? If so, that's pretty much what I figured. I'm still not a Spangenberg fan, though. I'm still not sold that his offensive ability ends up being better than Szczur.

Fair enough jcf. Look, I think he should be higher. Not as high as we have him on the community list, but roughly that 16-20 range, IMO. I'm just saying I'm not aghast at it. This whole discussion went a bit sideaways, and is a bit predicated on my assumption that the .275/20 is a peak. If not ... this is completely off-point (although if not ... then Vitters should be resoundingly higher). That said, I'll give a response that I'm sure could be countered easily a) How often does a player actually hit peak expectations? AND b) How much of Vitters value is predicated upon the presumption of readiness as a result of the level he's at? There are enough cases that can be shown of guys who can stroke in the upper levels and fail to move forward. If the answer to B is actually that he still has a lot more work to do (let's pretend, for hypothetical's sake, that they heard something that suggested that, as I have no clue and don't pay attention to twitter to see if they've answered that before), then does the fact that his peak expectations are relatively pedestrian (again, based off the presumption that the .275/20 with subpar defense at 3rd was a peak) give them a rationale, as a result of the first question, to drop him a bit? Anyhow, I simply wasn't aghast at it. Blackburn that high is more stunning to me than Vitters. If you flipped Vitters and Blackburn's spots, I would like that list better than where Blackburn is right now.

Well, the way that snippet read to me was that the .275/20 HR projection was a bit on the high end. If that is the peak (and again, I may be reading too much into that snippet), then you are looking at a peak of a guy who, barring a lot of other things swinging his way, is roughly what, a 1.5-2.5 WAR guy (just eyeballing comparisons over the last few years right now) when you factor in his likely below average defense. If that's on the high end of expectations for what BA is hearing, then I can understand why they docked him a bit. I think he should be a tick higher (had him in the 16-20 range myself), but if their high end expectation is a fringe 3rd base starter who might have to move to first, then ... I'm not aghast at 25. As a side note, in the past, Callis had very good sources within the Cubs organization. I believe he was the first one to note how high the Cubs were on Logan Watkins. Does anyone know if he still has that sort of insight? * Fully realize that eyeballing comps doesn't really work that well, since .275/20 HR and below average defense is a fairly broad outline. Since I have a few moments, the guys I'm looking at are (from 07) Blake, Kouzmanoff, Wigginton,Mora, and Beltre, (from 08) Blake, (from 2011) Chipper (but really, that walk rate would be far too high to expect for Vitters), Encarnacion, and from 2012, ARod (BB rate would seem higher than expected for Vitters) and Chris Johnson.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but for the same reason Paul Blackburn got ranked high, I think that's the same reason that Spangenberg will be ahead of Torreyes for many lists - the simple fact that he's perceived to have better pedigree (and maybe slightly better potential ... still seems to be some occasional whisper of him developing power). You really should add in that, from what I gather, Torreyes is probably the better defender at 2nd. Actually, this might be a fun topic to throw out on Sickels, Torreyes vs. Spangenberg (to get non-Cubs fans viewpoints), but I'm just not enthused to go there and throw it up.

Jensen, Martin, Struck. I really do like Jensen more than the rest, but I think you could make a decent case for several guys. I mean, Penalver might be the best defensive shortstop in the system.

Yeah, there's no real way to justify that ranking. I'm thinking Callis is paying way too much attention to that cup of coffee. I'm much more comfortable with trusting NSBB's top 30 list than I am BA at this point. Take a step back for a moment. I think Vitters should be a few notches higher, inside the top 20 ... but ... The comments seem to suggest that .275/20 HR is perhaps on the high end of projections for him (may be reading too much into a snippet, but it sounds that way). If that's the high end ... how much value is that? A corner IF (and let's face it, as much as I've defended his glovework at 3rd as passable if the bat played, he really shouldn't be there in an ideal situation) without high average ability and without plus power is ... not that useful, particularly if he has to go to first. If that's the high end, and he ends up being consistently less than that ... then ... 25 might be high. Again, I'm not saying I buy the projections, but if that's what they are hearing on the high end, I can understand the ranking. I think they were a bit harsh on some guys (Vitters/Torreyes come to mind) and a bit generous on some (SNTS/pedigree on Blackburn still has me scratching my head at that high a spot ... surprised on some of the back end guys ... actually fairly surprised that Hatley got a mention, along with Golden at 31, and of course, Loux/Loosen/Castillo are all guys where I could probably find other guys and make competitive arguments that they could be swapped out ... think they went high on pen arms) ... but I don't know if Vitters at 25 is something that really makes me aghast at their rankings. I think he should be higher, but ceiling only counts for so much at a certain point, and if the expectations they are hearing aren't that great ... well, I can understand it somewhat. Now, getting back to Vitters, the question is, do any of us expect him to be consistently more than a .275ish average and 20 HR's guy if all went well? If so, then there's a clear case for him to be higher. The power seems a tick higher than I am really expecting as a positive case right now. Average ... I could see him a tick higher perhaps.

I have never been a fan of Spangenberg (there was a debate on Spangenberg vs. Szczur last year on Sickels, and I was still stunned that people took Spangenberg over Szczur), and I was not a fan of the over-sell on Spagenberg by McLeod. I don't think they would've been hurt by acknowledging that it was a signability pick. I'd probably take Torreyes over Spagenberg myself, although I'm not certain either guy is a starter. But Raisin's probably on point here with why Spangenberg is ahead - pedigree and better size are factors, and factor in with what craig notes - Torreyes down year simply makes it hard to push for him. That said, I wouldn't be shocked if Torreyes ends up being more useful than Spangenberg. It's actually nothing against his ability - guys like that can find a role. Just think he's been over-hyped and over-sold (although I thought the entire Padres sytem was over-hyped last year ... this year, I tend to think the ratings are a bit better ... ).

I think it's a bit over-kill, as I'd still have him top 25, but think about how people rank, particularly the folks at BA. Ceiling is a factor. Projection is a factor. Tools are a factor. Performance is a factor. You put all those things together, particularly the fact that he struggled this year, plus the fact that he is at 2nd, and it's not like there's a dominant case for him to be THAT high based off this past season. (again, still think he should be in the top 30) For all the talk about BABIP, there were reports of bad swings doing his cold streak. Now, as craig noted, he heard that Torreyes possibly had an injury (although I would assume that BA would've heard about the injury aspect ... but you never know).

I don't know, he has a higher ceiling than all of the position players in front of him that aren't in the top 10 (except maybe Lake if he can stick at SS) and he's had more success while age appropriate/young at every level in minors than everyone in front of him (except maybe Villanueva). Wait ... what? I'm not so sure that Vitters ceiling is necessarily higher than Marco Hernandez or Gioskar Amaya overall. Even if we are just focusing on offensive ceiling ... I'm not sure his ceiling is higher. Again, the keyword is ceiling - by no means am I suggesting that Marco or Gioskar are as developed as Josh, but at a certain point, the expectations for power development have to materialize somewhat to continue giving him the power expectations of before. I mean, on ceiling alone, think about the offensive expectations/hope for Gioskar right now - they aren't that much off from positive expectations for Vitters. Lake's ceiling is far higher than Vitters overall. On just ceiling, one can still make an argument, IMO, that Lake's ceiling is one of the highest in the system. Still, like Vitters, at a certain point, ceiling doesn't mean squat.

You know, in general, I'm not that bothered with Loosen on the back end of a top 30 list. Wasn't the first thing to cross my mind, that's for sure, but solid 3-pitch mix. My issue, if anything, is why Loosen ahead of Struck by what seems like a decent amount? I have a hard time buying Loosen as having a significantly higher ceiling (fastball is probably better overall, secondary maybe a borderline tick better) than Struck. I just don't see why Loosen ahead of Struck. I'm actually more surprised that Golden got a mention at 31st.

Vote totals are really falling. I do recall that it was 15-15 Ha and McNutt at some point. A part of me wonders if we shouldn't just call it a day on this (and go with Ha/McNutt/Jensen, the top three current vote-getters), although I guess Bruno is within striking distance of taking down Jensen. Anyhow, I feel like, at this late stage, with fewer vote and spring training really right around the corner, that we could skip the run-offs if someone is a vote ahead.

Well ... and again, the Braves almost had to make this gamble, but if Justin Upton doesn't revert to something closer to his 2011/2009 form, and is instead closer to his 2012/2010 form, then the swap out from Upton to Prado won't be that significant. Again ... a move the Braves had to make, but my guess is that is what some Braves fans probably wonder about. That said, I don't really read PSD, so don't know the type of people there.

As much as I've wanted to move Soriano in the past, I really hope we can get more than Chisenhall if we are going to eat money. That said, the Indians system is fairly thin, and their top guys aren't going anywhere. Part of it is that I've never been huge on Chisenhall. In some respects, I view him similarly to Josh Vitters, a sweet swing that people expect power from, bat speed, and issues defensively at 3rd (although Chisenhall is better than Vitters and could probably stick there). Still ... approach is spotty, and I'm just not sure I buy that power materializing. With only 2/36 left on Soriano's deal, don't know, I really would hope for a tick better. It's not a knock on Chisenhall as much as it is a question of how much value/additional value he brings. It's a gamble, and I guess I wouldn't be annoyed, and would rather understand it, if they got Chisenhall, but I'd really hope for more, or paying less than what was rumored out there on what we would pay.

Craig, that was my roundabout way of saying that I'd be fairly confident of his defensive abilities elsewhere ... provided he had the time to learn the position. Now catcher is a different beast, so that one, I wouldn't dare go out on a limb to make a proclamation for. As a side note, there was still some chirping of Bruno getting a look at short when the draft rolled around last year. I'm not certain how serious that chirping was, but once he was drafted by us, the chances of him getting a look at short essentially disappeared. In short, I buy him, so obviously, if you asked my personal belief, I'd sell you on the idea that he was told to swing away at UVA and should be able to adjust to become a more disciplined hitter professionally. The profile, though, is just tough for me to rank too highly without upper level data. Now, back end top 30, there's obviously a case for it.

Towers is shifting his attention to stockpiling arms that he can flip for a young, impact bat to play RF. You know ... the thought did cross my mind whether or not they are building up a stockpile to make a run at someone ... say ... Giancarlo Stanton. That would be an interesting turn of events for their offseason, and they have enough pieces to make it interesting. I doubt it, but the thought did cross my mind. You put together a Skaggs and another arm, plus a Davidson, Parra, and a few other pieces, and it's an interesting package.

You know, I'm not that bothered by this trade. A bit thin, but not that bothered by it. Now, don't get me wrong. If the argument is that they mishandled three guys (Upton/Drew/Bauer), and had some questionable trades (including Chris Young becoming Heath Bell and Cliff Pennington, IIRC), then of course. Whose fault is that? Well, it goes all the way to the top. Irrespective of whether or not these three guys had issues, they blew the value on guys when Kendrick made those comments. It looks like, on paper, their offseason focus was addressing the shortstop question. Subsequently, they seemed to prioritize replacing their lost pitching depth (from Bauer) over getting a third baseman (at least, that's the way it seems with how the Olt trade talks didn't seem to be enough). Instead of getting the ceiling of a Walker or a Teheran, they end up downgrading a bit to Delgado and addressing third base. Drury/Spruill are decent enough gambles, and they get a nice prospect in Ahmed. It's not a bad package, IMO. It's thin, but it's not bad, particularly considering Justin Upton rejected one trade already (that said, I thought that Mariners package was thin as well). It looks like this offseason for them was a huge gamble on Gregorius. If Towers (and others) are right, and Gregorius' offense kicks up a notch, then it might work out for them. I'm not that confident in that. ____ On paper, this seems to be taking the pitching/defense plan a bit far. ____ Trypt - I really doubt they move Skaggs. Maybin Corbin, but they've got time with Skaggs. ____ A slim positive in all this? This might, slightly, increase the chances of us getting Peralta back, which would make me happy. ____ The Braves side is obvious - a gamble on upside. I wouldn't be so quick to lock them in as a juggernaut, but this is a gamble they need to make, since they keep Teheran and the reports on Teheran are glowing. That said, their pitching is really, really thin now. Sean Gilmartin's importance just skyrocketed for them, as they might need him this year. They have a huge hole at third base, and they really need the Upton boys to deliver. Again ... a move they had to make, but much as it's easier to bash Towers, teams tend not to move guys unless they legitimately have an issue somewhere with them, and we shouldn't just assume that Justin will turn it back around and be the force of a year ago.

I'm not real sure where this conversation is, but while I'm not high on Gregorius, I think Towers is legitimately high on him, and thus, Kyle probably has a point. If they like Gregorius enough, then the value of Baez in a trade might not be as high, particularly if they have any concerns about his attitude. Factor in the Cubs lack of depth in the upper levels, and if the Cubs called them about Upton, or if they reached out to the Cubs, it's easy to understand why they worked their way to Castro. While I'm not huge on Gregorius, I can actually sort of understand the Diamondbacks deciding that they are okay with him and don't have to have Simmons, particularly if they are in the camp that buys Gregorius developing offensively in the next few years. The gap between Simmons ceiling and Gregorius' potential ceiling, if you buy that his offensive development is really only at the start, isn't that much, if anything at all, and if they are okay with Gregorius simply being a glove man this year, then passing on Simmons is somewhat understandable. If they buy that Teheran is fine now, as a lot of the reports suggest, then they could potentially get a TOR pitcher in a deal. If Teheran is back to form, he's a better arm than Taijuan Walker. The Braves system is weak, but if Teheran is back closer to the form of a couple years ago, and they could get another quality arm, plus maybe a shortstop gamble like Peraza or Ahmed if Gregorius doesn't pan out, and maybe another piece (seems Evan Gattis is the rumor, although I would rather try to target a Christian Bethancourt type to handle the staff) ... there's a case that a Braves package could be comparable to what the Mariners offered, which is what the Diamondbacks are reportedly seeking. A lot of if's, though, and it starts with Teheran (this is assuming that Teheran is in the discussion, but it's almost impossible to envision a deal without him ... ).

I imagine the only way the Cubs get involved in Bourn is if they decided to get crazy and go after another guy, like Lohse, to lessen the impact of losing the draft flexibility. I could be wrong, but with enough OF's now, it seems a bit unlikely they'd fork over that 2nd, and more importantly, the draft budget space. _____ As for this signing, this caps another fairly solid offseason for them. There was really only one minor move that was made that I question, but even that move, I can sort of I understand. A lot of flexible pieces, a lot of pieces, if things go south, that could probably be moved at the deadline. It's easier to buy this team ... hanging around. The lineup is potentially a bit deeper, and any decline in Soriano's production is offset with either the additions or the development of Rizzo/Castro. Bullpen is, on paper, a bit stronger, and the rotation depth and quality is significantly improved. Still enough minefields that I think we're looking at a low-mid 70's win season, although optimistically, it's easier to buy a potential .500 season.

Couple quick comments on Bruno - I absolutely love him. I was in the camp that wondered if he might've been a better shortstop than Chris Taylor (UVA's shortstop, same year as Bruno, went 2 rounds higher to the Mariners). It's easy to forget, but entering their sophomore year, Bruno was viewed as the Wahoos heir apparent at shortstop (to Tyler Cannon), with Chris Taylor slated for the OF. Bruno arguably had the higher pedigree, was arguably viewed as an equal athlete, and had the arm. Bruno got hurt early, Wahoos had a hole there, and Taylor was moved in. Taylor had an excellent sophomore year, became the "Hero of Irvine", and kept the job the next year (despite erratic shortstop play early in the year). Now, Taylor is viewed as a very solid defensive shortstop prospect (that has some ironing out to do). This isn't to say that Bruno would definitely have been solid at short, but I was in the camp that wondered. Athletically, he can handle most positions (I've always joked that UVA would be a great farm system for the Cubs considering the type of players they try to target ... really not many, big sluggish types), and he's a smart enough kid that I don't worry about him picking things up. That said, offensive question marks pretty much leave him as an up-the-middle option, barring a team that has a significant amount of power elsewhere. As for power and approach, there's two schools of thoughts on Bruno. First, I think the bat speed is good enough for him to hit for a high average. His lack of walks is a bit questionable, as he doesn't project as a middle of the order bat. Is it a worrisome flaw? There are those that believed that Bruno can be a patient kid, but he was the best hitter on the UVA team and was largely told to swing away, and thus, I think when he got to pro ball, there was some adjustment to be made. You could probably live with the strikeout rate if it stayed flat, but I actually wonder, as he adjusts, if the K rate slides down a bit. Not that it means THAT much, as he was tearing up Boise, but his walk rate did increase by August. His junior year at UVA, he only walked 14 times in 238 AB's ... but he did walk 12 times in 98 AB's in 2010. It does feel like I'm trying to sell one view of him, which I apologize for, but as I am high on him, I do believe that he can be more patient. I can't for certain, but I do believe in the kid's ability to be a disciplined hitter at the plate (and as a fairly high pick, my guess is that Theo/Jed/McLeod probably believe in that as well). The power is a bigger question mark. There's bat speed and some loft in his swing, but physically, he's just not going to be a big power guy. But ... does he have enough power? The SLG numbers at Boise and his junior year at UVA don't mean that much. Off the top, and since I followed him, I have actually never really gone and looked for a scouting report on Bruno, I think (if he develops) he can probably be a 10-12 HR hitter, maybe a tick more on a good year, a tick less on a down year. What I do wonder, though, is if the combination of bat speed and loft can help him generate a healthy amount of doubles. I was somewhat joking about the Pedoria comparison in-season, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had Mike Fontenot/Todd Walker-ish type pop in him, with potentially better contact ability. I buy him, I buy him a heck of a lot, and that profile, at 2nd, would be a very solid player. Probably not a star, but a solid player. At catcher? If he could do that for a couple years, that would be a heck of a player. Still, for the above reasons, I have a tough time voting him that high. Maybe I'll revisit at 30 if he's still available, as I don't really love anyone there.

Ha - Tools (average power potential offensively, strong arm, solid range to perhaps fit in CF), 2nd half performance, improvement in key areas justifies a spot this late, IMO. He's awful young for the level. Yes, I think his ceiling is probably that of a fourth starter, but I think it should be noted that the raw tools suggests a guy who could potentially be more if he improves on his approach. Jensen - I've been voting Jensen for awhile, but not ... gung-ho about it. That said, he has the pitches to have a mid-rotation ceiling and is coming off a solid year. Could be a late inning pen arm if moved in that direction. The 30th spot is a bit tougher. I absolutely love Bruno, but if I'm going to knock Torreyes in my rankings, I have to show a similar level of apprehension towards a similar guy and acknowledge that, as a college bat, he really needs to do it at a higher level, offensively, with his limited plus tools. Add in the defensive uncertainty as of now, and it's hard. I love Arias' potential. If you rank the arm potential in the system, you could make a case for him top 5. If I knew Jose Rosario's health situation, he'd probably be in my top 30. I really like Martin, but I still wonder if there's going to be some swing work done with him and how that impacts things. I'm really thinking of McNutt/Scott/Struck here. Tempted with Scott, but I just feel like I want to get a better idea of what his ceiling is before pushing him ahead of McNutt/Struck. I'm going Struck for now. His ceiling is that of an end of the rotation arm as a starter, but he does have 3 pitches, and he attacks. Command has to tighten a bit. I still wonder about him in the pen, though. I can't vote for Marra (too much unknown right now), Golden (too much unknown), Contreras, Carreno (hard to buy him over Struck ... both are more end of the rotation types, Struck has a bit better velocity and is higher up), Dunston Jr., McNeill.

Just a really superb offseason for the Nats. Cole had an up and down season, but he's still a quality young arm, and to get that quality for one year of Morse? Just a good deal. I don't know much about Treinen, but Cole himself made this a solid deal for them. I get the deal for the A's. Up and down year for Cole. They get a decent player in Jaso, under control for a couple more seasons. He isn't great defensively, he probably doesn't repeat the power he showed last year, but some pop and good approach, plus catching depth ... I understand it. Don't love this deal for them, but understand it. I like Morse, but I agree with all the M's fans that think that this was a bad deal for them, particularly considering their chances of competing in the next year seem slim. Just a dang good offseason for the Nats. Upper level depth is a question mark if injuries happen ... but that's true for a lot of organizations. They get some minor league depth back to help restock the system (and gives them some potential chips if they need to make a midseason deal). They essentially swapped Morse and Meyer for Span and Cole this offseason ... which is a solid swap, IMO.

That's interesting scouting, toonster. How do you reconcile those scouting evaluations with the statistics? If his fastball is as fast and his breaking ball has far better action and break, why is his K-rate poor while Zych's is excellent? And why is his HR rate very high while Zych's is very low? Seems to me that if McNutt has a better breaking ball, his K-rate should be more than 2/3 of Zych's. And he shouldn't be giving up 12HR to Zych's 1. Maybe McNutt's stuff is just as good or better, and it's just that Zych has better control? Actually, I don't find it that hard to reconcile. I think McNutt's breaking ball has better quality but he lacked the consistency on it. As it pertains to the K rate, a lot of McNutt's problems as a starter resulted in the fact that teams knew he would overthrow the fastball (again, I only said that the fastball velocity wasn't an issue to me in comparing the two, I would agree that Zych's fastball probably has better action to it), flattening it out, allowing teams to sit and wait. Anyhow, when I was initially talking about fastball velocities, I was talking about McNutt's velocity out of the pen this past year, which the few reports I got, puts him at about the same range as Zych. Take a look at McNutt's K rate out of the pen last year. It was actually pretty solid. Short of it is, I believe, at this moment in time (well, at the end of this past minor league season), that McNutt's breaking ball has better potential than Zych's, but Zych is a bit more consistent with it. Don't get me wrong, this shouldn't be a comparison of McNutt vs. Zych as it pertains to this vote. Furthermore, I always felt that McNutt got over-hyped 2 years ago, when he made his burst up. I think I would probably have Zych a tiny bit ahead of McNutt, but it really should be, for my, Zych vs. Ha. A pen arm with an inconsistent breaking ball or a a young toolsy CF who has questionable offensive potential. Both large enough question marks, but I went with Ha ahead for now.

Craig, I have to question the idea that Zych would definitely have better fastball velocity than McNutt. The few reports I had of McNutt out of the pen last year had the velocities for the two at a fairly similar range. I also think that the quality of McNutt's breaking ball is a bit better than Zych's, with far better action and break. Zych does have a big advantage of being more groundball oriented, so there is that factor. The third pitch doesn't matter that much, but and at times in the last 2 years, McNutt has flashed a decent changeup. Health is another notch in Zych's favor, as health (the blisters, some back issues that I can't recall exactly right now), as much as anything else, was what knocked McNutt apart (though I always felt he got over-hyped 2 years ago when compared to Archer). I'm not exactly fighting for McNutt these days, but as a pen arm ... he definitely has closer potential.

Rondon and then I decided to go with Jensen/Ha. Still debating the last two spots, though. It was either Ha or Zych for my last vote here, and I just couldn't pull the trigger on Zych. I keep wondering, why should Zych be ahead of McNutt as a pen arm? And I can't come up with a great reason for it - both should be around the same range, and Ha's age/level/2nd half performance/tools should get some credit, even if I'm not sure I buy it as some sort of sign that a transformation has definitely occurred.

Considering there have been reports of the DBacks turning down Olt offers for Upton left and right, this seems fishy. Still, if it actually happens, and they are indeed sold on Olt, then that makes Matt Davidson available. Not the best 3B prospect, but he could probably be had for a whole heck of a lot less than what Olt would require First off, I really like Davidson a fair amount. That said, I'm not sure adding Olt would necessarily make Davidson available. It's possible, but Davidson, defensively, is ... similar to Vitters, a guy you could see potentially being passable at 3rd, but in the back of your mind, you think he's probably going to end up at another position (I've defended Vitters ability to be passable at 3rd, if the bat played, for awhile now, but I like Davidson's defensive potential at 3rd a tiny tick better). Davidson's power should play at first if he's moved that way. In some ways, at first, he would profile similarly to Paul Goldschmidt, so if they opted to go young, it's conceivable they could try to deal Goldschmidt to a team looking for some pop. Not saying Davidson will be moved or won't be traded, just that it isn't inevitable that he would be if they added Olt.