toonsterwu

Marco Hernandez. He's the guy that has a chance to be considered a top shelf prospect (that is, a potential top 50 type prospect down the line if there's positive development). Before people jump on me and point out that I've been bigger on Marco than most, ask yourself this - how big is the difference between Jurickson Profar's ceiling and Marco Hernandez's ceiling (again, only talking about ceiling, not anything to do with how developed they are). The difference in ceiling between Lindor and Hernandez is minimal as well, and while Hak-ju Lee's defense is superior to Marco's, his offensive ceiling isn't (again ... ceiling is the only thing I'm discussing here). Shortstops with some power potential, solid defensive ability, and bat speed to potentially hit for average aren't exactly everywhere. Yes, the approach is a concern, but he showed development in that regards at both stops. Considering age and level, that's enough to hope on the tools.

It's really a fabulous matchup if both sides wanted it. The Cardinals could offer Taveras as a near future replacement, plus Shelby Miller or Trevor Rosenthal, and then go with their 2nd tier guys to fill in the gaps. That said, still makes more sense for the Fish to hold onto him for one more year, if only as a drawing attraction (but also because it buys them time to assess how their young core of guys in A+/AA do in the next year). Wait, so the Cards trade two prospects and second tier guys, while we have to trade Shark (involving 3rd team), Rizzo, Baez and Vizcaino? I'm not sure whether people are underrating our own assets or overrating others. I'm just absolutely befuddled where you got the idea that I even suggested that. I joined this conversation on page 4, starting with The Olt suggestion was due to another post talking about it, but even then, that's two top prospects, and even then, I noted that the Cubs may be better off simply keeping such a package, if it was feasible. I have no idea where you have twice gotten the impression that I suggested a Shark/Baez/Vizcaino/Rizzo package. Edit: At most, I suggested three top prospects, but those that know my feelings on the Rangers pitching know that I think their pitching prospects are overhyped right now, including Buckel.

It's really a fabulous matchup if both sides wanted it. The Cardinals could offer Taveras as a near future replacement, plus Shelby Miller or Trevor Rosenthal, and then go with their 2nd tier guys to fill in the gaps. That said, still makes more sense for the Fish to hold onto him for one more year, if only as a drawing attraction (but also because it buys them time to assess how their young core of guys in A+/AA do in the next year). Wait, so the Cards trade two prospects and second tier guys, while we have to trade Shark (involving 3rd team), Rizzo, Baez and Vizcaino? I'm not sure whether people are underrating our own assets or overrating others. TIm, when the heck have I ever said to trade Shark/Rizzo/Baez/Vizcaino?

It's really a fabulous matchup if both sides wanted it. The Cardinals could offer Taveras as a near future replacement, plus Shelby Miller or Trevor Rosenthal, and then go with their 2nd tier guys to fill in the gaps. That said, still makes more sense for the Fish to hold onto him for one more year, if only as a drawing attraction (but also because it buys them time to assess how their young core of guys in A+/AA do in the next year).

The struggles of both Maybin and Miller makes that package look like highway robbery in retrospect, but that was considered an elite return at the time. Keep in mind that Willis was almost baggage in that trade. He had slipped from his high for the start of his career, and was coming off a bad season. Miller and Maybin were both top 10 prospects in 2007 for BA. Miller reached the bigs in 2008, and despite some struggles, most thought he would still be a quality starter in the majors, while Maybin was still considered an elite top 10 type prospect. When you factor in how teams tend to over-protect young arms, that was simply a big, big return. Both were still prospects. Everyone else in that list is pretty much filler like we included in the Garza trade. We don't have equivalent prospects right now, but we very well might next year. Adding Shark + Rizzo on top of two top end prospects is pretty outlandish. I don't think I've said otherwise. I simply said I'd be open to a package involving Rizzo (or Castro), but yes, I agree that a package of Rizzo/Shark (or whatever prospects you could swing for Shark since the Fish would seem like they wouldn't be interested)/Baez/Vizcaino for Stanton alone is probably a bit too much (I assume that was the package being referenced to). I also noted a couple pages back that the organization may be better off keeping whatever they could get for Shark (or Garza).

The struggles of both Maybin and Miller makes that package look like highway robbery in retrospect, but that was considered an elite return at the time. Keep in mind that Willis was almost baggage in that trade. He had slipped from his high for the start of his career, and was coming off a bad season. Miller and Maybin were both top 10 prospects in 2007 for BA. Miller reached the bigs in 2008, and despite some struggles, most thought he would still be a quality starter in the majors, while Maybin was still considered an elite top 10 type prospect. When you factor in how teams tend to over-protect young arms, that was simply a big, big return.

With close to 100 votes in, I feel like we can wrap this up for Torreyes at 17 ... and Hernandez/Amaya at 18/19. Hard to see someone getting enough votes to jump all the way past Hernandez/Amaya, so runoff makes sense.

Sure, but that seems to imply that the Marlners can't get a deal done on their own. As Zduriencik showed last year, he's not shy about trading top young talent, as some Gm's can be (of course, maybe he knew something on Pineda (despite his public claims), but that's a whole different story). A package of say, Walker/Franklin certainly should get them in the game for Stanton, and so might a package of Hultzen/Franklin. A lot really depends on what the Marlins are prioritizing in a Stanton return - do they value getting a high ceiling, top prospect arm enough to pass on a better overall prospect? Anyhow, on a wholly separate note, I'm not so sure that the Mariners would do a Hultzen/Franklin for Samardzija deal.

Sure, I agree with the general idea that, barring a ridiculous demand, that even giving up Castro for Stanton makes sense from a value perspective ... but organizationally, I find it unlikely that they are thinking about swapping out key pieces of the core AND top prospects. Rizzo's a more debatable case because of his position, but in general, it seems far more likely, at least to me, that for the FO to consider this, they are considering the concept of adding Stanton to a core of Rizzo/Castro. Could be way off, though.

In case it gets lost in my post, I really would want to ask why people think that the Mariners would help us get Stanton when they have been searching for offense this winter (and reportedly have contacted the Marlins about it). This is a team that supposedly pondered Hamilton. They've got the high end, upper level pitching talent to potentially make a straight up deal (not saying it's likely, just saying that their chances of making a straight up deal seem far higher than ours because of Walker/Hultzen).

I have my doubts on any of this Stanton talk this year. It seems awfully unlikely, to put together, at this late stage, the multiple team package needed that would convince the Marlins to make the move. I do agree with davell in that if they did try hard, though, I doubt they would move Rizzo/Castro in any deal. It seems far more likely that, if they are doing this, and this is still speculation at best (and supposedly other teams are trying as well), that the intent would be to add a key piece to the core of Rizzo/Castro. To say that we can't make a deal without Rizzo/Castro is ... debatable. The Marlins are building a nice core of guys that are going to be in that A+/AA range. Baez would be the top piece, and then after that, you would almost assuredly move either Samardzija or Garza for more pieces (if not both ... they did add rotation depth this winter). I can easily see this FO having no qualms to deal Baez in the next couple years, in all honesty, particularly if they believe they are selling at a high point. Say you get a hypothetical Olt package from the Rangers and another top prospect. That, plus Baez almost certainly gets us in the game, and after that, you hope that a level of quantity gets you over the top. The biggest issue in any deal would be the ability for the Cubs to get some high ceiling pitching, as there seems to be little chance the Marlins make this move unless they get a complete package of pitching and positional assets. Of course, there's two flip side points to be made. As great as Stanton is, I would question whether or not the Cubs would be better off, in such a hypothetical scenario, to keep, say, an Olt package and whatever pitching they can acquire. The secondary issue is that there seems to be teams that would be a better fit by themselves, with the Mariners coming to mind (they have been searching for offense all winter, and they do have enough quality at the top). Anyhow, I have high doubts that this (that Stanton gets moved) happens, at least, as it pertains to the Cubs. If a team swooped in like the Mariners, offering a big package of prospects by themselves, then perhaps. And I completely forgot that the Rangers could be in the mix, and considering their offseason, this may be the type of deal that would get them to budge on Profar.

More than anything, his lack of command killed him. There was some hope that Cruz could add to his frame and consistently be in that 92-94 range, and while he never hit that, he had enough velocity as a lefty. But his thorough lack of polish killed him. He was fascinating in 2010, and even in 2011, seeing him post decent strikeout numbers in limited time in Boise kept some hope up (including mine). Man, a lot of those Latin American arms from (roughly) Cruz's class really floundered after getting hopes up. There sure was some hope for Liria/Cruz/Paulino (real quick, since I'm too lazy to check right now, is Paulino still in the system). Only Peralta and Rosario really panned out, and Rosario was more of a sleeper arm in that bunch, IIRC. There were actually decent reports for Liria a year ago, but everything I heard about him this year suggested he had gone backwards.

I had a couple reports of Whitenack hitting 92 at Daytona at times, which is what I was going off of. That'd be roughly in line with what he was peaking at in 2011.

17. Marco Hernandez - There simply aren't that many shortstops in the minors with his complete set of tools. There's work to be done, particularly as it relates to discipline and approach, but he showed improvement at both stops as time went on. After that, a bit hazy. I'm leaning 18. Gioskar Amaya - I wonder if his power ceiling is undersold a bit. I really wonder if his offensive production might end up being suitable for a corner OF role (barely). Now, he's better off being able to handle 2nd. 19. Alberto Cabrera - I'm very, very tempted to go Robert Whitenack here. Whitenack's velocity was there, and for the first year off TJ, that's a big plus. At the end of the day, Cabrera has late inning potential and is close to ready. May revisit this as we get closer.

There's a bevy of interesting things. A lot of things have been mentioned, so some different things. In general, I believe that a successful 2013 season for the Cubs would entail the development (could be through an acquisition or someone in the pipeline) of a core offensive piece (doesn't have to be a star, a solid starter would do) that is ready to join Castro/Rizzo by year's end, and a young starting arm that is ready to slot in with Edwin Jackson and Jeff Samardzija to start 2014. 1. Arismendy Alcantara in AA - Can he continue to hit as well as he did last year? Can his defense tidy up? If so, he's got a shot to be a part of our future at 2nd base, but perhaps he can become a key trade chip. If his defense tidies up at short and he shows that last year's offensive performance wasn't a fluke, that becomes a fascinating asset, a young, close to ready shortstop with offensive ability. 2. Gioskar Amaya's defense at 2nd - Early reports were positive enough on his defensive ability there. If he can find a home there, that would be great for him. There's a chance he's more a Mark DeRosa type. 3. Marco Hernandez - Can he show the improved discipline and approach that he showed at Peoria and Boise as time went on? If so, there aren't many shortstop prospects in the minors with his sort of complete toolset. 4. Stephen Bruno at ... ? - I still think he could be our 2nd baseman of the future, but I'm fascinated with this catching experiment. 5. Raw arms that were at AZL last year - Obviously, the high ceiling guys hold the most intrigue, but I'm curious about AMG and Elias, amongst others. 6. Robert Whitenack - He could be our 2nd best upper level arm that has more than an end of the rotation ceiling. Can he bounce back? If so, we might see him late in the year. 7. Logan Watkins - I've never been huge on him, but all the talk about him this offseason has me curious if he can show more consistency, offensively and defensively. He looks like he could be a part of the near future for the Cubs (not necessarily as a starter, could be a utility guy or upper level depth). 8. Young OF's below the radar - Trey Martin, Shawon Dunston Jr. both would hold more intrigue in another system. Reggie Golden hasn't gotten started. Do any of them step forward? 9. Ben Wells - What's the deal?

I rather like the Hanrahan trade for both sides. The Red Sox don't give up any core pieces and continue building a strong pen to lessen the burden on the rotation. Now, this does make two off-seasons where Ben Cherington has spent sizable effort at building the pen, but with Bailey's health last year and Melancon's collapse, they had to do it again (boy, bet he wishes he could take back those two trades). They also add a nice utility player in Brock Holt, someone that can replace Mike Aviles role if called upon. The Pirates get a nice arm in Melancon. Always liked him, dating back to his Yankees days, as a potential late inning pen arm. Not sure what happened last year, but 2 years ago, he looked like a possible solid setup-closer type. I know there were reports that he had issues with Valentine. I think he can rebound, and if he does, that in of itself could balances things out quite a bit. Pimentel ... don't really buy him as a starter (reminds me a bit of Alberto Cabrera), but could see him as a late inning pen arm. Never been big on Jerry Sands, but he could compete for PT. DeJesus swapped for Holt is about an even swap - Holt's a bit better offensively, DeJesus is a bit better defensively, and neither really looks to be a starter. It's possible all four guys could flop, and even then, the money they saved on Hanrahan would make this trade relatively worthwhile on it's own.

I was originally leaning Szczur here, but Underwood's ceiling is that good. Rob, I don't think it has anything to do with the lack of quality pitching prospects, but more a ceiling nod, which happens with new guys quite a bit. I really could go either way with it.

Well, Alcantara is in my top 10, so he's option 1. It's a bit tougher for the next two. I still think I'm leaning Marco Hernandez/Gioskar Amaya (in that order). Alberto Cabrera is close in that mix. and Logan Watkins is probably 5th for me. Reasons (skipping Alcantara since I've done that one enough): Hernandez - There aren't many shortstop with his complete set of tools. He's average to good in most areas, with excellent bat speed. That potential at shortstop is enough for me to overlook, this low in the list, his wart - his approach/discipline. To be fair to Marco, his approach and discipline did improve at both Peoria and Boise as he got more time. Amaya - I sort of wonder if his power ceiling is ... under-sold? Here's a guy who makes excellent contact, shows a solid approach, has some pop, and is capable at 2nd. The fact that it's 2nd pushes him down my list, but that's a very nice skillset to look forward to if he develops at 2nd base. Cabrera - I've always liked him the last few years, and I believe he has excellent closer potential. There's areas to work on. I'm not sure I buy him as a starter, but his readiness in the pen gives a slight bump over starting arms with health question marks (Wells/Whitenack/Loux). Watkins - The 5th spot is tough. Watkins all-around game, plus being in AAA and close to ready, gets a nod. To be honest, if we judged him solely on his summer months the last 2 years, he should be much, much higher on the list. The inconsistency makes me wonder if he's a starter, which in turn, pushes him down a bit for me, but I'll acknowledge that one could make a case for him much higher, as a potential, close to ready starting caliber 2nd baseman who has some speed and can get on base.

I think with McNutt, some people just don't rank pen arms as high as starting arms, and at this stage, McNutt looks like a pen arm (I certainly fall in the camp of docking pen guys vs. starters). I never loved McNutt when he tore up the rankings a couple years back (always had Archer ahead of him). Thought injuries made McNutt a bit under-the-radar last year. The reality is, he's never had that third pitch that was quality enough and never had enough consistency on the breaking ball as a starter to really dominate off the fastball/breaking ball combination. He could still turn it around, but at this stage, he really feels like a pen arm, and that's why he's a fair bits down for me. I can see a case for top 20 ... then again, I'm not sure I would take McNutt over Alberto Cabrera, who I think is a pen arm, and Cabrera is borderline top 20 for me.

I really should add that I think Loux should be ahead of Struck. His changeup is probably better than any secondary that Struck has. That said, I do wonder about Struck in the pen. The fact that he's a close to ready arm with good velocity on the fastball and 3 pitches will keep him a starter, but ... I really wonder about him in the pen. I wonder if he could kick it up to the mid-90's consistently and sharpen up the breaking ball. I don't mind adding Golden. One other note on Loux - he doesn't really compare all that well to Whitenack or Wells, who have better velocity and arguably, movement, on their fastballs. All three have some levels of arm concern. I still wonder if Wells is being under-valued by ... everyone ... this winter. It's understandable, with arm concerns and that odd, he'll have surgery ... no he won't ... situation. Assuming he's healthy, he's a big young horse who was showing quite well in Low A earlier in the year.

Eh, he just likes Golden. There's tools, but Shawon Dunston Jr. also has tools. To be honest, I'm mildly surprised (well, with a lot of things) but with the Loux votes here. I like Loux, am happy we got a guy with a better chance to be a starter than Brigham (IMO). But ... baseballamerica had this to say in their trade central "Loux reached Double-A in 2012 and made all his starts without incident, showing a simple, repeatable delivery and an idea of how to pitch. He works downhill, sits 90-92 mph and commands his fastball to both sides of the plate, though neither his velocity nor his secondary pitches separate him from the pack. His average slider and curveball blend together, but most scouts like his changeup best and think he knows how and when to use it. He profiles as an innings-eating No. 5 type on a good team." You know who that sounds like? Nick Struck. There's some slight differences here and there - Loux is taller and gets a few more groundballs, Struck has probably a tick better velocity, and well, he's 6 months younger. He's also had some success in AAA. The profile of their stuff is fairly similar, and no one has beat down the door to get Struck even on the list to discuss (to be honest, been thinking he should probably become a voting consideration soon because he is a close to ready arm in the upper levels with a solid performance track record).

Same top 3 as before, so I won't bother with my retyping my reasonings. My top 4 remains the same (Alcantara, Underwood, Szczur, Hernandez). I'm not too certain who my 5th is (Candelario was after those 4 for me). For now, since I've been putting 5, I'll go with Amaya, but Watkins/Torreyes/Cabrera/Wells/Whitenack and a few others are all in the mix for me.

I'm in the boat that thinks this is a good gamble. It's not that I have any sort of particular faith in Liriano these days, but what's the worst case here? His velocity was fine last year, so worst case (in terms of ineffectiveness, and not injury) seems to be that he gets pushed to the pen, where he'd have a shot to be a late inning arm. Furthermore, maybe he can pump it up another tick or two out of the pen. They are obviously hoping for more, but that'd be a passable pen contract. The best thing is, it's 2 years. I just don't see a big deal with this. We can debate the merits of this deal in regards to what the Cubs did, but all in all, I don't see an issue with the Pirates gamble here.

I really don't have a problem with that. I have a tough time slotting him into my top 15 as well. He's in that 14-18 range for me. The three more surprising things to me about their list was Paniagua not making the list, Marco Hernandez off the list, and Paul Blackburn on it. Not too big on Junior Lake at 10 either. Reese responded in the comments to my query, noting that they wanted to know more about Paniagua, that he had Marco in his top 15, and Blackburn was 17th for him.

In terms of ranking Whitenack, I'm thinking of pushing him more towards the top 20. The velocity reports were positive on his return. It'll be his 2nd year off TJ, and he does have a mid-rotation ceiling. Btw, mid-rotation, "3" ceiling, is probably fair. If the velocity is there, he has a plus sinker, but the secondary stuff is more average, although the breaking ball shows a bit better than that on occasion. I think it's hard to rank him higher because of the fact that he still has to perform at the level he was doing in 2011 to really justify it. If he does, then sure, he would deserve to be higher, as a ready arm with mid-rotation potential.