toonsterwu

I get that, to a certain extent, but is the fact that there's positional scarcity enough to compensate for the fact that there's a glaring issue with Villanueva? Again, just curious on thought processes, as I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I mean, both Alcantara and Villanueva have big question marks as it relates to their approach. Both guys may have a touch higher ceiling than Szczur (that's debatable, but I'll grant that for this discussion), but it's hard for me to overlook positional value and the fact that he doesn't have a glaring problem as of now.

So ... a plus glove CF, with speed, solid discipline, some pop, and has had some bad luck in the early goings in AA, someone who had a solid run in A+ and has a hit tool/contact ability that is viewed as above average to plus, isn't a top 10 prospect in this system? I'm very curious who is in your top 10 then.

Out of curiosity, why? davell notes the idea of Villanueva moving to 2nd (I doubt it since he's gotten bigger and it's hard to imagine him becoming a top notch defensive 2nd base option to justify the move), but the thought is probably partly due to the idea that Villanueva might not have the ideal power potential at 3rd (at least, I'm assuming that's what davell is thinking ... I might be completely off base. Maybe it's love for Vitters, or maybe it's Baez shifting to 3rd). So ... I guess, and I'm asking more from a discussion perspective, what exactly is it about Villanueva that gets him the nod ahead of Szczur? A potential average power, plus glove 3rd baseman, one who has some discipline concerns right now, or a possible plus glove CF with some pop. * I'm avoiding Alcantara in this discussion because I can buy the argument to take a shortstop over Szczur, and if you assume that Alcantara will get more consistent defensively and if you buy that his discipline/approach won't harm him in the upper levels, then okay. (and yes, I'm still sticking with what I said on the day of the trade - I'll likely keep Alcantara over Villanueva on my list).

I don't know if I buy, just yet, that Szczur isn't going to be as disciplined as DeJesus. Career wise, DeJesus has a 13.6% K rate and an 8.5% walk rate. I was really worried about Szczur's discipline last year, but he's made strides, and as of now, I tend to think that the start to AA was more pressure than a mark on his ability to play at a higher level. I'm looking at this year's CF list on fangraphs and trying to think of a comp. I honestly wouldn't be surprised, as of now, if Szczur could put up a Bourn type season. I'm thinking, as of now, that, relative to what the player's have done this year, maybe De Aza with better defense would be a decent comp (there's also Span and Victorino as guys who are putting up lines that I could see Szczur do, but those require him to really cut down on his K's a tick more). Anyhow, there's still parts of the season to go, so we'll get a better idea on Szczur at year's end. Maybe he collapses, and this discussion is for naught.

Logan, I think it's going to be next to impossible for them to bring him back if they shut him down. He'd have to work to get his arm back up to par. I just don't think it happens. Now, the question that some in the DC area have asked is basically, should they have slow-played Strasburg? Delayed his start to the year, or gave him a few breaks here and there. The one thing I wonder is ... if Storen isn't at full blast, might they consider shifting Strasburg to the pen to be their closer. If they make the move early enough, and give a little more leeway on the innings limit (say, bumping it up to 170ish), then it's possible. That said, to the questions above - yes, Strasburg being gone hurts their chances, but they are trying to build a long-term championship club on his back, Bryce Harper's back, and the other fine young pieces in the bigs. They still have a good chance this year if Strasburg is out of the rotation. All in all ... if the Cubs were in that situation anytime soon, considering Strasburg's medical history and work last year, I would absolutely hope that the Cubs shut him down.

I don't disagree with any of that. I think being Epstein's Special Asst. could probably get him some opportunities, particularly if Epstein gives a positive review. I just don't know if I buy Wilken being in the organization that much longer. But that's me, and that's a hunch. Anyhow, my initial point is that I'm taking a wait and see on how the scouting department under McLeod/Madison because I haven't been too intrigued with their work in their previous stops (granted, limited sample for Madison, and it looks intriguing enough, but chances are high that you aren't going to have too many years with 5 top 70 picks). My secondary point was that I think that while Wilken's regime as Scouting Director looks mediocre in retrospect (although the two years he could spend more, 2010 and 2011, are showing promise right now), I'm still a bit surprised at how much bashing his tenure has gotten. It hasn't been great, but I just don't think it's been ... terrible. It seems like a decent run for a SD.

So, working through my list right now, I'm left with a curiosity question, primarily for El Duderino and davell since they posted lists above this - why do you have Matt Szczur where you have him (really, more davell than El Duderino)? After a rough start to double A life, the walks are climbing and the K's are coming down. I guess a "snapshot" now would leave some questions to his approach, so we certainly have to see how he finishes, but he's hitting for some power, he's walking enough (and hopefully, the overall percentage for AA is higher at season's end), and he's still playing a good CF. Much as I am intrigued with Alcantara and Villanueva ... here's a guy in AA (granted, just got there), close to ready to the bigs, and looks ... looks (which can be deceiving) like a possible decent starter in the bigs with some potential to be better (combination of defense, some pop, solid approach gives him a decent shot, on paper, to be a decent starting CF in the bigs). And ... Szczur doesn't have the glaring issue that Alcantara and Villanueva have. I mean, low BABIP has been utilized to defend players, so even though I think none of us are reading too much into his AA numbers yet (SSS), it's worth noting that, with his speed, that .271 BABIP seems to suggest some bad luck. As a general thought, I think Szczur got over-hyped by BA when he came into the bigs, but I feel like his season has somewhat gone under-the-radar this year. He looks ... good. I mean, I honestly wouldn't be stunned if the Cubs gave him a look next spring (more to get a taste of ST, but a look is a look), and it honestly wouldn't surprise me, as of now, if he was up by summer, perhaps akin to BJax/Vitters call-ups (but I'm hoping earlier).

I've been awfully busy this summer, so maybe he has upped it to mid-90's. I think there were some reports from his Arizona/XST/Boise days that might have suggested mid-90s, as I remember thinking that a couple years ago, but for the past couple years, the only numbers I've seen/gotten have suggested, at best, he tops out 92/93 (roughly). I'm sure everyone that can hit 92/93 can rear back and perhaps occasionally bomb in at a bit higher, but haven't heard much to suggest mid-90's on a consistent basis. I'd take Jensen over him. I might take Jensen over a few of your guys on the back end of the top 30, but I really haven't pondered a top 30 in awhile. I've lost some intrigue on Jensen, but I think he'd still crack my top 30.

As of right now, he seems more like a utility player. _____ davell - Batista doesn't throw mid-90's, unless touching 93 counts. He's been as low as 88 before, at least, that I know of. I'll throw out a top 10 or more later, if possible, but I would note that I think the chances of Vitters not being rookie eligible seem slim, unless I haven't counted the numbers. Brett is the more likely of the two to not be rookie eligible, and with his bad start, we sort of have to wait and see.

I know he got an extension/promotion, but it still wouldn't surprise me if he's out the door eventually. IIRC, Wilken was semi-promoted in Tampa as well when a new regime came in (Friedman), and he opted to leave eventually because he wanted to find a place that was a better fit. And Friedman's regime is run probably (obviously not certain) in a similar way to Epstein/Hoyer. Wouldn't surprise me if he pursued an aGM gig. IIRC, rumors have been around for awhile that he'd like to move up eventually, and I'm not sure he'll find an aGM opening here.

You know ... why can't Starling Peralta have TOR potential (not ace mind you, just TOR). With a plus fastball, if he can harness the slider and have it be plus ... well ... that's potentially more than a mid-rotation arm. Granted, there's a lot of work to do with the consistency of the slider, and the change has to get better ... but reading that last question, I'm not sure we should limit his ceiling to mid-rotation right now. It's certainly possible he goes the way of Alberto Cabrera, but speaking on potential, I think there's a chance that his ceiling could be higher.

Please stay this way I hate being the guy that seems to voice the negative opinions, but ... why do you feel so vehement about this? I'm just mildly curious. Look, I love the new braintrust as much as anyone, but I've argued before that McLeod's drafts in San Diego were over-hyped (although I really like Jace Peterson). This doesn't take away from McLeod's good run in Boston, as Wilken's efforts here (while not great, hardly horrible), doesn't take away from his good run in Toronto and a solid couple drafts in Tampa. I think Madison had a good draft this year, but he had 5 picks in the top 70, and I don't know how much of a home run draft this was for the Padres (I really don't recall the post-draft reviews of each team, but glancing at their draft now, there's a couple exciting names, but I don't know if I think this is a draft that's going to reap huge benefits for them down the road). My point? There's a lot of Wilken bashing, but his tenure hasn't been bad, particularly when you factor in how limited he was at the start of the tenure (which has been acknowledged). Before we get too excited about everyone that comes in the front door, let's remember that most scouting directors will have a lot more decent years than good years. Let's keep in mind that guys like Baez, Vogelbach, Martin and others are all on Wilken, once he had the money to spend. Signing Maples, even if he doesn't pan out, is still a plus for Wilken as his people knew what it would take to get it done. Yes, Simpson looks horrible now, and Golden's been hurt, but Szczur/Wells still hold high intrigue from 2010, and I still say Kurcz was under-rated by some here last year. And let's not forget Austin Reed, who could end up being the closer of the future if he can fix his kinks out and become more consistent (or ... he could go the way of Chris Huseby, to name a guy who just couldn't figure it out). Let me reiterate, I know sound like I'm bashing McLeod/Madison, but I'm not. I'm not too enthused about some of their last drafts at their previous stops, but again, most scouting directors have more bad moments than good. I just think we're going a bit overboard on the Wilken bashing, particularly when the totality of circumstances for his run is taken into consideration. Let's not forget that the "value" of Cashner brought in Rizzo, even if Cashner doesn't pan out as a starter (as his arm was valued high enough to get that deal done). Edit: I do think Wilken is out after the season. I think big parts of the old regime were kept around for a couple reasons. First, it took so long to work out the Epstein/Hoyer situations. 2nd, Ricketts liked them and wanted to give them some stability. I imagine Wilken will land on his feet somewhere as a scouting director, or maybe some sort of Special Assistant role with an eye on becoming an aGM at some point (or maybe he gets an aGM gig). Slowly, over time, I'd expect the final pieces of the old regime to leave (namely, Fleita and maybe Bush), and Epstein/Hoyer bring in their guys, or guys supportive of their methods, and the organization will be better off for it.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/2003/0707_large.jpg I support the Nats shutting him down, but I imagine you'll see them extend the innings limit a tad, maybe to 170-175 and find a way to carry him deeper into the season. The one thing lost in the discussion is that the Nats still have a very group of arms for any playoff series. It's not like they have no chance if Strasburg is out. The group of Jordan Zimmerman, Gio Gonzalez, Edwin Jackson, and Ross Detwiler matches up with most of the rotations with a shot in the NL*, and they have a deep and versatile pen that's working to bring Storen back to his top form. Yes, it would be better to have Strasburg, but it's a very solid group of arms behind him. * To be clear, I'm not saying that I would take the rest of the Nationals rotation as the best group that could make the playoffs. Giants would obviously feel comfortable with their top 3 (Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum ... I'd take this trio over the top 3 left for the Nats). Same goes for the Dodgers (Kershaw/Billingsley/Capuano). Cardinals (Wainwright/Garcia/Lynn?) and Reds would be close (Latos/Cueto/?), and the Reds dominant pen would make them scary. That said, the Nats "leftovers" are good starters that would leave them feeling like they could win a series, and I think that depth and talent is a factor in the Strasburg decision.

I do like him quite a bit, but KG is correct - a long way to go before Peralta is anything that really demands a ton of attention. Now, I get the feeling that KG's working with some older reports (that said ... he has seen Peoria a fair amount this year, since he supposedly went to see Baez a few times), as there seem to be some reports that Peralta's secondary stuff is ... developing (although to be fair, uninspiring doesn't mean that it isn't developing). I mean, in a system with more pitching, Peralta would be a nice low level raw piece, not someone to get too excited about. For us? Any sort of "live" arm with potential that shows decently well is worth getting excited about for now. Here's hoping it isn't that way in a few years. I guess part of the reason I'm excited about Peralta is because the last wave of semi-intriguing Latin American arms have all largely fizzled out. He also has better potential than Rosario as a starter. ____ Marco Hernandez's - 12 game hit streak

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=C&sid=t443&t=p_pbp&pid=607342 Admittedly I saw him for just one game (afterwards he was sent back to Mesa), but Marra looked good. Both behind the plate and at the plate. I thought that he was a better prospect then Contreras. He's probably a better prospect than Contreras (close), but Contreras has spent a few years in the system. Contreras might have a tick better upside defensively, and since he had been in the system longer, getting him up to Boise and getting Marra work in Arizona made sense.

11 game hit streak for Marco Hernandez. Wish he was walking more, but over the past 10, he has a .375/.375/.500 line, with only 6 K's in 40 AB's. Guessing there's been some "luck" with these numbers, but the good streak continues, which is a nice plus.

Yes. There simply isn't enough upper level pitching, as mediocre as he has been this year. I mean ... you get into some pretty mediocre guys if you go top 50. He actually had a decent run before yesterday. Have been having a tough time finding out how he's throwing these days, compared to the start of the season.

I don't see DeJesus being moved. He has exactly the prototype approach at the plate the organization wants. It's debatable whether any of the younger guys can learn anything from him, so that isn't a reason on its own to keep him. But the FO has no pressing need to trade him since he's both affordable and productive. If these younger kids can learn anything from him it's a bonus, so why trade him just because? If they get a good offer for DeJesus, I expect they would consider moving him. Short term assets moved = potential long term benefits. That said, my guess is that he'll likely be around as well. There really isn't many top of the order type guys in the system/in the organization, and I still am not a fan of Brett Jackson as a top of the order option (and same goes for Starlin Castro). DeJesus provides some stability in that regards, without putting people in positions that they might not be fit for.

Betting money has to be on having him move to largely a corner role, occasionally dabbling in CF when Szczur needs a break. It'd be somewhat hard to understand a promotion ... heck, a demotion, with the logic of getting him CF time, makes more sense, to me, than a promotion (particularly considering Sappelt is playing well in AAA and Silva is the CF in A+ right now). That said, RF that occasionally dabbles in CF seems the most likely course.

10 game hit streak for Marco as well.

that's a shame (on alcantara).

I'm not exactly on the Vitters bandwagon, but while I think the trade potential is likely, I think Tim's point here might be a big part of the reason as well. See if he can't get some positive things going before putting him in there against tougher righties. So far, good start for Brett Jackson ... while I thought the repeated mentions of the Hanley situation was a bit overboard ... here's hoping (although I'm not expecting).

Just not a good game for Baez, particularly when you factor in the error (curious if anyone is following the game close enough to know if that fielding error was field related or if it was just a bad blunder by Baez). That said, if he learns from this, then the struggles are a good thing. Any news on why Francescon was pulled? Injury? Jensen with a very solid outing.

I seem to be late to every exciting Cubs news, but my 2 cents - This is as excited as I've been about a stretch of Cubs games in a couple years now. It's not that I have superbly high expectations for what Vitters and Jackson can do in 2 months. I mean, I'm not expecting either of them to hit the way that Rizzo did at the start of his run. I think I expect Jackson to be a solid defensive player who should do enough offensively, at least, relative to moderate rookie expectations (if i had to use a number as a measuring stick, I'd say I'm looking for a .725 to .750 OPS, with a low batting average, say, in the .240-.260 range). I don't know what to expect out of Vitters, particularly after reading Sveum's comments on how he's going to be used, but I am curious to see what Vitters might be able to offer. I'm more excited because this means that we, as fans, will get some better clarity on the future, and in all likelihood, so will the front office. Rather than utilizing 2013 as a partial trial year on Vitters/Jackson, we get to see them now. While the SS may not be enough to make any final judgments, it could help clarify expectations for these guys, and particularly, whether or not they are a part of the long-term future. If they don't look to be potential core assets, then the FO can plan accordingly. They got Villanueva in as another third base option, and Junior Lake is still hanging around. CF is obviously a deep spot in the system. Maybe this gives the FO more flexibility in moving them for other pieces. But ... if they succeed, or do well enough to anticipate them being core pieces for the future? Then, with Castro/Rizzo and these two, or 1 of the two, they could conceivably contemplate accelerating the rebuilding process. Maybe that would give them more motivation to keep Garza around, if they feel the offensive pieces are better than expected. Maybe that would push them to be more aggressive in FA this winter, to add to the core. Either way, by the end of September, we should have a bit more clarity on the future, and that is exciting. Here is to hoping that the clarity these two months will bring is positive news, but it's a good step.

I have never, ever, ever been a fan of AJ Pollock (hated the idea of drafting him that year, which a lot of Cubs fans on another site wanted), but ... as intriguing as Villanueva is, I'd rather take the mid-rotation lefty, considering the state of pitching in the system. I mean, I can understand wanting Villanueva, but I still have a hard time over-looking the fact that, while he was a top 100 guy, his offensive outlooks is very similar to someone like Alcantara, and the value of a lefty arm like Corbin would seem to be a nice thing for our system, the way it is right now.