toonsterwu

Well, let's frame this another way - if it's close, would you prefer a pitcher? Because that's all I'm arguing. If there's a guy that's a significantly better talent (and I'm focusing mostly on the main pieces to a deal), then of course you take the better talent. But ... for a dumb hypothetical ... say you have a guy who you feel is a 9, but an arm that you feel is an 8.8. I'd rather take the arm in that scenario, in all honesty. I think Ronnie Woo Woo summed up my concern over pitching talent (inherent likelihood of injury). Not only would the pitching talent have to be equal or superior to the positional talent, I'd want it to be in the upper levels of the minors too. I definitely understand the view, but at some point, we're going to need to start accumulating quantity of solid pitching talent, which this system currently lacks. It's debatable if this draft added to it, and it's debatable how much SP potential is in the low minors. Without adding a quantity of solid pitching talent at some point, it'll be hard for this team to reach "critical mass" of some sort, where there's a young core of positional and pitching prospects developing together, on a similar timeline.

Well, let's frame this another way - if it's close, would you prefer a pitcher? Because that's all I'm arguing. If there's a guy that's a significantly better talent (and I'm focusing mostly on the main pieces to a deal), then of course you take the better talent. But ... for a dumb hypothetical ... say you have a guy who you feel is a 9, but an arm that you feel is an 8.8. I'd rather take the arm in that scenario, in all honesty.

I imagine Almora heads to Arizona, with a shot of Boise later (barring struggles), so I'm mildly curious what happens with Martin/Dunston Jr. One of them probably can stay in Boise, but do they keep all three in Boise? Seems likely that they would want them to get as many AB's at possible, irrespective of the level, so it may behoove them to shift on back to Arizona. Both are fascinating raw talents in their own right, but Almora really pushes them to the backburner, so they better step it up.

If Nate comes around, someone can double-check with him on Rosario's velocity, but for the most part, his 4-seamer, from what I understand, has largely been in that 93-95 range. It seems quite likely, although I don't know for certain, that he might be working with some sort of 2-seamer as well. Maybe it's a cutter of some sort, and I think that's where you get the lower readings on his fastball. I think the quality of Rosario's slider has improved this year, but the command comes and goes at times. The change-up is still a work in progress. Gun to my head, yeah, I've said it before, but I think Rosario, long run, might be a pen arm, but his ceiling as a starter is ... higher than a lot of Cubs arms (we can debate whether or not it's more than mid-rotation, as I think there's a case to be made that it is, but ... well, it's better than a lot of Cubs arms). He's got a better chance than say, Marcos Mateo did, to stick as a starter, as Rosario's shown an early propensity to be able to generate groundballs, but a lot of work to go. ______ iowa, do you really think Jensen has great sink on his fb? Had heard it was decent movement, but great seems ... like high praise. Also, how often was he at 94? Had heard he was more low 90's most of the year. Said this earlier, but Jensen's ceiling as a starter (well, heck, overall ... Rosario has some late inning potential, I'm not sure if Jensen does) is lower than Rosario's (Jensen, if a lot goes well, might have a mid-rotation ceiling). He's a lot more polished than Rosario, though, and he's probably got an overall better chance to make it as a starter.

Just for fun, but I thought it was interesting to read the scouts quote that Knobler had in the article. The entire Concepcion blurb -

I'm not really that bothered by any results from him this year. The only things I wanted to know out Whitenack's return was whether or not he still had good movement on his sinker and whether or not he was close to the fastball velocity that he surprised us with last year, and on both those counts, so far so good. Now, I'd like for him to not be terrible ... but if he's missing on his secondary stuff, I'll live with that this year.

Meh I imagine you're in the extreme minority to consider Jensen more favorably than Rosario. I'd love to hear some more on your thought process on Rosario. I'm higher on Rosario than Jensen (although Jensen does crack my top 30 right now, so he's not that far behind), but Rosario's command of his breaking ball still seems ... to be a work in progress. I think Rosario's ceiling is higher than Jensen's overall, but Jensen's floor (chances of making it) as a starter can be argued to be higher than Rosario's.

He's really quietly had a really good season. 8.09 K/9, 2.89 BB/9, 54% groundballs. Granted, a lot of that is off of his excellent June, but he was solid in May and so far in July.

Buckel/Perez/Ramirez/Grimm are all nice, but they look like mid-rotation types, with Perez/Ramirez having some issues to work through (if everything goes perfect for those two, admittedly, they'd probably have a tick better than mid-rotation ceilings). Nice complementary pieces to a deal, nice 2nd pieces perhaps. Ideally, barring an elite bat, if the value's close, the Cubs should focus on getting arms as the centerpiece to a deal, IMO. I'd be fine with say, a Derek Holland/one of the above arms/and etcetera type deal. A package of two of those arms seems like ... it should be able to be topped. It wouldn't be bad, but it somewhat underwhelms me personally. I'm not as high on Luke Jackson's value as it relates to this deal. He's an intriguing arm asset, no doubt about it, but considering how muhc of a work in progress he is, I don't love the idea of him in a critical role to this deal. I do like Olt and Odor a lot, but ideally, we'd get arms in a deal. I mean, am I going to piss and moan if we got Olt or Odor and two of those arms? Nah. Just would hope we get an arm with better upside, but that's my opinion on those arms.

Out of curiosity, did you get any velo readings on Liria? Granted, it probably wasn't an ideal situation for him. _____ davell noted them, but Geiger and Rosario both deserve some attention. I dogged Cates a bit, but he's definitely still an intriguing arm. Peralta still has some solid SP potential if he can put it together. He's getting more groundballs this year in his 2nd go-around for Peoria, but let's see if those numbers hold. I'd like to like Antigua ... but I'd also like to know what the heck the Cubs plan is with him.

Jensen's got some fringe mid-rotation ceiling potential, but admittedly, I keep thinking he might be better ripping it out of the pen as a pen arm. That said, considering the dearth of quality SP prospects, you keep him at SP until he can't or there is better.

Has there been something on Justin Masterson that I missed? I've got a hard time seeing the Indians dealing him this offseason.

I'm still not sure it's as great a system for our needs as some think. I simply don't love the possible pitching options there. As I noted uh ... a couple pages back ... there's no doubt a good deal could be made, but the lack of enough really quality pitching options makes me wish for some other teams. I'd love to get Holland to toy around with, though. Don't know if he'd be offered.

Random hunch is that they won't see the need for DeJesus. They want a upgrade at CF, otherwise, they might keep Harper there, and keep utilizing Steve Lombardozzi as a top of the order option out of LF. Of course, when Werth makes it back (haven't followed that situation), there's another issue to deal with, but that's for later.

I don't know about stacked right now. They dealt that batch of guys away for Gio Gonzalez last year. It's solid, maybe good (have to ponder it for a sec), but with Rendon's health being an issue, there's a thin top shelf.

It's unlikely, but not farfetched. With Strasburg likely to be shut down at some point (or at least, they claim he will be), and the 5th starter spot still more a question than having an answer, it's not impossible that they look for another arm. That said, at some point, they've got to keep some prospects.

Sorry, was busy yesterday and didn't see this. Trying to make this short and sweet, so, let's go bullet points - Barnes would obviously hold more value for the Cubs than Bradley Jr., IMO. My mild counter of myself on Barnes is that the kid is working on his change-up, so he could take another step. - My issue with Bradley Jr., if I have one (don't get me wrong ... not thinking he's elite yet doesn't mean I don't think he's a very, very good prospect) is that I'm not sure how much power he'll legitimately have as he deals with tougher pitching. We'll know more by season's end, though. Is he a top of the order, 2 hole type bat, or is he a potential middle of the order, anchor bat?

Even if we did, I'm not sure I would want to give up what it would take to get him. There's just not enough quantity of high quality in the system right now, and we'd have to supplement this move with major FA signings for it to make sense. That said, I don't think we have the chips to get him either. Although ... I do think we could make it quite interesting. A package of say, Baez/Candelario/BJax/Vitters would have to grab some attention (Davidson isn't a lock to stick at 3rd, although he's probably a slightly better bet than Vitters), if they wanted to go hard after bats.

AzPhil suggested Saunders could go to Peoria. If that happens, it's because they wanted a utility guy, because I tend to think Bruno should get first call. _____ I should be clear, if I wasn't - I am intrigued with Alcantara, but I'm not enthused about him either. I'm willing to take a wait and see on the defense, but offensively, I am ... to put it nicely, curious how he deals with tougher pitching in AA. I tend to think he's a possible top 15 more out of default, though. I'm not huge on PIerce Johnson, but he has some mid-rotation ceiling, and as a polished college arm, I do agree with craig that I think, provided he is healthy, that he should probably get some benefit of the doubt and probably be in our top 10. ____ As a side note, there was a mildly interesting read on Marco Hernandez. If it was posted in the news section, I apologize. http://www.idahopress.com/sports/hawks-have-high-hopes-for-hernandez/article_ea401184-c73a-11e1-b98b-001a4bcf887a.html Nothing earth-shattering, but good to see that he knows what his biggest fault is right now. All the other positives that were said about him have largely shown through in that, the tools are there, but last year, he showed a far more disciplined approach in Arizona, from what I understand (comparatively, he was always a bit aggressive). Now, it could be a case of the absolutely weak/raw pitchers in Arizona making it easy on him.

A lot will depend on trades (realistically, the Garza trade, but Dempster could bring back a ready arm), if they happen. Working off the idea that Garza is gone (and Dempster) ... I think the only things we can pencil in for 2013, as of now, are Samardzija and Travis Wood. There really isn't that much help on the horizon unless they want to tank another season. I'm also not sure I see them going in on a top FA pitching option. I would like someone like Hamels (if he doesn't sign with the Dodgers, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised), but I don't see them committing the money and years that it would take to lock him down. Epstein's been pretty clear on how he felt he deviated from organizational philosophy in Boston, and we're in a far earlier stage of building than Boston ever was, so I'm just not sure. That said, it's almost impossible to build a rotation without a FA, and while I'm not against tanking another season (not for it either ... ), I don't know if they could stomach two horrid seasons. So, considering there's some young positional pieces in play, to be competitive, they really have to push for a solid FA arm. I also wouldn't rule out Dempster coming back (I do expect them to deal him, but it's not out of the question that they could sign him as a good veteran 3rd/4th starter for say, a 2 year deal). For now, I'll work off the assumption that they won't bring him back as a FA. My early stab on what they might do: 1. Jeff Samardzija - I don't see why he shouldn't stay as a starter. I guess we have to see how he does the 2nd half, but considering how much they like young power arms, and how well he's done the first half, I'd be surprised, even if he collapsed in the 2nd half, if they didn't keep him as a starter to start 2013. 2. Edwin Jackson (FA) - I could go with a guy I like in Anibal Sanchez, but someone already noted him, so let's try something different. Short of it is, 2nd tier FA starter. He's a year older, but still in his prime, and the velocity is there. I think it would take a three year deal, maybe some sort of 4th year option, on Jackson, though, and that's where things get a bit iffy. Still ... he would be in his prime at the end of the deal. 3. Midseason trade acqusition, likely from a Garza trade. 4. Travis Wood 5. Paul Maholm - Definitely could be moved. My thinking is, though, that at 6.5 million, he's affordable, and the chances of Maholm netting a key return seems ... debatable. So ... instead of turning to Raley/Rusin/Volstad and Co., maybe they keep him around for another year to give more stability to the rotation. This isn't a great rotation by any means. Heck ... it could be pretty bad. But it's a stab at what I think they might do.

Yeah, Montgomery and Cuthbert have both taken a step back this year. Heck, so has Dwyer. Goes to show the volatility in value of pitching prospects - couple years back we were talking about the potential of the Royals depth of quality arms. Anyhow, I doubt the Royals stick around. They need more than one arm, and heck, that lineup could use a bat as well.

Um ... I want to say it was some sort of hip or leg injury. I think AzPhil actually mentioned it once.

I wouldn't necessarily rule out Stilson as a possible target. Now, he may be headed to the pen long run, but there's some starting pitching potential, so it would depend on what our scouts reported on what they thought on that, I guess (and how he pitched in the next few weeks). But if they buy him as a starter, that's a decent enough ceiling that ... if the Cubs really liked Sanchez/Syndegaard that much as a possible TOR option down the line, taking Stilson as an upper level, closer to ready arm would be okay. Oh, and I am big on Odorizzi. Have always liked him a ton, and would love to get him. Have there been specific rumors with KC, though? They are barely hanging on in the race, and the chances seem slim they stick around.

See ... I'm at a point where, as much as it would hurt to see Garza on the Cards as I've grown to enjoy him here (even though he's been erratic this year), if the Cards offer the best package, I'd take it (that is, I don't know if they would need to grossly overpay to justify sending Garza there). We're at a point of rebuilding where we shouldn't care about things like that.

Ah okay. I figured there was something missing as it read ... odd (jumping for joy and then saying a group of 3 would be comparable didn't seem to jive). My random hunch is that if they decided to push for pitching (not a certainty, though), that we might be able to get 2 from Wong/Martinez/Jenkins, but probably not 3. In that case, yes, I'd agree we could probably find comparable 3 man packages from other teams. As a side note, everything on Martinez seems really, really positive. I mean, with Barnes (I'm not trying to pick on that, it's just the arm that we've discussed the most of late), you have 1 plus pitch and hope the other two come along. With Martinez, that's two plus pitches right now and improved fastball command, which was, unless I'm mistaken, a heavy reason for all his control problems last year. I would be a bit concerned on the injury that he just had, but that's a damn enticing package. Not a "lock" to be a starter (but who is), but a damn enticing package, and he's shown well in AA so far.