toonsterwu

Amused. And hopeful that Carlos Lee likes Houston a lot. I'm assuming that's a reference to the Dodgers trade rumors. I'm kind of hoping that the Indians stick around. I can envision a small market team like Cleveland offering perhaps a bit more because of LaHair's status.

Huh? Where did I say it was a good thing? If I did, I apologize, but I'm reading my comment now and I just simply stated that if I had stated where I was coming from originally, there's a chance this discussion doesn't happen. I liked this discussion - I still disagree with you, as I think there's a point at which there's too much analysis of statistics on minor leaguers (and to be clear, I do it as well), but yeah, this is what makes forums fun. Edit: Maybe you took the pointless as meaning bad. If so, sorry, I simply meant pointless as in that we were coming from different angles and didn't acknowledge it earlier.

I had this whole other thing typed up, before deciding against it since I don't recall what I read on SoSH. That said, Theo did interact with SoSH in the past, and I'd be intrigued if a Cubs representative interacted here (for all I know, maybe they do). The funny thing was, until Raisin helped me into NSBB, I could never join. I was aIways curious why other boards bashed NSBB (I recall the few Cubs places I visited online in college would always bash NSBB). I tried for ages in college (okay, like ... a few times), but somehow I never got the email (now that I think about it, probably some college filter thing), and completely forgot about it until going over to BCB a few years ago and then talking to Raisin and O_O over there. To be honest, I really only wanted to find a forum to discuss minor leaguers. I love MLB ... but following it, and reading forum posts day to day can be ... er ... tiring, particularly in bad season. Only so much repetition one can take, and I really don't think there's another Cubs forum with a dedicated minor league section that is as good as this. Crap ... it's 2 pm already? I really need to get some crap done for Monday.

This was really a pointless discussion, not in content, as I think there's a fair ... discussion point somewhere in there on ... statistical assessments of minor leaguers, but in that davell and I were coming at it from slightly different perspectives, as I was simply thinking on an expectations game from what most people anticipated, not what I personally anticipated and he was coming at it from a different perspective. But tis how things go and tis the fun of it all. All I had to do was leave off Torreyes, which was my original intent, and whoosh, 1 page of comments would be gone. Wary of going outside ... or doing anything ... because of the killer East Coast heat today (and the next few days), and since I've been posting sporadically these days but have some free time ... OOC, Raisin, where did you have Torreyes/Hernandez in your final pre-season (or winter) lists. I believe you posted it once, but I don't recall right now.

As a total random aside, I nearly was a big Mets fan. Growing up down there for those two years, seemed like all the baseball cards were over-loaded with Mets guys (I imagine because of Norfolk's old affiliation). I haven't been to a Tides game in ... awhile, though. I recall I liked the park, but then again, eh, nice weather, sitting outdoors, watching baseball at an affordable price ... well, hard to get negative vibes in that scenario.

That's actually ... an interesting comp. My memory of Polanco as a 2nd baseman are fuzzy these days. I want to say that I think, if Torreyes bat plays, that he should be a better defensive option at 2nd than Polanco was (and the reports on Torreyes at short haven't been that bad ... but Alcantara deserves the PT there so no need for a Torreyes extended trial there). damn ... Polanco's UZR numbers at 2nd are fairly good. Did not realize that. I guess it's actually a pretty good positive case comp . I think someone threw it out this winter as well.

You'd take low level bats from the Yankees over Britton/Tillman in a hypothetical? Heck, I've been championing the Yankees as a decent team ... but I'd take almost an O's package if Britton/tillman are in it over the Yankees. All that said, no clue if the Orioles would offer Britton/Tillman, and I imagine they'd give them a spin first themselves, as Tillman is dominating, and Britton is still a highly valued piece. I guess it'd depend on which bats obviously, but Sanchez/Williams for sure. Out of their 4 bats, Austin/Gumbs is about the only one for sure I'd take the O's group over. As I've said previously though, the Yanks packages come in very low on my priority list as well. As noted, a hypothetical discussion, but just between two guys sitting in a hypothetical bar discussing it, there's no way I would take Sanchez/Williams right now over a Britton/Tillman package if their medicals were cleared, and I really like Sanchez/Williams. But if things are cleared medically for Britton/Tillman, I'd take the value of 2 upper level arms with mid-rotation or slightly better ceilings overall, and particularly, because of the shape of the system right now. But that's me, and I don't know if I've ever acknowledged it here, but I'm far high on Britton than some (could be a case of viewer's bias as well). If you make it out to Norfolk and see him while he's there, shoot me a pm and let me know what you thought. I doubt I'll make it down this summer, at least, before Britton gets called up. I figure ... at least a good 2 more starts in the minors, if not 3, before he gets called up (actually, have to check how many days he's been sent on rehab).

It's possible that Britton is more messed up than what is being acknwoledged. The reports on his Norfolk work seem decent, but I don't know. Furthermore, as I noted, he needs to pitch much better. Also, the medicals would have to be clear. Here's my thing - in terms of upper level arms that are a tick above Britton's ceiling and doesn't have, say, Archer's huge bust factor ... do you really think we can land anyone of them? I'm trying to think through the arms in the upper levels ... and I can't come up with many, from realistic teams that could be targeted, that have higher ceilings that seem likely. Obviously, this is just ... random hypothetical discussion, and all it takes is one team to get antsy.

Agreed on Matusz, the velocity has been inconsistent and for the second year in a row he's getting absolutely teed off on. I'm not even sure I'd want him to headline a Dempster deal let alone a Garza deal. Velocity is at least better than last year. I just don't think his quality of stuff is that ... good, and his command isn't there. This isn't to say that he wasn't a deservedly highly touted prospect once ... but right now, he's an end of the rotation lefty, IMO, with some mid-rotation ceiling because of the velocity, but ... not worth it unless it's as the 3rd piece to a deal, and I doubt the Orioles would make him the 3rd piece to any deal.

So ... you are going to argue that his first half is a plus, that he's exceeded expectations? His entire first half (from April to, well, heck, let's just make it from April to now) was a plus? Okay. Fair enough. I disagree, for the reasons I've noted, but ... fair enough.

It would've been interesting to see people's lists. I get the feeling that Hernandez wasn't a top 10 on every list. My hunch is that Ronald would've been in the same boat - make some back end top 10 lists (I believe KG said 7th? or something like that after the trade). Edit: I gotta say, that was a long discussion based of my lumping these two together because they were intriguing raw assets from trades comment. I had really only intended to put Cates in there at first, but then I threw Torreyes in there at the last second.

This post is sort of moot as you read my other post as I responded to this. On Marco - I've acknowledged that, personally, I've been very disappointed. If we take a step back, though, davell, what was the expectation game for Marco, from most, this year? I just don't know if it's as high as I expected, and as you might've expected and that's what I made the judgment on. Even some of the critics of Torreyes thought he would hit up the ladder, at least before AA (at least, that's what I recall). Actually, I'll be honest, I noted this in the response below, but my disappointment with Torreyes has as much to do with stats as it has to do with the fact that the reports suggest that he was making weak contact, misreading pitches, and reading for pitches, amongst other things. As I note below, could be an adjustment period. But again, tying my two posts together ... is anyone really going to argue that Torreyes first half has been a plus? I've acknowledged whether or not it's a top 5 disappointing is debatable, but I just ... have hard time arguing that, on the plus/negative ledger, that Torreyes' first half is a plus. I guess, if you want to call it neutral, okay, but ... neutral would seem to suggest that this, what he has done in the first half, was the expectations set for him.

Seems like an odd stance. And this while I agree that once you look at the BABIP, Torreyes hasn't been that disappointing. Again, my point was that relative to expectations, I think Torreyes has been on the disappointing side. He's had an excellent month. If he keeps this up, sure, he wouldn't be on the disappointing side anymore. Before we forget, though, leaving aside the numbers, there were numerous reports about weak contact, about him misreading pitches, and going after pitches out of zone to make contact (and I realize that you could spin this into a positive about how solid his tool and plate coverage is). This wasn't a classic low BABIP case of a guy who was continually pounding GB's into the dirt the first two months and just having bad luck (and I'm pretty sure his GB% the first two months weren't that high ... well, went and looked it up, he's been pretty steady around 50% on GB's). Perhaps he needed an adjustment time. Perhaps he ... didn't get used to a new organization. Perhaps he ... didn't feel comfortable in Daytona. A whole host of possibilities exist. But ... relative to expectations ... I think his first half was a disappointment. I acknowledged that whether or not it's a top 5 disappointment is fair question. I'm not sure why my opinion on this is generating these types of responses. Are people really going to say that Torreyes first half was a plus?

Hell, davell, you don't need Raisin to come in on this. I'll agree that Torreyes has had a better 2012 than Hernandez. No doubt about it. What I said above, though, was that relative to expectations, I don't think Hernandez should be on a most disappointing list (again ... outside of me, I don't recall many people ... here ... that put him top 5 in the Cubs system, if any, and most prospect listings had him lower (although KG had him 8th? 9th?) and that Torreyes first half would fall on the disappointing side of the spectrum for me.

On Geiger - I wouldn't exactly say fairly touted. He was an intriguing bonus baby, but there were some questions on if he could stick at 3rd (and there still are). I'm intrigued with his start, but need a lot more AB's before I know if I'm buying it or not. Burgess - I haven't been big on Burgess since I saw him, er, 3 years ago? He's always had good raw power, so if he's fixed his swing a bit and has found a better balance, then I'd be intrigued, but haven't heard how things are going on that front.

Eh ... my point was that the two raw trade targets have struggled in the first half. I don't see an issue with that statement. The amount of hype that was generated for these two guys, here and elsewhere, probably made it so that expectations were going to be impossible to be met (Torreyes moreso than Cates, but there were plenty of people pushing Cates up, partly I think due to Keith Law's statements (was it Law? I forget). While I'm very high on Marco Hernandez, let's be honest - not many legitimate sources out there were that high on him, and heck, there were some folks that thought he would struggle if he made it to Peoria. It's easy to forget that, while it wasn't a shocker for some of us, the fact that Hernandez made Peoria was quite surprising to a lot of folks. Am I personally disappointed? Yes. But realistically, he wasn't expected there. Relative to what people expected, I don't see any reason to put Marco in a top 5 disappointing list. I am down on Marco compared to last year? Yes. But that's partly because I had him on such a higher pedestal than most people. I don't think BA had Marco in their top 12, but I don't recall right now. If you are simply saying Torreyes shouldn't be in a top 5 disappointing list, fine. I can buy that. But ... take a look back at some of the expectations/commentary made about Torreyes after we landed him, both from Cubs fans, Reds fans, general prospect followers, and so forth. Heck, I even thought he'd rake in Daytona. Relative to expectations, how can we not call his first half a disappointment? Is it top 5? That's a debatable notion, but relative to expectations, I have no qualms in saying Torreyes first half was disappointing. That's me. Btw, Marco's last 10 games in Peoria ... he struggled a bit, or at least, was inconsistent (couple 2 hit games in there). He had a nice run from late April to mid-late May).

You'd take low level bats from the Yankees over Britton/Tillman in a hypothetical? Heck, I've been championing the Yankees as a decent team ... but I'd take almost an O's package if Britton/tillman are in it over the Yankees. All that said, no clue if the Orioles would offer Britton/Tillman, and I imagine they'd give them a spin first themselves, as Tillman is dominating, and Britton is still a highly valued piece.

Hold on ... when did Britton fail to make him a buy low candidate? At best, you can point to the injury perhaps, but this isn't a Matusz/Tillman case, guys that went through horrid 2011's on multiple fronts (performance and stuff). I'm hard pressed to buy Britton as a "failed"/"buy low" prospect. At best, you point to the injury, but if the medicals check out, well ... a ton of starters deal with shoulder issues through their careers. Not exactly something that would lead me to think he's a buy low guy. As a side note, I don't think I would touch Matusz with a long pole. Felt that way about Tillman last year, and was never a big fan of Tillman, but if the velocity is back, as the 2nd piece to a deal? Eh ... doesn't sound like something that would make me cringe if the top guy is good enough.

Ah, must of missed the Campos injury. I don't know if Britton would be in the buy low category. Maybe. Tillman, I can understand, but Tillman's big issue last year was a loss of velocity, and the velo numbers are supposedly back up, and he's on a very nice roll in AAA. But Britton had a strong start to 2011, finished with an overall decent year, struggling in the 2nd half. Was it due to the shoulder injury that flared up? Maybe, but it could also be a young arm running into a wall. He's still a possible 2/3 type starting pitcher. Of course, it comes down to how the medicals check out, but velocity reports seem to be fine right now in the minors As a side note, he'd be a nice arm to see if you are in the area. Here's the thing - if the key to a deal is a quality starting pitching prospect in the upper levels, I'm not sure we'd do better than Britton, who has mid-rotation ceiling, if not a bit better. The chances of getting an elite arm, a guy in the Hultzen/Walker/Cole and so forth stratosphere seems slim to none. To be honest, I'm not sure the Orioles would necessarily trade Britton for Garza, at least, not before giving Britton a spin in the bigs first. As an aside, if Matt Barnes is consensus top 30, I'll be ... a bit surprised. Let's wait and see if he's still lights out dominant in a few weeks. I tend to think too much love was given to his low A performance, which admittedly was superb, but really ... if he didn't dominate, it would've been more troubling. He should be easily top 100, and maybe top 60ish, but his ceiling is still more mid-rotation than front of the rotation, IMO, unless the change-up has made major strides that I missed (possible).

OOC, which Bradley are you talking about there? Jackie? Think he's more 51-75 than top 50. I wouldn't really have that much interest in Bradley as the 2nd piece, but that's me. ____ Back to another team for a moment - the Orioles. IF Zach Britton starts to pitch better in the next month, he'd be an arm I'd be intrigued with. The problem is, sans Bundy/Machado, I have a hard time seeing who would make a solid number 2 piece in a deal. Maybe Chris Tillman, if the fastball velocity is back, as the reports seem to suggest. Hmm ... a Britton/Tillman package isn't a bad combination to start a deal's discussion. I wonder if the Orioles would do it (that said ... I tend to think both guys might get called back to the bigs soon, and if they perform, they might not be looking for pitching).

Well, they have one very intriguing arm that's healthy, and that's Jose Campos. If they could get a solid AA/AAA arm in a trade (perhaps by eating another team's contract and offering an intriguing youngster or two) with decent ceiling (easier said than done), a Sanchez/Campos/solid AA/AAA arm package would intrigue me a bit. Not a ton, but it would be intriguing.

He was 6-9 with a 4.20 ERA when he was dealt. It was the year before he was awesome (in the first half at least), but even in that year his ERA was around 4 after the break if I remember right. Considering the Indians FO makeup, I imagine they looked at all the statistics and thought, a bit of luck and Jimenez might be who he was a year ago. The K and BB rates were basically the same. I was surprised they gave up so much. Teams rarely give up two upper level quality arms in a deal. If we can get anything close to that return, that'd be awesome, but I'd be happy with one quality upper level arm and one high upside arm in say, the A ball ranks (preferably A+, as we'd get a good idea of that arm's ability sooner than later, with the AA jump). Obviously, that wouldn't be enough, but to headline a deal, I'd be happy with that (also obviously depends on the names, just speaking hypothetically here).

Highly doubt it. I guess I'd never so no to anything, but with Bauer's ready, and they really hope to develop that young stud rotation.

I honestly don't get why the Dodgers wouldn't offer Derrek Lee a minimum deal first to see if he has anything left, before exploring the trade market in July. Even giving up Gould for Lee seems ... eh.

I think it's a smart trade for both parties. I know some O's fans feel like they gave up too much. Lino's like ... a raw Welington Castillo. Simon, though, is more of a Randy Wells case in a best case, IMO. Their offense was struggling, and Thome upgrades it by allowing some of their DH options to cover other holes in the field (granted, hurts their defense, but their offense needs the boost), and with Markakis back soon, that could really help them. At the cost of a far away catcher dream and an "eh" pitcher, I think it's worth it when they are in the race. I too wondered about Soriano and the Orioles, more because he could slide into LF and allow them to keep Chris Davis at DH and Mark Reynolds at first, but I imagine the years left was as big an issue here. I also wonder if the fact that Wieters struggles as a lefty played a role (getting Thome gives them a lefty bat to stick in the middle with Jones/Wieters). That said, there's a slim positive to things, from a Cubs perspective. If getting Thome helps them stay in the race, that could make them more inclined to improve their team in mid-late July. They could still use another bat, but more than anything, they need another arm. Maybe someone internally steps up, but with Chen going through some summer struggles, their rotation is a big question mark right now. I don't think they have enough chips to make a legitimate Garza trade without Bundy or Machado, but having another bidder in there can only help us.