toonsterwu

Well, I've been a notable Marco Hernandez fan, so maybe there's some bias, but with Hernandez, you have a guy with plus tools, plus bat speed, and some HR projection at short. With Almora, you have a solid-to-plus tools CF prospect who is purportedly polished (and I buy that he's polished ... but then again, Mark Pawelek was polished). I liked the Almora pick a ton, and was pushing for Almora over Correa in the draft thread, but I'm not sure how Almora is that far ahead of Hernandez as a talent ... and I like Almora ton. But ... what does he offer that makes him that far ahead (per El Duderino and Cubswin's comments)? I can buy Almora ahead ... but that far? Just don't see it. A plus tools kid who can stick at short, while offering good offensive potential vs. an average-to-borderline plus tools kid for CF who is "polished"? Don't see the gap. Edit: I threw Lake in there more because I know some folks have him as 4th/5th in the system as of now, not because I really cared to defend Lake that high.

http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/051712aab.html I have a lot of bias on this one, but I'm a big, big Bruno fan. This looked like a good post to put some 2 cents in. First off, I still think that he can play short. He likely won't play short in our system, but he was slated for shortstop duty until he got hurt, at which point, Chris Taylor came in from the OF and ran with it (and became the "Hero of Irvine"). I think he has the range, athleticism, and arm strength to play short. This isn't ... Theriot, IMO. That said, his bat is intriguing. On the surface, he should offer a good approach, hit for average, show average, if not more, power. It's a nice, all-around package - think ... uh ... Adrian Cardenas' offensive potential with a touch more power potential perhaps. Or if we want to stick to an undersized white guy comp, perhaps Mike Fontenot with a better potential to hit for average. Again ... on paper, he has this potential. He may not get there, but it's a fascinating package.

I like Bruno a ton. If he moves full-time to 2nd, I wouldn't be averse to putting him top 20, but again, personal bias. That said, you have a guy who potentially is solid defensively at 2nd (still think he can play short), could potentially hit for average, could potentially have average power. A very nice package. I don't know if Almora would be a lock to be top 3 for me. For most, I imagine, yes. But ... if Brett Jackson is still rookie eligible (quite possible), then 2 spots in the top 3 should be taken (with Baez). That leaves one spot, and I think you could make a case for Matt Szczur ahead of Almora, and depending on how a guy like Junior Lake finishes, perhaps him as well. I think you could make an argument for Marco Hernandez to be on par, roughly, with Almora.

Thanks for the report tt. Not the first time that ive heard velo concerns on burke. Hope he can pick it up, but if not, maybe they should fast track him to daytonas pen.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/06/chicago-cubs-rumors-saturday.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook Please.... Hopefully Blue Jays would want Garza or Dempster. They got a lot of pieces that I'm interested in. This is more my random commentary for the moment - There's a tiny part of me that thinks the Blue Jays system that is slightly over-hyped in some respects. Now, it's not the way I feel about the Padres system, as there is definitely some fascinating ceiling in the Blue Jays system, but outside of d'Arnaud ... who likely is untouchable ... it's a lot of raw assets nice, but few quality upper levels chips. Nicolino's nice, but he's end of the rotation with some mid-rotation ceiling nice and only in A+. lI don't know if I wouldn't prefer a gamble on someone like Adonys Cardona over someone like Nicolino. Syndegaard and Sanchez are the two arms that intrigue, but I can't shake the feeling that Sanchez might end up in the pen as he moves up the ladder. Marisnick is ... raw ... but intriguing. Probably safer than Gose, but still a work in progress on the power/contact front. I like Hechavarria, but I'm not sure how much offense he offers in the bigs. Don't get me wrong, they can still put together a fascinating trade that would likely have everyone buzzing. But .... there's a lot of risk in the lower levels and several of those guys will likely struggle to reach ceilings that people have projected for them, and assuming d'Arnaud is untouchable ... there aren't many solid upper-level chips to build a trade around. I guess, assuming d'Arnaud is untouchable ... I'd want something like (assuming Garza is pitching well), Syndegaard, Marisnick, and Sanchez. Even then ... that's three lower level assets, a big gamble in a trade like this, even with the type of upside those guys offer, and there stands a good chance that they might say no on giving up all three. I just wonder if people realize how ... raw ... and far away ... some of these prime Blue Jays prospects are. A guy like Drew Hutchinson is a nice, intriguing guy in the upper levels, and maybe he'd be a solid third piece in a deal, but I'm sort of hoping for better ceiling than Hutchinson as part of the first two pieces of a Garza trade. That said, again, a lot depends on how Garza is pitching at the time.

In terms of value, all three would be fine. That said, I wouldn't do all three deals. If we deal for Castellanos, I would want something other than an upper level 3rd base candidate for LaHair (and I would prefer Castellanos over Chisenhall, who I've never been huge on). Statistically, it looks like a good time to gamble on Minor. Obviously, the scouts and pitching coaches would be able to offer more insight as to whether or not his issues are correctable, but Minor still looks like a possible mid-rotation lefty, and Medlen is either a decent end of the rotation type arm with some ceiling, or a good pen arm. That's a trade for Dempster that I would love to get.

Eh ... I don't know about Barnes as a headliner. As a very good 2nd piece to a deal, that would be nice. But I still think Barnes is a more of a very good mid-rotation projection, a "2" ceiling perhaps, and I'm just not that in love with the idea of him as a centerpiece. That said, a lot will depend on how Garza is going at the time, and how much of a bidding war could we get going.

I'm obviously fine with Almora, although I was really coming around on Fried. I'll be surprised if Almora isn't there (hard to see who jumps him in the top 5), so either this is the greatest bluff ever, or this is our pick.

Eh ... more intriguing than Bowden ... but he's basically a more polished Marcus Hatley right now. Guess they get to plug and play a guy, while not having to rush up pen arms that could use more seasoning (like Hatley/Cabrera).

Your right, I should've used elite talent. He's still an elite catcher prospect, with a chance to be average, if not a tiny tick better, behind the plate, elite bat speed, and big time power potential. He has to work on some technique issues behind the plate, and has to cut down his swing a bit more than he has so far (but he's made some improvements), but he's so young right now. There's some makeup issues that I obviously can't provide an answer for, but I've got no problem considering him an elite talent. Maybe not an elite chip ... but I doubt we're getting a top 20 prospect in baseball for Garza.

The Yankees probably aren't the ideal team to complete a trade right now, but they aren't a bad team either. There's more than enough talent to put together a trade that I would be amenable with, but obviously, I might wish for better. That said, Garza has to be on a better roll for us to get a better package in return, or a bidding war of some sort needs to emerge. The Yankees still have one legitimate elite chip in Gary Sanchez, though, and while Banuelos has lost some luster, he still looks like a possible 2/3 lefty starter in the upper levels, a very nice asset. There's definitely enough young raw ability in the lower levels to mix and match and come up wit a decent deal (say, a power arm like Jose Campos and one more guy). Probably not the best team to deal with in a trade like this, but we might not have the ideal teams in the bidding.

Defensively, he has the tools to be a good shortstop. A lot of errors right now, but raw tools are there, with good arm strength, good athletic ability. He had a stretch there in May where he was red hot and the discipline looked significantly improved, but the BB and K rates are, for May, settling closer to what he's done in the past. Any legitimate improvement in discipline will make him an intriguing asset to watch because of his raw tools (assuming he becomes more consistent defensively). Bat speed's fairly good, to the best of my understanding. He could be like Marwin Gonzalez ... mediocre for awhile before putting it together, if he does.

I like Rhoderick a ton ... but I'm still not convinced there's enough on the fastball for him to be a dominant late inning arm (there's definitely enough on the fastball that Rhoderick could be it, but I still have my doubts). Hatley has the fastball and the power slider, but he lacks Rhoderick's consistency right now. I tend to think of Rhoderick as more Michael Wuertz-ish.

Michael Burgess has had an oddly intriguing season (intriguing doesn't equal exciting, though). Since seeing him a couple years back, I've never had that much faith ... and realistically, I still doubt that he reaches any meaningful roles in the bigs. That said, he's really brought the K rate down (12.5% in May, but 15.4% on the season). Of course, that's paired with a significant power drop from him. What I find intriguing is that he's pounding 55% GB's these days, a significant spike for him. Without having seen that much, sounds like he's working on some serious swing/approach adjustments. Can he bring that power up? Marcus Hatley still, IMO, gets a bit lost amidst Cubs prospects. He's putting together a fairly strong season, and while I like Cabrera a tick better overall, Hatley may deserve a look earlier (that said, whether or not he gets it is another question, as Cabrera does have the 40 man spot). With our superbly horrid pen this year, I really wouldn't mind seeing Hatley get a look later in the year (he's already older, at 24).

On the bright side, Daytona has rallied (for now), and Alcantara/Szczur both keep producing offensively. Had been a bit worried about the slightly declining BB rate for Szczur in May (granted, his K rate fell a bit as well, and realistically, probably just SSS, but after last year with Szczur, I get antsy when I look at his numbers, I guess), so the two walks tonight are nice to see.

He actually walked 2 in his first inning of work too. Some really rough control issues tonight. Was it really only a couple years ago when there was some relatively hope on the group of young arms coming through XST? Man ... so many have fallen and can't get up. Reed and Liria are in the pen, Jin Yeong Kim is toiling away in XST still, Cruz is demoted to XST, Paulino ... heck, I don't remember what's going on with him right now (injury?), and Peralta seems to, along with Wells, the last ones standing with a legitimate shot of developing into a starter, and Peralta comes with his heavy bag of control woes. Heck, some people even had hope on Su-min Jung. And for some reason, I thought Marcos Perez and Jean Sandoval were mildly intriguing, but for the life of me, I can't remember why right now. Granted, it's not like I expected all these guys to develop into intriguing arms ... but I had hoped a few of them would be interesting into, say, High A. Of course, Rosario wasn't really on the radar until late last year, so he's been a nice surprise, and I guess Jose Arias is next man up. Seems like so long ago ...

Geesh, I stop following the game for a second, and Peralta got tagged. Guess the control problems he had last year are still there. Granted, looks like Javier Baez's error really hampered things, but still. ouch.

He got 2 Ks in the first Pitch count has gotta be up there. 14 batters faced thru 3. 4 hits and 1 walk. But 4 Ks and only 1 unearned run (his own throwing error). He ended up going 3.1 and left a couple guys on base. Starling Peralta came in and got out of the jam without surrendering any runs.. I guess these two will be piggybacking. Wells final line: 3.1 IP, 4 H, 1 R, 0 ER, 1 BB, 4 K, 1 HBP, 5-1 GO-O, 2 errors If they are piggybacking, that makes Concepcion either a full starter, or do they create a 2nd piggyback? But there aren't that many candidates to go piggybacking ... maybe Yao-lin Wang. Reed seems unlikely to move to a piggyback, Suarez isn't doing that, and Liria probably isn't. That would leave a lefty like Cervenka (McDonald seems slated for the pen) or maybe Felix Pena. Actually, thinking about the names, I guess this means Concepcion is likely a full starter in Peoria.

Okay, what the hell is a middle of the road comp then? Sounds to me like "most likely". Nobody is talking about locks. Rizzo could end up worse than LaRoche, that would really suck. LaRoche has not been a very productive 1B and if Rizzo became him it would be very disappointing, so why are people trying to sugarcoat LaRoche's career? You still really don't address, though, why this is a bad comp. What you address is whether or not this would be a disappointment, which I've already acknowledged. Are you a) Suggesting this is a bad comp because you think Rizzo is a superior offensive player? If so, then tell me where I'm wrong in suggesting that his .268/.339/.480 career line is probably a good low end guess for Rizzo. b) Suggesting that he is that much superior to LaRoche defensively? Again, I don't know what to make of the early year LaRoche UZR scores, but he's been considered a consistently above average defensive first baseman. You are right, using middle of the road sounds vague, and I apologize. I was in the midst of preparing my presentation tomorrow and was trying to organize my briefs for New York, and I typed the first thing that came to mind. I think what I wanted to say is that it would (and this may make it ... less clear, for all I know) be a decent median comparison, on the low end (keep in mind, from the first post, I said I expected him to be better than LaRoche). So ... what is it about this comparison that you find so objectionable (and I would add one more - compare LaRoche's early swings to Rizzo's ... it's not exactly the same, but both have some length and loop to them)? Do you think Rizzo is going to hit for a higher average/has a better hit tool? Do you think he's going to strike out less? Do you think he's going to walk more? Do you think he's going to hit for more power? Do you think he is going to be that superb of a defensive player? Again ... what makes saying this as a low end median comparison that horrible? I haven't attempted to sugarcoat LaRoche's career. I simply took LaRoche's major league numbers and asked KyleJRM what it was that made him find the comparison so odd, and I'm asking the same thing here. And yet, outside of WAR, no one has been able to provide a good response as to why the numbers LaRoche has put up in his career is that flawed of a comparison point for what expectations for a low-end median guess on Rizzo should be. So ... reiterating .... what is it? Is he going to hit for a better average? More power? Have significantly better discipline? Be that significantly better defensively? Is Rizzo going to be significantly better than a 110 wRC+ guy and a .348 wOBA guy? You take away 2011 (he was banged up), and from 2006-2010, LaRoche is a slightly below average first baseman (if that's sugarcoating, then I apologize). So, I basically argued that what, Rizzo might be average (since I said I expect him to be better)? (and LaRoche is well on his way to his 4th average-ish WAR number for his career this year, if we use a mid 2 WAR value as average-ish). Again ... from a WAR perspective, what's so awful about that for a comparison? I think the 2005 fangraphs WAR is something I disagree with because that UZR is so out of whack with his reputation and UZR numbers thereafter, but I'll leave 2005 out of this discussion. Or is this, as I suspect, simply a discussion on whether or not this would be a disappointing outcome, as I already stipulated that it would be. Edit: Okay, re-reading this thread, and I see that you are only talking about how it would be a disappointment, and it was only KyleJRM that found this comparison odd. My apologies.

If the draft goes Appel/Buxton/Correa/Gausman (Callis' order in an article over at masnsports), and if KC takes Zimmer at 5 (assuming the talk of them and a college arm still holds) ... I still have a tough time passing on Zunino at 6. I can see a case for Fried there. Don't know who my preference would be if the options are Zunino, Giolito, Fried, Almora, eteceteras.

I can buy that list. I still have my doubts on Welington as a top tier starter, hence my unwillingness to move him up, and Candelario's long-term future, positionally, is still a question, and his power is still a lot of projection, so I'm wary of going too high on him. As to the pitching, I think one can argue that there isn't really an arm in the system with TOR ability. I'd still make a half-hearted defense on Wells potential, but the improvement in the quality of the breaking ball doesn't seem to be there yet. There's several guys with mid-rotation ceilings (and some guys falling from that list ... I have a hard time buying Struck as a mid-rotation ceiling guy anymore, outside of the hope that he's so young that something can develop, and Beeler is sliding off the mid-rotation ceiling list for me as well), but if we get one guy to develop into a mid-rotation arm, that would be a win. So, we've got a lot of end of the rotation types where you hope one or two breakthrough. What makes it worse is that there aren't a ton of arms that you look at and think ... hey, possible late inning arm. There's Cabrera, Hatley, Zych ... and ? From the "starters that could become late inning pen arms", maybe McNutt/Whitenack/Rosario, off the top (probably a couple others if I pondered it a bit more). So ... our pitching is a lot of end of the rotation arms and potential middle relievers ... woo hoo! To be honest, I really don't mind Max Fried at 6 if they grade him high enough. I still have my lingering doubts on Gausman/Zimmer, although I tend to prefer them over Appel (although if Appel fell to 6, which I don't expect ... I think you sort of have to take him ... depending on the board of course, but if he is at 6, then a lot of other guys have gone ahead).

Thanks. So ... ? Are you telling me that you think it's a lock that Rizzo is going to be better than LaRoche overall, and better than LaRoche at his best? If so, good. That'd be awesome. I just find it hard to think that anything with any prospect is a lock ... particularly when the argument is for a player to become an elite player at his position. I'm saying it's an odd comp. Well, then let's take a look at the major league numbers, then. LaRoche has average .268/.339/.480 with a 9.6% BB rate and 22.3% K rate. If Rizzo's swing issues manifest itself in the majors again, a slightly lower average, something around .260-.270 isn't unrealistic. The BB and K rates look similar to what we might expect out of Rizzo - heck, some think Rizzo may strike out a lot more in the bigs. Power looks fair. 6 out of the last 7 years, LaRoche has posted an above average to good UZR. Now, I have no explanation for his poor UZR numbers to start his career (and I still think that he was a better defensive first baseman when he was younger), but the positive UZR scores in recent years ... that's sort of what we're expecting out of Rizzo, right? Size is similar, well, 20 pounds more for Rizzo. Again ... I said a middle of the road/middle tier comp, and I also said I expected Rizzo to be better than that. I just don't know why this comp seems so odd for people. Would it be disappointing? Sure ... but is it unrealistic?

Thanks. So ... ? Are you telling me that you think it's a lock that Rizzo is going to be better than LaRoche overall, and better than LaRoche at his best? If so, good. That'd be awesome. I just find it hard to think that anything with any prospect is a lock ... particularly when the argument is for a player to become an elite player at his position.

Really, after 6, I had a tough time figuring it out on the fly (and I imagine some, if not most, would quibble with my 4/5). I've never been as high on Maples as most, so putting him there, with the injury, is probably something I'd change if I sat down and actually made a list, gave it some thought. But ... McNutt sure hasn't shown he can be a starter. Lake and Vitters have to show consistency for me to buy them higher ... the former with his discipline, the latter with his discipline and maintaining production. After that, things are a mess, so provided Maples ceiling isn't impacted by the injury (and so far ... doesn't seem like there's anything to suggest that, but then again ... who knows), I guess I'd still consider him a top 10-12 guy at worst. I mean, from my 12-21 that I slapped together, there isn't anyone pushing their way forward (outside of perhaps Jose Rosario ... more I think about it ... maybe he should be top 10 ... ).

I think that was in a BA blurb, so guessing Badler, but could've been Callis.