toonsterwu

Yeah, I'm just going to go ahead and totally buy that he doesn't have actual mid-rotation upside on the kind of team the Cubs should want to have. He most definitely should have more developed secondary pitches right now (he's 3 years older, drafted out of college...I mean, really?), but long term and at the ML level none of them project to much. I highly doubt we see him have anything much to do with them mid-90's as a major leaguer, unless it's out of the pen. I honestly don't even find this one debatable. Sure, ideally, the Cubs will have a 3rd starter whose ceiling is better than a classic "3", but I don't get the two-bolded parts. He's got an above average to plus slider (which is what gives him the mid-rotation ceiling, as he fits everything else that is the typical scouting expectations of a guy with mid-rotation upside). How does that not project to much? He's definitely touching mid-90's (93/94) as a starter this year. That much, I am certain of. And to be clear, these aren't reports from when he was easing his way back in and only going 2-3 innings a game.

I'm not sure Concepcion's ceiling is better than Loosen's. Both seem like end of the rotation arms with mid-rotation ceilings if all goes well. I don't see Loosen's upside as anything more than bottom of the rotation or pen. He's a 23 year old unimpressive stuff RH currently in AA. Maybe mid-rotation upside in a bottom tier rotation. I'd say Concepcion's ceiling is better than his, and being newer, LHeder, and three years younger makes him way more interesting. Also willing to bet he's a better athlete with way more room to grow/get better moving forward... I don't disagree that he's more interesting. On the ceiling argument, Loosen's fastball is better (it's touched mid-90's this year and is largely in the low 90's this year (whereas last year, there were still some reports of high 80's ... but I wonder if a lot of those reports were based on his collegiate scouting reports)). He's got more developed and better secondary pitches as of now, with a nice multiple pitch mix already, with an above average slider. I guess I can understand an argument for Concepcion having a higher ceiling (room for projection, lefty who hits 90 already, good action on a 2-seamer reportedly, hope that ironing out his mechanics can improve his secondary pitches and make one of them plus), but that's far down the road for Concepcion and I'm not sure the gap is all that wide. Loosen has found his stride (been really good in A+) and should be in AA soon, putting him at an age appropriate level. We'll get a better gauge on how his stuff plays once he gets up there (which, if he keeps it up, should be later this summer, IMO).

I'm not sure Concepcion's ceiling is better than Loosen's. Both seem like end of the rotation arms with mid-rotation ceilings if all goes well.

I think Maholm has value, but a) He has to, well, get ... better ... for lack of a better word b) Cubs have to chip in money But I think getting a top 10 in a middle-tier system is borderline. A good comparison might be the Doug Fister trade last year (certainly, each trade exists in it's own environment, so you never know what might happen, but I think it's a decent comparable in terms of quality of pitcher being shopped). Fister was arguably pitching better than Maholm at the time, and while the Mariners netted quantity, they netted borderline quality. Ruffin's been awful in the early-going in AAA this year, but assuming he turns it around, he's still only a borderline closer candidate, and more likely, a setup guy ... assuming he reaches the bigs. Plenty of guys in the bigs with 91/92 on the fastball and a good slider out of the pen. Francisco Martinez is a nice looking 3rd base prospect, and the other names are slipping me at the moment (Casper Wells, I think, was one ... I want to say Charlie Furbush was the other). That said, sure, I could definitely see a "decent" prospect (say, a Chris Archer type before he came here, and intriguing, but raw arm in the low levels) being netted for Maholm. That said, the market is likely to have a lot of end of the rotation arms being shopped, so while whoever is shopped could net a "decent" prospect, not all will.

I'm going to be mildly surprised if they non-tender Soto. Wouldn't stun me ... and it may depend on how he does the rest of the year, but assuming he doesn't go on some Herculean streak (but does improve) ... we're looking at what, 5 mil for Soto next year? 5 mil on the open market nets you what, Rod Barajas? Are they going to go out and add a catcher? I have a hard time seeing them turn to a Castillo/Clevenger combination next year, and it's debatable if Flores (or Brenly) would be an ideal 3rd catcher on the 40, as I'd think they'd like a veteran in that mix. If the cost of Soto is roughly the cost of a Barajas type in FA ... why not bring Soto back (instead of non-tendering him)?

Is Sullivan talking about trades ... or is he talking about say, Rizzo? When I hear "roster moves", I don't automatically jump to trades, so I wonder if this is more a statement about Rizzo.

The leash is admittedly short, and I have no idea what happened, but I didn't give up on Smoak just yet entering the season and 150 AB's isn't going to move me tremendously just yet. The reason I had yet to give up on him entering 2012 was because I found his 2011 intriguing in that he OPS'd .802 at home with a .225 ISO with a .256 BABIP. No clue why he sucked on the road last year. The raw power that people expected is still there, but the guy is trying to/needs to adjust to hitting at Safeco. Maybe he'll never find that balance, and maybe 150 AB's into this year should be enough of a signal, but I'll give him some more rope.

slider's average, to the best of my knowledge. flashes a bit better occasionally, but that's probably why you see such a low K rate. It's also possible that the quality of the sinker is down. Haven't heard, but his GB% is down this year in Tennessee compared to the short stint there last year (about the same number of innings, 59% last year, 52 now ... of course, could also be a SSS issue). Didn't Simpson throw after Francescon the other day? Hard to see him getting in again today if he's on a piggyback-ish schedule. If they've moved him to straight pen, then perhaps.

For no apparent reason, I was trying to think of a list of teams where it might make sense for them to give up the boatload ... and I can't come up with a long list. But one intriguing scenario (probably because it's 1:45 am) I keep pondering is Seattle. Say, they offered two of their big three prospect arms, a Nick Franklin and another piece or two (maybe Kyle Seager). They'd still have one big time arm to go with Felix, Castro would step in at short, and they have some third base options. They'd have a superb positional core (Montero/Smoak/Castro/Ackley). We'd get a 3rd baseman in Seager, an upper level guy with a shot to stick at short in Franklin, and two quality upper level arms. Eh ... I really need to get back to work. Damn I feel like I'm back in college or grad school. Reading stupid reports at this hour that don't matter in the grand scheme of things. (The other teams that I thought it made some sense for would be Baltimore and Toronto in the "We need to break through into the top 3 in the AL East" category, Atlanta in the "make a push for Chipper category ...").

I really don't see the D-backs moving any of their core pitchers (Bauer/Skaggs/Bradley) unless the trade is so good that they can't pass. Scary thing is, with Chafin and, to a lesser extent, Corbin, they have two other quality young arms. I think they would move them, along with the veterans, in an attempt to rebuild a core around their top young arms in a year or two.

He's going to have to be moved off of SS at 26??????????? I said at least. If you've read my comments on Castro before, I've always consistently said that I felt he could play short through his 20's, and perhaps have to move off in his 30's, but there's definitely people that feel otherwise, even including his strong showing so far this year.

I think Bauer is the type of guy that you either like or think he'll wear out quick. I don't love Bauer, but I see the argument for Bauer's prime being superior to Skaggs prime. _____ I don't know if you'd get a better package than that in any sort of realistic deal (and I doubt the D-backs do that deal), and therein lies the problem in making this deal - it'd be almost hard to appease every organization involved. I mean, entering the season, that was 2 five stars and a 3 star on Goldstein's BP list (1/2/6), and most believe Davidson has improved a fair amount, so he's probably a 4 star. For BA, that was the number 1, 3, 5 prospects in their system, and again, Davidson has taken off. For Sickels, that was 1 (Bauer, A), 2, Skaggs (A-), 7 (Davidson, B-) in the offseason. I'd venture a guess that Davidson is either a B or a B+ now (but granted, have to see how he finishes). That's a heck of a package to top things ... and I see no way that the D-backs would do that (in a hypothetical, that's too much pitching to give up considering their market size), and a case can be made that the questions on Bauer are enough to ask for more on the Cubs end.

Well, Rosario got shelled, Alcantara, Szczur each got a hit (and Rohan homered), to bring Daytona back in it. Struck's getting hammered, but Lake has a hit and a run in the early-goings.

Both are too far away for me to take just them for Castro. Throw in Weiters/Jones + Matusz for the hell of it and I'd think about it. I don't WANT to deal Castro, but Machado is 19 and OPSing over .800 in AA and we all know what bundy's doing. My guess is both hit the majors next year. I'd definitely consider a Bundy/Machado deal ... but I'd need more. I have high doubts Bundy sees the bigs next year, unless it's just for a September call-up to get him wet. Hard to get him enough work without over-doing it, akin to the Cashner innings-build up problem of a couple seasons ago. As a side note, I don't think Baltimore would trade Wieters for Castro straight up, and I don't think the Cubs would trade Castro for Wieters straight up.

Okay ... go ahead and question my sanity ... but that would be an awfully tempting package. I'd have to ponder it some more ... and I'd want a secondary piece or two thrown in there, but Davidson has really taken off and is probably one of the top 3rd base prospects in the minors. That's 1 elite prospect (Bauer), 2 really high quality talents. There is absolutely zero chance that I think that happens, though.

I apologize, but I haven't completely gone through this thread and wanted to put my 2 cents in. First, I am not against any idea. When you are in the position we are in ... then everything needs to be on the table. Everything. That doesn't mean you do the first thing that comes along that sounds good, but if a deal is one you can't turn down ... well ... you can't turn it down. That said ... it'd take a whopper of a deal for me to part with Castro. Two high end guys alone wouldn't be enough. It would have to be two elite guys, one in the upper levels (I'm talking, say, Shelby Miller/Oscar Tavares and a couple more pieces, not that that would happen). We're talking about a guy who can stay at short for at least 3-5 more years and be a prime offensive contributor. Now, if they "blank checked it", then maybe I wouldn't care as much on the quality of the high end talent. 2nd ... is Olney trying to suggest that the Castro trade would be less than the Hanley trade? Because if so ... that's ... odd. Hanley was an unproven prospect. Starlin's proven and young. 3rd, I've always compared Castro to Cano coming up. I'm not sure his power will peak at Cano's current levels, but their swings are vaguely similar, and it's easy to forget ... Cano coming up was viewed as a high contact guy with some questions on his power. Personally, I doubt there is a deal out there that an opposing team would realistically do that would make me inclined to deal Castro.

From the "shocking" department: Torreyes with a hit. From the "not-so-shocking" department: Alcantara with an error.

If this is a Marco demotion, I don't get the timing of it. There was definitely reasons that could explain why he struggled in the first month (cold weather). He had turned the corner. Sure, the power and OBP have been in the past 10, but he has been making contact. Seems like odd timing when a kid seems to have found his stride and was, by most accounts, doing solid defensive work. If this is a Marco promotion (doubtful ... Alcantara isn't going up to AA ... but I guess we can't completely rule it out) ... I don't get it either. If this is Marco to 2nd ... I don't get it either. If this is Baez to 3rd, I don't get it either. Seems like Marco to XST and Boise is the most realistic option on the table ... and I just don't get the timing of it. If they did it a month ago, no one would've blinked an eye. In the grand scheme of things, I can't complain. Much as I like Marco, Javier should have priority. A part of me wonders about Javier and Marco both being at Peoria, with them sharing SS, and Javier dabbling at 3rd and Marco dabbling at 2nd.

I should add ... I don't like or hate Wilken. I just call it by how I feel at the time. Like I said, with hindsight, yes, the Wilken era doesn't look so hot right now (06 has had, I think, 4 guys reach the bigs (Clevenger, Parker, Samardzija, Colvin), with Samardzija as the darkhorse to become really good, and with Marcus Hatley as a 5th guy who might see the bigs; 07, which was initially thought of as a better draft than 06, IIRC, looks ugly right now, with 4 guys reach the bigs (not counting Cashner, since he didnt sign), but none of them look likely to be impact players (Guyer, Barney, Donaldson, Russell) with Vitters likely to see the bigs, but what type of quality is yet to be determined). One last comment on 2006, and why I didn't have a big issue with the Colvin pick then - who did people prefer? Hindsight makes it seem likely that, with the money they had allocated for Samardzija, they weren't going to take a prep pick there BUT ... let's pretend that the Shark situation didn't impact this. Snider? I don't recall being a huge Snider fan. There were some scouts then chirping about how Colvin might be able to stick in CF. That sounded intriguing enough to me that I don't recall being someone that wanted Snider a lot more than Colvin. I don't recall being too hot for Marrero/Parmalee. Kyle Drabek might've been someone I preferred over Colvin. Actually, and my memory is pretty shoddy on how I really felt then, but I wouldn't be surprised if I liked Sinkbeil and Antonelli. I was never huge on Kennedy in his time in the Yankees minors, so I'll assume I wasn't huge on him that draft year, but I don't recall. Considering Colvin was likely to go in the 20's, and considering the other options out there, I just didn't have a big issue with the pick then. I sure wish we could've gotten Kershaw ... but that wasn't going to happen.

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss. The thing is... what player that was drafted in the first round after Colvin would you have rather Wilken drafted? Drabek looks like he may have things figured out and Kennedy had a good year last year but is off to a rough start this year. There is absolutely no success outside of those two. There were a whole lot of misses in the first round of the '06 draft. There often is, but the '06 draft was especially dreadful. Also, after last year's draft, it sounds like Wilken and RIcketts were insinuating that there were major financial restrictions put on the draft pre-Ricketts ownership. It's a shame that over slots won't be a major component in drafting going forward, because it seems like Wilken is quite productive with some money to spend. Here's my general thing - I didn't mind Wilken's philosophy on what type of guys to take because of the limitations that he had. Scouting directors will miss like crazy (what's the old saying, get 2 major leaguers in one draft and it's a success?). If I'm really going to fault anything about Wilken, it's that he didn't spend a bit more effort trying to find power bats ... but admittedly, a lot of key power bats are the expensive prep guys in the draft, guys that we would've had a difficult time picking considering the budgets and limitations that we now knew were in place pre-Ricketts. Now, that doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried ... something ... I don't know what, but something , but he did take Vitters and Jackson, and Jackson was one of the better power bats available at the spot. But his philosophy on taking up-the-middle guys and athletic pitchers? Vaguely similar to McLeod's philosophy. Wilken's guys might have a bit more risk in them, but how much of that was Hendry influenced, I don't know (Wilken once gave an interview saying that Hendry's influence had him going with arms ahead of bats, IIRC). Probably not completely, as he took some risks in his successful tenure in Toronto, and even with Tampa Bay.

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss. Sorry, what I meant to say is I never faulted him for the 2006 draft because of all the picks that he were pissing. THat would've been the keypoint. I had no real big issue with the Colvin pick at the time ... he was going to go in the next 10-15 picks, so it wasn't a horrible reach (he was picked mid first, all indications are that he was going to go late first). We don't know the dynamics behind a Colvin/Samardzija decision that, in that, we don't know if the latter led them to save money on the former and go with a 10-15 spot reach (which really shouldn't be considered a reach ... at least, relative to football drafts, most teams go by tiers of talent, so a 10-15 spot gap isn't considered an issue). It should be remembered that the Shark pick was something that surprised most Cubs fans (on most of the sites I was on at the time) because the general thought was that he would be hard to sign, and it was assumed that they had insider knowledge of some sort (because of Hendry-Maineri's relationship), which allowed them to plan accordingly. So no ... I did not fault him for the 2006 draft because of all the picks missing, and I didn't mind the Colvin pick. That's my take. I'm sure others, like yourself, may feel different.

nice ... but with Whitenack and Francescon ... someone's getting dumped. My guess is one lefty, one righty. Or maybe my other suggestion, Jokisch moving up to pen duty in AA, occurs. You're kind of right - Brooks Raley to Iowa, Eric Jokisch to Tennessee. I'm guessing Jokisch will start still. I hope he doesn't ... because if he does, that makes it seem likely that the Antigua thing was a one-off. That said, guessing Antigua goes back to pen duty. A s a side note, someone still has to get moved from the Daytona rotation. Wonder who the unlucky chap is.

On Wilken - Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew. b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me. c) By 2009, I was a huge fan of the 2008 draft. Of course, a lot of it ended up floundering. I don't recall being gigantically huge on Cashner when the pick was made. Loved the fact that he went after athletic pitchers. d) Felt lukewarm about the 09 draft. Jackson was my preferred target of the OF's being discussed. But the rest of the early picks ... wasn't in love with some of the top 10 round guys. Of course, if BJax makes the bigs, and if Whitenack finds his form, and if one of Rusin/Raley/Kirk see time in the bigs ... it's actually a pretty good draft. Think it's early to judge 2010 and 2011, but I've been fairly clear that I quite enjoyed some of the arm gambles in 2010 and that I never had a huge issue with the Simpson pick. I recall feeling pretty good about our top 10 round picks. And obviously, with the money spent in 2011, well, we're all hopeful.

nice ... but with Whitenack and Francescon ... someone's getting dumped. My guess is one lefty, one righty. Or maybe my other suggestion, Jokisch moving up to pen duty in AA, occurs.

What's always bothered me about BJax's K's is this - what's his fault? You can usually find some sort of glaring fault. Yes, he has a little hitch/hole in his swing. Yes, he occasionally chases. But ... he isn't a hacker, he has a decent eye at the plate, and the swing hole isn't that big, to my understanding. Leaving aside his little spell of late, it's always bothered me why he couldn't bring that K rate down to around 25% or so. I'm sure maybe someone more knowledgeable has a good answer, but on the surface, always wondered why he K'd so much.