StylesClash

You guys are way too hard on Hendry. His big mistakes have come with free agent signings, not trades. Other than the Juan Pierre deal I'd say his trade track record is excellent. Considering all the high profile trades Hendry has made over the years I'd say its impressive that Ricky Nolasco is the only dealt Cub prospect to turn into a real commodity (Pinto's control is still way too erratic to fall into that category).

When did he start flailing away at pitches? He doesn't walk a lot yet, but he certainly hasn't been a strikeout machine by any means either. Flailing was the wrong term to use. But Vitters' biggest strength has always been contact, and as of right now he's hitting under 230 in A ball. Now granted he's young for his league, but eventually he'll need to learn which pitches he can drive with force and which he'll hit hit weakly. For every Vladimir Guerrero who excels despite swinging at anything in the strikezone, there's ten top prospects who fail because of this trait. Now getting back to the key topic at hand: bare minimum Andrew Cashner will put himself in the conversation to be the Cubs top prospect at seasons end. I'll be interested to read the scouting reports assessing his slider and changeup progress.

Mr.Cashner is making me feel more and more confident ranking him above Starlin Castro a few days ago. And quite frankly with the way Josh Vitters continues to struggle with his K/BB ratio I'm contemplating putting Cashner ahead of him as well. We can all agree on one thing: the Cubs are not among the elite organizations when it comes to improving the plate discipline of aggressive young power hitters. If Vitters were an Athletic I'd have much more confidence in his long term future. Bare minimum barring injuries Cashner will be a dominant late inning reliever. Best case scenario with continued offspeed pitch improvement he'll be a top of the rotation starter. If Vitters continues to flail away at pitchers pitches his long term future looks a lot less bright.

I've gotta see his power and walk totals increase, as well as error totals decrease, before I put Castro ahead of Cashner. Granted a 19 year old Shortstop with an OPS over 700 in high-A ball is fairly impressive. But I can't rank him over a pitcher with an ideal frame, clean mechanics, plus mid 90's fastball, potential for a plus slider, and an ever improving changeup. Essentially with Andrew Cashner I see someone who with more polishing of his secondary pitches could be a top of the rotation pitcher. We really don't have any idea what Starlin Castro's upside is. Cashner seems like a safer bet to become an impact big league player. I understand the sentiment, but the one thing holding me back from ranking Cashner over Castro is that Cashner needs to prove he can start over the course of a full season, stay healthy, and maintain his stuff throughout. I think he has a chance of doing that, don't get me wrong. However, considering there is still a distinct likelihood he will end up as a reliever in the majors, I think that hurts his stock a decent amount. Distinct likelihood of a move to the pen? Tim Wilken stated that Andrew Cashner had some of the best mechanics that he'd seen of any pitcher in the 2008 draft. Combine that with his six foot six frame and excellent conditioning program and I see little issue with his durability. Cashner already has one plus pitch with his fastball (which from various reports maintains quality velocity deep into games). The big question with Cashner is his slider. Wilken stated it has the movement of a power curveball (which is clearly very impressive). Appearently though Cashners command of it is shaky. Improving slider consistency and turning the changeup into an average offering are the two main keys in his development. Are your doubts of Cashner's long term future in the rotation more of secondary offerings or durability? As of now I have little hesitation ranking not only Cashner ahead of Castro, but Lee as well. Lee has 50+ stolen base potential and a decent approach in terms of maintaining a solid OBP/BA differential.

I've gotta see his power and walk totals increase, as well as error totals decrease, before I put Castro ahead of Cashner. Granted a 19 year old Shortstop with an OPS over 700 in high-A ball is fairly impressive. But I can't rank him over a pitcher with an ideal frame, clean mechanics, plus mid 90's fastball, potential for a plus slider, and an ever improving changeup. Essentially with Andrew Cashner I see someone who with more polishing of his secondary pitches could be a top of the rotation pitcher. We really don't have any idea what Starlin Castro's upside is. Cashner seems like a safer bet to become an impact big league player.

86 percent save percentage. Decreasing monthly ERA since a horrid April. Two high end draft picks he will net us in the offseason if not re-signed(which should atleast equal the worth of Jose Ceda). I'm convinced this trade is looking a whole lot better than most people ever wanted to give Jim Hendry credit for. Kerry Wood's save percentage is ten points lower as well.

Can you post the full article? For the 2003 Cub draft review Goldstein stated no one questioned the Ryan Harvey selection at the time. But even back then Harvey's strengths and weaknesses were well known. He had 40+ home run potential and a cannon of an arm. But Harvey also had severe problems hitting any sort of quality breaking pitch, and was not projected to put up quality K/BB ratio's. Eventually Harvey's power turned into nothing more than batting practice moonshots and the occasional monster game (including a four home run performance a few years back). Considering Ryan Harvey's huge issues with plate discipline and that he was coming off major knee surgery shouldn't taking him as early as number six overall been considered atleast somewhat of a stretch?

Tim Wilken compared Jackson to Mark Kotsay. Even if Jackson can manage to stay in Center I still wouldn't be that happy with Kotsay level upside from a first round pick. Reed Johnson's career statistics are remarkably similar to those of Kotsay's, and we picked Johnson up from the scrap heap. Tim Wheeler would have been a much more useful pick. Wheeler's athleticism should easily allow him to stay in Center Field, and he projects to be a quality leadoff man someday (something we've lacked since Kenny Lofton). I'll take a leadoff man over Mark Kotsay part two anyday.

I really hope the Cubs aren't taking a Conservative approach to early round drafting because of the string of busts they had from 2003 to 2005. As a big market franchise the Cubs should not be drafting players simply because they are safe bets to reach the majors. With a 100+ million dollar payroll we can afford to sign Second Basemen with quality upsides off the free agent market (thusly hurting DJ's value in my mind since he wont be a long term Shortstop option). The boom or bust type players are still the ones I prefer to take early on. If they live up to their upside they can become franchise caliber players (the type who would be extremely expensive to sign their equivalent on the free agent market). That's much better than the fourth outfielder Brett Jackson seems likely to become (even if he's a solid bet to reach Chicago someday). Also in retrospect of the three players you mentioned I have no problem with two of them. Brownlie would have more than likely been the top pick in the 2002 draft before shoulder injuries occurred. The Cubs simply bet that he'd be able to return to his pre-injury form of having a mid 90's fastball and hammer curveball. With the 21st overall pick that's a solid gamble to take. Mark Pawelek was another boom or bust type player. Everyone knew he was fairly raw, but getting a mid 90's fastball and quality breaking stuff from a left hander, in my mind, is another quality gamble to make (especially since it wasn't early in the first round). Honestly I wish the Cubs had given Pawelek another year or two to prove himself (especially considering our lack of quality left handed arms in the farm system). I've never been a Ryan Harvey supporter though (even when he was originally selected and had a lot of backing from Cub fans). Sure he had 40+ home run potential, but where was the plate discipline? Considering we could never teach that element to Corey Patterson I was skeptical of whether Harvey could ever learn it. Plus it's great if you can hit a fastball 450 feet, but his ability to hit breaking stuff was questioned even back then (and still hasn't been remedied to this day). Hopefully next draft, with a new owner fully in place, we'll have the budget to slot bust a little more with High School players (like we did in 2006).

He has a strong commitment and he's with Scott Boras. We signed Mark Pawelek the day he was drafted. Clearly Hendry feels comfortable with Boras to get a deal done with a high profile client that quickly. As of right now I can't imagine anyone else available has Goodwins upside. Unless the Ownership situation will prevent us from spending big in the draft it seems as though all the easy signable players we drafted early on could allow a major slot bust. Mark Pawelek was considered signable and didn't go over slot. Not all Boras clients are alike. Pawelek didn't have a strong college commitment. Quite a few publications think Goodwin does. If the Cubs feel they can get someone in round 17 who is of value and think it's unlikely Goodwin will sign, they'd be better off going with the guy who they can sign. What are the odds that the signable round 17 players ever turn into serviceable MLB talent, or even decent trade bait? It seems as though a lot of Wilken's selections have been very safe in terms of being likely to reach the big leagues (but being fourth outfielders, reserve infielders or lefty specialists). As a big market team we can out in the free agent market and sign those types of players rather easily. Goodwin projects as a possible leadoff man someday. Quality leadoff men are incredibly expensive to buy. I'd rather take a chance with a late round pick on a high upside/low signability player than someone who at best projects as a reserve. Worst case scenario we offer Goodwin a contract worthy of your typical late first round/early second round selection and he turns it down. But atleast we know an effort was put in towards obtaining a player who would instantly rank as one of our better outfield prospects.

He has a strong commitment and he's with Scott Boras. We signed Mark Pawelek the day he was drafted. Clearly Hendry feels comfortable with Boras to get a deal done with a high profile client that quickly. As of right now I can't imagine anyone else available has Goodwins upside. Unless the Ownership situation will prevent us from spending big in the draft it seems as though all the easy signable players we drafted early on could allow a major slot bust.

Brian Goodwin must have an incredibly strong committment to UNC to have not been selected yet. Leading up to the draft it seemed as though he had second round talent. Considering that Outfield was targeted as one of our primary areas to address I don't see why we can't pull a Huseby and offer him first round caliber money to sign. None of our early selections seems as though they will carry heavy contract demands. That leaves more money for a late round slot busting.

Would Brian Goodwin be a reach as a first round pick? Goodwin has elite speed, along with above average range and plate discipline. Getting those traits from a premium position like Center Field seems like a worthy late first round gamble. The Kenny Lofton comparison doesn't hurt either.

You want him to make the 25 man roster? Do you know Wellington Castillo's background at all? Castillo is a 21 year old Catcher who only first experienced offensive success last season at Double-A. His upside would be completely wasted on Chicago's bench (assuming he's big league ready, which I seriously doubt he is). Gaining more polish and establishing a more significant track record of success at the minor league level is the best thing for Castillo. Plus if he hits at Iowa the way he did last season in Tennessee he could then become a good piece of trade bait come next Winter. Sitting on the bench backing up Soto wouldn't help his value at all.

$5.5 million seems steep for a backup who can only really play 1B What if traded Luis Vizcaino (3.5) + prospect for Johnson (5.5). After adding in the 500K buyout for Vizcaino, the Cubs would only be taking on 1.5 million for Johnson. That's a deal I'd do if you could get Bowden to bite on it. Johnson would at least give us a decent bat on the bench, and allow Lou to comfortably give Lee an off day every now and then. Also, I think Johnson (while he's never played there) could be just as passable in LF/RF as Hoffpauir. I'm sure a rebuilding team would love to have a 34 year old declining reliever making nearly four million. Jim Bowden isn't a bad enough GM to make that move. That's Dave Littlefield level of ineptitude. Even though Adam Dunn is easily worth 20 million I don't understand why the Nationals signed him. They aren't contending with or without Dunn for atleast another few seasons. I'd invest that 20 million into the draft and international free agent market. Washington's farm system could really use the upgrade that strategy would provide. They would actually be freeing up money by trading Johnson for Vizcaino. Are they really rebuilding? It seems to me that if they could find some takers for their plethora of outfielders, they could have a halfway solid team full of veterans. Also, considering they were willing to give Teixiera a huge contract, they probably have the money to spend for O-Dog. Put him in the line up, and I think they have a very competitive team. Pretending that Adam Dunn would play 1b, they have: OF- Kearns/Pena OF- Milledge/Dukes OF- Willingham 3b- Zimmerman SS- Christian Guzman 2b- Orlando Hudson 1b- Adam Dunn C- Jesus Flores SP- Scott Olsen SP- Daniel Cabrera SP- John Lannan SP- Collin Balester SP- Bergmann, Hill, Detwieler, Shell What they need at this point is pitching, and they still have plenty of outfield depth to trade. Lets see here...quality young hitting and no pitching. Sounds like the Rangers during the Soriano days. Not exactly what a team should strive to be. With my strategy the Nats don't spend 20 million for two years of a player that won't help them contend. Spending huge amounts on the international free agent market and draft would bring the National farm system tons of credibility, and in the long run allow Washington a much better chance to contend.

$5.5 million seems steep for a backup who can only really play 1B What if traded Luis Vizcaino (3.5) + prospect for Johnson (5.5). After adding in the 500K buyout for Vizcaino, the Cubs would only be taking on 1.5 million for Johnson. That's a deal I'd do if you could get Bowden to bite on it. Johnson would at least give us a decent bat on the bench, and allow Lou to comfortably give Lee an off day every now and then. Also, I think Johnson (while he's never played there) could be just as passable in LF/RF as Hoffpauir. I'm sure a rebuilding team would love to have a 34 year old declining reliever making nearly four million. Jim Bowden isn't a bad enough GM to make that move. That's Dave Littlefield level of ineptitude. Even though Adam Dunn is easily worth 20 million I don't understand why the Nationals signed him. They aren't contending with or without Dunn for atleast another few seasons. I'd invest that 20 million into the draft and international free agent market. Washington's farm system could really use the upgrade that strategy would provide.

Rotoworld usually trashes free agent signings, including the Lilly and DeRosa deals a few years back. Ken Rosenthal putting down the signing would mean a lot more to me than anything those roto hacks have to say. Anyways I expect the Cubs to have a similar approach in handling Milton Bradley as they do with Rich Harden. Neither is expected to play a full seasons worth of games. The key with both players is getting them into the postseason fully healthy. If Harden and Bradley are healthy come October both are talented enough to carry the team on their backs for a few weeks. Plus with Milwaukee looking to be a lot worse from losing Sabathia and more than likely Sheets we wont need a full season of Bradley to make the postseason. I'd take around 100 starts in the regular season as long as he makes it to October healthy.

I don't know if anyone has brought this point up but we received supplemental first round selections for both Jason Kendall and Juan Pierre, two players who the Cubs did not offer arbitration to. So while we can't pickup another teams first round selection wont the Cubs atleat receive a sandwhich pick for losing Kerry Wood? Essentially it would be Wood and Ceda for Gregg and the supplemental first round player. Thats not such a bad exchange of talent. Plus we opened up a little more payroll flexibility.

I've had a few questions answered in BA chats over the past few years. The first one, in early 2006 I believe, was about Ryan Harvey and questioning why he wasn't in their top 100 prospect list. Needless to say a few more years of mediocrity has soured me on his supposed high upside. One thing I like about Josh Vitters is that he seems to be a near exact opposite type of prospect. Harvey was a lot about physical tools. He was a supposed 40 homer threat with solid defense for a man of his size. Vitters on the otherhand is praised for being an excellent contact threat along the lines of Howie Kendrick. That projection, with more power, still doesn't ease the frustration of passing on Rick Porcello though. I'll take the ace pitcher over the 30 homer threat Third Baseman with serious defensive issues anyday. If someday we find out signability played a major role in the Vitters pick there should be a significant amount of disappointment. Not willing to spend an extra three million seems silly when you pay 21 million for a glorified innings eater.

Too bad we didn't sign Alexi Ramirez from the cuba minor leagues, he is tearing it up. There has to be some more good Cubans down there??!!?1 haha so you think alexei ramirez is an impact hitter but you say nobody cares about matt wieters, who's probably the #2 prospect in baseball and is hitting .350 with an OPS of 1.050 in the minors? hilarious. Shouldn't Rick Porcello be the player you whine about passing on? Our farm system is seriously lacking when it comes to high end rotational prospects. I'll trust the scouting reports that stated Vitters was the best pure hitter available. But even if both Vitters and Wieters live up to their upsides they don't equal the value of a true ace with four potential plus pitches.

Before this season the biggest offensive complaint most Cub fans had was the constant over aggressiveness. Fuld, being our most disciplined Minor League hitter, would have gone a long way towards helping fill that need. If Edmonds' bat continues to comeback to Earth and Fuld regains he pre-2008 offensive form I wouldn't mind seeing him given a shot at a platoon role with Reed Johnson.

Year after year Sam Fuld was considered the most disciplined hitter in the Cubs Minor League system. For a team like Chicago, who until this season tended to be very aggressive at the plate, Fuld seemed to fill an obvious need. Combine that with quality defense at a position that demands it and I'd say that was enough to get excited about him. He's a 4th OF at best. He's pretty much been that way for a number of years now. The guy never had any power to speak of. And when does a Center Fielder or top of the order hitter need power to be acceptable in those roles? Seems to me Fuld's quality defense and plate discipline entering this season were more than enough to warrant all the hype he received. the problem with plate discipline and no power is that guys at the big league level will stop walking you. fuld's ceiling is about a 5th outfielder, but that's it. Just because Big League pitchers have better control doesn't mean Fuld still couldn't have maintained a quality OBP. He drew tons of Walks in the Minors because of excellent strike zone recognition. Facing better pitching wouldn't suddenly cause Fuld to be overly aggressive and swing at breaking pitches in the dirt or Fastballs way above the belt.

Year after year Sam Fuld was considered the most disciplined hitter in the Cubs Minor League system. For a team like Chicago, who until this season tended to be very aggressive at the plate, Fuld seemed to fill an obvious need. Combine that with quality defense at a position that demands it and I'd say that was enough to get excited about him. He's a 4th OF at best. He's pretty much been that way for a number of years now. The guy never had any power to speak of. And when does a Center Fielder or top of the order hitter need power to be acceptable in those roles? Seems to me Fuld's quality defense and plate discipline entering this season were more than enough to warrant all the hype he received.

Year after year Sam Fuld was considered the most disciplined hitter in the Cubs Minor League system. For a team like Chicago, who until this season tended to be very aggressive at the plate, Fuld seemed to fill an obvious need. Combine that with quality defense at a position that demands it and I'd say that was enough to get excited about him.

-Plus Fastball -Slider with plus potential -Large frame which potentially could have allowed Ceda to be a 200+ inning pitcher per season with relative ease. -Starting forced Ceda to work on his offspeed pitches. -Likely has a higher upside than any of our Starting Pitching prospects. I think those are all quality reasons why the Cubs should have allowed Jose Ceda's tenure in the rotation to continue. Plus considering Ceda's Daytona WHIP his ERA likely would have improved had his level of effectiveness stayed the same.