CubsWin

These are players that are likely to be good at the big league level, possible or have a slight chance. This is based on what we currently know about their ceiling and what they've proven about their ability to reach it. And of course, we're talking about minor leaguers here, so let's take it for granted that it's too soon to tell for all of them. Likely SS Starlin Castro Possible SP Andrew Cashner (He's close to being a likely, but not there yet) CF Brett Jackson 3B Josh Vitters SP Jay Jackson SS Hak-Ju Lee Got-A-Chance SP Casey Coleman 2B Ryan Flaherty 2B DJ LeMahieu RF Kyler Burke SP Brooks Raley SP Dae-Eun Rhee SP Ken McNutt SP Ryan Searle Worth Tracking SS Wes Darvill 2B Logan Watkins SP Alberto Cabrera SP Chris Archer SP Rafael Dolis RP Aaron Shafer IF Matt Cerda SP Jeffry Antigua SP Su-Ming Jung SP Austin Kirk SP Chris Rusin OF Jesus Morelli SS Junior Lake As we learn more, guys will be added and dropped from this list I'm sure. Who am I forgetting? Overrating? Underrating?

Not even a team photo mention for Starlin. :( But it is nice to have Castro raging in AA and have a different player make the Hot Sheet. I'll take that.

I know. Unfortunately, Baker and Fontenot currently have the two best batting averages on the Cubs at the moment. I'm not a huge proponent of bringing up Castro anytime soon, but Theriot's a lot more vulnerable than either of those guys right now. Of course, that could all change in a week or so.

Who needs Josh Harrison when you have Tony Campana? Anyone know how his CF defense is? Move over Sam Fuld?

Flaherty wakes up with a single, two walks, two runs, three driven in and a walk-off two run blast in extras. Welcome Ryan. Glad to have you back.

we were playing the astros, you don't need luck they scored 2 runs today and UPPED their RPG True, but that has nothing to do with how he was looking. He kept the ball low and was making it move late. He didn't walk anybody. He pitched well. And I thought he'd be keeping the end of the bench warm down in the bullpen. Even if he goes out there and gives up 10 runs in 5 innings today, it doesn't change the fact that he has had two really good starts to one bad one, and that's a ratio I think anyone would take all year long. I'll eat some crow if that happens, because I'm one of the biggest skeptics here. However, it's only been 2 starts. I'm still leaning towards Zambrano being way better than he's been so far, and Silva not being as good as he's been so far. And I'm right there with you. I draw no conclusions from his start thus far, and I'm a firm believer that things will even out as the season progresses. Alls I'm sayin' is I never saw this coming and that it's further evidence he really did have a breakthrough side session with Rothschild like he claimed he did.

we were playing the astros, you don't need luck they scored 2 runs today and UPPED their RPG True, but that has nothing to do with how he was looking. He kept the ball low and was making it move late. He didn't walk anybody. He pitched well. And I thought he'd be keeping the end of the bench warm down in the bullpen. so what? he was playing a minor league team. So what? His stuff looked good. You can continue to ignore my point if you want. It doesn't make it any less valid.

we were playing the astros, you don't need luck they scored 2 runs today and UPPED their RPG True, but that has nothing to do with how he was looking. He kept the ball low and was making it move late. He didn't walk anybody. He pitched well. And I thought he'd be keeping the end of the bench warm down in the bullpen.

No doubt. But raise your hand out there if you predicted this even over two starts...

Mama's empanadas must be doing the trick. That and the bullpen session with Rothschild after his first spring start that seemed to make everything click again. Through two starts: 13 IP, 8H, 3R, 1 ER, 0 HR, 0 BB, 8 Ks. He didn't look lucky today...

This is what BA had to say about Cashner in their Prospects Blog after his first start. I wonder what they're going to say now. His start certainly is encouraging.

I agree. The make up of the pen is not awe-inspiring. The thing that sticks out the most to me about it is how unknown and unpredictable it is. It's got three rookies on it. Who knows how they'll do, but if you're handicapping relievers who have little to no experience in the bigs, you'd have to predict they'll be average to below average, though there are always exceptions. Certainly Berg and Caridad have done well this spring and in the very limited time they were up last season. Stuff wise, Caridad impresses, while Berg leaves you non-plussed, as does Russell. Marmol is unpredictable as closers go. Samardzija has had success and failure at the major league level. Wish he'd make up his mind. Grabow and Marshall are the only two with any consistency and they've been consistently average to slightly above. The Cubs are going to have to get a little lucky if this pen is going to help get them to the post-season.

Yeah, me too. His peripherals are preferable. Say that ten times fast! The stat that worries me the most about Silva, though, is groundout-to-airout ratio. If it's accurate, it's been terrible this spring, especially for a sinkerballer. But otherwise, I have definitely gone from someone who thought he would be a wasted roster space (which was largely how he was described on this site when Hendry traded for him) to thinking that he can actually be a contributor to the team. And it sounds as if, save for BBB, there are some others who have made that transition with me. Now it's wait and see time.

We still haven't seen him in any regular season action, but since his first terrible outing, Silva's made 5 starts, the last two going at least 5 innings. He's pitched 19 1/3 innings, giving up 20 hits, allowing 2 earned runs, striking out 9 while walking 2, for an ERA of 0.93 and a WHIP of 1.14. Clearly, those numbers were gotten against line-ups filled with a lot of minor leaguers and he's unlikely to continue at that level once facing team's full major league line-ups, but it is a marked improvement over what he was doing in before. Take it for what it's worth, but looking at his previous spring numbers, there is a loose correlation to how he fared that season. (Spring training stats courtesy of ESPN.com) In his two years in Seattle, he had springs of a 10.45 ERA in 10.1 IP giving up 22 hits (4 of them HRs) with 4 Ks and 2 BBs last season and a 9.21 ERA in 14.1 IP giving up 28 hits (2 of them HRs) striking out 5 and walking 4 in '08. Those are two terrible springs, as was his last in MInnesota (16.1 IP, 29 H, 11.02 ERA). In each of them, he gave up around two hits per inning. This spring, including his crappy first start, he's allowed 27 hits in 21.1 IP, and his ERA is 3.80, striking out 11 and walking 2. He did give up 3 HRs, but 2 of them came in that horrible first game. Those numbers are more like the springs he had early on in Minnesota and Philly. In '06, Silva pitched 14.1 IP, gave up 15 hits and had an ERA of 3.21 with 0 HRs, 8 Ks/1 BB. In '05, he pitched 16 IP, allowing 15 hits with a 2.81 ERA, 0 HR, 6 Ks/0 BB. In '04, Carlos had 23 IP, giving up 21 hits with an ERA of 3.13, allowing 2 HRs, 14 Ks/3 BBs. And in Philly in '04, he had a 3.95 ERA in 13.2 IP, giving up 16 hits, all in relief. Unfortunately, all we have to go on are spring training stats, but those numbers suggest that Silva has reverted to his old ways, which in this case is a good thing. I'm encouraged enough to believe that it's possible for Silva to be useful to the Cubs this season which is something I didn't think was possible before. Has his spring performance swayed anyone else?

Not that Frasor being named the Jays closer came out of left field or anything, but I did predict it in this thread 4 days ago. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'... 8-)

I can't find anything I would call intriguing about the guys you mentioned. What do you like about them?

So, you're claiming to never have passed a judgment on a pitcher based on a negative performance in spring training? I find that hard to believe. It's spring training. Good and bad pitchers have terrible performances all the time that mean nothing. I started a thread about Carlos Silva a few weeks ago and almost everyone who posted in it, including myself, was saying you have to take both bad performances and good performances in spring training with the necessary grains of salt. Why would it be hard to believe that I or anyone else is capable of understanding such a simple and well-established notion that spring training performances aren't indicative of what's to come in the regular season? You completely ignored his spring training performance by making assumptions about his ability to hit breaking balls and quality fastballs with this line.: "He'll see a lot less fastballs once the season starts, and it's likely the fastballs he sees will be better located." No, I didn't. For the third time, I commented on the positive that is Colvin's performance this spring by saying that he has now shown that he can hit and hit with authority when the conditions are right, and that was something he had previously not shown. That's called progress. And progress is a good thing. By speaking about the pitches he is likely to face once the season starts, all I did was state that regular season pitching is different and usually better than spring training pitching, pitches that break effectively are usually harder to hit than those that go straight, and that fastballs on the black and at the knees are harder to hit than those over the middle of the plate. Those facts apply directly to my argument that he would be better off starting out in AAA because of his proven difficulty with overall plate discipline. I never stated that he could or could not hit a specific kind of pitch. Though I have watched a fair amount of games this spring (7-8, 3 in person) and I have seen him swing and miss the breaking pitch quite a bit. I made no "foregone conclusions" about Mr. Colvin, only that he has recently shown us (in the last half of last season and now this spring) that he can hit with power and average and that he has yet to show that he has improved his suspect plate discipline. The only conclusion I drew was that he would be better off starting in AAA because of that. Which is a point you apparently agree with. I just went back and checked my work, I forgot to include HBP, reached on error, SF, and SH to my plate appearances. My apologies for the faulty math. Apology accepted. Do the revised numbers alter your opinion about his plate discipline? I don't disagree with that. Well, that was the only conclusion I made, so what are you disagreeing with? I don't think it's just me that does it, but I admittedly key in on one or two main points I get from a post and respond to it and may forget a point that may be contradictory to something in my response. For that, I also apologize. No worries.

Yeah, I would find it odd, too, if people were doing that. Yes, it would be just as ignorant, but I don't see anyone doing that either. Certainly not me. I said that the last half of last season and so far this spring he has shown us that he can hit and hit with authority when the conditions are right. He hadn't shown us that before. I wouldn't call that writing him off. Your numbers are way off. IsoD is OBP-AVG. So his IsoD in his first season was .045 in 288 plate appearances at Boise. The next year it was .025 in 519 PAs at A+/AA. In '08, it was .056 over 602 PAs at AA. And last season it was .046 split between A+/AA. His strikeout to walk ratios are even more telling. The numbers clearly show that he has difficulty laying off bad pitches and forcing pitchers to throw something over the plate. History shows that batters who have that ability have a much better chance of succeeding at the major league level. Logic tells us that since he hasn't improved yet in this area, that it is a matter of time before pitchers expose him. So I conclude that he would be better served improving upon this area at AAA. If I'm wanting him to improve his IsoD in AAA, how am I saying that it's "set in stone"? If you disagree with my post, that's cool. But you may want to avoid putting words in other people's mouths and making up stats to try to prove your point.

Yep, this trade has more to do with the existence of Barney and Castro than it does with Millar or Tracy.

Looks like James Russell will fill out the Cubs bullpen barring a last minute trade. So, as of now, the pen looks like this: Marmol Caridad Grabow Marshall Samardzija Berg Russell Once Lilly comes back, Silva becomes the long man and whoever isn't performing will go down to AAA. Best case scenario is no one is performing poorly yet, and the Cubs send Samardzija down to be in Iowa's rotation. The Cubs still have decent options in AAA going forward. Jeff Gray should be ready in a month. John Gaub struggled in camp, but he should be able to turn that around. Many think that Cashner's future is as a reliever. So there are still in house options worth trying before having to make a trade, and maybe they'll be able to hold off until June or the trade deadline before needing to pull off a deal.

Out of those 3, I want Gregerson... I wonder what it would take to get him though. Should be cheaper than Frasor or Downs since both of them can claim they have "closer experience" and therefore more valuable... Indeed, I'd be surprised if Kevin Gregg starts the season as the Jays closer for the mere reason that they don't think they can afford to resign Frasor and want to build/maintain his trade value for a team like Minnesota who is in the market for a closer. Once Frasor's dealt, Gregg would likely take over assuming he is sucking less than he did for the Cubs last season.

Exactly. This is encouraging, but by no means should it be taken to mean that he is ready to hit well in the majors. Spring training is the time for pitchers to get ready. They are refining mechanics. Getting their pitches in. Building stamina. Working on a pitch. They are not setting batters up with their pitch selection and the order of pitches thrown. They don't have their sharpest control of the fastball or their greatest feel for their breaking balls. And specific to Colvin, they don't have a book on him. They don't know his weaknesses, but he's definitely got 'em. His eye isn't the greatest. His minor league numbers show that, as well as his 10/0 strikeout to walk ratio this spring. He'll see a lot less fastballs once the season starts, and it's likely the fastballs he sees will be better located. It's not a question about whether his numbers will come back to earth, they will. The question is how badly will he get exposed? By his performance in the second half at AA last season and so far this spring, when the conditions are right he can hit. But the conditions are about to change. Should he make the team? So long as if/when he struggles, he's given a good shot at working through it and learning how to adjust, I got no problem with it. He's hot right now. Let's ride it out. But with a win now attitude, how likely is it that Colvin will be given the chance to work through it? Not likely. The safer approach, especially since he's not really needed on the roster right now, is to have him start out at AAA and work on his plate discipline, so that when he does come up, he can lay off the pitcher's pitches and make them come over the plate with something that he's shown us he can hit and hit with authority. Without that ability (and without the Cubs ability to let him learn at the big league level), it's just a matter of time before he gets exposed and is forced back to the minors to figure it out.

My thoughts exactly. It's too early, but today was encouraging.

The phrase "successful at the major league level" could certainly mean different things to different people. I define it as making the majors and being league average or better for meaningful stretch like a season or 100+ innings pitched or 400-500 plate appearances, something like that. That's how I define that general notion that someone has had success at the major league level. Your definition of having had success at the major level may be different. But it is fact to say that Silva has had a season in which he performed at a league average level or better at the major level.

I don't know about any of the rest of you, but my thoughts going into the season were that Silva was going to be a wasted roster space. That the Cubs would carry him on the 25-man and work with him to see if he could be somebody who could be effective (roughly getting an ERA below 5), but if he couldn't be that guy that they'd wind up cutting him and eating the contract at some point. His first start seemed to confirm he was still on this path. But then a work session and two distinctly different starts later, is he still on that path or might he be someone who can contribute? Some say no chance. I say, it's possible for him to return to a Twins-like performance, but its way to early to tell if that is likely. The question is does the work session that got him excited about pitching again and two better ST performances amount to anything or are they completely meaningless?