Thrilho

if they start to put Zagunis back behind the plate then we'll talk I think the first place you'd see something will be in the statcorner framing values. If I understand the stat, the more umps get the call right the less framing value catchers will have. I doubt they'll go after the hackiest catchers try can find, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're putting more weight in arm and game calling. It'll be tough to confirm though since MiLB framing stats aren't on the horizon and the MLB spot will be manned by a dude who could drop every pitch and still have positive value due to his bat.

With all the good hitting catchers the Cubs have at the major and minor league level, any thought to what would happen if MLB got robot umps and framing didn't matter anymore? You'd have to think the priority would swing pretty heavily into being able to call a game and throw guys out. And even more, it's just a skill that you don't really need anymore, so players with less defensive talent could play the position. I could even see MLB not going to robot umps but giving the umpire a little ding in their ear when the ball is a strike. The ump can disagree and call it the other way, but he'd get hit at the end of the year. I wouldn't even be that surprised if they were doing that this year. In a lot of games it seems like the ump just doesn't miss much. Maybe it's because MLB is grading them harder, but it seems possible that something like that is happening now. So anyway, if that was happening I'd think you'd try to stack up a bunch of good hitting, maybe bad framing catchers before the market adjusted. Just random thoughts as I'm thinking about Schwarber, Rice, and an as yet unproven framer in Contreras...

Yeah he'd only given up 2 singles and 2 walks but no runs through three but fell apart in the fourth, giving up 2 doubles, a walk, and a wild pitch. In happier news, Ian Rice caught a 4 hit shutout and doubled in Torres for the only run in the game. Only went 1-4 with a K, and runners went 3-3 on him, but I'm sure he'll still take it.

Awesome thanks!

Not sure if this is the right place to do this, but petition to put Armando Rivero on the list. He's in AAA with a good fastball and 11.86 K/9 5.05 BB/9 2.52 ERA 3.30 FIP .25 HR/9. He got hit last year for his 8.37 K/9 5.05 BB/9 which resulted in 3.16 ERA 4.55 FIP. Still though he had a pretty good.63 HR/9. Looking back to 2013-2014 his numbers were 12.96 K 3.76 BB/9 3.01 ERA 3.03 FIP .84 HR/9. That's a lot of Ks, not thaaat many walks, and pretty good HR suppression. So this year, after another rough 6.20 BB/9 between April and May he's at 11.08 K/9 and 2.08 BB/9 in 13 IP so far in June. Not a big sample size, but I'd heard his fastball command is what was sinking him. If he starts controlling that a bit better there could be room for him fairly soon in the Chicago pen. I'd probably slot him in around 25 right now.

It would be different in a vaccuum, but then you consider that the Cubs infield is so loaded that they're having trouble fitting in a 12 UZR/150 Bryant at third. Then they've got Heyward in either right or center. So you could make a crazy trade for a Machado or Arenado but ten you're just throwing away Javy and putting Bryant permanently in the OF. So to me you're pretty much talking about trading or an outfielder or starting pitcher or doing the seeya Javy, move Bryant thing. There aren't many pitchers I'd even consider trading Schwarber's 5 years of control for, and then you'd need a better package player in a corner outfielder r center fielder. If you think Schwarber is a top 10 hitter (I do) that doesn't leave many guys left. If he can no longer play LF that changes things markedly but I'd roll the dice. That is true, the composition of the current Cubs roster makes actually trading Schwarber for something worthwhile harder. He's too good to be sent for a reliever headline, there aren't a lot of SP currently available that match up well, and trading him for another position player is really difficult to justify given the offensive talent all over the field already. Yeah I've said this a couple times before but Schwarber is a big reason I want Almora to pan out. It's a lot easier to facilitate a Schwarber/Contreras LF/C mash up if you've got an elite center fielder and elite right fielder. I really don't care down the line if guys get less PAs than they should ideally have because we're keeping a bunch of awesome players around. Almora could be fine at 400 PAs, Schwarber and Heyward would be fine sitting more against lefties, Javy can take some of Zobrist's and Russell's and still be fine at 450 PAs. As long as they keep growing enough great prospects to trade for pitching and maybe luck into a starter or two from the minors let's just keep stacking up hitters and have at least a guy or two on the bench every day that are division one starter types. You've got injuries, days off, and enough platoon concerns with a few that Joe could benefit with the ability to mix and match match ups. Keep all the hitters! (maybe not Jorge)

Basically the same math I'm putting on the Contreras trade scenarios

I'd add Machado and Kershaw, with maybes for Corey Seager and Francisco Lindor. This goes a bit too far. Schwarber is an above average player with a skill set that should be pretty steady(e.g. he's not building value on a half season of UZR or an insane BABIP) and he's under control for 5 more years. That's worth a lot, and more than most any reliever you can dream up. It is not worth enough to consider him only available in trade for a top 5 player in MLB, especially given Schwarber's very real limitations. The message here is 'Schwarber is an absurd ask for a reliever', not 'Schwarber is an absurd ask for anyone'. It would be different in a vaccuum, but then you consider that the Cubs infield is so loaded that they're having trouble fitting in a 12 UZR/150 Bryant at third. Then they've got Heyward in either right or center. So you could make a crazy trade for a Machado or Arenado but ten you're just throwing away Javy and putting Bryant permanently in the OF. So to me you're pretty much talking about trading or an outfielder or starting pitcher or doing the seeya Javy, move Bryant thing. There aren't many pitchers I'd even consider trading Schwarber's 5 years of control for, and then you'd need a better package player in a corner outfielder r center fielder. If you think Schwarber is a top 10 hitter (I do) that doesn't leave many guys left. If he can no longer play LF that changes things markedly but I'd roll the dice.

After the Ian Rice's 2/5 2 double 3 BB 3 K double header the A+ Rice-o-rometer reads .438/.550/.813 with 20% K 20% BB. Still DH'd in both but hopefully he's just getting coached up.

Just rename the Pirates thread, there's no use for it anymore =D> We need a tears streaming down face in laughter emoji. Well done

Are there any more Javy deniers or are we all of the opinion that he's an annual 3+ win guy? You don't have to think much of the bat to figure that's what he is.

Yeah I was going to say go look back at the videos from the Schwarber game if you're considering trading him for a reliever. But then I remembered that a 9th and 13th inning HR game against Cinci in the regular season doesn't really jump out that much anymore when the dude clubbed the Cards and Pirates out of the playoffs with many magificent moon shots. Get real Yankees.

fixed Agreed. I moved Candelario down to 7 in my most recent rankings but I think all of Conteras, Jimenz, Torres, Happ, Almora and Cease all end up in the top 50. It's debatable whether Cease and Almora end up there, but I think Candyman will be, think Cease will continue to explode and Almora I'm sure people will be torn on. So maybe Candelario ought to be higher on my list if I consider him solid top 50 but right now it's more what those other guys have done than me being less sure on Candelario. That .350 BA at AAA is looking mighty fine. ETA: oops I read your note as Candelario in top 40. Oh well the rest of my post still stands. I think all those guys are having much better years than expected by the average prospect ranking outlet.

With a RF/9 of like 4.35 aka about .10 behind career Zobrist. ETA: good stat btw. I remembered he started off a little rough but didn't remember it was that bad. 3 errors in 2.5 months is awesome

With a RF/9 of like 4.35 aka about .10 behind career Zobrist.

Yeah I bumped Vogelbach a little earlier too from 12 up to 8 ahead of my two lottery tickets. Before this I'd just looked at his season K rate of 20% and written him off a little. But with Ks trending down and these uuuuge power numbers he looks like a different guy. Same thing on Happ. The numbers are just getting too crazy. Short stops are important and Torres has been raking and walking and is young and ranked highly by everyone but Happ is just on another level, has been for a while, and his defensive numbers at second look pretty good. So...yeah weighing that one out. May be copying you soon.

Also Tennessee's 12-1 has gone unremarked aside from Happ's night. McKinney, Caritini, Young, and Hanneman went 8-14 with 2 doubles, and a triple. Still 2 bases short of KB even if you include the 2 walks.

Seemed like Almora had a bead on that HR if it hadn't been quite so deep. Would be interesting to see the statcast on his route and speed.

Also, because today is a day for celebrating how much great hitting we have in the organization, here are the lines for Torres and Jimenez since 5/1: Torres: .289/.361/.465 137 wRC+ .380 wOBA 9.9%BB/20.2%K 7 HR Eloy: .366/.404/.607 196 wRC+ .463 wOBA 5.4%BB/19.2%K 9 HR Good times

I mean how bad can he really be at 1B... I don't know, but it's really not relevant to the Cubs. His burgeoning trade value is, though. He's improving his K rate big time too. It was 19.5% last year, then 30.3% in April. But since then he went 17.9% in May and 15.4% in June before this. June ISO of .324 leading into this game. And the 17.3% BB rate since 5/1 is handy too. Yeah he could be a bigger deal than I'd have figured. Tightening up those Ks is a big thing for a strict first baseman. And FG still has a 20/60 for his game power from their preseason rankings. Last year's .154 ISO and 7 HRs in 324 PAs was realll unispiring. Let's see this power binge continue.

- Then it's a good thing I went with Gleyber at 1. - The overall point (difference between 1 and 4 being wider than 8 and 22) is probably not outright true anyway. - That McKinney ranking is a big ooph on my part, interesting that this is the first mention of it since it's the first legitimately wtf opinion I had on a prospect you've mentioned. No clue what happened there, but I do remember having a short stretch late in the offseason where I liked McKinney more than usual - I guess that was it and I got cute. Can you believe how far away we are from actually discussing Martinez's season? In that sense, well played sir Yeah, I'll take conversations on long tangents if someone goes along with me for a while. It was a Sunday of looking up prospect stuff, so the discussion on sample size and recent performance was more interesting to me than discussing EJM specifically. So thanks for going along with me, it was fun to type out a bunch of words that nobody is reading anymore. Also, I didn't mean to impugn your reputation as a prospect evaluator, just wanted to use some other guys as examples for how drastically I can change my prospect rankings based on recent performance, and Contreras was one of those guys who had huge pop up performance. Edwards might not have fit as well. I think you've got some good insights and a lot of your guys are outperforming expectations (Happ, Caritini, Candelario, Jimenez, Kellogg, Alamo, Hanneman, many other young guys that you have the bead on before others but who I can't think of now). Also this Sepulveda cat that I had no idea who he was but who you scooped CT on. You know your horsefeathers. But you know, I was bored and wanted to type out a bunch of words about how I pick out my prospects. Thanks again for the convo, looking forward to what you whip up with the graphs you've been talking about on Tim's ranking thing!

Onnneee last thing is that the difference between 8 and 22 is still probably not as big as a difference between 1 and 4. I'd guess that when things shake out 10 years from now the difference in career WAR between McKinney (who you ranked ahead) and Contreras will dwarf the difference in WAR between the number 8 and number 22 career WAR guys from our system.

Got it. The whole "that's my opinion" thing is a good one to keep in mind. Your hard stance that such and such is an overreaction is just that. A debate on prospects is an easier one than a debate on evaluation methodology. If we were just discussing EJM we could bring scouting reports and numbers to the table. But when you say "a half season's worth of stats aren't enough to make an evaluation" then it becomes a different discussion where our evaluation methodologies differ. You feel strongly that my methodology is wrong, so I get to question yours. That's how I brought Contreras and Edwards in. I'm of the belief that a half season isn't too little to make a big difference in an evaluation. You disagree (at least in the case of EJM). So it's fair to wonder how well our methodologies have worked for us in the past. I called out some of my mistakes, I brought up some things that I think you've missed the boat on. We'll see where a guy like Contreras ends up and whether it made sense in this offseason, where he had one full season of mashing AA, to rank him as the 4th best prospect in the system. Maybe there are other factors involved, but buying heavy into what some would consider small sample size is how I came to the conclusion that he was far and away the best prospect in the system. Candelario's one year at AA, Almora's second half at AA, I took these things and ran with them because I saw a trend that went counter to their career production, even though most prospect guys ranked them much lower due to the small sample size. As Tim said, I don't think there's a right way, but this is my way. I recognize some short comings, but that's how I came up with my EJM swing and it's how I'll continue to shift guys around like rag dolls as their performance numbers come in. Using Tim's new tool we'll be able to see exactly how quickly people shift their opinions in the face of new data. It'll be super fun.

Also, the fact that nobody has written a word about EJM since the start of the season isn't a good thing. I agreed with what Craig said because although I haven't read anything on his range or arm lately the absence of rave reviews or him ever playing center is enough for me to guess he's probably not doing much defensively to garner said rave reviews.

I'd say that he's easily a top 20 prospect in this system and closer to 10 than 20 is a big statement when the other end is that he's not top 20. I'd say that you're overreacting to minute information is a big statement in the context of this discussion. I'd say that he's improved his plate discipline month by month, significantly, is a big statement (and also the implication that you're ignoring that real, quantifiable information is a big statement now that it's been made). It is most definitely a bad idea to be reactionary - case in point being throwing Martinez being 8 for you coming in with minimal info and now all the way outside of the top 20 with barely any new info. There's way more mistakes to be made just reacting to the latest direction of the wind than not - reacting is something this FO has even stated they just do not do. While Contreras and Hannemann (a player I liked before improving) have nothing to do with Martinez - ranking Contreras 4th, based on the defense behind the plate still questioned by most non Cubs fans or fans in general, is not anywhere near as dramatic as going 8th to outside the 20 based on minimal PAs - trending up at that - in a debut season (an IFA's debut season at that). As far as what craig said - +1'd I assume for a little antagonistic flare - we don't even have any new high quality info on tools from even one major guy! It's literally stuff being pulled out of thin air. None of the major guys have said anything or said anything they weren't saying before you ranked him 8th. First round talents, even high ones, have had mediocre starts to their careers before - there's nothing of substance in there to be perfectly honest. I've actually come from both the angle of previous information as well as recent performance. Martinez's plate discipline and offensive performance has legitimately improved as the season has progressed. The guy's basically a college aged kid from another country that got immediately thrown into full season ball, and he's objectively gotten better at the plate as the year has moved on. you say "reacting is something this FO has even stated they just do not do", but you've got no idea how they internally evaluate. You react to information and re-evaluate guys. How much they swing based on recent performance is the thing, but you're always going to react. You don't trade a guy for a bad month, but a good month early in a guy's career can change your thinking. I say be a little more reactionary. Your views on Contreras is a good example where to me he's clearly a man-beast who crushed AA last year with a steel fist, and in my world he'd have to be a butcher at catcher to not be ranked ahead of Torres. You didn't buy in that hard. I'd be curious where you had him before the call up when we still didn't have a ton of clarity on his defensive prowess. I was saying and still am that short of Trout I'm not really interested in trading him. All because I buy hard into a year and a half of recent hitting data. Edwards has walked 6+ guys per 9 for a couple years now, but it's still not enough data for you to call it the new world. For me, half a season of EJM playing well below the expectations I'd have for him at that age/level is enough for me to move significantly. Yeah, my preseason ranking was aggressive, but many people were flat unwilling to rank him. I ranked him on the tools I'd read about and ranked him highly because there wasn't anyone I felt that strongly about after the first 7. I'm still kind of there, because I feel like I can move in potential flash in the pans like Rice and Albertos. That's my prerogative and I'm down to take flack for it. But I was also one of the few who ranked Schwarber ahead of Soler when we only had a couple months of Schwarbs raking at the low levels. I'm pretty happy I was on the Schwarber train early. I'll flag my flag high if Ian Rice is awesome and get buried in shame if he's washed away in the tide of JAGs the second half of this year. I'm down with either way, but for right now EJM's recent k rate improvement and his walks aren't enough for me.