jumbo

i understand what you mean. but it's hard to get my heart behind something like this, i don't see how we're that much better and i definitely don't see how we're getting close to .500. a .500 often generates some buzz, i look at our roster and i see a mess and all of our minor league talent still years away. i'm not trying to go all meatball, but it's going to take a move or two (and not nate [expletive] schierholtz) to steal my attention from the low minors discussions. I got curious about how much worse the team was after the trade deadline. Record by month: April: 8-15 .347% May: 10-17 .370 June: 10-17 .370 July: 15-10 .600 August: 8-21 .276 Sept/Oct: 10-21 .323

I was pretty high on Torreyes when we got him. I looked up some of his stats and compared them to Castro and he obviously has an incredible hit tool. Of course he'll need more than that, but he's still got a chance due to how good that tool is. I don't think he'll manage to repeat his heroics from the rookie league and A ball next season at AA, but if he bounces back this season he should post at least a line of 280/320/400 and at best a line of 300/360/440. Really just guessing here, maybe somebody else has a better take on it

Candelario is absolutely an upside pick. I never tried to comp him, but I could see him being an Aramis type 3B - solid hitter with discipline and 30 HR power, defensive limitations that he can improve on over time. Yes, he is far away and all the risks are there, but the Cubs system is loaded with average type players, so he stands out a bit to me on his immense ceiling. As an aside, I looked up Aramis on BR while typing this and never realized that he skipped AA. He had 47 games in AAA and then went to the Pirates at 20. Interesting how reckless that seems today, and how amazing it was for the Cubs to pick him up before he had six straight 900 OPS seasons.

I didn't vote yet since it's only set up for one vote instead of three, but my three are: Candelario Johnson Vitters I've commented on Candelario and Johnson in previous votes. I've always held out hope for Vitters longer than most for a few reasons. He's always been young for his level, he's got a great hitting stroke and he takes a bit of time to make adjustments, though this is most likely related to his age relative to competition. He's the type of player who I think you can't dictate a particular hitting style to very quickly and expect immediate results. I think you just let the guy hit, kind of like Castro, and then let him build on success instead of trying to change him before he makes it. He'll eventually be able to play a passable third. When he was up last year he made a bunch of nice plays but sort of choked on the routing plays. I chalk it up to being young, though he seems to have limited range, which isn't likely to improve. Bottom line is the guy will eventually hit, and if he can pass at third that's very valuable.

So Villanueva is #8 and Maples is #9? Added this: Potential upcoming picks...not really in order Candelario Johnson Wells Szczur Vitters Lake Loux McNutt Alcantara Underwood Blackburn Torreyes

I think leaking that the Cubs were ready to sign your player would be effective. It's certainly not necessary, but with the stakes this high I suppose an agent could do worse things than this.

I went with Candelario, Johnson, and Villanueva. The order doesn't matter much to me at this point. Villanueva is close to the big leagues and seems safe to make it as a 3B. Johnson if beyond injury issues should move quickly Candelario is young for his level (elite young), has plus potential in his bat, siwtch hits, and still has time to resolve position concerns at 3B. Immense upside.

Honest question - Is there a way to turn off the expletive filter? I'm comfortable reading the written word, even if it's typically considered inappropriate.

When you're a GM with an open checkbook and a weak division, it's pretty easy to wing it. Job description for 2013: win in 2013. Job description for 2014: worry about in in 2014. ??? SCS just wanted to serve his daily reminder that he has absolutely no [expletive] idea what he's taking about. No really, I love it. Great post. It's like a [expletive] cousin working in the family business but noboody can tell him to get the [expletive] out.

In terms of experience, the next man up on the 40 would probably be Josh Vitters. Wouldn't surprise me if they signed a guy to compete for a backup role, a Jeff Baker-esque guy that can man a few positions. I seem to remember reading that Clevenger could back up 1b and maybe 3b, although he hasn't played much third at all. Maybe I'm confusing that with someone else. Castillo has a few games at 1B, but I can't imagine that they keep three catchers because two of them can back up 1B. Seems a given that he starts at AAA

6-Jackson-closeness to majors, belief in all around game and at least adjustment to acceotable K-rate 7-Paniagua-Law reports, signing/interest by three teams 8-Candelario/Villenueva-Candelario upside and age relative to competition/Villanueva solid defense and closer proximity to majors

Valbuena had better peripherals last season, is better defensively, has two good wrists, is cheaper, and is under more team control. I can't get excited about Valbuena. Stewart is definitely a high risk to be anything valuable, but his potential seems much higher than Valbuena to me.

I went with 5 - Jackson 6 - Paniagua 7 - Vogelbach I think Jackson can make some improvements to get his strikeouts closer to an acceptable level. He seems to have good ability to get on base, hit for power, play premium position defense, and runs well. That along with him being so close to the majors makes him too hard for me to push lower. Paniagua seems like he has a longer track record of success due to all the attempts to sign him. This sort of makes up for the fact that he doesn't have a lot of history to review and analyze. The reports from Law are very encouraging to me and in a system somewhat devoid of pitching close to the majors Vogelbach - Reasons are obvious and have been said here already

Me, too Next pick gets more exciting

I don't know about anyone else, but my perception of Pagan is still colored by his time with the Cubs. I have to keep reminding myself that he turned out to be a good player. I don't think it's a horrible deal, but I wouldn't hand out that contract to him. I truly thought that comment about Sabean giving him 4/40 was a joke when I read it. And I thought it was funny, but I never really noticed or evaluated how good/valuable Pagan has been.

My vote is Almora, because his floor seems higher than Soler's. Both have a very high ceiling to me, but I'm not sure if Soler projects to stay in RF, while Almora is a near lock for CF and also seems to be a team leader in the making. That's usually not a big deal to me, but when a player has it inately, as is reported with Almora, I see it as a plus.

That's pretty encouraging if you ask me... Does this give anyone else the urge to predict the roster of AA/A+/A-?? Any predictions on where everyone starts? I think that deserves its own thread if anyone is willing to start one. OK, so I couldn't help myself. There are probably a lot of problems with this, especially on the pitching side with bullpens as you get to the lower levels. Anyway, here it is: Cubs Castillo, Rizzo, Barney, Castro, 3B, Soriano, CF, DeJesus Navarro,Valbuena, Campana, 2B/SS, LF/RF/1B/3B Garza, Samardzija, Baker, Feldman, Wood Fujikawa, Marmol, Camp, Russell, Bowden, Dolis, Raley/Rusin AAA Clevenger, Bour, Watkins, Lake, Vitters, Sappelt, Jackson, Burgess Apodaca, Brenly, Ridling (released?), Amezega/Tolbert, Cerda, Wright Vizcaino, Loux, Raley/Rusin, Beeler, Jokisch, Struck??, Zych, LCastillo, Jackson, Caridad, McNutt, Antigua, Beliveau AA Gibbs, RJones, Torreyes, Alcantara, Villlanueva, Crawford, Szczur, Ha Noble, Samson, Soto, Silva, Andreoli, Perez, Rohan Hendricks, Whitenack, Cabrera, Kirk, Rhee??, Loosen?? Rhoderick, Batista, Hatley, Searle, Harman, Del Valle, Morris A+ Lopez, Hoilman , Bruno, Baez, Geiger, Bonne, Easterling, Soler TDavis, Cuneo, Harrington, Saunders, DeVoss, Radenmacher PJohnson, Peralta, Jensen, Carreno, Rosario Francescon, Burke, Cates, Reed, McDonald, A Contreras, Voglebach, Amaya, Hernandez, Candelario, Martin, Almora, Golden Darvill, Zapata, Chen, Panigua, McNeil, Wells, Arias, Scott, Liria, Simpson, Dickson, Pugliese, Cruz, Pichardo, Liria, DelValle A- Shoulders, Dunston, Batista, DY Kim, Maples, Underwood, Blackburn, Concepcion

That's pretty encouraging if you ask me... Does this give anyone else the urge to predict the roster of AA/A+/A-?? Any predictions on where everyone starts?

I should stop clicking Display this post. Yes, you should

We all do. But what did you think of the article?

I dunno, but any league is surprising to me given that he barely pitched.

This exchange was in the comments - and I was very surprised at the assessment of Maples' ceiling TJ says: November 8, 2012 at 11:50 am I tend to view the top of the system as really good (although I am really befuddled with the Maples ranking here, and I didn’t think I’d be surprised with any Cubs prospect list this winter), some weaknessl in that “2nd tier” (let’s loosely call them Sickels B level prospects), and then a very strong 3rd tier. Short of it is, I tend to think the depth is relatively solid, with a strong batch of raw arms from A+ on down, and a good group of positional assets likely to start in the A ball ranks in 2013. Reply Marc Hulet says: November 8, 2012 at 2:53 pm Maples has the highest ceiling of any pitcher in the league and people I spoke to felt he would be ready to go for spring training 2013 so I’m excited to see what he can do. His ranking is based on pure potential and upside.

I completely agree. Likewise. Nicely said, davell.

xFIP- the last five seasons: 97, 81, 100, 74, 83. He's better than league average. Real question - is xFIP normalized separately for SP and RP?

Evidently you can waive them. But it'd be a thing where the player knows where he's going to be playing from the get-go. They just get their money from a different team. I guess you'd kind of have to recruit a small market team early in the offseason and come up with some parameters up front. "We'll send you 10 mill for whatever and you give us this prospect". Then let that team make it work from there. But the player knows up front that this is how it's going to go down. So why not just pay for the prospect and let them sign the player? If I'm understanding the theory, it would allow a team like the Cubs to use their cash to get prospects outside of the amateur spending limits of the new CBA And Kyle's saying why not just cut out the signing part and send the Royals the money for the prospects. But I think deals with large sums of cash come under more scrutiny by the commissioner's office, right? Not that a deal like is being talked about wouldn't come under such scrutiny anyway. I'm not sure that what is being described would be allowed by MLB, but it is definitely more likely to pass than one team selling prospects to another. It's all highly unlikely, of course.