UK1679666180

Nothing wrong with being realistic towards expected production. Depending on if it's a scenario of Walker over Perez, I expect them to score more runs. If Perez is starting and hitting at the top, any difference between Pierre and the poor play of CF last year will be negated by the drop in offense between Perez and Walker. Then, you're counting on Murton, Cedeno, no regression from Lee and Barrett, health of Ramirez, and rebounds from Pierre and Jones.

I think that game said more about UK than KU. Still, I like KU's defense. I also can't figure out what Patrick Sparks is good for. Streak shooting, I'd get him out of the starting line-up and either put Bradley or Crawford at the 2 spot. His loyalty to Sparks is stupid. They suck so badly on offense, this is the worst teams in 15 years.

Why the Phils would not trade Rollins? I have no idea. At least try and get Mora, if possible if they were to include Rollins and Abreu.

I can't believe a team with this payroll has to rely on the MLSB for scouting the Pacific Rim as well as lack of the higher priced Dominican and Venezuelan players coming up thru the system.

Those involved with the Snappers at the time as well as those who went to many Beloit games. He's talented as heck, but his body language and they way he treated fans was that of someone who thought he was better than he really was.

Prince has made great strides as far as losing his baby fat and turning it into muscle, he's more lean than when he was drafted or at Beloit, when I seen him. He's never going to be athletic or great defensively, but his weight won't impact his bat until probably his mid 30s unless, he regains the fat. As far as his personality, he's a rectum.

KU is playing great so far and UK has been terrible as they have been most of the year.

Agreed, his only shot a ML'er beyond a 5th OF'er is as a SS.

I'd have no problem moving him up at some point, anyone within the organization, especially Zisk could give an accurate gauge as whether or not Patterson is ready to handle AA. That could be done in a short amount of time (within 20 games) For Gallagher, I'd like to see him get at least 10 starts at Daytona. He'd likely be able to be very productive based on FB/curve combo and his ability to locate each pitch, but I'd like to see him mix in the change-up more at Daytona, something he might not be able to do if he does struggle initially at AA.

Corey was 18yo. (I believe his B-Day in the middle to late August of '79 as I'm too lazy to look it up and too much of a nerd not to know it) while he was at Lansing, that's about 2 years younger than the avg. player in the MWL (typically the avg. age has hovered around 21.9). He would've been ahead of the curve had he not skipped Daytona as well as it would not likely effect his ML service time or dented the 40 man roster prematurely. With highly valued commodities like Patterson was in '99 and '00, finishing 2nd to Hamilton of TB as the (subjective) BA's #1 and #2 prospects respectively, it becomes a time when you have to do what will likely have the most positive impact down the road. I'd just like to see them be more cautious. Let it be known, I'd have Gallagher and Patterson both start at Daytona, despite their great Peoria numbers.

Bruce, have the Cubs ever given any indication (even slightly) that they might've been too aggressive with the pattern they assigned Patterson's ascent to the majors? Edit:Poudre already asked this question.

UK, you note that Corey had flaws after AA that remain today, and that they were wrong to promote him when he had flaws. Some guys have non-correctible flaws. Most every prospect has some flaws, whether correctible or not. Is a team "rushing" a guy every time they promote a player with flaws? Obviously not, else hardly anybody would ever leave A-ball. Prior had flaws (slow delivery, poor at holding runners), but they promoted him anyway. Z had lots of flaws (wildness, obviously), but they promoted him anyway and he was slowly able to improve, regardless of level. When is it "rushing" to promote a guy with a flaw, and when is it perfectly appropriate to promote a guy despite flaws and figure he'll need to continue to work on them at the next level just like he'd need to at the current level? Corey has achieved varying levels of success despite his difficulty in reading pitches, which is his limiting flaw IMO. Would you have kept him at AA indefinitely? Perhaps to this very day, since he hasn't corrected it yet? (And has had not less but more motivation, if it were in fact a correctible problem...) No, teams do it all the time, where they'll promote a player prematurely despite flaws that will become more restrictive the further he advances. Corey's batting eye could be covered up in the lower levels of the minors much easier simply b/c he had a physical advantage over most pitchers having never faced someone with his physical gifts before. But, I don't the see the reason once you get past rookie-ball or short-season that a player should jump. If the Cubs feel a player is properly slotted at Low-A, are they saying they made a mistake by placing him too low in the system or he advanced quickly enough to skip High-A? We both know the jump from High-A to AA is a steep one within itself. I don't understand that reasoning, especially if you have a quality instructor in the system like Zisk who obviously has gained the respect of management simply b/c of the length of his tenure and various roles. I see nothing wrong with taking a more passive approach in terms of making it a priority to not rush a player. But developmentwise, there was a difference between Prior and Patterson, Prior was much more polished at West Tenn compared to Patterson. It's similar as to why I'd be upset if the Cubs had rushed Pie or skipped Daytona after Lansing. To me, it's an unnecc. risk to have a player skip a level, especially when they're as raw as Patterson.

It's not mistreatment, just bad baseball.

For me, I blame the Cubs for rushing him. This goes back to his amazing year in '99 at Lansing. I said at the time, he should've gone to Daytona (even for a brief stint) and worked with the best hitting instuctor in the system at the time (Zisk). He had a good, but not a great year at West Tenn, and despite being very young for the League, the flaws were there that are still there. To me, there's no doubt in my mind the Cubs made a mistake by rushing him. I hope they've learned their lesson with Pie, but if those reports of him being called up last year if he had not injured his ankle, scare me. At this point of his career, he is more raw after his stint at AA than Patterson was after '00 and that includes Pie going to Daytona unlike Corey.

I think expecting anything from the O's above a top 30 prospect is extremely optimistic. Any demand in CP is likely from a dramatic drop in value over the last two years rather is potential or his raw abilities. Compound that with him being in his later arby years expecting to make around 3mil and for the Cubs to get a higher prospect, they'll have to kick some money back. From a Cubs' standpoint, sending them money would make no sense in unloading him in the 1st place. Send them anywhere around 1mil and you're paying them what you could expect to play around a 1st-2nd rd. sandwich pick. If that's the case, I doubt the player they'd get would have the potential value/ceiling of someone who was just drafted very early in the draft.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/28009/format/html/displaystory.html Different article from a different standpoint, puts things in perspective.

Mechanically, he is not sound enough to handle a full season. There's a lot of strain put on his back with the lower 3/4 delivery.

1st off, I'm making a prediction. I am predicting, he will likely never match the offensive production of last year or the defensive production of a couple years ago. Could he surpass last year's numbers? Sure, will he? I doubt it. He'll be 32 in July and his coming off a season with a .268 EqA after a career EqA under .240.

You'd doing the same thing w/Molina except in a FA market. Like Molina, I'm unsure of what type of market there is for Barrett.

They have a similar version of Koskie in Mabry, doesn't have the offensive ceiling as Koskie, but can hit from the same side and plays several positions. They need to fill one spot on the bench, RH'ed OF/IF w/pop.

Is that Barrett's fault or the pitchers? Molina on defense is largely going on defensive reputation of a couple of years ago rather than his upcoming production, he's not as good as he was in his late 20s. Molina peaked offensively last year and will likely not produce the same numbers as he did last year. To give him a multi-year deal partially based on his offensive production last year and his defensive reputation of the past is a finanical mistake.

Oddly, Barrett's contract expires when Schnieder's does, if you want defensive improvement, he's the one to look at.

Getting pre-screen questions is a separate scenario than registering here and jumping into a thread kamikaze style. I don't fault him for not doing a Q & A, just don't agree to it and not follow thru w/it. No point in leading even one person on, if you initially had no intentions.

Bengie Molina isn't one of the best defensive Catchers out there, having a strong arm is only a fraction of it. His younger brother is a much better defensive catcher than Bengie. As Bengie gets into his 30s, he's going to cont. to decline as will Barrett, Molina isn't as tsrong as he was a couple of years ago. Everyday catchers have a short span of peak productivity defensively. Like any position, you have to weigh offense and defense.

Confidence and lack of conifdence exists, so momentum does exist. It's all part of the mental approach to the game.