John Sickels Top 20 Cubs prospects for 2009
November 29, 2008 13 Comments
Over at minorleagueball John Sickels released his grades for what he considers to be the Cubs Top 20 prospects for 2009:
1) Josh Vitters, 3B, Grade B+: Hopefully the home run power should start to come in 2009. Great contact hitting skills and still very young.
2) Jeff Samardzija, RHP, Grade B: I have no idea what to expect here. Could be great, could be horrible, track record very erratic.
3) Ryan Flaherty, SS, Grade B: Looks like a solid all-around player to me.
4) Andrew Cashner, RHP, Grade B-: High ceiling due to fastball and slider, command issues may slow progress.
5) Hak-Ju Lee, SS, Grade B-: Scouting reports look great, but want to see some numbers before ranking higher.6) Jay Jackson, RHP, Grade B-: I LOVE this guy…good athlete, former philosophy major, throws hard, throws strikes, great pro debut. I think he is underrated by other sources.
7) Tyler Colvin, OF, Grade C+: Still worried about his plate discipline.
8 ) Welington Castillo, C, Grade C+: Good glove, hits well in flashes, maybe a Miguel Olivo type?
9) Dae-Eun Rhee, RHP, Grade C+: Would rank higher if not for Tommy John.
10) Aaron Shafer, RHP, Grade C+: Wichita State product with sharp command. Elbow injury cost him velocity.11) Starlin Castro, SS, Grade C+: Intriguing toolsy infielder had strong AZL debut. A sleeper.
12) Junior Lake, SS, Grade C+: Intriguing toolsy infielder had strong AZL debut. A sleeper.
13) Dan McDaniel, RHP, Grade C+: Lots of strikeouts and grounders at Boise. Command an issue. Could rank as high as 10th.
14) Micah Hoffpauir, 1B, Grade C: Too old to rank higher but he has a major league bat. Where does he play?
15) Esmailin Caridad, RHP, Grade C: Low strikeout rate a concern, but I think he can do well in relief.16) Don Veal, LHP, Grade C: Stock has fallen massively due to command and mechanical issues. Not protected for Rule 5, which tells you a lot.
17) Josh Kroeger, OF, Grade C: He finally learned some plate discipline and has done well in Triple-A. Getting old for a prospect.
18) Tony Thomas, 2B, Grade C: Strike zone judgment collapsed in Florida State League.
19) Chris Carpenter, RHP, Grade C: Command problems and poor health record reduce stock, but he throws very hard and has upside if he can stay away from doctors.
20) Mitch Atkins, RHP, Grade C: Possibly a fifth starter type if he can sharpen command more.Others include Darwin Barney, Justin Bristow, Matt Cerda, Hung-Wen Chen, Dumas Garcia, Brandon Guyer, Josh Harrison, Dylan Johnston, Casey Lambert, Alex Maestri, Jovan Rosa, Drew Rundle, Marquez Smith, Logan Watkins, and Ty Wright. Most of these guys could rank anywhere from 14-20 depending on what you are looking for.
With Andy MacPhail’s Baltimore Orioles possibly getting involved as the third team in the Jake Peavy to the Cubs deal, this list could be a little thinner very soon.
I guess the question is whether or not you can really thin out something that is already this thin? As much as I’d like to have a solid farm system to work with, I care more about it being used for depth than I do in terms of prospects. A team like the Cubs who is contention and has money to spend can get productive players and afford to pay a premium to do so. As long as you have a few league minimum players who can stick on the roster they’ll be just fine.
If you can somehow get Jake Peavy, I think you have to do it. I still think signing Randy Johnson is probably the smarter move to make at least for 2009, but having Peavy, Harden, and Zambrano all under 30 and Peavy, Zambrano, and Dempster all under contract for at least 4 years is extraordinarily valuable.
If the Cubs get Peavy they can trade Harden for prospects. The only problem is that I really want to see what Harden can do if he’s healthy. Good chance we’d see that guy put up numbers similar to what Pedro did in his prime. He’s that good.
I agree with you on that.
Still, I am hopeful the new owner focuses on the Cubs building the minor leagues back up.
with MacPhail involved the deal for Peavy may never get done.
a Peavy/Zambrano/Harden/Dempster/Lilly rotation would be the class of all baseball.
I agree completely, ccd. I’d love to see the new owner completely redo how the Cubs scout, draft and develop talent. You can never have too much talent and the more you have in your system the better you’ll be.
That rotation above is similar to the best the Braves sent out in the 90s.
Vitters Pie (Olsen) Marshall and I suppose two other prospects plus an increase in team salary. I suppose its value for value. It may get you another 90+ win season if he is healthy but it strips the farm and the bank for offensive production and bullpen which are the bigger problems. In that sense unless the pitching is absolutely dominant the team is still going to struggle to win close ball games and hence advance in the playoffs. By the way check out Peavy’s post season stats…not very good.
I agree Harden could possibly be the best in the rotation …unfortunately he has low trade value now because of his fragility and impending free agency. Better to roll the dice and hope he streaks in the second half of 09. There is no other flexibility because of the no trade clauses. At some point the new ownership is going to have to realize there may not be enough of a collection of this and that to get it done and if another $20mm is worth risking to try to win it all. Then again they could admit there are too many flaws and start with a good long term plan that includes getting a GM that can build a more productive farm system and assemble a balanced team that plays really good baseball. (Is hoping all of the other teams in the MLB have a mediocre year out of fashion?)
I think McPhail is in love with Pie and will overcome his immobility to make the move if they get a free agent pitcher. However, I think Andy will not get that done and the deal to send Olsen will therefore be off of the table.
jh, you can improve a team in more ways than one. It’s tunnel vision to look at a roster and say that you have to improve the offense. Let’s say the Cubs did add Peavy. They actually improved their offense because it will take fewer runs per game to win. This game is all about scoring and preventing runs. Those are the only 2 ways in which a club can improve. There may be a tiny bit of evidence to suggest that preventing runs is more valuable than runs, but not much evidence. The fact is that the 2 are equal.
Furthermore, this idea that the team’s bigger weakness is offense is strange. The Cubs had the best offense in the NL in nearly every statistical category. The Cubs had a very, very good pitching staff, but it wasn’t the best.
I don’t care what they improve. Improve the team’s run prevention or their run scoring. Either one does the same thing–makes the team better.
Maddog, I know where you are coming from and I have always believed pitching is the most important aspect just as is QB in football…however…The pitching needs to be really dominant and there are only a handful in MLB like that. The Cubs do not possess one and imo Peavy is not in that circle (Lincecum, Lee, Hamels, Halladay, Webb come to mind… not to say Zambrano or Peavy do not suddenly become dominant next year but I do not think it will happen)
Using the football analogy, rarely do teams win the SB unless they can defend and score points. While the Cubs led in so many offensive catagories their offense is an all or nothing one and is not set-up to compete and win in one run games. Look at the season and a lot of the Cubs one run games were because their closer gave up one two or three to make it a one run game. The reason why the Cubs had such a big difference in runs scored versus allowed was because they won by large margins and lost by small ones. If you believe the Cubs are going to win playoff games 7-3 or even for that matter with a better staff, 4-2 fine. I just don’t think they are capable of enough offense production at the right time. They typically have not been able to score at all in the last two playoffs (and in the regular season) when they face good pitching. So while a solid starting pitching staff is of the highest value in MLB, it does not guarantee post season success. The offense has some nice features to it but it is just not balanced and there is no dominant hitter in the middle. Having said this I am not sure there is anyone available to cure this deficiency, or that Hendry is creative enough to patch this weakness enough to get by.
I guess we have a difference of opinion when it comes to the playoffs. You seem to be arguing that the playoffs are significantly different than the regular season. I don’t buy that. I may be wrong, but you also seem to be saying that the Cubs losses the last couple years in the playoffs has to do with this difference whereas the likely reason reason they lost those games has nothing to do with any difference between October and the rest of the schedule, but simply has to do with sample size. It has been shown that October baseball is statistically different than the rest of the months, but it’s a small difference and it’s one that has to do with the roster. The 4th and 5th starters don’t pitch nearly as often and the “last guy on the bench” doesn’t get nearly as much playing time.
If there is a difference other than that (and it’s not a significant one by any means), nobody has provided the evidence to back that claim up.
Winning in October is the same as winning in April. You have to score runs and prevent runs and the “clock” in baseball is outs. It’s kind of sad in a way, but baseball really is that simple. There are certainly many ways to achieve the goal (score and prevent runs), but there is no secret recipe. Good teams will win more frequently than the lesser teams, but the lesser teams will win some games and will win in the playoffs because of the sample size. Nothing we can do about that.
You have to focus on the 2 ways to win ballgames: scoring runs and preventing them. I sound like I’m beating a dead horse here, but it’s that simple. You can prevent runs by adding pitching or improving your defense and you can add runs by improving your offense. You can also improve your offense by improving your pitching and/or defense and can improve your pitching by improving your offense and/or defense.
If you can only improve one aspect of the team, you’re better off improving the run prevention aspect of the team. There is, as I said, some evidence that preventing runs is more valuable than scoring runs, but it’s sketchy at best.
I’d be fine if the team traded away all of their pitching and put replaced it with an offense that would generate more runs than the runs prevented they traded away. I’d also be happy if the Cubs did the exact opposite of that.
Balance is a nice word and it seems like common sense, but once again, there isn’t any evidence that balance is more important than scoring more or preventing more runs or any combination thereof.
You’re absolutely right in that Peavy is not a great pitcher like Lincecum, Halladay or Sabathia. Peavy’s numbers have been inflated by the park he plays in and while he’ll still easily be one of the best pitchers in the game, his run average allowed is going to be more similar to Zambrano’s than Rich Harden’s or Tim Lincecum’s.
But, and this is the important part here, Peavy would be about a 20 or 30 run improvement over Marquis and maybe even more than that. I just don’t see how you’re going to add that offense to the team. DeRosa in RF and Fontenot at 2nd is worth about 15-20 runs. You’d have to add an offensive player worth more than 30 runs in order to improve the team more than you would by simply replacing Marquis with Peavy. Manny Ramirez is probably the only available player that would accomplish that and when you include his defense, I’m not even sure that would be enough.
Then consider the cost. Peavy isn’t cheap by any means, but in 2009 he makes less than Marquis. In order to get Manny you’d have to spend about 3 times that much money. By acquiring Peavy, you improve more than you can by adding that middle of the order hitter and you have enough money left to add a left-handed or switch-hitting leadoff man if you want to. That could be as much as a 30-45 run improvement over what the Cubs currently have while only trading for Peavy (trading Marquis away) and acquiring a leadoff hitter for the fraction of the price that Manny would cost.
And for what it’s worth, all teams score fewer runs against good pitching. That’s why it’s good pitching. Good offenses don’t score a lot against good pitching. Good offenses work that pitcher and get him out of the game and then score off the relievers, which the Cubs did all season long. If good offenses scored a lot against good pitchers, there wouldn’t be any good pitchers. I’m not willing to waste the time at the moment, but I’d be willing to bet that the Cubs score more runs against “good” pitching than almost any other team (top 3 or 4 in the league).
Here’s what I think jh. I have long been in favor of the Cubs building a strong nucleus via their farm system. A few years back Hendry and Kenney decided that they would spend through the farm systems woes to try and build a winner. They have done just that and been pretty damn succesful with two division crowns in two seasons. Now this is yet to get the big prize and what can you do?
Honestly, I don’t know how you build a team for the playoffs. I think you have to build a team for 162 games and make a few tweaks down the stretch, but for the most part you are the team you are. This Cubs team is watching it’s window of opportunity close. They may have one or two more shots at it. At that point the team will pretty much have to be retooled. I guess I’d like to see them take their best shot next year. If that means adding Peavy and DeJesus (or Ibanez) you might as well take that shot.
Still at some point it would help this club to restock the minor league cupboard.
It will help, ccd, and I expect it will get done at some point, but I no longer consider the Cubs window of opportunity to be expiring any time soon. I think with the players they have now they are going to be in contention for 3 more years. I also think the Cubs can fill some of the potential holes with free agents. If the Cubs somehow manage to get a rotation that includes Peavy, this team will contend throughout the remaining 4 years on his deal and probably 5 as his option will probably be exercised. That pitching will just be too good to not contend.
You get past two seasons and I think there are just too many uncertainties including what new ownership will look like and do, injuries, deals, and aging ballplayers.
MD; We disagree in the sense you seem to be saying the Cubs post season flops have been an anomaly. I think they are predictable based on the deep starting staff but no real ace, no dominant closer, a weak lead-off position and a not a dominant presense in the middle of the order (Agree Manny might fill that role but as you pointed out his other liabilities offset his attributes, plus Soriano is not going and the Cubs are not going to be able to afford him). If you look at most past winners (except Cards who caught lightening in a bottle against a injury plagued Mets team and Detroit team with a big offense but average pitching and bad defense) they had this for both the regular season and playoffs. In particular the Phillies had all of these qualities including a dominant closer which I think put them over the top.
We do a agree that Peavy would improve the teeam and this may be the best way this year to do it. I am saying I do not think it alone will significantly improve their chances of advancing in the playoffs unless there is some sort of anomaly in favor of the Cubs in playoff series.
WPBC; I agree it probably is good business to try and break through while you have some chance to do so in the next two years. If you are in a short playoff, a break here or there and one real hot hitter or pitcher might make a difference. Then a deeper staff in a seven game series would have more impact. The dilemma is how much of the future would you hock to try to get you over the top and do you have the GM to execute it.
jh, not to keep this going, but can you show me any evidence that suggests the things you mention about postseason success are as valuable as you seem to imply?
The problem with looking only at “winners” is that they’re going to be good in any number of ways. If the Cubs had won it all this year, we’d be talking about how working the count and a balanced hitting attack wins in the postseason.
Of course the champions are going to be good at what you choose to look at. These are the better teams in baseball and they don’t find themselves with a chance to win it by being a bad team. And of course the losers in the playoffs are going to be weak at what you choose to look at.
You’ve chosen a selective sample and then cherry picked what you wanted to support your idea that winning in the playoffs is different. I could do this too, but won’t waste your time. You’ve also chosen to ignore the 2006 Cardinals because they don’t fit your argument. You cannot do this and come up with any valuable information.
The fact is that over time the average LDS team is not as good as the average LCS teams, which aren’t as good as the average WS teams, which aren’t as good as the average WS Champion. We know this based on the season’s stats and it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? The better team has a better chance of winning. There is no denying that fact. The better team won’t always win, but it will win more often than the lesser team wins. It’s because they are better. You’ve chosen to look at only a few teams, and those teams happen to be the very best teams in baseball.
If your argument is that the Cubs need to be the best in baseball, I don’t disagree that they shouldn’t try, but I would argue that the odds of any NL team being better than any of the AL teams in the playoffs is rather slim. The AL is THAT much better than the NL. And while it certainly improves your odds of winning that World Series if you are the better team, we’re talking about a small increase anyway.
You simply can’t choose to look at the best teams in baseball and use them as a template for how teams win. You must look at what wins and loses baseball games and that is run scoring and run prevention.
And for the record, the Phillies weren’t even the best team in the league. They certainly weren’t the best team in the playoffs. 6th. They were the 6th best team in the playoffs. Only slightly different than the 8th best team that won in 2006. The Phillies are proof that lesser teams are going to beat the better teams a certain percentage of the time.