Keith Law's top 100 prospects

Keith law ranks our boy Vitters 14th.

Comments

It might be time to cut to the chase and move him to the outfield now. That way he can get several years of minor league training in the outfield. Doesn’t seem like he has a real future at 3rd base. His defense at 3rd base has been a question mark since coming out of high school.

by BLou on Jan 22, 2009 12:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Actually, I've read that his defense has improved.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 22, 2009 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As have I

But I wonder if his real place might be first base.

by chrisw95 on Jan 22, 2009 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if his position will ultimately be decided

by the needs of the team at the time he is ready to play (offensively) in MLB. (Whether it’s the Cubs or another team.)

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 22, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good thought

A move from the infield to the outfield would be much easier than outfield to infield.

by dr stabbingworth on Jan 22, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully not

As low as he is in the minors, he should be slotted at the toughest fielding position that the Cubs think he can handle. For now, that should be 3rd. If in the next year or so they realize that it might not work, I hope they consider the outfield. 1st base then as a final stop.

by rlpete on Jan 22, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the question about vitters at first

is his power. There’s some questions on whether or not he has big time power, or good power with contact ability. His plate coverage and recognition looks good, so you have to debate asking him to go for more power. He has the body for it, but his current approach lends has some people questioning his power potential as it stands.

by toonsterwu on Jan 22, 2009 7:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vitters defense

has improved. He’s no lock to stick at 3rd, but the chances are higher than they were last year, enough that more people than not would probably think that he can stick (versus not being able to). In saying that, he isn’t a lock yet.

by toonsterwu on Jan 22, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

2 out of 100

I guess that would explain why Law has the Cubs ranked 27th in farm systems.

At least he had good things to say about Jay Jackson. Definitely worth keeping an eye on…that means you Josh! Love those Minors Reports BTW.

I have nothing funny or creative to write.

by Canadian Cubs Fan on Jan 22, 2009 1:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Jay Jackson goes a bit under the radar for most

I don’t have insider, so I don’t know how Law ranked it, but as my rankings showed, I’m a big fan (had him 2nd in my top 50).

Last year’s draft class of arms is quite intriguing. A lot of athletes that are still adjusting to full time pitching, so a lot of intrigue there, despite a lot of them being collegians.

by toonsterwu on Jan 22, 2009 7:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Law has him at #98

He also thinks he’s more of a reliever than a starter. Law thinks he could be a shut-down short-reliever as early as this season. He’s not as high on him as a starter.

by Josh77 on Jan 23, 2009 2:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Where do you two think Jackson will play this year?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 23, 2009 4:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

barring a surprise

he’ll probably start at daytona. outside chance of tennessee if he shows a really strong spring, but he was at daytona at the end and dominated in the playoffs as a starter.

by toonsterwu on Jan 23, 2009 5:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if his change improves

as i noted in my thread, if his change improves, don’t be shocked if he’s up in aaa or perhaps forcing his way into the pen late in the year. but the scouting reports are excellent on jackson and he doesn’t have any glaring issues at high a … yet (for example, veal had huge issues at high a, but some folks overlooked it with the idea that there was time).

by toonsterwu on Jan 23, 2009 5:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

just read law's comments

nothing i disagree with – has to improve the change (fast/slider/curve wouldn’t be that intriguing) to have a shot as a starter. There were signs in the playoffs that it was better, but short sample, so have to wait.

But the beauty of the Jackson acquisition is the upside, despite the age, and the advanced pitching feel despite being raw to full time pitching. And I love the fact that he showed the love to Jackson. Too many people plugged Cashner ahead just because of draft status basically. I made the case in my threads that Jackson’s got more value than Cashner and I’m glad to see someone agree with me (a bit surprised he had Jackson ahead of Shark now). But Cashner’s a power fast/slider combo. Jackson’s a power fast/slider combo as well, and Jackson’s fastball likely can inch to a consistent mid-90’s if utilized in the pen. He’s got better starting potential imo (although there are some indications from some folks that the Cubs may still ponder Cashner as a starting arm – I doubt it, but that rumor is still alive – as noted before, I’d look to “extended outings” for Cashner, a la Ceda last year, early on).

by toonsterwu on Jan 23, 2009 6:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I love it when the Cubs get a "sleeper" like Jackson.

To get two possibly dominant short relievers out of one draft — that’s good stuff.

Cashner will get his chance to show what he’s got in early spring training games, as he got a NRI.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 23, 2009 7:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to add my two cents

I think that Jackson will start the season in Daytona as well. I think they’d like for him to have at least a couple of months there, since he got promoted so rapidly last season. It might be nice to leave him somewhere to see if hitters catch up with him the second time seeing him.

I certainly think that by June he should be in Tennessee, assuming he continues to pitch well. And of course, the Cubs promote players to the majors from AA all the time.

The Cubs will certainly have him starting rather than relieving in the minors. They’ll make the “Starter/reliever” decision once he gets to the majors. That decision will also be based on team needs. But the Cubs believe that pretty much every starter can throw out of the bullpen if necessary, but not vice versa.

by Josh77 on Jan 23, 2009 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In Jackson's case

I think not getting a NRI is a good thing. Gets him more focus, IMO, from the staff as a prized asset than fighting to gain some recognition.

by toonsterwu on Jan 23, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I'm keeping an eye on Jay Jackson

Law’s ranking surprises me a little. He’s certainly got the talent to be in the Top 100, but I’d want to see him pitch more than half a season to give him that ranking. On the other hand, one of my criticisms of prospect rankings in the “Shiny New Toy” effect. There’s always a tendency to rank new players too high on the basis of limited information.

Sure, if a guy blows through the upper-echelon of the NCAA or is blowing everyone away at the Area Code Games before getting drafted and that half-season just confirms the earlier prognosis, sure. I’d have had no problem ranking David Price as a top five prospect in all of baseball before last season. But Jackson came out of nowhere. I’d like to see him do it another season before ranking him that high.

But if he repeats this season what he did last, he’ll be a top 30 prospect in all of baseball.

by Josh77 on Jan 23, 2009 2:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he came out of no where

because he wasn’t a full time pitcher until last year. I’m not saying the rankings are justified, but there’s a reason he only recently emerged. but the scouting report is excellent on his makeup, good athletic tools, and the change is alright enough to think it can improve.

by toonsterwu on Jan 23, 2009 5:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That

and he pitched for Furman, which is pretty close to “nowhere” in the college baseball world. Ironically, Furman has only produced three major league ballplayers in their history who have played more than a cup of coffee in the majors. One is Tom Mastny, who was in and out of the Indians bullpen the past couple of seasons, but now is a free agent looking for work. But the other two are guys are former Cubs: Jerry Martin and Rick Wilkins.

I’m quite aware of Jackson’s background with the bat. I don’t think that the fact that he’s new to pitching is a positive or negative thing though. It just is. But I am a guy who likes to see a player produce at a high level for more than a few weeks before I start thinking he’s a top prospect.

by Josh77 on Jan 23, 2009 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Matt LaPorta is #27???

I thought he was a top five prospect last year. Am I wrong?

by jerry morales rules on Jan 22, 2009 3:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

As I recall he didn't have a great year in the minors.

There were extenuating circumstances that caused a lot of upheaval. He was traded and shortly after was sent to the Olympics, then returned to the minor leagues where he promptly was hit by a pitch, causing a concussion.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 22, 2009 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, he also played in the futures game shortly after he was traded.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 22, 2009 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He slipped a little last year but he was never top 5.

Sickels listed him as #19 in just the hitters list.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/5/26/536447/top-50-hitters-pre-season

However considering that 10 of the prospects in front of him graduated from the minors last season, having him only at #27 does show a bit of a fall.

by rlpete on Jan 22, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He was never top 5

but he was one of the better power prospects. I could see a situation where someone ranked him as a top 5 power prospect perhaps. Maybe that’s what you are thinking about.

by toonsterwu on Jan 22, 2009 7:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

have him learn

to catch, we need a back up

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 22, 2009 6:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

we have depth at catcher

Welington Castillo has top shelf defensive potential (although more work is needed) and looks to have enough bat to at least be a backup backstop. Steve Clevenger got tabbed as our 11th prospect by BA, which surprised me and has me reevaluating. That said, he’s got a decent bat so if he shows defensive improvement, then it’s possible. Blake Lalli is one of those “do everything” types that holds value as a team player, and his glove isn’t as bad as people say. That said, he’s not an ideal backup projection. Matt Cerda is in development. Michael Brenly has some intrigue. If Luis Flores can hit for anything, his glove is good enough to perhaps be a backup. The most interesting guy to me, the guy I tabbed as a catching sleeper in our system, is Carlos Perez. He has good tools offensively and defensively, but is raw.

Short of it is, we have catching depth. Add in that, with a young catcher like Soto, you typically prefer a veteran for now, and I don’t think catching is a big issue.

by toonsterwu on Jan 22, 2009 7:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cub system is loaded

at catcher and right-handed bullpen arms. Every other position? Not so much. Third base is OK—strong if Flaherty moves there.

by Josh77 on Jan 23, 2009 2:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

disagree a bit

flaherty is rather unlikely to move to 3rd. just not the power. it’s more gap power than it is plus power overall, although it’s plus power for middle infield.

but as i noted, 2nd base is strong in the system. flaherty heads up the top, but there’s enough to justify it as a deep spot up and down the system.

by toonsterwu on Jan 23, 2009 5:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh

I don’t think that Flaherty is going to move to third, at least not soon. I’m just saying “if.”

If Flaherty moves to second base, then we’re OK there. But I think that Nate Spears is nothing special and I’m really not very high on Tony Thomas after last season. I don’t think second base is all that strong right now.

by Josh77 on Jan 23, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't even thinking about them

Lake might have more upside than anyone in the system, and Dwayne Kemp is a guy whose bat may play. I like Opitz and Harrison, and Watkins is likely CF/2nd as well. Yes, they are far away, but there’s enough options to consider it a fairly deep position, and Spears is your decent upper level guy that might be passable as a backup middle infielder in the bigs.

by toonsterwu on Jan 23, 2009 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs