they usually make little sense, especially for big market teams, because it is extremely unlikely that any point fields a regular lineup and their rotation/closer roles with internal options. It’s usually an exercise to engender discussion.

The one thing I’d take away from that is, Lee over Castro. A fair case can be made that Lee has higher defensive potential than Castro, and that’s indicated with this projection. That said, if Castro can stick at short, I think it’ll be hard to push him off.

Btw, if 2 of our top 3 pitching prospects make it as solid starters, I’ll be pleasantly surprised. Ihope for it, but am not expecting it.

is Soriano isnt in the OF… and i believe he’d still be making 18+ million a year at that point…

awesome

made a huge jump in late July and August at Tennessee and looks to be back to where he was earlier projected when he was drafted. His strikeouts were down especially the last month and a half and his batting avg at Tennessee vs l-handers was near 320 which I think are good noting points that Colvin could be on the comeback.

at a certain point, prospects lose their luster and SNTS takes over. He had a solid year after coming back from the collision with Tony Campana. I think people want to see if anything he did is “real” in respect to whether or not he can continue this in Iowa and the bigs. The discipline is still an issue, but he’s a guy who should see solid time in the majors.

Put it this way – he’s still probably a top 15 Cubs prospect (11/12 right now for me), but the fact that two other OF prospects have passed him (Brett Jackson and Kyler Burke) speaks to the potential those two have, in comparison to Colvin, who’s ceiling isn’t as high as either guy.

wasn’t really an option as Hendry didn’t have the money to afford that. Heyward was actually questioned moreso than Vitters.

I’m not defending Vitters, but he wasn’t a bad pick in terms of value. Hindsight is always easy, but at the time, Vitters was a lock to go top 5.

Lets see how he devleops over the next year or so in the minors. We might have a very exciting player on our hands. But even if he is only a “serviceable” shortstop in the mold of Christian Guzman, then that isn’t half bad either. Partaking in the hype machine for Castro at this very early stage is silliness. Especially when he is member of a Cub organization with a tragic record of failure when it comes to highly touted prospects.

Patience Grasshopper.

more of a suggestion of how special Hanley is

It really comes down to where you are as an organization for me. While there is validity in the fact that drafting collegians are safer, that doesn’t make for a surefire system (for reference, look at the struggles Oakland’s system had a few years ago, before Beane decided to go on another round of swaps. Also, Ricciardi’s Blue Jays never had great systems, although there were some internal issues there, from what I understand (namely, Ricciardi tore down the structure upon entering, which made it into a building up from ground process, which is that much harder).

I’m a big believer that decisions need to fit the organization. System’s need to fit the organization. Obviously, it’d be great if we had an elite team with an elite system, but that is rarely the case. Most teams that are that good will sell their pieces to try and make that push, as they should. Without going off on a tangent, my belief is that you do your scouting and then make your evaluation. If there’s a guy that you have heads and tails above everyone else, then he’s the nod. If it’s close, I’d rather see decisions made based on the organization. For example, if the team has a lot of stopgap assets, I’d like to see a gamble on upside, assuming that said HS player has more upside (which isn’t always the case). If the team is a bit thin in the upper ranks, then perhaps there is a justification for going with a collegian to try and fill things in. Maybe a team’s close and has a 2-3 year window – going for a collegian, with an expectation of said player moving fast, could create value.