he is a corner guy.

Wilken’s philosophy has always been to draft up the middle if he had the choice, and that part, I agree with. Young MI’s/CF’s may grow into corner players … corner players that grow may become DH’s. That’s sort of the gist of it. Now, this does sometimes lead to questionable power prospects, with guys like Richard Jones and Justin Bour, amongst others, as probably the big time power guys we picked up this year, intriguing guys, but guys with questions.

the Shark needs to go to AAA for a whole yr, starter or reliever, and develop his pitches. If he can get a 2nd pitch, it would already be enough for him to work in the Bigs, cuz he has a very good fastball. He also needs to work on command/control.

We should bring up Ascanio or if BJ Ryan gets to the bigs, still think they are better relief options at this point, and let the Shark develop down in the minors cuz he isn’t ready

Chris Archer cracks my midseason list at 21 right now, with John Gaub a tinge behind. Jeff Stevens is a ready arm, and I was having debate on where to put him, although in my last list I did, I cracked him in at 35. He just doesn’t have much of a ceiling, but he is a nice middle relief arm. That said, Jeff Stevens vs. Greg Reinhard? Not much difference there.

All three are solid arms, so rankings come down to how a person grades though. I’ll try to get my list out, but I was having problems resorting it after I dry runned my top 50. Well, not problems, just haven’t had the time to resort it.

I can make a case for Archer in the top 20, but as many have noted, he has huge mechanical issues to work through. He also has very limited stuff from what he started … coming out in the draft. That is, he hasn’t developed. He’s always had the good fast/plus curve combination, dating back to HS. He’s very young, but he’s been around Low A. You want to see development of some sort, and while there’s progress, I’m not sure there’s enough. The Cubs depth is actually fairly solid in that 3rd tier, our black hole area is more in that 2nd tier, slotting guys in that 9-14 area or so. Is Archer a future ace, or is he a future back of the pen, mid-90’s fastball/plus curve.

Of the three, he’s the one that stands out to me as a possible top 20, and maybe I’d sneak him in after revisiting it. As for the rest

Stevens – Very solid arm, potential middle reliever. Therein lies the rub. He’s a middle reliever. A dime a dozen guy. Readiness certainly is in his favor, but the reports from earlier this year suggested he was living off his fastball and his secondary pitches, while showing ability, wasn’t consistent. Is he all that different from other guys in our system?

Gaub – I can see a case for him as a top 20, and maybe I’ll revisit, due to a combination of readiness and value. That said, he’s a LOOGY. Maybe a plus LOOGY/setup guy, but that’s his role.

I will say this – in the past, all three of these arms probably crack our top 20, no questions ask. It’s nice that, IMO, that there can be a debate now due to the depth in that tier of the system.

that it’s more a consistency issue with him. Certainly, I’ve heard that the field has impacted a bit, but for the most part, it’s about the kid. Thing people forget is that, when a kid is pushed/rushed, the defense also can get impacted, at least, in regards to the development trend. His glovework is about where it should be for his age, for a guy that should be in shortseason or the MWL. The thing is that there are no concerns about whether or not he has the tools to stick, and that’s the big positive. The errors are a bit disconcerting, but I’m not worried about it yet. If it is that way come 2010 in Tennessee (well, likely the Smokies), then I’d be worried.

It was a case of good fortune that we didn’t think enough of him to let the Blue Jays snap him up. There, he refined his sinker, and I think a look at his numbers since should’ve given some hint that he could be successful in the bigs. It’s easy to gloss over a guy like that, though.

On rankings in general – rankings should never be used to judge if a player can be successful or not. Different people judge on different factors. Rankings should really be used as a tool for discussion, and that’s it. When I did my offseason top 50, I was very clear to note that there would be guys that missed my top 50 that would be productive in the bigs. Now, it is fair to say that rankings can be used to discuss if a guy has top end potential. Even then, there are late bloomers, or guys like Wells, who found a good teacher in Toronto.

As for Colvin, the issue isn’t really his glove for me, it’s his bat. There’s just very little expectation of consistency. I’ve said it before, but I think he might have a Josh Kroeger like journey, in a positive scenario (negative is that he simply busts out), where he goes from top prospect to a guy that has to jump around a bit and develop his discipline enough to mesh with his instincts.

But everyone judges differently. Guyer should easily be a top 20, with Burke borderline. I think Colvin and Rundle are out, but that’s me. Actually, Rundle didn’t crack my top 30.

My top 5 is pretty set right now, and I’ll post my last top 10 (just copying and pasting from my last quick list I did)

1. Josh Vitters, A-/B+. He’s good, but is he as good as Cubs fans want? Debatable.
2. Jay Jackson, B+. Scary thing is … he’ll get better, and his fastball is closer to the mid-90’s already. Cashner’s 1-2 punch may be better, but Jackson has 4 quality pitches, with the fast/slide also plus.
3. Starlin Castro, B+/B. Immense upside, a lot of work to do.
4. Andrew Cashner, B/B+. There’s a lot to like statistically, but he’s a college arm with two plus pitches dominating. The changeup has to develop for this starting experiment to work.
5. Chris Carpenter, B/B-. Always had plus stuff. Heck, all I want is for him to stay healthy the rest of the year.
6. Dae-Eun Rhee, B/B-. Think of this as a draft pick nod – a guy with some background to judge off of, but not enough.
7. Hak-ju Lee, B/B-. Immense upside, but we’ll have to see how his body grows physically.
8. Brett Jackson, B/B-. Draft pick nod. Gotta wait until Daytona to really have a good gauge. I expect him in Daytona come 2010.
9. Jeff Samardzija, B-. I never thought he was a top SP and always thought the Cubs would have to make a decision one day on whether or not Shark as an end of the rotation guy or Shark as a power pen arm. I think Shark is making that decision easier.
10. Welington Castillo, C+. Taking a step back … Clevenger’s a nice talent, but his ceiling is that of a backup backstop in all likelihood. I bashed Castillo a bit this year, but it’s not really fair. His defense has improved, and that’s what is going to get a catcher to the bigs. His bat went through some bad luck as well. The defensive improvement gets the nod, although you could easily go with a guy like Brandon Guyer here or the consistency of a guy like Casey Coleman here. An upside like a Ryan Searle or Dan McDaniel wouldn’t be the worst nod out there. Really, we’re at the C+ level so a lot of options fit.

My one sleeper nod in the top 20 in my earlier run through was Wesley Darvill. Very fascinated with this kid, and that would be a pure upside nod. Smooth stroke, body will fill out (comes from his HS coaches), some power will develop, good feet, raw speed – very fascinating talent. The type of guy that could be a stud big shortstop … and we’ve got two exciting guys ahead of him already. Never hurts to have that upside, though.

in Al’s magazine thing. That I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. Seems like it’s a phrase that’s really caught on with how people are describing the Cubs system.

Ideally, you want a bang up system, top to bottom. We don’t have that, and the next best thing is a system that fits. Our system fits to a certain extent, with stopgap types in the upper levels (well, it’s always going to be that way under Hendry considering how he stacks AAA), but with upside developing in the lower ranks. I have some concerns about corner spots, but corner spots are also places that you might spend in FA to find if our guys move on. Slowly, the system is starting to seep in some higher level talent. I did a mock through of all thirty systems a couple weeks ago in a discussion with some folks, and I’m not so sure the Cubs system is as far back as people assume. I think a reasonable case could be made for us to be in that 18-25 range in how people rank it.

But there’s starting to be higher level talent, and the next step is grooming it which is a fair question as to if we can do that. But first, you gotta find the talent, so one step at a time. I mean, already, I see three exciting shortstops prospects. There’s some big strong arms. Boise has some nice arms … a bit raw, but nice arms to follow like big Jon Nagel, Larry Suarez, Dionis Nunez, Yohan Gonzalez, and so forth. The first thing is getting good talent, and we’re on the right track in that regards.

The 2nd thing is developing it, and there are some questions. That said, I applaud the Cubs for some little things, like letting guys trying to be starters. Andrew Cashner, Dan McDaniel, Chris Carpenter, James Russell – a csae could’ve been made out of college that all these guys, and others, were better off simply as pen arms. They’ve been tried as starters, with a wide range in resutls, from the good (Cashner/Carpenter), to the iffy (McDaniel), to the poor (Russell). But it’s the smart move to try your best arms as a starter. I’m frustrated with the Nationals for not trying Drew Storen as a starter this year, although I’m hopeful it may be a draft year, innings workload thing and they may revisit it next year. Along those lines, I applaud the Cubs for challenging the guys with talent and not holding them back due to others. They pushed Guyer. They pushed Castro. They pushed the arms. Now, you don’t want reckless pushing, but the guy that might’ve seemed like a reckless push on paper (Castro) has turned out just fine.

There’s progress – give it time. Wilken gets bashed by some, but I don’t see why. His first draft was limited with the lack of picks. His 2nd draft was okay, seeme dlike a fill in the gaps in the system draft. The last draft, the arms heavy draft, I loved. Certainly, attrition rates mean a lot won’t pan out, but I liked the gambles, I liked the guys we took. I started really iffy on this last draft, but I’m coming around to it. There are some fascinating pieces from this draft.

Oh, this is the most important thing to me … that the Cubs are pursuing different types of talent. They aren’t limiting themselves. Is Goldstein’s critique of the Cubs from 2003-2006 fair? Certainly, but I think the system has evolved since then and that it is doing a better job at finding different pieces and recognizing that different pieces can play roles.

you do realize that he’s stunk up the joint in Cleveland this year, right? I mean, still a nice K rate, but absolutely no control.

As for Shark, his secondary offerings never developed. As for Marmol, I think what made him so fascinating to the Cubs scouts (seeing the ball dart when he threw from catcher to 2nd) is also what’s going to always be a concern for him. Simply put, Marmol needs to be wild, but the problem this year is that he hasn’t been effectively wild.

when he keeps the ball in the strike zone and in the park.

The Cubs are lacking. For example, a case can be made that the Phillies have 4 top 50 prospects (Drabek, Taylor, Brown, Knapp).

That said, the Cubs top shelf isn’t bad. Most have Vitters as a top 40 guy, borderline top 30. There’s strong belief that, with Jackson, Castro, Cashner, that the Cubs will have at least 1 more guy that cracks the top 100, if not 2 or 3. Hak-ju Lee may work his way into that mix based on upside. It’s not inconceivable that the Cubs have 5 top 120 or so guys, which well, it isn’t a bad ratio.

Cubs problem is that, the upside is there, but there isn’t enough at the upper levels. That may be remedied in the near future, as Vitters/Castro/Jackson/Cashner/Carpenter are all likely to be in AA or higher come 2010. Problem is, it was always going to take time to restock the shelves after the dark years from 2003-2006. There’s positive signs, and the Cubs still have a good depth/stock of potential “cup of tea guys” and high upside but far away guys. What’s really hurting us, as I tried to explain above, is that 2nd tier, the B-/C+ level talents (and some would argue that Hak-ju Lee and Chris Carpenter might fit into that group as well). There’s some injury questions (high upside Dae-Eun Rhee and Chris Carpenter), some performance questions (in Brett Jackson’s case, not enough to really judge by), and other issues that can be raised.

The Cubs top shelf isn’t great, but it isn’t bad. Whereas the system might be in the last tier (if you split it by thirds), the top shelf may be squarely in that middle ground.

though i think soriano’s contract may still be going at the original date

did you see KG’s top 5 ranking? A bit fascinated to see Lee at 4 ahead of Castro. Not stunning, but fascinating.

Also, I am tremendously excited about Wesley Darvill. He seems very similar to Hak-ju Lee in terms of what type of players they are, and from the little I’ve seen, I think Darvill probably has a bit more power potential (in saying that, I think Lee is the more talented player). We are grooming a lot of up the middle athletic guys, with Watkins figuring into that mix as well.

any link to back that up. I have not seen anything.

Thanks!