Cubs Minor League Wrap: July 12

by Josh Timmers on Jul 12, 2010 11:54 PM CDT in Minor Leagues

We wrap up our prospect balloting with your choice for prospect #21, infielder Matt Cerda. Cerda missed almost all of last season with a hand injury, but he's bounced back nicely this year with a .361 OBP and a .370 SLG. He's also just turned 20 a few weeks ago.

So to recap, your top 21 prospects are 1. Andrew Cashner 2. Brett Jackson 3. Josh Vitters 4. Jay Jackson 5. Hak-Ju Lee 6. Christopher Carpenter 7. Chris Archer 8. Trey McNutt 9. Hayden Simpson 10. DJ LeMahieu 11. Darwin Barney 12. Ryan Flaherty 13. Rafael Dolis 14. Thomas Diamond 15. Robinson Chirinos 16. Casey Coleman 17. Chris Rusin 18. Welington Castillo 19. Jae-Hoon Ha 20. Logan Watkins 21. Matt Cerda.

Iowa Cubs

All-Star break

Tennessee Smokies

The North All-Stars beat the South All-Stars, 3-2. (Tennessee is in the North, in case you didn't know.)

Luke Sommer and Ryan Buchter each threw a scoreless inning of relief. Sommer allowed two hits and Buchter gave up one. Neither one walked nor struck out a batter.

Tony Campana was 1 for 3 and scored a run. Robinson Chirinos was 1 for 2 with an RBI. Steve Clevenger was 1 for 2. Blake Lalli went 1 for 3.

Daytona Cubs

The Daytona Cubs were chomped on by the Clearwater Threshers, 5-1.

Dae-Eun Rhee can't buy a break. He pitched five innings and got the loss despite allowing only one run on four hits. He walked two and struck out five. Rhee did have three wild pitches, however. His record fell to 2-9.

Center fielder Jose Valdez was 2 for 3.

Peoria Chiefs

The Peoria Chiefs were no-hit by the Cedar Rapids Kernels, 10-0 in a game that was called after five innings because of rain. The second game of the scheduled double-header was also postponed.

Robert Whitenack started and allowed four runs on six hits over 3.2 innings. He walked two and struck out two.

Boise Hawks

The Boise Hawks lost to the Eugene Emeralds, 8-5.

Eduardo Figueroa took the loss with three innings of relief. Figueroa gave up five runs on four hits, although only two of the runs were earned. He walked four and fanned one.

Second baseman Pierre LePage was 2 for 3 with a walk. He scored once and had one RBI. Shortstop Elliot Soto went 2 for 4 and scored twice.

Right fielder Chris Huseby was 2 for 3 with a walk and a run scored.

AZL Cubs

Beat the Dodgers, 11-5.

Xavier Batista was 4 for 4 with a double and he scored four times.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Who is

Xavier Batista? Am I supposed to know who he is?

by Ryno G on Jul 13, 2010 12:03 AM CDT reply actions

Just a guy

who had a good day today. Because the schedule was light, I put in an AZL line because the guy went 4 for 4 and scored four times.

All I know about him is he’s 18 years old and he was an all-star in the DSL last season. It looks like he’s a slugger who hits for a low average, draws a few walks and strikes out a ton. Arizona Phil at the Cub Reporter says he has a gun for an arm but can’t aim it very well.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions

I think we could trade this guy to the whitesox

To get George Bell back! :)

But in all honestly he sounds exactly like smy Sosa.

(This story was produced by BCPDnewservice. Our motto: If you don’t like this story then suck it!)

by BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness on Jul 13, 2010 1:50 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Hey Josh...

just hopeful thinking kind of question…Will you do a scouting report on any prospects we acquire in some pre deadline deals? Just hoping we do something..sometimes it feels like Hendry won’t do anything because he still believes..

by Ryno G on Jul 13, 2010 1:57 AM CDT reply actions

Scouting Reports

i’m willing to do some if we aquire someone. I’m sure toons will offer his usuall good stuff on guys as well.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/

by cubsfan1 on Jul 13, 2010 2:16 AM CDT up reply actions

Sure

if I know anything, I’ll tell you what I know.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 2:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Evaluating the DeRosa Trade..

At the time, I thought the three prospects we got in Stevens, Gaub, and Archer was a good haul at a time when the Cubs needed pitching prospects. Gaub, struggling with a 6.52 ERA in Des Moines, has not done well in his promotion. Stevens looked great until that Cincinnati Series last week, which I’m sure many besides him would also like to forget. Archer still has potential, especially at 21 years old, and may make the whole thing worthwhile. Other thoughts?

by DisCUBbobulated on Jul 13, 2010 12:28 PM CDT reply actions

If you think

the Cubs would have made the playoffs last season with DeRosa on the team, then it was a bad trade no matter who we got back.

But clearly it’s a good trade going forward because DeRosa would have left as a free agent before this season so anything we got for him is more than nothing.

I am a Chris Archer fan, but him being successful at the major league level is not guaranteed. Gaub was excellent last year—not so much this year. Stevens was never anything more than an arm.

But really, whether the trade was good or bad is really about DeRosa, not the prospects.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I respectfully disagree.

The trade was both about the prospects, DeRosa, and clearing salary.

I believe Hendry thought DeRosa’s 2008 numbers were a fluke and he wanted to sell high.

So he gambled away a quality utility player with a good bat (even if he reverted to pre-2008) for three prospects that he would then flip for another quality MLB player (PV) or would turn into quality players.

I’m sure that pulling the trigger on that trade was made easier by the fact DeRosa’s contract was up in 2009 but it was still a gamble, a gamble that did not pay off.

Hendry was unable to flip the prospects for PV and what he was left with three arms one of which might contribute positively to a winning team (and that is a big might).

The only thing the DeRosa trade did to was clear enough Salary to bring in Milton Bradley for 3 years at 30 mill.

So as I see the trade it had three parts.

Assumption: Sell DeRosa high which shouldn’t hurt the club in the short term becasue his bat was not as good as his 2008 numbers indicated and mike fontenot could take over DeRosa’s role.
Reality: DeRosa’s 2009 numbers stayed high with his 2008 numbers and not having his bat after Rami went down crippled the team. Fontenot Regressed leaving a need for a utility infielder.

Assumption: Sell DeRosa high for good prospect to flip or turn into quality MLBers.
Reality: Henrdry could not get PV from the Padres and only Archer has a chance at being a quality MLBer and he’s still 2-3 years away.

Assumption: Sell DeRosa to clear salary space to bring in a Quality Free Agent
Reality: Mr. Bradley didn’t really work out so well.

All three parts of this trade have failed. The only hope is that Archer turns into a quality pitcher which would salvage something from one of Hendry’s worst trades.

(This story was produced by BCPDnewservice. Our motto: If you don’t like this story then suck it!)

by BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness on Jul 13, 2010 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't really disagree

with what you wrote, but the bottom line is we traded one year of Mark DeRosa for three minor league prospects. Right now, we have three prospects and we don’t have Mark DeRosa. If we hadn’t made the trade, we’d have no prospects and we wouldn’t have Mark DeRosa. And from what he’s done this season, we wouldn’t want Mark DeRosa.

If you think we could have gotten more for DeRosa, that’s one thing. Maybe we should have gotten Chris Perez, who the Indians got for him. But in the end, the trade was all about last season, which you seem to be admitting. In that sense, of course it was a failure because the Cubs failed to win last year. But from now on, it’s all about having three players we would not otherwise have.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions

I actually really like

Archer..he could be good.

by Ryno G on Jul 13, 2010 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Cleveland gave up on Archer

because he couldn’t get his curveball over the plate. I remember after the trade, the lighthearted “wild thing” jokes around here. He was a little better last year and this year he’s been a lot better.

He’s not a sure thing by any means, but he could be a good one.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions

Huh

Cleveland gave up on Archer because he couldn’t get the curveball over the plate? That’s just a really … odd statement. First, they didn’t give up on him. Actually, reports from fall/winter of 2008 were that they were really high on him. They stuck with him in the rotation all through 2008, even when there was enough reason to ponder shipping him to the pen and developing him as a pen arm. 2nd, the idea that his curveball was his downfall is … off. Even with the Indians, his curveball has always been either plus, or “flashes plus”. Even when they dealt him, he was largely considered to have one of the best, if not the best, curveball in the entire system.

The big issues for Archer back then were the delivery (Cubs have worked with him on that), his changeup (it’s developed), consistency, and physical maturation. In fixing the delivery, the command/control has improved a bit. How much improvement is something that we’ll find out in the 2nd half.

by toonsterwu on Jul 15, 2010 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions

It was a very bad trade.

The Cubs could have used DeRosa’s bat and flexibility last year (I also think there is a 25% chance he would have punch Milton Bradley in face which could helped, too). This could have made the Cubs serious contenders in September (I’m not saying they would have made the playoffs but it would have changed the playoff dynamic significantly). In short, DeRosa on the team last year would have give the Cubs a much better chance to make the playoffs.

Now I as you are any of these three pitching prospects going to do that in the next 3-7 years?

I don’t believe any of them will so I believe it was a very bad trade.

(This story was produced by BCPDnewservice. Our motto: If you don’t like this story then suck it!)

by BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness on Jul 13, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions

That's what I said

If you think the Cubs would have caught the Cardinals last year with DeRosa, it was a terrible trade even if the Indians had sent us Carlos Santana. However, I don’t know how Mark DeRosa makes us eight games better. If you look at something like Win Shares, it takes a player like Ryan Braun or Chase Utley to improve a team by eight games.

Certainly the moves last off season were a failure because the Cubs failed to win with a team expected to repeat. But that makes no difference going forward except to people who want more reasons to fire Jim Hendry.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions

I think Hendry has made some hugh mistakes that would not stand if he worked for the Twins

or some other low budget team. But he works for the Cubs so he’s allowed more mistakes.

My question isn’t really about Hendry. I think he’s a B – GM we could do much worse. My question is how good is Tim Wilken and his he worth keeping around?

He strikes me as crazy like a fox and seems to be building back a strong Minor league system. If Wilkens is getting the Cubs Above Average Talent out of the minors then that is how the Cubs will finally win a series.

So what do you think. Is keeping Wilken around worth keeping a slightly above average GM with limited negotiating skills?

(This story was produced by BCPDnewservice. Our motto: If you don’t like this story then suck it!)

by BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness on Jul 13, 2010 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions

It's a tough question

I really don’t know enough about how decisions are made in the front office to make that call. Hendry built the best team in the National League in 2008 that managed to lay a massive egg in the playoffs. Since then, it’s been downhill fast, but since the team was built to win a title before the Tribune sold the team, that was to be expected

Wilken has been a huge improvement over Stockstill, but I’m not convinced that there aren’t other guys out there that could do just as good a job if Hendry got canned. His pick of Tyler Colvin looks a lot better now that it did in 2006, but I still think Travis Snider would have been the better pick. Picking guys like Hayden Simpson is a sign that he’s confident in his own abilities.

I guess I’m just thinking out loud here, but if Ricketts/Kenney think they can hire a GM who would do a better job than Hendry, then I don’t think you can keep Jim around just because Wilken would leave if Hendry left. If you have confidence in a new GM, then you have confidence that he (or she, I guess) is good enough to hire people just as good as Wilken.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions

The problem with that is...

… that Wilken has built something pretty good. If you get someone new, even if “just as good”, you’re likely to have the system torn apart again, because anyone new is going to have his own philosophy.

I am neither proposing to keep or fire Hendry here, just saying it MIGHT be worth keeping him to keep Wilken, who has done an outstanding job.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Jul 13, 2010 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions

It might be worth to keep him for other reasons, too

I don’t really think Hendry is the best GM, far from it, in fact. However, he manages to make great trades more often than not. His problem lies in free agent talent evaluation. What I see happening with Ricketts, and what I hope to see happen, is him limiting off-season payroll. That way, Hendry can’t dump a ton of money into horrible FA contracts (Bradley, Miles, Soriano, etc). I think this will happen because the team seems to have turned its attention to developing its farm system. It indicates to me that there is where they want their talent to come from.
I also think keeping Hendry around is important for another reason. If you look at the consistently successful franchises, there is one common denominator: stability. Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Twins manage to stay competitive because they’re stable. Their team philosophy does not change. If you clean house every 5-10 years. there will be new philosophies with every change, and the new regime might be stuck with players that do not match the new team philosophy. The teams with near constant change— Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc perennially are losers because they always clean house. New philosophies don’t just affect the MLB, it changes the entire organization, from the MLB team to the rookie league teams.

by Mulhollandmania on Jul 13, 2010 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions

To be fair to Hendry

he was under tremendous pressure from the Trib to put a winner together before they sold the club. That caused him to make a lot of deals that made good short-term sense but bad long term sense.

You’ve also got a bit of chicken/egg thing going on there. Are those teams successful because they’re stable or stable because they’re successful?

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't really disagree with you

I guess we have to look at the whole front office team and decide whether or not these are the guys who can take us to the World Series. If you don’t think they are, then you need to get rid of them.

What I’m very much against is getting rid of Hendry because the Cubs are having a lousy season this year or because of the Milton Bradley signing or any one or two deals. That’s an overreaction. The Cubs just had three winning seasons in a row for the first time since the end of the Durocher era. You don’t throw that out just because the team stinks this season.

But if you think you’ve got someone out there who can put together a better team, then you have to change. Currently, I am unconvinced that a better front office team is out there.

by Josh Timmers on Jul 13, 2010 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

An 8 game swing alone on DeRosa would have been really hard to accomplish.

But how many games in 2009 did we lose while Rami was out 2-1 or 3-2?

I think DeRosa had 21 HRs before the All-star break. His bat might have changed those games. Even if the Cubs had just won 3 more games early it could have changed the tone of team. Maybe the Fans aren’t so hard on Bradley. Maybe the Cubs players choose to play within themselves rather than swing for 8 run homers every at bat (I’m looking at you Sori!).

Who knows? No one will ever know.

(This story was produced by BCPDnewservice. Our motto: If you don’t like this story then suck it!)

by BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness on Jul 13, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions

I disagree

Its tough to say what would have happened last year, but it can’t be deemed a bad trade at this point. DeRosa ended up on the shelf last year, anyway, so we wouldn’t have had him even if he had managed to make up the difference on the Cardinals and we went to the playoffs.

When evaluating the three prospects, I think we could have gotten better ones at the time, for sure. Cleveland didn’t think much of Archer, IIRC. In any case, he could still be a good ML starter or reliever. Stevens is a middle relief arm. An above average one, but still, they’re a dime a dozen from the right side. Gaub, if he figures himself out, still has the potential to be a top shelf LH reliever. I think, again if he figures himself out, he could be at a similar level to Matt Thornton, because he has great stuff. Time is starting to run out on him though, so he better figure it out sooner rather than later.

by Mulhollandmania on Jul 13, 2010 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions