Brett Jackson #38 on Baseball America's 2011 Top 100 Prospects

over 1 year ago drodd 63 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That's good news!

I’m excited by his potential career as a Cub.

If you think you've seen it all...just wait!

by CubFanSince1970 on Feb 23, 2011 10:38 AM CST reply actions

O'm surprised

that power was his best aspect. Makes sense why they may be moving him to a corner position.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 23, 2011 10:44 AM CST reply actions

I think their gonna leave him in center as long as they can.

by Dcr18 on Feb 23, 2011 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

In other Cubs related picks

Archer #27, McNutt #48 Lee # 92
What would have been. 4 guys in the top 100 3 in the top 50 would have been cool.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 23, 2011 10:51 AM CST reply actions

None the less...

Two in the top 50 after “graduating” three that would have likely been top 100 and the addition of Garza speaks wonders to the improvement of the Cubs system.

by okiecubbie on Feb 23, 2011 11:03 AM CST up reply actions

Right.

And remember, the Cubs had Colvin, Cashner and Castro on that list last year. The system is producing.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 23, 2011 11:04 AM CST up reply actions

Jackson, McNutt, and Vitters will be starters for the Cubs next season. It would be nice to have a few more players that are cost controlled for a while as the Cubs troll the FA market for top talent the next two off-seasons.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 23, 2011 11:24 AM CST up reply actions

Vitters next year...

would be a bigger surprise than the Cubs winning it all this year. Just sayin…

by bdlugz on Feb 23, 2011 1:06 PM CST up reply actions

Why do you think that?

It seems to me that he’s been making some good strides in the minors. He’s also been injured so it would be nice to see what he could do with a full year uninjured. I’ve argued in another post that I think there’s a good chance that the Cubs re-up with Ramirez, but Ramirez has got something to say about it too.

Should Vitters have a good year, which a lot of people are predicting, I could see the promotion for him especially since there isn’t anything past Ramirez in free agency next year, unless you like Encarnacion. Marquez Smith is a possibility too.

I’m actually thinking it’s about 50/50 that Vitters is the 2012 Opening Day starter at third.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 23, 2011 2:14 PM CST up reply actions

I like Vitters potential too...

but realistically, i don’t see him in the majors next year. He would have to have an absolute monster season, in all facets of offense, to even be considered IMO.

He is progressing, but slower than many of us had hoped.

If you think you've seen it all...just wait!

by CubFanSince1970 on Feb 23, 2011 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

In retrospect

I think that 50/50 might be pushing it. But, someone does have to play 3b for the Cubs in 2012. I’m sure that the Cubs don’t want to pick up the $16M option for Ramirez, but maybe they’ll have to. Maybe Ramirez will decline it though. There’s nothing to be had in the FA market for 2012. Here’s a link for the available ones from MTR:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/2012-mlb-free-agents.html

Should Vitters tank, I could see a multi-year deal with Ramirez. Marquez Smith could be an option too, for at least a year or two. I guess there’s always the possibility for a trade.

In any event, I think what the Cubs will do is dependent upon the years that Vitters and Ramirez have. I don’t necessarily think that Vitters has to have a monster year for him to be the choice, but it certainly has to be pretty darn good.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 23, 2011 4:51 PM CST up reply actions

I doubt the Cubs pick up his option

but depending on his 2011 season, I could see a 2-3YR new deal that eliminates his buyout and option, but gives him like $10M per season.

2 YR/$20M with a 3rd year option.

I would love it if that deal was like 2 YR/$16M, but we know the Cubs overpay their own.

Come on Lisa, I'm trying to impress people here. You don't win friends with salad. ~ Homer J. Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Feb 24, 2011 9:21 AM CST up reply actions

I think that both Lee and Ramirez

signed for less than they could have gotten on the open market had they tested FA a few year ago. I don’t agree with “we know the Cubs overpay their own”.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 24, 2011 9:56 AM CST up reply actions

No?

Zambrano and Dempster didn’t receive above market deals recently?

Come on Lisa, I'm trying to impress people here. You don't win friends with salad. ~ Homer J. Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Feb 24, 2011 10:31 AM CST up reply actions

I'm not sure what you're saying

What I am saying is that at the time, it was my belief that Lee and Ramirez signed contracts that were less than what they could have gotten had they tested free agency. You could call it a hometown discount if you’d like.

Z I think signed for market value. I think Dempster was about on target as well, but he may have settled for a bit less had he tried.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 24, 2011 11:13 AM CST up reply actions

Plus, Vitters will be only 22 in 2012.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Feb 23, 2011 3:05 PM CST up reply actions

I actually think that a good year for Vitters could lead to the Cubs keeping Ramirez for 2012

Vitters was struggling with injuries in AA last year. I think that a best case for him is mastering AA in early 2011, then putting in a stretch in Iowa the last half of the season. Unless he really breaks through his past learning curve, that would still mean some time in Des Moines in 2012. So if Ramirez stays healthy (major if), team management may see him as the best way to bridge the gap to Vitters.

If Vitters struggles this year, he is too far away from the majors to make Ramirez work as an interim player – if Vitters even makes it as a 3B in MLB.

by ClarkFan on Feb 23, 2011 10:55 PM CST up reply actions

There might be a better reason to excercise Ramirez' option

The Cubs will have a lot of money to burn and there won’t be many other options out there to replace him. Even if we were to somehow pull off a Pujols signing, I have to think we would pick up the option unless Ramirez is injured again all year.

by Bradsbeard on Feb 23, 2011 11:49 PM CST up reply actions

i believe its a mutual option

if Ramirez does really well he’ll terminate it and hit FA

if Ramirez does really poorly the Cubs will exercise the $2 million buyout.

there’s a chance there is something in between

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 24, 2011 8:01 AM CST up reply actions

I believe it's a club option...

It’s been a club option, but Ramirez can void it and get out of it. In doing so, he doesn’t get the 2 mil buyout. I guess you could say it’s a mutual option after when you read everything.

The 2012 option will be guaranteed only if Ramirez gets MVP or LCS MVP this year (he missed on the other ones). He might get it if he is traded, but I’m not sure on that???

by bart s on Feb 24, 2011 8:11 AM CST up reply actions

2012 is gauranteed if he's traded.

by bdlugz on Feb 24, 2011 8:46 AM CST up reply actions

that's why its mutual

if Aramis has the right to void the option, its a mutual option.

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 24, 2011 10:38 AM CST up reply actions

I guess he could void it

and try to negotiate a multi-year deal with the Cubs. Maybe he’ll take less money in 2012 in exchange for a two or three year deal, since he’s said he wants to retire a Cub. I’m not sure what kind of deal he would get on the open market, but I can’t see it being more than $10M a year.

by Bradsbeard on Feb 24, 2011 12:43 PM CST up reply actions

depends on the season he posts

if he gets right back to the .895 OPS type seasons then i think its fair to assume he’d get a 3 yr, 36 million offer out there at the very least

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 24, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions

I have a hunch

that Vitters is probably concentrating so much on the offensive part of his game that he’s really not doing too much defensively. I know he’s a butcher there now and he’ll probably never win a gold glove, but I bet he could become better if he were to concentrate on it.

There are lots of “ifs” regarding this season and Ramirez/Vitters. A lot could be on the table, but one thing is pretty much certain – the FA market in 2012 will not be a good place to look for a starting 3bman.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 24, 2011 9:12 AM CST up reply actions

Accounts from the AFL

were that his defense was improving and he looks like he should stick at 3B for the time being. From what I’ve read I think he has worked pretty hard on his defense.

by Bradsbeard on Feb 24, 2011 12:39 PM CST up reply actions

That's great to hear

I thought there might be room for improvement with him and this pretty much confirms that.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 24, 2011 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

Colvin was not on the list last year

He was #75 in 2008.

by JSB on Feb 23, 2011 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

Fair enough, but it's still proof of my point.

… which is, the system is starting to produce good major league players.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 23, 2011 2:48 PM CST up reply actions

The minors are definitely the "hope"for the future...

especially with the new trendof most teams locking up their young talent early and for lots of years now.

Home-grown talent will be the hallmark of the next Cubs’ World Series win.

If you think you've seen it all...just wait!

by CubFanSince1970 on Feb 23, 2011 3:04 PM CST up reply actions

eh, colvin was on the baseball america top 100 prospects?

check your facts al.

by John T. Unger on Feb 23, 2011 7:40 PM CST up reply actions

See above.

He was on the 2008 list.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 23, 2011 8:57 PM CST up reply actions

Only Lee & Archer made the top 100

so it is two technically.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 23, 2011 11:12 AM CST up reply actions

I should specify graduating

They “graduated” Colvin, Cashner and Castro last year. Had they given these guys, especially Castro and Cashner, we would have had more and a couple with very high ratings.

by okiecubbie on Feb 23, 2011 1:47 PM CST up reply actions

You can't really do that though

Because then you have players from other teams that might have knocked our guys off the list too.

by JSB on Feb 23, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

But

I was speaking more about how the system is producing players than how many we have in the top 100 at the moment. We just sent (hopefully) three solid players through the system and now have two more. We would have had four, but invested two on Garza.

by okiecubbie on Feb 23, 2011 3:12 PM CST up reply actions

Seeing Mike Moustakas at #9 made me look at the 2007 draft.

I know it’s Wikipedia—I was just looking at the top ten (and fourteen if you want to go to Heyward).

It’s really worrying me that the Cubs missed out big in that prime spot. I’m not ready to give up on Vitters yet , but there some really nice players in there. And if I remember right, KC was wavering between Moustakas and Vitters (or maybe a pitcher—I can’t quite remember). Wish the Cubs would have ended up with him.

Hindsight is 20/20 I know. But you hate to mess up a #3 pick.

by mic on Feb 23, 2011 11:47 AM CST reply actions

Hindsight is 20/20

but remember, Moustakas was looking like a bust after a lousy 2009 at age 20 (.250/.297/.421 in AA). Vitters is almost a year younger and has arguably had more success to this point in his pro career as Moustakas had had prior to 2010. There is still time.

by Bradsbeard on Feb 23, 2011 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

The Royals were choosing between Vitters and Moustakas

The Cubs would have taken Jarrod Parker had the Royals taken Vitters. He’s a great prospect too, although he’s already had TJ surgery.

The thing is, 12 months ago Moustakas looked like a mistake too. And Vitters is a year younger than Moustakas. So don’t write him off yet.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 12:20 PM CST up reply actions

Yep

After Moose’s breakout 2010, I think more people are starting to give Vitters a little more time to prove himself (a whole, healthy year at one level could do wonders for his prospect status). I’ve heard good things about his offseason workouts, as well as his attitude/demeanor/performance so far in ST as well. He appears to be more determined, focused and devoted to the game. We’ll see if it stays that way.

by RynoRooter on Feb 23, 2011 2:10 PM CST up reply actions

I was hoping they were going to draft Parker actually.

I saw him pitch in high school—could be the next Tim Lincecum. However, the TJ surgery is a huge concern.

by mic on Feb 23, 2011 5:53 PM CST up reply actions

BTW...

Moustache looked lousy after 2009 and a bust. But Vitters is a year younger and there is plenty of time remaining for him to develop…plenty of time.

by hansman1982 on Feb 23, 2011 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

Rewind yourself.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Feb 23, 2011 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs

Bet on the Royals in 2012

The folks at BA did an admittedly crude calculation where they gave 100 points to the prospect who was ranked #1 and 99 to #2, etc., until they got all the way down to 1 point for #100. Then they added up the points for each team for every year that they’ve done a Top 100 list.

This year’s Royals had the highest score in the 22 year history of the list. It wasn’t even particularly close.

A quick note of caution though. Second place went to the 2006 Diamondbacks. Part of their problem was that they chose to trade away Carlos Quentin and Carlos Gonzalez. They kept Justin Upton, Stephen Drew, Conor Jackson and Chris Young, all of whom became decent major leaguers but none of which lived up to their hype.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 1:53 PM CST reply actions

Living up to the hype.

That’s the thing. We can’t know what we’ll get until the players take the field.

That’s why I’m not as worried as many here have been about Archer, etc. They may be stars, they may very well not. If we keep generating prospects, we’ll see some pan out and others will quietly fade.

The only time someone’s “can’t miss” is when they are helping the big league club win games. And even then, that’s just one injury away from “could’ve been” status.

by MN exile on Feb 23, 2011 2:48 PM CST up reply actions

That's a little harsh on Upton.

He posted a 129 OPS+ as a 21 year old, and then a 111 as a 22 year old.

And I loooove the way he plays RF. He just glides out there.

Yes, he strikes out too much. But still, going into his age 23 season, he shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as the other guys on your list.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 23, 2011 3:15 PM CST up reply actions

Fair enough

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 4:06 PM CST up reply actions

I should add

Upton is a quality ballplayer, but he hasn’t lived up to the hype, which was he was the next Ken Griffey Jr. But your overall point is correct.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 4:07 PM CST up reply actions

Living in Arizona I dont ever recall hearing a comparison to Ken Griffey Jr

by AzCubfan24 on Feb 23, 2011 5:35 PM CST up reply actions

From Baseball America's 2007 season preview

The term “five-tool prospect” somehow doesn’t seem strong enough for Upton. He does everything exceptionally well and already has the body and composure of a big leaguer. . . .Upton evokes comparisons to Ken Griffey Jr. in center field, but he didn’t show Griffey’s enthusiasm in his first season.

The link is subscribers only. If you have a subscription, you know how to look it up for yourself.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 6:25 PM CST up reply actions

Love me some Justin Upton...

Guy is going to be ridiculous.

by SenorGato on Feb 24, 2011 9:24 AM CST up reply actions

Congrats to Brett.

I remember some consternation around here when he was drafted, but I’m glad to see he’s exceeded expectations. Keep on keeping on, Wilkens.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 24, 2011 3:20 AM CST reply actions

What's the percieved cieling of Jackson?

I’ve been thinking of him as an Erstad or even Kotsay type….close? I’ve read Grady Sizemore but I’m not sure exactly how much I believe it…that’d be awesome if he could be obviously.

by SenorGato on Feb 24, 2011 9:32 AM CST reply actions

Steve Finley.

We’d take that.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 24, 2011 9:39 AM CST up reply actions

He'll probably have more power

than Finley had, at least when Finley was younger.

I was one pushing the Finley comp. I now think that’s a tad pessimistic.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 24, 2011 11:52 AM CST up reply actions

I sure as hell hope he's better than Mark Kotsay.

I agree with Al that a “Steve Finley” type isn’t a far off projection and Finley was a very good player for a long time.

We can hope for the Grady Sizemore-lite comps though.

Come on Lisa, I'm trying to impress people here. You don't win friends with salad. ~ Homer J. Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Feb 24, 2011 10:32 AM CST up reply actions

Grady Sizemore

would actually be a decent comp. Just hope he’s healthier.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 24, 2011 11:52 AM CST up reply actions

I would gladly take Steve Finley's career for Brett Jackson...

The guy wasn’t great really (except for 1996- he was great that year for a CF), but he was a very good player when you consider defense as well. At least I think he was an above average defender at CF (from I’m remembering anyway- the defensive stats could say he suck). Even if he’s just average there or a tick below, he’s still a good player.

The only difference I see is the BB:K and HRs (early part of the career). I think on a yearly basis, that Brett Jackson is gonna have more BBs:Ks and HRs than Finley. Finley didn’t hit more than 11 HRs until he was 31 (when he hit 30 in 1996). Also I’m not sure if Brett Jackson is gonna last at CF as long as Finley did either.

by bart s on Feb 24, 2011 5:31 PM CST up reply actions

Also if you look at Steve Finley's per 162 game line...

On Baseball-Reference, I think that’s a good line to compare to Brett Jackson on a yearly basis (although I would bump the BBs up by 10 and Ks up by 20).

If you do that, then his OBP jumps from .332 to like .348 or so… a career .271/.348/.442 for a .790 OPS as a CF is pretty good IMO with average defense at least. Fukudome has a .796 OPS in 2009 and that was a 104 OPS+.

Again.. IMO, Brett Jackson low projection in BBs/Ks is something like 60/100 and high side being like 90/150. So low side is .271/.348/.442 and high side would be something like .271/.385/.442… In the middle would be .271/.363/.442 (75 BBs/125 Ks)…

by bart s on Feb 24, 2011 5:50 PM CST up reply actions

Jackson's been posting .380+ OBPs

at every MiLB level so there’s no reason to think he can’t continue to do that at the MLB level.

I think BJax is a legitimate leadoff candidate in the future and he should be able to stick in CF for at least 5 years I would imagine

by magicblue on Feb 25, 2011 8:28 AM CST up reply actions

Guess you don't know what Jackson did at AA last year...

.276/.366/.465 line in 268 ABs… It is the only time he was under .383 OBP though so far. Also his AVG went down as he never hit less than .295 in any level. Pitching is only gonna get better/tougher at every level so it’s normal that his AVG/OBP went down a tad. He was still hitting for XBH/power which was a good sign. This year will tell us what his BB:K and AVG will be like as he gets a full season from either AA/AAA/MLB and facing pitchers who got either control or good stuff consistently. If he brings it back up to .380 OBP or the same BB% rate, then it shows that he can adjust to pitchers. Same thing with his AVG. I don’t think a lot of scouts or people think that he can hit around .300 consistently either like he done so far in the minors. If he doesn’t, then it might means that he won’t be walking as much as people thought he would so he might have 60 BBs/yr instead of like 80-90 (but still be a good player) or be hitting .270 instead of .300.

Anyway… I agree with you that he’s a leadoff in the future and be at CF for at least 5 years. I can see him being at CF until he’s in his early 30s. He’s already 6’2" 210 so it’s not like he has to add more weight or has the frame for it. I know he’ll gain it naturally, but I don’t see it that until he’s in his 30s.

Plus I was just throwing out some numbers (on the BBs) while using Finley’s 162 game avg just to give you an idea of what kind of a line Jackson could put up (using Finley as a comp and adding more BB). .348 OBP on the low side is still pretty good when you’re hitting .270.

Heck he could hit like he has been in the minors (before AA line) and end up being like Bobby Abreu in the majors. At least that’s who I’m looking at as a best case comparsion (yearly 20/30 guy). Kinda surprised nobody use Abreu yet as like a best case player or Brett’s prime years comparsion. Then again, Abreu is REALLY underrated. I’ll go nuts if he become similar to Abreu. But if he turns out more to be like Steve Finley, I’ll still be happy as Finley was a good player for a long time and someone that would be valuable to the Cubs.

by bart s on Feb 25, 2011 9:56 AM CST up reply actions

ceiling?

Jim Edmonds (in my opinion)

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 24, 2011 10:38 AM CST up reply actions

Anything close to that ceiling would be really terrific

I still hope that he forces the team to move Byrd this year or the next offseason. Nothing agasint Byrd, but with Soriano anchoring LF (as in holding it down to the bottom), the Cubs need more in CF than Marlon has to give.

by ClarkFan on Feb 24, 2011 5:43 PM CST up reply actions