Not many teams can claim that kind of depth. The key now is turning some of those C+ into better prospects through strong development – something we’ve been sorely lacking for too long.

majors are covered here? Who knew?

kidding

at best.

I’m a lot less enthused about Torreyes than most. It admittedly isn’t fair in some respects – the kid does hit. The problem is, for a guy who only has one good tool, succeeding at the lower level against weaker pitching only tells so much. Could be that he’s an exception to the rule, about to push forward, but it’s also quite possible that he gets eaten up by upper level pitching.

Actually, let me post today’s askba, which had a lot of juicy comments on the Cubs.

When I listed my personal overall Top 50 in the 2012 Prospect Handbook, I had Brett Jackson at No. 28, Javier Baez at No. 31 and Rizzo at No. 42, so that would put Rizzo third on an updated Cubs list. I like Rizzo’s power potential and think he’s the third-best first-base prospect in baseball (behind the Astros’ Jonathan Singleton and the Padres’ Yonder Alonso), but Jackson and Baez are up-the-middle players and Baez has the bat to be an impact player if he moves down the line.

None of Chicago’s other acquisitions would crack the Top 10. There’s depth in the farm system, so if I were updating the Cubs Top 30 I wrote for the Handbook, I’d put Torreyes, Cates and Sappelt (in that order) in the back half of that list. Torreyes is a career .364 hitter in the lower minors, but he’s also 5-foot-7 and lacks a second standout tool, so he’s really going to have to max out what he has to make it as a big league regular. Cates has a strong arm but is relatively new to pitching and has a lot of work to do, while Sappelt looks like a fourth outfielder who’s overmatched in center field.

In our preliminary system rankings in the Handbook, we put Chicago at No. 14. When we release our final rankings this spring, the Cubs’ moves will push them up a spot or two.

As for Volstad, I thought he was a nice pickup in the Carlos Zambrano trade. Chicago might have released Zambrano if it couldn’t have traded him. Though the Cubs had to eat $15 million of Zambrano’s $18 million salary for 2012, they got a young, durable starter. Volstad may not be more than a No. 4 starter because he doesn’t miss enough bats, but he’ll help Chicago more than Zambrano would have.

I still personally have Rizzo ahead of Baez, even though I’m lukewarm on Rizzo. I get the feeling, on other sites, that some people are marking out on the prospects in the Reds/Padres trades because it’s a TheoJed production. They are intriguing pieces that we got, but Callis articulated clearly the concerns that I’ve had with the pieces,

All that said, this is a better system than most fans at Sickels would acknowledge. Now, I’m mildly surprised at 14th, but last year, BA gave us a higher ranking than expected pre-Garza trade as well (I’m surprised because some of the podcasts/comments they make suggest a lower ranking). Entering 2011, though, a lot of us were concerned at the severe lack of talent in Peoria and below. Entering 2012, Peoria looks like it could be a very prospect laden club, pitching and positional assets.

I’ve discussed this with some of the posters here over on Sickels, but the Cubs 50-80 prospects are fairly fascinating as a group. It wouldn’t entirely stun me if guys in my 50-80 rankings this year ended up being better than some of the top 10-15 guys. Speaks to the weakness at the top, but also to the fascinating raw upside in the lower levels.

I took a couple days off and saw it still wasnt a fanshot, so figured i’d link it.