+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Top 100 prospects (/thread-7772.html)
Top 100 prospects - Butcher - 02-11-2009
I'm only going to paste Law's comments on Vitters -- he has him ranked #14 (up from #17 last year).
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Vitters started the year slow due to a hand injury, ended up returning to short-season ball, and hit everything in sight. He has an easy, smooth, quick swing that would be that classic "sweet" left-hander's swing if it wasn't for the fact that he hits right-handed. He doesn't have great loft in his swing, but is strong and makes extremely hard contact; he led the Northwest League in doubles at age 19 and as he fills out a little bit, some of those will go over (or through) the wall. He's fringe-average at third base; he has plenty of arm and his footwork is improving, although he's not likely to ever be plus over there. If there's a concern, it's the very low walk total; he's not a hacker or even impatient, but is very aggressive, and that works as long as he's ahead of the pitchers and can make so much solid contact. If his patience doesn't improve and he doesn't continue to hit .320-plus, his ceiling will start to drop. If the patience comes, he's a potential No. 3 hitter who'll hit plenty of doubles and 25-plus home runs with a high average.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the link.
You know...the more I think about it, the more I don't want to deal this kid for Peavy. He's only 19 years old, it sounds like he can really sting the ball, and we have jack shit in our system (other than him).
Top 100 prospects - ruby23 - 02-11-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17302:date=Feb 11 2009, 11:58 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 11 2009, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm only going to paste Law's comments on Vitters -- he has him ranked #14 (up from #17 last year).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Vitters started the year slow due to a hand injury, ended up returning to short-season ball, and hit everything in sight. He has an easy, smooth, quick swing that would be that classic "sweet" left-hander's swing if it wasn't for the fact that he hits right-handed. He doesn't have great loft in his swing, but is strong and makes extremely hard contact; he led the Northwest League in doubles at age 19 and as he fills out a little bit, some of those will go over (or through) the wall. He's fringe-average at third base; he has plenty of arm and his footwork is improving, although he's not likely to ever be plus over there. If there's a concern, it's the very low walk total; he's not a hacker or even impatient, but is very aggressive, and that works as long as he's ahead of the pitchers and can make so much solid contact. If his patience doesn't improve and he doesn't continue to hit .320-plus, his ceiling will start to drop. If the patience comes, he's a potential No. 3 hitter who'll hit plenty of doubles and 25-plus home runs with a high average.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the link.
You know...the more I think about it, the more I don't want to deal this kid for Peavy. He's only 19 years old, it sounds like he can really sting the ball, and we have jack shit in our system (other than him).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he'd be ready to contribute on the MLB level right about the time we can show Lee the door. He needs to start working at 1B exclusively IMO.
Top 100 prospects - rok - 02-11-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17304:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:03 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Feb 11 2009, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17302:date=Feb 11 2009, 11:58 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 11 2009, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm only going to paste Law's comments on Vitters -- he has him ranked #14 (up from #17 last year).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Vitters started the year slow due to a hand injury, ended up returning to short-season ball, and hit everything in sight. He has an easy, smooth, quick swing that would be that classic "sweet" left-hander's swing if it wasn't for the fact that he hits right-handed. He doesn't have great loft in his swing, but is strong and makes extremely hard contact; he led the Northwest League in doubles at age 19 and as he fills out a little bit, some of those will go over (or through) the wall. He's fringe-average at third base; he has plenty of arm and his footwork is improving, although he's not likely to ever be plus over there. If there's a concern, it's the very low walk total; he's not a hacker or even impatient, but is very aggressive, and that works as long as he's ahead of the pitchers and can make so much solid contact. If his patience doesn't improve and he doesn't continue to hit .320-plus, his ceiling will start to drop. If the patience comes, he's a potential No. 3 hitter who'll hit plenty of doubles and 25-plus home runs with a high average.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the link.
You know...the more I think about it, the more I don't want to deal this kid for Peavy. He's only 19 years old, it sounds like he can really sting the ball, and we have jack shit in our system (other than him).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he'd be ready to contribute on the MLB level right about the time we can show Lee the door. He needs to start working at 1B exclusively IMO.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree completely. I've wanted him to move over to 1B since we got him.
Top 100 prospects - Clapp - 02-24-2009
I thought Law's rankings were pretty off. Where's Pedro Alvarez? Dexter Fowler? Here's some more realistic rankings I think:
This is how they were given...
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->This year we had six people who contributed to the voting that determines the list: editors in chief Will Lingo and John Manuel and executive editor Jim Callis, who have helped shape these lists for years; as well as Ben Badler, Kary Booher and Matt Eddy, who contribute significantly to our prospect coverage both in print and on the Web. Each person voted on a personal top 150 list, and after those results were tabulated, the six voters got together to go over the raw numbers and make adjustments before settling on a final list.
The list follows our standard prospect guidelines, which means any player who has not exceeded the rookie limits of 130 at-bats or 50 innings in the major leagues (without regard to service time) is eligible for the list. Voters put together their ballots after talking with general managers, scouting directors, farm directors, scouts, managers, coaches and other people in the game, as well as many discussions with each other.
As always, our view is not to what a player may contribute this season, but what his ultimate major league ceiling might be, weighed against the probability that he will reach that ceiling. The capsules focus on numbers that make each prospect significant.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link
Vitters is 51, Shark is 79.
Top 100 prospects - Ace - 02-24-2009
<!--quoteo(post=19997:date=Feb 24 2009, 05:00 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 24 2009, 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I thought Law's rankings were pretty off. Where's Pedro Alvarez? Dexter Fowler? Here's some more realistic rankings I think:
This is how they were given...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->This year we had six people who contributed to the voting that determines the list: editors in chief Will Lingo and John Manuel and executive editor Jim Callis, who have helped shape these lists for years; as well as Ben Badler, Kary Booher and Matt Eddy, who contribute significantly to our prospect coverage both in print and on the Web. Each person voted on a personal top 150 list, and after those results were tabulated, the six voters got together to go over the raw numbers and make adjustments before settling on a final list.
The list follows our standard prospect guidelines, which means any player who has not exceeded the rookie limits of 130 at-bats or 50 innings in the major leagues (without regard to service time) is eligible for the list. Voters put together their ballots after talking with general managers, scouting directors, farm directors, scouts, managers, coaches and other people in the game, as well as many discussions with each other.
As always, our view is not to what a player may contribute this season, but what his ultimate major league ceiling might be, weighed against the probability that he will reach that ceiling. The capsules focus on numbers that make each prospect significant.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link
Vitters is 51, Shark is 79.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boo. More reliable, but I like Law's better... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img]
Top 100 prospects - Runnys - 02-25-2009
WOW...an ETA for Vitters of 2010...that is pretty optimistic IMO.
Top 100 prospects - kbwsb - 02-25-2009
Is this a good place to bring up the fact that me and a few others on this site were adamant about drafting Weiters instead of Vitters?
This is one of the many times where I scoff at the notion that one of us "could <i>never</i> handle being a GM."
My take on this has zero to do with hindsight being 20/20. AT THE TIME it seemed absurd to pass up a college player who hit a ton and was an outstanding defensive catcher. And of course, he went to the O's with the very next pick.
Hey, I'll love it if Vitters ever makes it to the Bigs. I'd love it even more if he eventually, in 2015 or so, plays at an All-Star level. But, shit.
Top 100 prospects - Clapp - 02-25-2009
<!--quoteo(post=20109:date=Feb 24 2009, 10:22 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 24 2009, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Is this a good place to bring up the fact that me and a few others on this site were adamant about drafting Weiters instead of Vitters?
This is one of the many times where I scoff at the notion that one of us "could <i>never</i> handle being a GM."
My take on this has zero to do with hindsight being 20/20. AT THE TIME it seemed absurd to pass up a college player who hit a ton and was an outstanding defensive catcher. And of course, he went to the O's with the very next pick.
Hey, I'll love it if Vitters ever makes it to the Bigs. I'd love it even more if he eventually, in 2015 or so, plays at an All-Star level. But, shit.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If not for money(well, Boras), he would've likely been the #2 pick. Everybody wanted this guy. I think after the Cubs spent on Shark the year before, they didn't want to spend so much on another draft pick in 2007. Wieters got a $6 million signing bonus, compared to Vitters' $3.2 million. That's just a lot to put into a draft pick. Also... we don't need to be concerned about catcher anymore. We might even have the better one. Shit, he was the first rookie catcher to ever start for the NL All-Star team.
Top 100 prospects - Auz - 02-25-2009
<!--quoteo(post=20113:date=Feb 25 2009, 04:32 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 25 2009, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=20109:date=Feb 24 2009, 10:22 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 24 2009, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Is this a good place to bring up the fact that me and a few others on this site were adamant about drafting Weiters instead of Vitters?
This is one of the many times where I scoff at the notion that one of us "could <i>never</i> handle being a GM."
My take on this has zero to do with hindsight being 20/20. AT THE TIME it seemed absurd to pass up a college player who hit a ton and was an outstanding defensive catcher. And of course, he went to the O's with the very next pick.
Hey, I'll love it if Vitters ever makes it to the Bigs. I'd love it even more if he eventually, in 2015 or so, plays at an All-Star level. But, shit.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If not for money(well, Boras), he would've likely been the #2 pick. Everybody wanted this guy. I think after the Cubs spent on Shark the year before, they didn't want to spend so much on another draft pick in 2007. Wieters got a $6 million signing bonus, compared to Vitters' $3.2 million. That's just a lot to put into a draft pick. Also... we don't need to be concerned about catcher anymore. We might even have the better one. Shit, he was the first rookie catcher to ever start for the NL All-Star team.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to mention that Wieters has a few years on Vitters. Lets see where Vitters is at in 2 years time. Hopefully not another Harvey...
Top 100 prospects - kbwsb - 02-25-2009
Nah, Vitters won't be another Harvey. Actually, he's the only guy in our entire system I'm excited about. I think he'll be good.
I love Soto, but at the time of the pick, only Soto's mom saw his star potential, and you know that to be true.
Besides, you're telling me you wouldn't like to have Weiters as trade bait? He's the best prospect since A-Rod.
Top 100 prospects - Clapp - 02-25-2009
<!--quoteo(post=20118:date=Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nah, Vitters won't be another Harvey. Actually, he's the only guy in our entire system I'm excited about. I think he'll be good.
I love Soto, but at the time of the pick, only Soto's mom saw his star potential, and you know that to be true.
Besides, you're telling me you wouldn't like to have Weiters as trade bait? He's the best prospect since A-Rod.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd love to have Wieters, I'm just saying why we didn't sign him and I don't see how you can really be angry with the team for not doing it. I don't know about this best prospect since A-Rod business. I don't know if he was even the best prospect in that draft, David Price is pretty damn good. I think he's on the same level as a prospect as another Georgia Tech switch-hitter was, Mark Teixeira.
Top 100 prospects - Auz - 02-25-2009
<!--quoteo(post=20119:date=Feb 25 2009, 05:20 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 25 2009, 05:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=20118:date=Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nah, Vitters won't be another Harvey. Actually, he's the only guy in our entire system I'm excited about. I think he'll be good.
I love Soto, but at the time of the pick, only Soto's mom saw his star potential, and you know that to be true.
Besides, you're telling me you wouldn't like to have Weiters as trade bait? He's the best prospect since A-Rod.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd love to have Wieters, I'm just saying why we didn't sign him and I don't see how you can really be angry with the team for not doing it. I don't know about this best prospect since A-Rod business. I don't know if he was even the best prospect in that draft, David Price is pretty damn good. I think he's on the same level as a prospect as another Georgia Tech switch-hitter was, Mark Teixeira.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yah, I would have David Price above Wieters. The guy can pitch.
Top 100 prospects - ColoradoCub - 02-25-2009
<!--quoteo(post=20118:date=Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I love Soto, but at the time of the pick, only Soto's mom saw his star potential, and you know that to be true.
Besides, you're telling me you wouldn't like to have Weiters as trade bait? He's the best prospect since A-Rod.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Nevermind that Soto was 2/3rds of the way thru his PCL MVP season when Wieters was drafted. Who wouldn't love to have Wieters? With a bat that good, he almost had to go to an AL team where he could DH, because he certainly wouldn't be getting enough AB's as a catcher on an NL team. We made the right pick for where we were at the time. Soto deserved a shot to be our everyday catcher, and Wieters was too close to being ready by the time he was drafted (and too expensive).
Top 100 prospects - Ace - 02-25-2009
<!--quoteo(post=20122:date=Feb 25 2009, 01:40 AM:name=ColoradoCub)-->QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ Feb 25 2009, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=20118:date=Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 24 2009, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I love Soto, but at the time of the pick, only Soto's mom saw his star potential, and you know that to be true.
Besides, you're telling me you wouldn't like to have Weiters as trade bait? He's the best prospect since A-Rod.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Nevermind that Soto was 2/3rds of the way thru his PCL MVP season when Wieters was drafted. Who wouldn't love to have Wieters? With a bat that good, he almost had to go to an AL team where he could DH, because he certainly wouldn't be getting enough AB's as a catcher on an NL team. We made the right pick for where we were at the time. Soto deserved a shot to be our everyday catcher, and Wieters was too close to being ready by the time he was drafted (and too expensive).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weiters could have been our 1st baseman to replace Lee. I was a big time supporter of drafting Weiters. Made fun of the Vitters pick, actually. Here's hoping he pans out.
Top 100 prospects - Scarey - 02-25-2009
No matter what justifications people make for not drafting Weiters, we all know (even Hendry knows) he should have been the pick. I understand why he wasn't, but he was definitely the better player.
I'm pretty happy with Vitters, but it would be nice to be in a position to switch Soto and Weiters between 1B and catcher all year long, or having someone for trade bait.