Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects

  • RAMBLE
  • Franchise Player
  • 1742 posts this site

Posted: 2/9/2013 4:41 PM

BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


Baseball America's Cubs Prospects ratings seen on the link at the end of this post.

We've seen this ratings before but I want to point out something in the ratings. BA uses a ratings scale of 35-80. They describe what each rating means. In my view, I'm ONLY interested in players who are 55 or more. Here's what those ratings mean in their potential:

  • 75-80: Franchise players and No. 1 starters
  • 65-70: No. 2 starters and perennial all-stars
  • 55-60: First-division regulars and No. 3 starters and elite closers

 

The ranking below these is mediocrity in my view and Lord knows we have and have had enough of those:

        45-50: Most players reside here. The high end (50s with lower risk) are second-        division regulars with higher peaks, eighth-inning relievers and fourth starters on playoff teams. The lower end are platoon/utility players, back-end starters and relievers.

So, the Cubs prospects with 55+ are Baez (65!!!), Almora (60), Soler (65!!!), Vizcaino (60) and Jackson (55). No surprise there. But Paniagua, ranked 11th, is also 55. That means his potential is a No.3 starter or ELITE closer.

Also, missing my cut are Vogelbach, Candelario, and the kid pitchers (Pierce Johnson, Blackburn, Underwood, Maples), who all are a 50 (I "believe" Vogelbach has the potential to be much more than that, but BA doesn't). 

http://chicagocubsonline.com/a...ts-for-2013.php

Reply | Quote
  • papa46
  • MVP
  • 751 posts this site

Posted: 2/9/2013 4:52 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


I have respect for Baseball America but would like to see an analysis of how accurate the ranking system has been. I would also expect that they would have a list of extremely notable players that were rated below 55 that ended up as first division regulars and no 3 starters. I read a story about how important " free talent" is to successful teams. The names are boring as hell in the transaction news, but can be important for a successful run.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/9/2013 9:51 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


Maples has thrown 10 innings since being drafted so there's no reason to rate him any higher than where he's at.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/9/2013 10:01 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


How does that compare to other teams?  It is a pretty high bar so I am guessing pretty favorably.  Having 50 type players on the team coming up thru the farm means they are cheap for a few years and allows $$$ to be spent elsewhere.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/9/2013 11:04 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 



Radar3454 wrote: How does that compare to other teams?  It is a pretty high bar so I am guessing pretty favorably.  Having 50 type players on the team coming up thru the farm means they are cheap for a few years and allows $$$ to be spent elsewhere.
I don't know but according to BA the Cubs system as a whole improved only one spot from last year, before Theo and Co. got down to business.  Doesn't make much sense to me.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/10/2013 12:42 AM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


I could be wrong on this but don't these ratings change from year to year?  What I mean is that if Almora goes out and tears up the minors his rating would probably jump to 65-70.  So it's not as if that is this the final verdict on the prospects.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/10/2013 11:49 AM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


I still remember Corey Patterson on the cover of BA as the next star to save the Cubs, I was so excited at the time of the possibilities.  Since then, it's hard to get too up or too down about prospect rankings.  I'll get excited when these top prospects start producing at AA.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/10/2013 11:51 AM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


I think that was more about how the cubs didn't develop him - think he could have been a start in a different system
Reply | Quote
  • RAMBLE
  • Franchise Player
  • 1742 posts this site

Posted: 2/10/2013 11:58 AM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 



Radar3454 wrote: I think that was more about how the cubs didn't develop him - think he could have been a start in a different system

Wonder about developing in Baseball. To me, it's like NBA Basketball, either U got it or U don't. I liked what Willie Mays said when asked what's the secret to your hitting. He said, "Well, they throw it and I hit it."
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/10/2013 1:24 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


I agree to a point - if you can't hit you can't hit but you can learn to be more patient to get your pitch for example
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/10/2013 1:46 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 



RAMBLE wrote: Baseball America's Cubs Prospects ratings seen on the link at the end of this post.

We've seen this ratings before but I want to point out something in the ratings. BA uses a ratings scale of 35-80. They describe what each rating means. In my view, I'm ONLY interested in players who are 55 or more. Here's what those ratings mean in their potential:

  • 75-80: Franchise players and No. 1 starters
  • 65-70: No. 2 starters and perennial all-stars
  • 55-60: First-division regulars and No. 3 starters and elite closers

 

The ranking below these is mediocrity in my view and Lord knows we have and have had enough of those:

        45-50: Most players reside here. The high end (50s with lower risk) are second-        division regulars with higher peaks, eighth-inning relievers and fourth starters on playoff teams. The lower end are platoon/utility players, back-end starters and relievers.

So, the Cubs prospects with 55+ are Baez (65!!!), Almora (60), Soler (65!!!), Vizcaino (60) and Jackson (55). No surprise there. But Paniagua, ranked 11th, is also 55. That means his potential is a No.3 starter or ELITE closer.

Also, missing my cut are Vogelbach, Candelario, and the kid pitchers (Pierce Johnson, Blackburn, Underwood, Maples), who all are a 50 (I "believe" Vogelbach has the potential to be much more than that, but BA doesn't). 

http://chicagocubsonline.com/a...ts-for-2013.php

It is not that the Cubs only have 6 real prospects it should be phrased that the Cubs have 6 elite prospects.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/10/2013 1:46 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 


Those ceiling numbers given to prospects are completely meaningless in all cases for players at the lower levels, with the exception of very high draft picks (round 1.)

Example:
After the Cubs first four prospects (unanamous, in some order--Baez, Almora, Soler, and Vizcaino,) the next grouping is typically a mix of more mature, more tested, higher level guys  with middle-of-the-road ceilings and younger, untested, lower level players with higher ceilings.  Many of those prospect ranking lists have Villenueva and Lake (firmly in the former catagory) mixed in with Maples and Underwood (who belong in the latter group) somewhere 5-10. Without any real fore-thouight, they assign these very different player profiles a very similar ceiling number. And everyone knows that Maples and Underwood have ceilings that are higher than Villenueva and Lake. Their respective prospect values may be similar, with the trade off a lower ceiling being the likelyhood of reaching their respective ceilings and the floors being higher in the more advanced, more proven prospects. But, if a Maples, or an Underwood experience a break-out year, by showing concrete signs that they are learning to harness their above average stuff, at a higher level, they will move up that list and automatically be assigned a higher ceiling. In reality, the ceiling didn't rise, just his ranking and value in the system as his chance of reaching that ceiling is looking a whole lot better. And BA contradicts itself with its silly number assessments all the time. They often give a guy like an Underwood a ceiling of 45, then in their write up state something like, "while he's a long way off, he has the ceiling of a no. 2 starter." Well, that simply doesn't add up.

Last edited 2/10/2013 1:51 PM by HolyMackeral

Reply | Quote
  • RAMBLE
  • Franchise Player
  • 1742 posts this site

Posted: 2/10/2013 2:45 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 



cubs2007 wrote:
RAMBLE wrote: Baseball America's Cubs Prospects ratings seen on the link at the end of this post.

We've seen this ratings before but I want to point out something in the ratings. BA uses a ratings scale of 35-80. They describe what each rating means. In my view, I'm ONLY interested in players who are 55 or more. Here's what those ratings mean in their potential:

  • 75-80: Franchise players and No. 1 starters
  • 65-70: No. 2 starters and perennial all-stars
  • 55-60: First-division regulars and No. 3 starters and elite closers

 

The ranking below these is mediocrity in my view and Lord knows we have and have had enough of those:

        45-50: Most players reside here. The high end (50s with lower risk) are second-        division regulars with higher peaks, eighth-inning relievers and fourth starters on playoff teams. The lower end are platoon/utility players, back-end starters and relievers.

So, the Cubs prospects with 55+ are Baez (65!!!), Almora (60), Soler (65!!!), Vizcaino (60) and Jackson (55). No surprise there. But Paniagua, ranked 11th, is also 55. That means his potential is a No.3 starter or ELITE closer.

Also, missing my cut are Vogelbach, Candelario, and the kid pitchers (Pierce Johnson, Blackburn, Underwood, Maples), who all are a 50 (I "believe" Vogelbach has the potential to be much more than that, but BA doesn't). 

http://chicagocubsonline.com/a...ts-for-2013.php

It is not that the Cubs only have 6 real prospects it should be phrased that the Cubs have 6 elite prospects.
Quibbling, I'd say "potential starters U really want", rather than "elite". The prospects besides the 6 have potential futures of journeymen according to the ratings.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/10/2013 5:27 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 



zighawk73 wrote: I could be wrong on this but don't these ratings change from year to year?  What I mean is that if Almora goes out and tears up the minors his rating would probably jump to 65-70.  So it's not as if that is this the final verdict on the prospects.

Definitely.  These guys are far from a finished product.  That's why they call it the development stage.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/10/2013 5:37 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 



HolyMackeral wrote: BA contradicts itself with its silly number assessments all the time. They often give a guy like an Underwood a ceiling of 45, then in their write up state something like, "while he's a long way off, he has the ceiling of a no. 2 starter." Well, that simply doesn't add up.

Both things can't happen, but BA will be right if either of them do.  The truth is no one knows what someone's true ceiling is at that early stage, that's why ceilings have to moved up or down accordingly.
Reply | Quote
  • RAMBLE
  • Franchise Player
  • 1742 posts this site

Posted: 2/10/2013 9:38 PM

Re: BA Sez Cubs Have Only 6 Real Prospects 



KatieCubFan wrote:
HolyMackeral wrote: BA contradicts itself with its silly number assessments all the time. They often give a guy like an Underwood a ceiling of 45, then in their write up state something like, "while he's a long way off, he has the ceiling of a no. 2 starter." Well, that simply doesn't add up.

Both things can't happen, but BA will be right if either of them do.  The truth is no one knows what someone's true ceiling is at that early stage, that's why ceilings have to moved up or down accordingly.
True, Katie. But, is there a player, besides the 6 BA listed, that you'd bet has a real good chance really raising his ceiling and potentially being a top player? I'd say Vogelbach and that's it.

Last edited 2/10/2013 9:46 PM by RAMBLE

Reply | Quote