A Top Ten System Before The Garza Trade

[poodski]

Keith Law has written his top 100 prospects over at ESPN.

He ranked the Cubs system 20th overall saying this:

20. Chicago Cubs
A top-10 system before the Garza trade, the Cubs probably would place more guys in the 101-150 range than any organization except the Royals. They're loaded with high-floor players who have the potential to be above-average or better big leaguers but aren't there yet. Considering all the picks they've given up to sign free agents, it's remarkable how strong the system still is after the giant trade with Tampa Bay.

Kind of makes me sad because we didn't need Garza

This is our top 10 according to him:

Chicago Cubs
1. Trey McNutt, RHP (66)
2. Brett Jackson, OF
3. Chris Carpenter, RHP
4. Josh Vitters, 3B
5. Jay Jackson, RHP
6. Hayden Simpson, RHP
7. Robinson Lopez, RHP
8. Brooks Raley, LHP
9. Reggie Golden, OF
10. Matt Szczur, OF

Trey McNutt (66) is our only player in the top 100.

On the contrary he ranked Chris Archer (40) and Hak-Ju Lee (49) in the top 50.

Quite a depressing way to start the day.

First MLB organizational rankings for 2011 have Kansas City Royals predictably on top - ESPN

Keith Law's Top 100 prospects of 2011 -- Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and more - ESPN

Keith Law's top 100 MLB prospects: The top 10 in each organization - ESPN

 

[waldo7239117]

I don't know what to think.

 

[brett05]

Bad to link to a members only link, no?

 

[poodski]

Bad to link to a members only link, no?

Eh what I have posted is all over the internet by now, and I didn't post the whole article or anything.

 

[cubsneedmiracle]

They're loaded with high-floor players who have the potential to be above-average or better big leaguers but aren't there yet.

Sometimes it isn't the highly pub guys that are the best MLB players.. I'll take the gradual uptick of our system.

 

[Jntg4]

Jackson >>> McNutt.

But ya, we blew it up.

Jackson is Top 50 on MLB.com's list, don't see how he isn't even in the Top 100 here.

 

[Northside_slugger]

Old news.

Besides, i'd take Garza over that package anyways. Who's to say any of them will pan out? Because they are high on a prospects page? Baseball isn't played on paper, it's played on the field where Garza has proven himself several times to be a legit top of the rotation guy.

 

[Jntg4]

Old news.

Besides, i'd take Garza over that package anyways. Who's to say any of them will pan out? Because they are high on a prospects page? Baseball isn't played on paper, it's played on the field where Garza has proven himself several times to be a legit top of the rotation guy.

Garza is NOT an ace, if you were thinking that, unless you meant 2 or 3, then whatever.

Not paper, but Archer, Lee, and Guyer all have higher upsides as players than Garza.

 

[The Bandit]

Old news.

Besides, i'd take Garza over that package anyways. Who's to say any of them will pan out? Because they are high on a prospects page? Baseball isn't played on paper, it's played on the field where Garza has proven himself several times to be a legit top of the rotation guy.

Agreed. I love that deal for us.

Garza is NOT an ace, if you were thinking that, unless you meant 2 or 3, then whatever.

Not paper, but Archer, Lee, and Guyer all have higher upsides as players than Garza.

Garza is a good pitcher to have. We gave up some prospects. not like we gave them Soto and Marmol plus a leg while were at it. we have enough depth at pitching so Archer really isn't a big deal. He was a nobody before this year wasn't he? The only one I would of kept was Lee. We got a pretty good deal. You know what your gonna get from him year in and out. What are you gonna get from Archer, Lee or Guyer? without pulling up there minor league stats that don't mean shit when it comes to the majors.

 

[Jntg4]

Agreed. I love that deal for us.

Garza is a good pitcher to have. We gave up some prospects. not like we gave them Soto and Marmol plus a leg while were at it. we have enough depth at pitching so Archer really isn't a big deal. He was a nobody before this year wasn't he? The only one I would of kept was Lee. We got a pretty good deal. You know what your gonna get from him year in and out. What are you gonna get from Archer, Lee or Guyer? without pulling up there minor league stats that don't mean shit when it comes to the majors.

My point was that he is good, not great. I bet 2 of the 3 have success in the MLB, at least to some extent.

 

[The Bandit]

My point was that he is good, not great. I bet 2 of the 3 have success in the MLB, at least to some extent.

Yeah? No guarantee. Look what the Marlins got from Detroit for Cabrera and Willis. There is never in the history of baseball a guarantee that prospects will make it.

 

[Northside_slugger]

My point was that he is good, not great. I bet 2 of the 3 have success in the MLB, at least to some extent.

When? In 4 years?

You are sounding like Brian Cashman, saying that the right way to build is via the system, developing your own talent, letting them play through the pains, but the problem to that is, the Cubs have a large fan base, massive sponsorship deals, massive television contract and a rich and hungry owner. We don't have the time to wait on all our prospects. By no means do i mean we should trade them all away, but guys like Garza don't come around very often. Although, i can sense you're pretty low on the guy.

 

[Jntg4]

When? In 4 years?

You are sounding like Brian Cashman, saying that the right way to build is via the system, developing your own talent, letting them play through the pains, but the problem to that is, the Cubs have a large fan base, massive sponsorship deals, massive television contract and a rich and hungry owner. We don't have the time to wait on all our prospects. By no means do i mean we should trade them all away, but guys like Garza don't come around very often. Although, i can sense you're pretty low on the guy.

Guys like Garza don't come around often? There must be some huge shortage on #2 and #3 starters, as that is all he is.

 

[Northside_slugger]

Guys like Garza don't come around often? There must be some huge shortage on #2 and #3 starters, as that is all he is.

Pitchers with his age and his resume, don't come around often on the market and are never cheap.

 

[DewsSox79]

Keith Law has written his top 100 prospects over at ESPN.

He ranked the Cubs system 20th overall saying this:



Kind of makes me sad because we didn't need Garza This is our top 10 according to him:



Trey McNutt (66) is our only player in the top 100.

On the contrary he ranked Chris Archer (40) and Hak-Ju Lee (49) in the top 50.

Quite a depressing way to start the day.

First MLB organizational rankings for 2011 have Kansas City Royals predictably on top - ESPN

Keith Law's Top 100 prospects of 2011 -- Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and more - ESPN

Keith Law's top 100 MLB prospects: The top 10 in each organization - ESPN

bold- well said.

sure people can argue that the prospects are just prospects, problem is they wasted the trade chips on a matt garza when they could have held onto them for a better deal in the future. brewers got greinke, cubs got garza. kind of a joke.

 

[The Bandit]

Guys like Garza don't come around often? There must be some huge shortage on #2 and #3 starters, as that is all he is.

He's basically our best pitcher right now.

 

[Jntg4]

He's basically our best pitcher right now.

That's not saying much at all.

 

[The Bandit]

That's not saying much at all.

He's better then Cashner that's for sure :smh:

 

[Jntg4]

He's better then Cashner that's for sure :smh:

No, really? I had no damn idea.

God, nobody said that.

We didn't trade our #1 and #2 prospect (based on ESPN's Top 100 Prospects List) for Cashner, did we?

Garza was acquired for our #1 and #2 prospects according to ESPN, a solid outfield prospect, then Sam Fuld and Robinson Chirinos. That's an awful lot fo a #2 starter.

And since when is Cashner our #2 or #3 starter that I'd be putting him ahead of Garza? God!

 

[Captain Obvious]

bold- well said.

sure people can argue that the prospects are just prospects, problem is they wasted the trade chips on a matt garza when they could have held onto them for a better deal in the future. brewers got greinke, cubs got garza. kind of a joke.

Not really a joke at all. The Brewers gave up a lot more in terms of quality than we did.

No, really? I had no damn idea.

God, nobody said that.

We didn't trade our #1 and #2 prospect (based on ESPN's Top 100 Prospects List) for Cashner, did we?

Garza was acquired for our #1 and #2 prospects according to ESPN, a solid outfield prospect, then Sam Fuld and Robinson Chirinos. That's an awful lot fo a #2 starter.

And since when is Cashner our #2 or #3 starter that I'd be putting him ahead of Garza? God!

Right, because ESPN is always right about everything.