chibears55
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 13,554
- Liked Posts:
- 1,924
Not always. ...
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,731
- Liked Posts:
- 3,726
Castro's fine though I would like him better at 2B than SS long term. Yet another in a long list of reasons why I'd consider trading Baez this offseason personally. The biggest problem I had with Castro even coming into the season was I don't really see how you make a line up with two hitters like Baez and Castro work at SS/2B because of the way it limits your options for finding speed/defense/high on base guys. My initial thought was that Baez's K rate from 2013 AA was an aberration that would improve in AAA but it actually got worse which in retrospect shouldn't be that surprising. And if that happened then clearly he was more valuable than Castro. And with Alcantara being what he was at 2B you didn't need Castro.
Since then though they have traded for Russell who's arguably the best of the bunch defensively at SS. Russell also fits that mold of a early order hitter. Ultimately, I can see Castro and Russell with Bryant at 3B. I also think both Russell and Bryant are safer bets than Baez. If that happens, unless you intend to throw Baez out in LF leaves him hunting for a position. Additionally, they've repeatedly talked about having a vet presence with regard to the young players and Castro while young still would have several years in the majors.
Long story short, if you're going to trade anyone it should be Baez at this point and others have made valid arguments for keeping him.
Since then though they have traded for Russell who's arguably the best of the bunch defensively at SS. Russell also fits that mold of a early order hitter. Ultimately, I can see Castro and Russell with Bryant at 3B. I also think both Russell and Bryant are safer bets than Baez. If that happens, unless you intend to throw Baez out in LF leaves him hunting for a position. Additionally, they've repeatedly talked about having a vet presence with regard to the young players and Castro while young still would have several years in the majors.
Long story short, if you're going to trade anyone it should be Baez at this point and others have made valid arguments for keeping him.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
True
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
The only issue is Baez value has dropped since being called up. It's not as high as it was previous to his MLB debut. I think you get more in a trade from a Castro, Russell.
Boobaby1
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 2,236
- Liked Posts:
- 1,180
Castro I agree with, but Russell? I don't see the point in trading a guy for whom you gave up decent pitching to get, unless their are other positions that need real addressing. I am staying with him, and trading Baez or Castro first.
Not having seen all of them play yet, but I can vision the Cubs centering their team around a foursome of Rizzo, Soler, Bryant, and Russell.
And IF Schwarber or McKinney keep the pace up, who knows where this team could go?
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,691
- Liked Posts:
- 9,502
No, no it hasnt. Baez was the same player in the minors that he is in the majors. Scouts dont change their minds because of a 120 bat sample. Thats ridiculous.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,691
- Liked Posts:
- 9,502
Depends on what a team wants and for who. People keep saying trade one or another. The Cubs arent going to trade any unless its for what they want. Russell is still at least a year away. None of us know who will make it or not. Profar was going to come up and dominate. Yea, that didnt happen.
Also, what is with all this Schwarber nonsense? The guy has a pretty good stick, but what he did this year means very little. He played against inferior competition. He does that next year against AA then you can start of the hype train. Until then, the guy is about a top 75 prospect. Unless he sticks at catcher, his value drops a lot.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
Think its cray cray all you want
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,691
- Liked Posts:
- 9,502
I dont think. I know.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
Whatever helps you out
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,731
- Liked Posts:
- 3,726
What more do you want him to do? What would be meaningful? Maybe A ball doesn't matter but Bryant did the same sort of thing last year then went out and dominated AA/AAA. What is meaningful like with Bryant is he walks at a high rate. This is one skill that translate level to level. Additionally, unlike many of the cubs high prospects, he doesn't K at a high rate. If there's ever a set of things you would want a prospect to do he's doing them at least hitting wise. Obviously you need see it at higher levels as well but to say what he's done is meaningless defeats the entire point of development. You have to essentially beat every step of the minors to move up. And maybe he is only on the start of the AA step now but that doesn't make what he's done meaningless.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,691
- Liked Posts:
- 9,502
He doesnt have to do more. I put almost no emphasis on a college senior hitting in A ball. It doesnt change my opinion on him. People seem to be thinking he is this great masher. He is not Bryant caliber by far. He is a nice prospect, but some act like he is next number 1 prospect when that is far from the truth. He does well in AA then you can hype him. Right now, he is a top 75 prospect that isnt a lock by far.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,731
- Liked Posts:
- 3,726
I don't see anyone suggesting he's a top 10 prospect. But to suggest he's not a great hitting prospect would be folly in my opinion. Even if you don't put stock in college stats or A ball stats, his walk rate and k rate translate level to level. And if you assume he has 25+ HR power with the ability to hit for at least above average those two stats in particular are going to allow him to be a pretty good hitter. Case in point, if you look at hitters who have 10%+ walk rate, 20% or lower K rate and .200 ISO this year you get the following players, Josh Donaldson, Andrew McCutchen, Jose Bautista, Anthony Rizzo, Victor Martinez, Edwin Encarnacion, Carlos Santana, and David Ortiz. If you want a bigger sample size, here's a list of players who meet that criteria since 1950
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=&filter=19670&players=
Rather impressive list of hitters frankly. Even if he ends up a low end version of these players like Matt Stairs, Ryan Klesko or Brian Giles those were still very good players and you'd be pretty ecstatic to get that out of a pick. To me he's the antithesis of someone like Baez. I'm not going to start the Baez debate again just saying that as I've shown elsewhere players like him often fail while players with the sort of skill set Schwarber appears to have often succeed.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,691
- Liked Posts:
- 9,502
So, do you consider Dan Volgelbach a great hitting prospect?
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,691
- Liked Posts:
- 9,502
And I would seriously suggest stop comparing players playing at the major league level to a guy in high A ball. The numbers dont translate at all.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,731
- Liked Posts:
- 3,726
Walk rate translates just fine. Rizzo walked at a 10%+ rate in A ball and walks at that rate now. K rate also translates though you can make the argument it's higher in the majors with higher quality pitching. The only real question is whether or not Schwarber can maintain that sort of ISO at the major league level. But keep in mind I was pretty conservative using .200. Valbuena for example has a .200 ISO this year. It's a good amount but for someone with 25+ power potential it's hardly impossible to reach. Marlon Byrd(.197), Adam Jones(.182), Pujols(.191), Todd Frazier(.175), Ian Desmond(.170), Carlos Gomez(.197), Brian Dozier(.175), Adam LaRoche(.186), Mark Teixeira(.190), and Ryan Howard(.156) are the only players this season with more than 20 homers and less than .200 ISO out of the 31 players with more than 20 homers. Perhaps you can argue that .200 ISO at this point is optimistic for an A ball player but like I said, if you believe he's got more than 20 homer power it's fairly likely that he'll get there. He's also had 18 doubles in 72 games. Obviously the caveat there is A ball numbers but it does show enough athleticism that he's not terrible in terms of base running.
As for Vogelbach, he's not really displayed .200 iso power the past 2 years so I'm not sure the comparison to Schwarber is valid. That being said, with his walk/k rate he's got the chance to be a decent hitter. I honestly don't think that was ever really the question with him though. I thought the book on him has always been he'd hit but will he do enough on defense to even warrant 1B play or is he a DH only? Additionally, to go back to the Schwarber athleticism thing, his 40 run grade is below average but compared to say Vogelbach who grades out at a 20 his ability to sustain that ISO seems likely to me where as Vogelbach will have to pull most of his ISO from homers because he's unlikely to hit many doubles and damn sure isn't getting any triples. As a case in point, Vogelbach last season which was clearly good for him had 23 doubles in 131 games in A/A+ as a 20 year old where as was close to matching that in half the games as a 21 year old.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,691
- Liked Posts:
- 9,502
Volgelbach and Schwarber are essentially the same type of player. Schwarber probably has a little bit better stick. Schwarber value comes if he can play Catcher. If he cant, he has to move to left which devalues him. My point to all this is I am not knocking Schwarber. I am saying people need to pump the brakes that Cubs have replacements ready to trade out right away. They dont. Hitting in high A doesnt mean a ton. He does it in AA and AAA then yea, no problem with people hyping him. I just think to many people are thinking way to many of these players are going to succeed when 2/3 will most likely fail. Shit, I could see Schwarber being trade bait before a lot of guys because his game would probably translate over in the AL better.
Oh and yes, I know the cubs cant trade him before someone chimes in with that obvious post.
Oh and yes, I know the cubs cant trade him before someone chimes in with that obvious post.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,731
- Liked Posts:
- 3,726
I don't agree they are the same type of player. Even if you want to talk about potential the scouting grades bare this out
Schwarber
Scouting grades: Hit: 60 | Power: 65 | Run: 40 | Arm: 40 | Field: 40 | Overall: 55
Vogelbach
Scouting grades: Hit: 55 | Power: 60 | Run: 20 | Arm: 40 | Field: 30 | Overall: 50
Schwarber is better in any category you want to talk about. At best you can say Vogelbach is a poor mans Schwarber. I get the argument you're trying to make about positional issues if Schwarber isn't a C but I think it's a short sighted argument. Most believe at worst he's a LF and even if that fails you could make him a 1B. Vogelbach may be able to play 1B and if that doesn't work you're talking about him being either a bench player or only useful to the 15 AL teams as a DH. And as it pertains to the cubs in particular being able to play LF basically makes him a player you can talk about where as Vogelbach is going to be traded at some point given Rizzo.
And even if you say he's a LF that sort of bat has a lot of value. If you ignore position, his ratings are as good of a hitter as Corey Seager who was the #17 prospect at midseason on mlb.com. I don't want to go nuts projecting his MLB numbers but what I will say is this season the "average" MLB LF hit .254/.320/.403 with and is on pace for roughly 14 HRs which happens to be pretty close to league average overall(.252/.315/.388 with roughly 12 HRs). So, when you talk about positional value it's a bit overstated. It's more a conversation to have when talking about trade value more than anything. Facts are in the present day there just flat out aren't enough good hitters. We're no longer at the point where LF is diluted with amazing hitters with poor defense as it would have been in say 2001 where LF hit .270/.346/.448 with 17 HRs.
Additionally I want to clarify something. I'm by not means suggesting Schwarber is a lock to be a good or even great player when I talk about those bb/k/iso metrics. For one thing, as happened with Olt all it takes is a errant ball to the head and you're suddenly a different player because of vision issues. Any number of other injuries could also happen. Also, there's no guarantee that he'll hit higher levels. But that's frankly a bit of a silly argument to bring up because that's any prospect. I bring those metrics up because there are a number of players who succeed with lower K's high walks and high ISO. Prospects being a numbers game, you look for what works most often and as near as I've come across those metrics are the most reliable predictors I've come across.
