Flashback: Brett Jackson vs. Tim Wheeler

A couple of years ago when the Cubs drafted Brett Jackson, I was pissed off because it looked like the wrong choice to make. The guy that got drafted right behind the Cubs, Tim Wheeler, looked like a waaaayyyy better prospect.

The scouting reports and the college stats said that, out of these two center fielders, Wheeler could actually wind up playing CF at the big-league level (Jackson was questionable) and had plus speed.

Jackson looked like he was just an OK player next to this guy.

Well, that was a couple of years ago. What have these two done in pro ball since then?

Brace Yourselves...It's not Good

Brett Jackson may be our best prospect, but his numbers pale in comparison to what Tim Wheeler has done.

Tim Wheeler

Brett Jackson

What do you see? I'll tell you what I see: one guy that does everything pretty well and another guy that does a couple of things really, really well.

Jackson looks like he can hit for average (this year not so much), but he has some speed, some power, and even though you can't see it here, he can play good defense.

Wheeler had a couple mediocre seasons in the minors but this year has blown up. At Double-A, he's shattered this image of a speed guy with no pop. He has 26 HRs in 90 games for a ridiculous .611 slugging percentage. He's hitting .300 for the first time as a pro, is getting on base at a healthy .382 clip, and even has 15 steals to boot (though he's been caught 9 times).

Was I right about Jackson? Should the Cubs have drafted Wheeler?

On the first question, no. I was wrong about both of these guys. Jackson is better than I thought and Wheeler is an enigma. I thought he was going to be a speed guy playing a good CF, and that is being put to the test this season. If he keeps hitting home runs at even a reduced rate than he is now, then the Cubs are going to regret this pick.

Jackson looks like he'll be a good ball player, but so far he hasn't shown that he can come up and be a star. Wheeler is on the same patch, but this season is pretty hard to ignore...it's pretty sick.

This is why I try to be as gently as I can when I rip the Cubs (or any other organization) for making horrible decisions picking players. It's a crap shoot. Unless you're talking about once-in-a-lifetime talent then there's no telling what might happen as players climb through the minors.

It's one of the things that makes baseball so different than any other sport: the difference between the college ranks and the pros is so wide that it's impossible to tell how a player from one level will do at the next.

Castro and Barney: Are They Really That Good?

The Cubs’ season has sucked so far in 2011, and after last night it doesn’t look like things are getting any better.

But all the analysts have all agreed on the few bright spots: Starlin Castro, Darwin Barney, and Alfonso Soriano.

OK I’m kidding about Soriano. But the Tribune called Starlin Castro the MVP of the first half and Barney was designated the Rookie of the Year so far. Considering most of the other rookies on the team have been awful, Barney’s “award” is one of those de facto deals.

But I think we need to take a closer look at all the accolades these two are accumulating. But how good are they, really?

Starlin Castro

Castro managed to hit .300 last year as a 20-year old, which is pretty unbelievable. Granted, he only had 463 at bats, but that’s still very impressive. And so far this season, he’s hitting .304.

Other than his average, how productive has Castro been? His slugging percentage last year was a dismal .408 since he hit just three homeruns. He did crank out 31 doubles, so the power could be dormant and may develop as he gets older and starts to get some facial hair.

Another positive: he’s slugging way better this season (.423) and already has 24 doubles, 8 triples (tied for 2nd in the NL), and two homeruns. So he’s getting better.

But still...what we’re looking at is a young guy who is developing. If he continues to hit .300 and develop his power, we’re looking at a guy that could put up some 15-20 homeruns while playing an also developing shorstop.

This is a good thing, but it’s not like we can just slot him into the 3 hole and wave goodbye to Aramis and Soriano. Starlin is not going to be the cleanup hitter on this team, and that’s something to think about as the veterans get older and we realize we have no replacement.

One thing that worries me about Castro is his on-base percentage. It looks mediocre at .332, but that’s because his average is so high. Castro has just 16 walks to his 48 strikeouts, which pans out to a 32/96 BB/K ratio. If he can hit .300 and keep that ratio that would be pretty impressive, but I’d like to see him control the zone a little better.

All in all, we have a very good young player whose ceiling is very high. But he doesn’t seem to bring any one talent that is considered an 80 on the 20-80 scouting scales. Not a bad thing, just something a lot of people have ignored because they see him as the best player on the team. I just want to remind people that, if he’s the best player on the team, then we need to acquire some other players ASAP.

Darwin Barney

Here’s the thing about Barney: the reason why so many people think he’s so god and they like him so much is because nobody expected anything from him.

He was branded as a defensive/bench player long ago and the fact that stole the job in spring training means he stole his way into all our underdog rooting, masochistic Cub-fan hearts.

But what has he done this year?

.303 AVG, .333 OBP, .370 SLG

He’s played some very good defense at 2B and that’s the main reason he’s kept the job over Blake DeWitt, who has some pop in the bat.

Pop is not something you’d find in Barney’s bat, as evidenced by that .370 slugging percentage. He has 1 homer and 11 doubles in what’s essentially been half a season.

And yes, I’m harping on OBP again: Barney’s is OK because his average has been good, but his BB/K ratio is pretty bad. It’s not Corey Patterson territory but it’s close:

10 BB and 33 Ks.

I like his inside-out swing and the way he makes contact with the ball, but unless he progresses a ton and somehow shows he can do more that what he’s done, what we’re looking at here is the second coming of Ryan Theriot with less speed and a worse OBP.

Harsh for a rookie, I know, but there’s a reason why no one ever saw him as a regular.

The Other Young Guys

I know some people out there want to see what the young guys can do and blow this season up. Bring up Brett Jackson, put Colvin in left every day, and get rid of all the aging veterans.

I like the plan.

But how will you replace the power Aramis and Peña bring? And yes, even Soriano? Colvin might hit 30 in the bigs, but his strike-zone discipline is horrible. He’s in Soriano territory.

The Gist

We have some nice, young players on the team. Starlin Castro is our best player. But we’re sorely lacking in young, premium power and in strike-zone discipline.

Without that, we’ll always have to rely on the free-agent market for help. In this league, in this day in age, you can’t win without power, and Starlin Castro and Darwin Barney will not provide that.

Can Ichiro Really Hit 40 Homeruns? Should He?

A very provocative story on Yahoo Sports yesterday about how Ichiro is so "set in his ways" that he won't change his hitting style even though his hitting style has him hitting a paltry (for Ichiro, anyway) .279.

The author's argument is built around Ichiro's legendary but hidden power. Many a fan has enjoyed Ichiro's batting practice displays of power, where he supposedly hits ball after ball deep into the stands.

It's the reason why so many have implored the 5'11, 172-pound Ichiro to enter the home run derby.

Alas, it hasn't happened, and that's because Ichiro doesn't believe that's the player he is. He was taught the fundamentals of hitting and he believes he should be a player with 200 hits that hits the ball where it's hit.

Batting average is his ultimate judge, and right now that judge things he sucks (he's a career .329 hitter).

But the article makes a few assumptions that are just plain wrong:

• Ichiro can hit home runs at will
• Ichiro can sacrifice some batting average in exchange for "trying" to hit home runs and succeed
• Hitting home runs in BP says something about your ability to hit home runs against MLB pitching
• Ichiro's speed is declining and that's why he isn't hitting .300

Could Ichiro hit "more" home runs that he typically does? Sure, he only averages about eight per season. But this idea that he can hit home runs at will because his BP sessions are so amazing is ridiculous.

Would I like to see him try? Would I be thrilled to see Ichiro torment pitchers and put up a .270, 30 HR, 100 RBI line?

You bet your ass I would...it would be the most awesome "flip" of a switch since Brady Anderson hit 50 in 1996 and Jose Bautista turned into Albert Pujols in 2010.

Will it happen?

Probably not.

If it were true, Ichiro wouldn't be hitting .279 right now.

For an even harsher look at the Yahoo Article, check out this guy's rant.

Why Zambrano's Move to the Pen Could be a Good Thing

Picture this scenario: it's the bottom of the 7th inning. The bases are loaded and the Cubs are tied with the Cardinals with just one out. Pujols is at the plate and Dempster, who has pitched masterfully (again) has already thrown 117 pitches.

He's gassed and this is the most crucial moment in the game. The Cubs are two games back of the Cardinals and they need to take this game.

Lou Piniella waddles out to the mound and touches his right arm: he wants the righty. And in from the bullpen area comes none other than Carlos Zambrano—the best pitcher in the pen whose name isn't Carlos Marmol.

If anything positive is going to come from moving Zambrano to the pen, this is it. The Cubs will be one of the very few teams who get to experiment with the theory of using your best reliever in the toughest spot—not just in the ninth inning to get the save. It's the reason why your best reliever shouldn't be your closer.

Teams have experimented with this in the past—the Red Sox a few years ago, the Twins were gonna try it until they decided on Rauch replacing Nathan rather than having a closer by committee. MLB teams just don't have the balls to try it.

The Cubs won't really be "trying it" but it's as close as we'll get. We'll see how long it takes before Z goes back into the rotation though...but I'd love to see him come out when the toughest situations come up before the ninth inning.

What Makes a Trade Good or Bad?

My friend Joel and I have been going back and forth a lot on whether or not the Silva for Bradley trade was any good. Basically, this is how the debate has gone down:

J: Bradley was a dick and he needed to get traded away.

SG: Yeah but the Cubs traded from a position of weakness because they HAD to trade him and everyone knew it, so all they could get in return was a chubby guy who can't break 90mph.

J: Easy there man, isn't it time you got back to managing jimhendryapologist.org?

SG: You're stupid.

You get the idea. But the more back and forth we had, the more I realized that I was indeed defending a lot of Jim Hendry's moves. Maybe it's because I followed the progress of the Cubs minor league system from when Hendry took over and slowly made the Cubs system the envy of baseball (this was a while ago).

So it's possible I have a soft spot in my heart for Jim Hendry.

But it's also possible I'm right. You see, if there's one thing I detest is Monday morning quarterbacking. Just because a trade doesn't work out after the fact, it doesn't mean it was a bad trade at the time. And the inverse also holds true.

Let's take the Silva trade because we can't really "look back" on it yet. It's too soon. But this is when Hendry had to make the trade—he can't look back to see if it's a good idea or not. And right now, this is a bad trade. Look at Silva's numbers and look at Bradley's numbers. Sure, Bradley is a jackass and Silva isn't, but Silva's career looks like it should never have gotten started and Bradley at least looks like he has some gas left in the tank. And then there's the whole thing about dealing from a position of weakness.

There is one phrase you'll hear over and over when it comes to trade talk:

You can't really judge this trade for a few years until all the parts of it can be evaluated

Bullshit. You can evaluate a trade right then and there but you have to stick your neck out and face the possibility that you are wrong. That's what Hendry and every other GM has to do, so why don't we hold ourselves to the same standard?

I know we don't have to, but we should.

Anyway, this was a bad trade. Silva's performance might make it a bad trade that turned out well for the Cubs, but right now I give this trade an F.

Zambrano to the Bullpen: 5 Reasons why it's a Sucky Move

So the Cubs have made their first desperation move of 2010 (I'm not counting the Milton Bradley trade since the season hadn't started yet). Carlos Zambrano was taken out of the starting rotation and sent to the pen.

Here are five reasons why this is a ridiculous move:

1. Zambrano is/was an Elite Starter

He's supposedly your #1 starter and now you're sending him to the pen? I know he hasn't been awesome lately (not many wins but his WHIP and OBA are top notch) but come on—since when do we judge a starter with his track record after four starts? He still has #1 stuff and now he's in the pen.

That sucks.

2. Are Gorzelany and Silva Better than Zambrano?

Nope. But essentially that's what just happened—they both bumped Big Z from the rotation. "But look at the numbers Senor, they have been awesome!" Sure they have, but like I said before, this is after only four starts. And yeah Silva looks like a new man, but these two guys will not pitch this well for the rest of the season. You can bank on that. So what happens when they come back down to earth? Pull Z back into the rotation?

Good luck with that.

3. $$$

Zambrano is now an $18 million setup man that will pitch three or four innings a week in a role he hasn't been in for a LONG time.

I can't wait to see the bloggers (not me) start to come up with the "Z makes $X million per win" stats that are so prevalent.

Sucky sucky.

4. What if if Works too Well?

This is where I hedge my bets. What if it goes according to plan? What if Z rocks it as a setup man, starts behaving himself, and donates half his salary back to the team so they can go sign Pedro Martinez? Then your hand is forced and he has to stay in the pen. And when Gorz/Silva start to suck or someone else gets hurt—then what do you do?

Nothing—you're screwed. Mucho sucko.

5. You're Taking Z's Bat out of the Lineup

The team still isn't hitting. It's sucking. So now Big Z will probably no longer hit. Which is too bad because he might put up a higher OPS than Theriot if he had a shot at it.

Tyler Colvin Mania Has Brainwashed the World

Who knew all you needed to become a big shot in the major leagues was to be young and have an awesome spring? Unless your name is Stephen Strasburg. Or Aroldis Chapman. Or Starlin Castro.

Somehow Tyler Colvin beat the odds and has won the hearts and minds of lazy analysts and over-eager fans by putting up really good numbers in Spring Training.

.468, 2HR, 18 RBIs

That's the line that created all the Tyler Colvin hype that's out there. That's a sample size of 77 ABs. That, along with Colvin gaining 20 pounds of muscle over the winter, has him in some conversations as a rookie to watch for in 2010.

Which is ridiculous.

I'm even hearing people talking about how he and Starlin Castro are proof that the Cubs have finally learned to produce position players.

That's preposterous—the Cubs have HUGE problems developing position players and one great Spring Training (it was great, you have to admit) by Tyler Colvin can't change that.

One good thing about all this undeserved hype is that Starlin Castro has the spotlight off of him for a little while. Jim Hendry made the right call by sending Castro to AAA instead of AA—at least we agree on that. Having fans drool over Colvin's spring-training stats is keeping the pressure off Castro.

Props to Tyler Colvin

First of all, my hat is off to the young man. He came into Spring Training without a chance in hell to make the roster and he somehow pulled it off. How Piniella will get him any decent amount of ABs with Byrd, Kosuke, and Soriano in the lineup is beyond me (oh and don't forget Xavier Nady, whom we're paying $3 million)—but that's a separate issue.

This post isn't about how Colvin is or isn't going to be a productive ML player. I personally don't think it's going to happen this year, but I could be wrong. I've stated my opinions on the Cubs picking Colvin before and I think it was a bad choice.

I'm sure he's excited about being in the Bigs but the Cubs aren't helping his development. He didn't draw a single walk (which isn't that big a deal—it's spring training), but in his career he hasn't learned to draw walks consistently. Which isn't a big deal, except he strikes out wayyy too much. He is NOT going to learn now that in the bigs—especially not with sporadic at bats. He is going to try to produce, which is what he should be doing.

The problem here isn't that Tyler Colvin isn't ready for the big leagues. The problem is that Hendry/Piniella decided to keep him on the roster despite knowing that it isn't good for his development. Just look at his stats—he needs at least a full season at AAA before he's ready.

The problem is also lazy analysts like Eduardo Perez. He was on ESPN and he picked Colvin as his "Rookie to Watch" for 2010. How ignorant is that? Here is what Perez did: he rummaged through the league's spring-training stats and found the best numbers available. He picked out the rookie with the best stats and that's how he made his decision. How else do you explain this terrible pick?

I should've been on ESPN explaining how crazy Perez is and how crazy it is to expect him to take over for Soriano after a slow start.

Wake up people!