Let's get right to it.
Jeff H. writes: I'm curious as to why you don't consider the value of possible compensation draft choices when evaluating trades in your article earlier this week. This winter, David Weathers could be a type "A" free agent. At worst, he'll be a "B". At the moment, of course, several points are unclear:
Will the Cubs re-sign Weathers?
Will the Cubs offer Weathers arbitration?
Would there be any multi-year offers made to Weathers after the Cubs offered him arbitration?
Would Weathers accept arbitration in the absence of a lucrative multi-year offer from another club?
Will the current free agent compensation rules still apply this winter?
Nevertheless, it's possible that the Cubs could harvest two high draft choices for Weathers. Three months of Weathers, Roberto Miniel, and two high draft choices for Ruben Quevedo and Peter Zoccolillo is a much different trade than Weathers and Miniel for Quevedo and Zoccolillo. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.
Well, Jeff, I didn't consider this because it didn't occur to me. Now that you've brought the idea to my attention, I think the points you've made are good ones.
First of all, as you point out at the end of your list, we don't even know if free agent compensation will still exist next spring. The only people who know anything about how the labor negotiations are going aren't talking. There has been speculation that draft choice compensation for free agents will be dropped or reduced, possibly as part of a general overhaul making draft picks tradable. But at this point we simply don't know. I agree, if Weathers becomes a free agent and the Cubs get some draft picks for him, then the trade does look better from their perspective. Even if that happens, though, it's still a good deal for the Brewers, picking up a solid prospect in Quevedo in exchange for Weathers and a Class A pitcher.
Several readers questioned my description of Weathers as a "journeyman." He's been effective for the last year and a half, but his career record is littered with 5.00+ ERAs, he's 31, and his career ERA is 4.86. He provides a nice bullpen boost and I understand why the Cubs picked him up, but I still think the Brewers are likely to come out ahead in this deal in the long run. I really like Quevedo.
Tim W. asks: What are the factors that determine where a club places their newly-signed draft choices? For example, last year the Cubs drafted Blair Barbier out of LSU and sent him to a short-season Class A team in Eugene (Ore.), and he's spent all of this year at Class A Lansing even though he's hit .330-.340 the whole season. This June, the Cubs draft Ryan Theriot out of the same school and send
him to Class A Daytona. Is Theriot that much better than Barbier? Are a team's positional needs a factor in where they place players?
Actually Barbier was signed as an undrafted free agent, but your question is a very good one, and illustrative of the way scouting works.
Both Barbier and Theriot were successful college players; both draw praise for their work ethic and general polish. The difference is that scouts like Theriot's athleticism and ability to play shortstop, while Barbier isn't a great athlete and doesn't have the range or arm strength to handle the middle infield.
Despite these limitations, I was frankly surprised that Barbier didn't get drafted last year; you'd figure that someone would take him late in the draft simply as roster filler, due to his experience and good track record. He's hitting very well in the Midwest League this year (.332, 14 homers, good strike zone judgment), and has spent time at first base, third base, and the outfield. Of course, he is playing against less experienced competition, so we need to see how his bat holds up against better pitching.
As for Theriot, he was sent to the Florida State League partly because the Cubs are very high on him and think he'll move quickly, and partly because the shortstop at Lansing, Luis Montanez, is a top prospect in his own right but not ready to move up.
Tom N. writes: Who do you feel is the better prospect: Kelly Johnson or Wilson Betemit (both with the Braves)? Johnson is leading the Sally League in OPS, while Betemit, who is two levels higher but only three months older, probably has the better physical tools. Who do you like better?
Hmm. Well, Betemit is a better overall athlete and will remain at shortstop. Johnson is no slouch with the athleticism either, but he'll probably end up at third base eventually because his range is less expansive than Betemit's. At this point, I think Johnson has the better bat. He's hitting .311 with 19 homers and 17 steals at Class A Macon, and is one of the few players in the Braves farm system who knows something about strike zone judgment. Betemit is holding his own in Double-A, which is very impressive for a player his age, but he doesn't control the strike zone well and shows mostly gap power right now. I think Johnson will be a better hitter in the long run, but Betemit is hardly punchless and will have more defensive value.
Penny asks: A while ago, I read an article on 18-year-old phenom Greg "Toe" Nash. He is supposed to be a great player in the future, and I even bought a rookie card off of ebay of him. Could you tell me where and how he is doing in the Devil Rays minor-league system?
Ah, yes, the Toe Nash Watch. The overhyped "next Babe Ruth" is hitting .222 in the rookie-level Appalachian League. He does have three homers in 20 games and has drawn 11 walks, but he's also fanned 35 times. While I am not as paranoid about strikeouts as some people, I think you'll find that few people who strike out 1½ times per game in rookie ball develop into good players.
He's a great athlete, but he is very, very raw.
Nick D. writes: In your trade analysis story, you describe the Indians' farm system as "dry" while Baseball America in a recent issue called it "flourishing." I look and see several good players at "advanced" Class A Kinston. Included in that list are Victor Martinez, a switch-hitting catcher with power, Brian Tallet, who could quite possibly be the next Chuck Finley, Troy Cameron, Eric Johnson,
Shane Wallace, Kyle Denney. All of these players seem to have big-time upside. How do you
take to these views?
Well, this is a combination of things. I do like some of the talent that the Indians have at the Class A level, Tallet especially, but I would not agree with Baseball America that the system is flourishing, especially at the higher levels. The Double-A and Triple-A teams are quite thin in prospects, and Zach Day, who the Indians decided to trade at the deadline to the Expos for outfielder Milton Bradley, was about the only guy I see at those levels with a good chance to be above-average. There is some pitching depth in Class A, but the Tribe hasn't developed much in the way of hitting lately, and their recent drafts have been mediocre.
I should have written that the upper-level/immediate-help section of the system was dry. The lower levels are in better condition, but the system as a whole doesn't rank with the elites in the game right now.
John Sickels is the author of the 2001 STATS Minor League Scouting Notebook. He lives in Lawrence, Kansas, with his wife, son, and two cats. You can send John questions or comments at JASickels@aol.com, or you can visit his homepage at hometown.aol.com/jasickels/page1.html.
| |
|
