dagger wrote:Here's the deal.
We traded Marcum to Brewers for a high end prospect, Lawrie
That seems to have pushed the Cubs to acquire Matt Garza from TB for prospects.
http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2011/01/07/cubs ... att-garza/The question is simple, do you who really follow the prospects on other teams like Lawrie better than the haul TB got for Garza, who in my mind is no better than Marcum, at least not recently.
The Cubs gave up their top prospect - Chris Archer - and three other top 16 prospects. It looks like they overpaid for Garza!
However, some media reporting their scouting sources not overly impressed with Cubs prospects.
Here's what Buster tweets:
Buster_ESPN
The general perception of proposed Cubs-Garza deal from rival evaluators: Cubs give up a lot of volume,but no real can't-miss star prospect
Buster_ESPN: Another evaluator concurs with view of others: the Rays didn't get much in the way of high-end prospects; more depth type guys than impact.
So is Lawrie better than Archer and the other three, or could AA have done better by being more patient?
Being a "top 16" prospect in an organization isn't anything special; no one brags about getting a top 500 prospect. Can't remember who wrote it (Ranz Jazayeri, maybe?), but someone here linked an article about the fact that, no matter how good or how bad, every organization gets a 'top 30 prospects' list which tends to skew perception of the relative value of each player. In the case of the Cubs, perception of their farm system varies pretty wildly, depending on whether one thinks that their vast depth of middle-of-the-road guys will amount to anything; the top of their system, though, is not the strongest in baseball by any stretch.
Now, on the individual players involved. I was in love with Hak-Ju (heretofore referred to as Sneezy) Lee coming into the year, and he could end being pretty damned decent. However, his status fell somewhat because he didn't hit this year, and some are concerned that he never will...he can probably make the bigs with a weak bat, but it'd obviously hinder his upside even at short. So he falls into the category of "could be very good, could flame out in AA, some distance off from either".
Chris Archer shouldn't be the top prospect in the Cubs' organization, but benefited (IMO) from BA's tendency to overpromote fast-rising players. His ERA was stellar, and he throws really hard, but his components aren't that great; he's a standard-issue flame-baller that could be stellar if he can find the plate on a regular basis, but doesn't have a high likelihood of touching his ceiling. Were I to guess, I'd say that he'll end up being a vicious reliever rather than a long-term starter...he has the two pitches and ability to pitch down to fill the back end of someone's bullpen.
Brandon Guyer is another odd duck. Toolsy, put up big numbers in AA, but he's been a couple years overage every step of the way. Probably a fourth OF/fringe starter, though he could surprise.
Robinson Chirinos is similar...he was treated as an organizational soldier, but blew up (at age 26) in AA this past year. Not really sure what to make of him; he'll certainly find himself in the bigs next year, and could be a reasonable but unsexy starter. Though I suppose that, with the state of catching in the bigs, he could end up sexy relative to the pack.
So basically, you have one formerly highly-touted prospect whose star has fallen a bit in Lee, one former bust who is getting hype but whose future is unclear, and two useful but uninspiring guys in their mid-20s who fill needs on the Rays roster right now, and have an outside shot at blowing up.
Would I trade Lawrie for Sneezy, Archer, Guyer and Chirinos? Ehhh, probably not, simply because we already have a tonne of organization depth (and will add quite a bit more with our seven top-75 picks this year) but are lacking in star-level prospects; while Sneezy and Archer could both end up being stars, nether are anywhere near as likely to achieve such as is Lawrie.
Might others make the deal? Absolutely; none of those four players have particularly stable year-to-year valuations, so viewing even one player's 2010 campaign as an aberration (for good or ill) makes a considerable difference in how the package appears.
Did we do well getting Lawrie for Marcum in light of this deal? Still looks good to me.
Given that, did the Rays get ripped off in this trade? I don't think so...there's enough upside in their for it to be worth their while, though (like Hoopstarr) I'll admit to being a bit surprised that they couldn't get a top tier guy in there somewhere.
.