Cubs Place Seven Players on’s Top 100 Prospects List unveiled its list of the top 100 prospects in the game on Thursday night. Jim Callis and Jonathan Mayo discussed a majority of the top 50 during a live broadcast on the MLB Network.

The Cubs placed seven players in the top 100 and five of those cracked the top 50 … that is 10 percent of the prospects in the top 50 are in the Cubs’ system.

Javier Baez and Kris Bryant made the top 10. Baez was ranked as the seventh best prospect in the game while Bryant slipped into the top 10 at number nine on the list.

Cubs in’s Top 100 Prospects

#7 – Javier Baez, SS

#9 – Kris Bryant, 3B

#18 – Albert Almora, OF

#42 – C.J. Edwards, RHP

#49 – Jorge Soler, OF

#89 – Arismendy Alcantara, 2B

#100 – Pierce Johnson, RHP

Follow ChicagoCubsOnline on Twitter: @TheCCO and @TheCCO_Minors

[amazonjs asin=”1932391509″ locale=”US” tmpl=”Small” title=”Baseball America 2014 Prospect Handbook: The 2014 Expert guide to Baseball Prospects and MLB Organization Rankings”]

Quote of the Day

"Show me a guy who’s afraid to look bad, and I’ll show you a guy you can beat every time." – Lou Brock

Share on Fancred
  • J Daniel

    Most of these guys better be a “HIT” or all hell is going to break loose. Part of the plan is to become good on the cheap which this would be if it works. Just as long as they become good soon!

    • Tony_Hall

      Well many will fail, but it is just not the high end talent, it is the overall depth of the farms system that is good. Yesterday someone asked Jason Parks if “Cubs #10 prospect > Brewers #1 prospect” and his answer was probably.

      But you are right, they must turn this into major league talent. Some will fail, some will be bench guys and some will be short term starters, but they have some legitimate elite players coming up and coming up soon.

      • Theboardrider

        It’s not really to become good on the cheap. It’s to have sustained success and be able to trade valuable prospects to fill holes in the big league roster without missing a beat in a steady stream of incoming prospects. Think 90’s Braves and Yankees, 2000’s Cardinals, Rays, A’s and Red Sox. Only two of those teams could you describe as cheap.

  • BigJonLilJon

    This is what confuses me. We are being sold that the future is bright due to the young prospects. And I get that. But we are also told that not all prospects work out as thought. That is echoed by the Cubs FO. Kind of makes me feel like we are being sold a bill of goods. Him speaketh with forked tongue type of thing??

    • Tony_Hall

      Actually if they told us that all prospects will make it, we would have more to be worried about. Not all prospects do make it, that is why depth in the farm system and redundancy is important. Taht is why signing a 16 year old SS out of the Dominican makes sense, when it would be easy to say we are set with SS for long time. You can never have too much talented players.

      • Theboardrider

        Exactly… Theo is all about quantity. Whether you agree with him or not he is absolutely not putting all of his eggs into any one or several baskets.

        • 07GreyDigger

          Unless that basket is named Masahiro Tanaka.

        • Dorasaga

          More on quantity over pitching prospects. I think Hoyer & Co. have been pretty consistent about these issues. Pitching has been less sustainable. It also has something to do with the ability of Cubs coaches (from the previous regime) to nurture sustainable prospects who can pitch for years into the Cubs investment.

          Hitting talents are easier to identify from the draft, methinks. It’s therefore a better bet to draft high on position players than another Strasburg or Prior.

          The Cubs have also advocated, consistently, of diverse skills from each of their position players, in order to adapt to the environment of contemporary baseball.

          • bpot92

            There was an article I read yesterday on prospects. Hitting and pitching have become closer together but hitting is still easier to not have a bust according to the article. if you have some time check it out


          • Dorasaga

            Thank you. The part that alarmed me, I’ll mention in the bottom. First, I went back to this author’s link to McKinney’s study in 2011, which gave reference to Victor Wang’s study in 2007, inspired by the Johan Santana trade. I’ve read the last one, quite inspirational.

            HOWEVER, time only tells. Either the Mets or Twins got what they wanted. Both ends failed miserably:


            This study you posted is interesting for one data set I spotted: the 0.5-2.49 WAR players. Both the pitching and position players fared relatively similar by percentage. No surprise there. That’s our “expected production.”

            The other ends, well, I’ll put in more thoughts and hopefully place some case studies on Cubs players.

  • 07GreyDigger

    Remember when we were lucky to have ONE guy on this list?

  • CubbyDenCritic

    You don’t World Series titles with the number of high ranking prospects in the minors……….you win a title with having a great team.

    • binnyballs

      And how do you build a great team? By acquiring and developing a plethora of young talent at all levels of your farm system. This is what Theo said they would do. It would appear that they are executing the plan very well so far.

    • Rational Logic

      Wow, what a horrible comment. You couldn’t come up with a reason to bash the FO so….oh forget it, not worth my time.

    • dicepaul

      No you win a title by winning 4 games. Not all WS champions have been great teams.

  • Pingback: Filament Friday 01/24/2013 | Even Losers Can Win()

  • Pingback: Six Cubs Land in Keith Law's Ranking of the Top 100 Prospects - Chicago Cubs Online()