The Jeff Samardzija Thread

[UK1679666180]

you have got to be kidding me "Top 3" you folks are frothing at the mouth like this kid is some kind of "Saviour" How bout we wait till the player has finished a season. Reports of his hitting 99/97 are inconsistent and from reports I have read 92/93. As for starts in Boise and Peoria I would hope he did well as he was 21 playing against players a few years younger than him. I will give him credit that he is a fine athlete but reports also stated he needs a lot of work.

 

As I'm sure you know, the ability to hit 99 is different for a SP than where he sits for most of his 95-100 pitches.

 

There has to be something there as far as his feel for a change and an occasional spin to merit his signing beyond a high velo.

 

Until he reaches the point when the feel becomes a good change and the spin becomes consistent, it's the battle between projection/tools and not having an idea whether it'll translate or not.

 

If you have a pitcher that has a higher ceiling (1/2 starter) but has a longer road to reach it and another pitcher that is the same age (21 yo.)and more advanced but doesn't have the same ceiling (3/4 starter) which one is more important to the organization?

[CUBZ99]

Even without the focus, Samardzija showed a fastball that hit the radar gun anywhere between 91 and 98 mph with good movement and command. He throws a slider that looked like it could be a plus pitch this summer, and he's got a good feel for a changeup. Those secondary pitches will likely improve by leaps and bounds, now that he's playing only baseball. He already has a coordinated delivery and shows an innate understanding of the little things that pitchers do, like holding runners and fielding his position.

 

I had heard elsewhere that Samardzija didn't have good movement on his FB. I'd like to believe cubs.com, but I believe they're tooting their own guy's horn right here.

 

BTW does anybody know when the 16 year old pitcher (Suarez?) from the Dominican will make his debut in the minors? Haven't seen much on him since they signed him.

 

Larry Suarez was supposedly in Mesa for Instructs this past fall (though I didn't read anything about him actually being there). I think he'll end up on the Cubs' Dominican squad this summer, Mesa the season after.

 

Thanks for the info. Can't wait to see how some of these young guys turn out.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Hendry said he expected that Samardzija would open 2007 at high Class A Daytona but set no timetable for him to reach the majors.

[mg420]

where does ceda fit in all this? he's younger than jeff at 19, can hit 99 on the gun too and needs alot of work on his breaking & offspeed pitches.

[Outshined_One]

where does ceda fit in all this? he's younger than jeff at 19, can hit 99 on the gun too and needs alot of work on his breaking & offspeed pitches.

 

Samardzija is more refined. Ceda's likely to start next season at Boise while Samardzija is reportedly going to start off at Daytona.

[imb]

Wow. Put me in the crow eating group that said we would never sign him.

[NCCubFan]

Wow. Put me in the crow eating group that said we would never sign him.

At least that's good crow.

http://aviary.owls.com/crow/am_crow.jpg

[craig]

Given the lack of results and mixing reports on how dominant his fastball has been, I still think you have to put him behind the likes of Sean Gallagher and Mark Pawelek. He's close to Chris Huseby in my opinion, whose projection is just as much and has shown much better secondary stuff. Next year will say a lot.

 

I would disagree on this. I agree on putting him behind Gallagher, who has shown that he has a major league fastball (speed/movement/command factored), has a shot at some good breaking pitch(es), and has already had success in AA.

 

But I think a $10 guarantee and Wilken saying that he ranked Sam as the #1 guy tells you something about how the Cub scouts rank Sam for talent. Very high. They may be wrong, of course. But since we're basically projecting Sam, Huseby, and Pawelek on scouting opinions rather than on demonstrated results (Huseby has hardly any, and Pawelek showed neither exceptional velocity or command this past summer), I don't see why the default wouldn't be to go with the guy Wilken seems to strongly prefer. I think the Cubs have invested quite a bit of scouting time on Sam. It's at least possible that their high opinion of his potential is reasonably informed.

 

[/i]

[nilodnayr]

Given the lack of results and mixing reports on how dominant his fastball has been, I still think you have to put him behind the likes of Sean Gallagher and Mark Pawelek. He's close to Chris Huseby in my opinion, whose projection is just as much and has shown much better secondary stuff. Next year will say a lot.

 

I would disagree on this. I agree on putting him behind Gallagher, who has shown that he has a major league fastball (speed/movement/command factored), has a shot at some good breaking pitch(es), and has already had success in AA.

 

But I think a $10 guarantee and Wilken saying that he ranked Sam as the #1 guy tells you something about how the Cub scouts rank Sam for talent. Very high. They may be wrong, of course. But since we're basically projecting Sam, Huseby, and Pawelek on scouting opinions rather than on demonstrated results (Huseby has hardly any, and Pawelek showed neither exceptional velocity or command this past summer), I don't see why the default wouldn't be to go with the guy Wilken seems to strongly prefer. I think the Cubs have invested quite a bit of scouting time on Sam. It's at least possible that their high opinion of his potential is reasonably informed.

 

[/i]

 

I think there is a difference between having your own opinion and regurgitating the cub's opinion.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Given the lack of results and mixing reports on how dominant his fastball has been, I still think you have to put him behind the likes of Sean Gallagher and Mark Pawelek. He's close to Chris Huseby in my opinion, whose projection is just as much and has shown much better secondary stuff. Next year will say a lot.

 

I would disagree on this. I agree on putting him behind Gallagher, who has shown that he has a major league fastball (speed/movement/command factored), has a shot at some good breaking pitch(es), and has already had success in AA.

 

But I think a $10 guarantee and Wilken saying that he ranked Sam as the #1 guy tells you something about how the Cub scouts rank Sam for talent. Very high. They may be wrong, of course. But since we're basically projecting Sam, Huseby, and Pawelek on scouting opinions rather than on demonstrated results (Huseby has hardly any, and Pawelek showed neither exceptional velocity or command this past summer), I don't see why the default wouldn't be to go with the guy Wilken seems to strongly prefer. I think the Cubs have invested quite a bit of scouting time on Sam. It's at least possible that their high opinion of his potential is reasonably informed.

 

I think there is a difference between having your own opinion and regurgitating the cub's opinion.

 

But he (and others) are basing their opinions on both Cubs' actions and opinions. That's different.

[craig]

I think there is a difference between having your own opinion and regurgitating the cub's opinion.

 

Heh heh. True indeed. I can easily understand having an opinion strongly contrary to the Cubs' opinion when there is some information available. There is considerable info available on Gallagher; I can easily understand why somebody might think the Cubs or BA or whomever don't value him as highly as they should. There is considerable info available on Harvey; I can well understand why somebody might have an opinion on harvey that is much less enthusiastic than what Cubs or BA might hold. There is lots of history on Soriano and Lilly and one might have watched them quite a bit yourself, since they play on TV. So if a person has an opinion strongly contrary to the Cubs regarding known and viewable guys like that, it makes a lot of sense.

 

I guess I don't see that for Sam and Huseby and Pawelek, though. There is negligible meaingful performance data on any of these three.

 

I think it's fine to strongly disagree with the Cubs when we have reason for it. I just don't see this as one of those cases.

 

Basically we're going on scouting gossip on all three. I don't see the logic in assuming that the Cubs are wrong.

 

Other than on general principle that whatever the Cubs think must necessarily be stupid.

[nilodnayr]

I think there is a difference between having your own opinion and regurgitating the cub's opinion.

 

Heh heh. True indeed. I can easily understand having an opinion strongly contrary to the Cubs' opinion when there is some information available. There is considerable info available on Gallagher; I can easily understand why somebody might think the Cubs or BA or whomever don't value him as highly as they should. There is considerable info available on Harvey; I can well understand why somebody might have an opinion on harvey that is much less enthusiastic than what Cubs or BA might hold. There is lots of history on Soriano and Lilly and one might have watched them quite a bit yourself, since they play on TV. So if a person has an opinion strongly contrary to the Cubs regarding known and viewable guys like that, it makes a lot of sense.

 

I guess I don't see that for Sam and Huseby and Pawelek, though. There is negligible meaingful performance data on any of these three.

 

I think it's fine to strongly disagree with the Cubs when we have reason for it. I just don't see this as one of those cases.

 

Basically we're going on scouting gossip on all three. I don't see the logic in assuming that the Cubs are wrong.

 

Other than on general principle that whatever the Cubs think must necessarily be stupid.

 

I agree, I didn't mean my comment in a derogatory way at all. I just think, saying Samardzija (I'm so good at spelling his name now :) ) is our best pitching prospect because Wilken said he was his #1 of this draft is a regurgitation of cubs opinions. I personally have never seen any of the prospects and have to go off second hand opinions, scouting reports, and statistics. Obviously, the cubs viewpoint is a lot of the only information we have on younger guys, but I'm just saying, we can all have our own opinions.

[Balsa]

REALLY neat article on Smardz.

 

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/01/open_water_1.php

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Mike (Lynchburg, VA): Where do you see Jeff Samardzija winding up on Baseball america's top 100 prospect list now that he has committed to baseball full-time?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: Great question. I dealt with a related question in Ask BA (see baseballamerica.com) last week, and it's tough figuring out where to place him. Lot of upside, but also a lot of risk. I'll probably rank him about No. 75 just on the sheer upside, but I'm just one of the voices in that room determining the Top 100.

 

Bill (IL): Looking at Jeff Samardzdija's college and minor league numbers, it appears that his K/9 is low for a guy that throws as hard as him. Is he more of a groundball inducing power pitcher like Wang or something?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: It was low in college and in his pro debut for a guy who can reach the upper 90s with his fastball. Samardzija had some delivery issues and didn't have a great feel for setting up hitters. The Cubs are betting $10 million dollars that they can improve his mechanics (already have made some strides) and give him two consistent plus or plus-plus pitches in his fastball and slider.

[Mephistopheles]

Matt (Cambridge, MA): Kevin -- Is the guaranteed money for Jeff Samardzija too high for an older player who is so unpolished and has such a limited track record? Or is the potential upside worth the $$ it took to lure him away from football?

 

Kevin Goldstein: I think it was a silly, awful move. Forgetting about football for a moment, Samardzija was a mid-to-late first-round talent. So now you're giving 10M to a player worth 1.5M in the existing market. That just makes no sense. I understand you have to buy him away from football, but really, what kind of leverage does he have?

[CubColtPacer]

Matt (Cambridge, MA): Kevin -- Is the guaranteed money for Jeff Samardzija too high for an older player who is so unpolished and has such a limited track record? Or is the potential upside worth the $$ it took to lure him away from football?

 

Kevin Goldstein: I think it was a silly, awful move. Forgetting about football for a moment, Samardzija was a mid-to-late first-round talent. So now you're giving 10M to a player worth 1.5M in the existing market. That just makes no sense. I understand you have to buy him away from football, but really, what kind of leverage does he have?

 

What kind of leverage does he have? How about a 8 to 9 million dollar initial football contract-that sounds like pretty good leverage to me. (that's about what Santonio Holmes signed for-which sounds about right for Samardzija's draft status if he concentrated on football).

[Mephistopheles]

Jeremy (New England): How often does it happen that a guy like Samardzija who doesn't strike people out in college (6 K/9 last year and the year before) can succeed at the major league level?

 

Kevin Goldstein: Not very damn often. The Cubs are true believers in his upside, but for me, they're totally looking at the glass half full.

[Outshined_One]

REALLY neat article on Smardz.

 

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/01/open_water_1.php

 

Nifty, thanks.

[goonys evil twin]

Kevin Goldstein: but for me, they're totally looking at the glass half full.

 

That sums up Hendry's style to a T. He fields a roster based on best case scenario and is terrible at taking into account likely/possible regression, setbacks and injuries. If a guy hit .300 hitter for a month, Hendry will call him a .300 hitter. If a guy once made the all star team with sketchy stats and has never come close to repeating those, he's an all star. If a guy won 15 games once, he's a 15-game winner. Hendry labels guys with their best attributes, and hopes those will show up in the future. He's got to get better at dealing with setbacks before they happen.

[craig]

On whether low-K guys can succeed, the Cubs have a couple of unusual cases with which they are very familiar. Angel Guzman barely nudged over 7K/9IP until his injury year. Boise, Lansing, and Daytona, Guzman was a low 7's guy for K/9. Zambrano was 5.7 in A, 6.4 in AA.

 

So I think there are some low-K guys who can progress later. Hopefully Sam will be one of them.

 

Most K's come on breaking balls. A-ball versions of Guzman and Z didn't have much for breaking pitch. College Samardz obviously didn't either. His curve was so lousy that they decided to scrap it, and he just picked up the slider last year.

 

If he never comes up with anything better than his dud curve, or his novice slider, he's not likely to K many Cardinals, either. Hopefully he will.

[Mephistopheles]

prapol (nyc): will sean gallagher and/or donald veal overtake all of these mediocre pitchers on the cubs depth chart by the end of 07? (i.e. Guzman, Marshall, Ryu, etc) (hanoi rocks, big in japan, russian futurists...)

 

Kevin Goldstein: Look at prapol, coming in strong with three more candidates! My answer is they'll overtake them, but while Gallagher might be good to go at the end of 07, Veal might be more like mid-08.

 

Prapol doesnt seem to share my enthusiasm with Angel.

[Guest]

neither does goldstein

[Mephistopheles]

this is true, but he does like Veal.

 

NMUWildcat027 (Marquette, MI): KG, which pitcher has the best chance to refine his control and go Homer Bailey on us in 2007? Could it be Scott Elbert?

 

Kevin Goldstein: It could be Elbert, it could be Donald Veal.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Samardzija didn't even pitch seriously in college. He threw in games and threw a couple 'pens on the side. I wouldn't read too much into his K rate.

[A New Era]

The thing I love about this, is Smardzija is an awesome prospect. And I can see him as he comes to kane county cougers where I live (and sanburg too) and I can finally partake in some cubs minor league games for the first time in my life.