2007 Cubs Minor League Wrap-Up

[the splendid splinter]

Raisin good point on the Home runs on Roquet. I'm not making an excuse for Roquet but I think being a converted guy and pitching alot less than Wuertz at this time of their careers, also this is Rouquet 1st full season albeit at almost 24yrs old which most of the pro guys would say he's got a "young arm". So next year maybe we'll see even more improvement for him. Pretty good 1st year for Rockey.

[craig]

I think kc's analogy of Colvin to Jacque is perhaps quite apt. I've often thought that Jones was also an excellent optimistic comp for Pie as a hitter. I still think Pie's got a shot to be a good-fielding version of Jacque, perhaps without Jacque's former power? Obviously that comment is intended to be critical, since Jacque doesn't generally have a favorable rep. But I'm not sure that's really such a bad outcome. Jacque's been in the majors for approaching ten years, and will end up making oer $30 mill for his career. That's not necessarily such a bad career for a guy. And it's not necessarily such a bad payoff for an organization to get somebody like that with a teens pick in a weak draft.

 

I also think it's a reasonable comp, but not necessarily representative of the best outcome imaginable. Colvin might hit more HR's. He might be a better CFer.

 

Colvin played the season at 21, so I think it's premature to assume we know what he'll be when he's 26 or 32. Ditto for Pie. Colvin his 16 HR's in 125 AB's in two tough leagues at age 21. A lot of guys who end up as 30-HR guys at age 28 playing 162-game big-league seasons weren't necessarily hitting 20 in shorter minor-league seasons at age 21. Scouting may suggest differently, and often scouting knows things. But I'd think his XB/HR output this year might look very promising for his power future.

 

I think the Jacque analogy depends in part on the defense. Jaque's in his 30's and is playing CF. I'm too dumb to tell. Some observers criticize his defense as being way sub-par; others who I respect seem to think it's actually pretty average for a CF. If Colvin was enough better to be unambiguously acceptable in CF, combined with a much better arm, a Jacque bat in center would be decent. Career .782 OPS, not sure that's below average for a CF, is it? I thought most years there are only a handful of .800+ CFers.

 

Obviously the walks is the big red flag. He's not a perfect prospect, that's for sure, and we know it takes only one deadly flaw to keep a guy from being overall valuable. But as was noted, if he could reduce that problem from horrific to merely bad, you'd have a shot to have a useful major leaguer.

 

And obviously the defense is a huge factor. A .780 platoon CFer is one thing; a .780-platoon RFer, that's another.

 

I think it's also true that some of the optomism may be self-contradictory. I want him to be a good enough defender to play CF. But I also want him to gain strength and become a serious HR hitter. Those two wishes may well be incompatible. Buildup for power may perhaps work against CF mobility.

 

Unfortunately apart from the defense issue, I think many of the same comps and concerns for Colvin also apply to Pie.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Mesa: P Oswaldo Martinez

 

I'm not sure what to expect out of him in the long run, but a 22/2 K/BB in 20 IP from an 18 year old is pretty nifty. I've heard some good things about him from scouts and from some people on this board, which is enough to merit keeping an eye on him next season.

 

I'm a big fan of Oswaldo too.

 

Ceda is an animal. I love him. When the bandwagon starts, I'm on board. Jose reminds me of Armando Benitez when Armando Benitez was good. If he gets his control even a LITTLE bit better, he'll be in the big league bullpen on opening day 2009. You just don't find intimidating relievers every day.

 

Personally I like the Lee Smith comparisons. :D

 

Finally, has anyone heard any further hints about Harvey being switched to pitching over the winter to try and salvage something out of his career? It's pretty clear he'll never make the big leagues as a hitter, and I gotta believe the Cubs would like to see some sliver of hope out of their investment in him.

 

Well, they did send him to Hawaii as a hitter so he's still a year away from pitching, I'd guess. There is a story on ITI that mentions he might be converting soon but it's premium and I don't have a premium subscription.

 

Oh, and if you guys want another interesting relieving prospect who's a bit further advanced than Ceda or Maestri, try Rocky Roquet (I believe dkwg mentioned him) - mid 90s FB, plus hard slider, passable change. He should be at Iowa next season, will be in the AFL in a few weeks.

 

Here's a quote from Flieta on the issue of Harvey switching to the mound.

 

“You never know. You never know,” Fleita now says when asked about Harvey potentially making the switch. “Right now, you can’t teach power and he (showed) some flashes in the last couple of months. If we can keep the guy healthy, he’s got a chance to hit and hit with a lot of power.”

[TruffleShuffle]

“You never know. You never know,” Fleita now says when asked about Harvey potentially making the switch. “Right now, you can’t teach power and he (showed) some flashes in the last couple of months. If we can keep the guy healthy, he’s got a chance to hit and hit with a lot of power.”

 

:roll: and :roll:

 

You can't teach power, and apparently you also can't teach him to stop swinging at every turd the pitcher flings toward home plate. And yeah, health has been his biggest problem, not a completely lack of strike zone understanding.

[Guest]

Is that a recent quote, Vance?

[CUBZ99]

Anybody see the recent Oneri interview where he states that Shark had a good year and his stats lied? (I'll try to find a link) In it he stated that he believes Shark is the best pitching prospect in the system and Colvin is the best hitting prospect. Interesting perspective.

[Outshined_One]

Anybody see the recent Oneri interview where he states that Shark had a good year and his stats lied? (I'll try to find a link) In it he stated that he believes Shark is the best pitching prospect in the system and Colvin is the best hitting prospect. Interesting perspective.

 

I'm inclined to agree with him on the two being the two respective best prospects, although Gallagher probably will edge him on my list when I go back and look over everything.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Is that a recent quote, Vance?

 

It's from the ITI article.

[Guest]

Anybody see the recent Oneri interview where he states that Shark had a good year and his stats lied? (I'll try to find a link) In it he stated that he believes Shark is the best pitching prospect in the system and Colvin is the best hitting prospect. Interesting perspective.

 

Yeah, he said that about Samardzija when he was promoted to AA.

[Mephistopheles]

sometimes i wonder if scouts even watch the game.

[CuseCubFan69]

sometimes i wonder if scouts even watch the game.

 

I used to bring cub scouts to games all the time and you're right, most of the time they were running around and mostly focused on food.

 

I've talked to many scouts and they are all different on what they look for, well, more of how they breakdown certain aspects of a players game. Of course they look for things at different levels, HS, college, Minors, and Majors but they know their stuff. Could they learn and maybe do something different to improve how they evaluate, probably. But, listening to them talk and what they see was and is a very good experience for me as I've learned a lot from these men* (*Disclaimer, I have yet to met a female scout so get out there ladies and show your stuff!).

[NCCubFan]

sometimes i wonder if scouts even watch the game.

 

I used to bring cub scouts to games all the time and you're right, most of the time they were running around and mostly focused on food.

:lol:

[Mephistopheles]

sometimes i wonder if scouts even watch the game.

 

I used to bring cub scouts to games all the time and you're right, most of the time they were running around and mostly focused on food.

 

I've talked to many scouts and they are all different on what they look for, well, more of how they breakdown certain aspects of a players game. Of course they look for things at different levels, HS, college, Minors, and Majors but they know their stuff. Could they learn and maybe do something different to improve how they evaluate, probably. But, listening to them talk and what they see was and is a very good experience for me as I've learned a lot from these men* (*Disclaimer, I have yet to met a female scout so get out there ladies and show your stuff!).

 

you know what i meant. sometimes they get lost in looking at players physical appearance and athleticism they fail to notice that for whatever the reason the guy cant hit.

[CuseCubFan69]

sometimes i wonder if scouts even watch the game.

 

I used to bring cub scouts to games all the time and you're right, most of the time they were running around and mostly focused on food.

 

I've talked to many scouts and they are all different on what they look for, well, more of how they breakdown certain aspects of a players game. Of course they look for things at different levels, HS, college, Minors, and Majors but they know their stuff. Could they learn and maybe do something different to improve how they evaluate, probably. But, listening to them talk and what they see was and is a very good experience for me as I've learned a lot from these men* (*Disclaimer, I have yet to met a female scout so get out there ladies and show your stuff!).

 

you know what i meant. sometimes they get lost in looking at players physical appearance and athleticism they fail to notice that for whatever the reason the guy cant hit.

 

Like I wrote, they look at certain aspects such as athleticism. I know a lot of HS coaches that pick their teams using the same approach believing they can mold the player since they have athletic ability into a player they think will make an impact. The "You can't teach speed" type of thought is quite prevalent. You can only make a slow runner so fast but you never really know what you could make of an athletic kid. Potential has had many scouts, coaches and GM's fired.

[biittner77]

sometimes i wonder if scouts even watch the game.

 

I used to bring cub scouts to games all the time and you're right, most of the time they were running around and mostly focused on food.

 

I've talked to many scouts and they are all different on what they look for, well, more of how they breakdown certain aspects of a players game. Of course they look for things at different levels, HS, college, Minors, and Majors but they know their stuff. Could they learn and maybe do something different to improve how they evaluate, probably. But, listening to them talk and what they see was and is a very good experience for me as I've learned a lot from these men* (*Disclaimer, I have yet to met a female scout so get out there ladies and show your stuff!).

 

you know what i meant. sometimes they get lost in looking at players physical appearance and athleticism they fail to notice that for whatever the reason the guy cant hit.

 

The work of scouts is the ultimate expression of small sample size. How can they know about a player based on seeing them a couple times?

[CubinNY]

sometimes i wonder if scouts even watch the game.

 

I used to bring cub scouts to games all the time and you're right, most of the time they were running around and mostly focused on food.

 

I've talked to many scouts and they are all different on what they look for, well, more of how they breakdown certain aspects of a players game. Of course they look for things at different levels, HS, college, Minors, and Majors but they know their stuff. Could they learn and maybe do something different to improve how they evaluate, probably. But, listening to them talk and what they see was and is a very good experience for me as I've learned a lot from these men* (*Disclaimer, I have yet to met a female scout so get out there ladies and show your stuff!).

 

you know what i meant. sometimes they get lost in looking at players physical appearance and athleticism they fail to notice that for whatever the reason the guy cant hit.

 

The work of scouts is the ultimate expression of small sample size. How can they know about a player based on seeing them a couple times?

 

Not really. Their "sample size" is large. They see lots of players all the time. When you've seen thousands of kids over the years it doesn't take much to see the standout. They might only see one particular kids a hand full of times, but the pool they are compaing him agaisnt is quite large.

 

I think a problem comes in the linear ranking of players. I think that is near impossible. However it has to be done due to the draft.

 

I think a second problem comes when they try to determine a ceiling of a player. It's a ridiculus notion not based on anything but "beauty".

 

Third, I think the uneveness of competition, even in college make any ranking of players a difficult task. I suppose if I were to be in charge I'd put them in pools by position or by physical skill sets (the mythical tools) instead of ranking them. I don't know.

 

The entire process is extremely difficult, that's why using objective data will only help the "art" of scouting.

 

EDIT: Scouting is also probably an order of magnitude less important than player development, IMO.

[Guest]

Peoria: P Alessandro Maestri

 

The Italian Stallion! Okay, maybe he needs a new nickname. But still. He finished his last ten games of the season with some nifty numbers in the MWL (13.2 IP, 3 H, 0 ER, 20/1 K/BB, 4 SV) and looks like a potential gem as a relief pitcher. I like him a lot, but his success excites me because it shows that you can get quality players out of untapped markets like Europe. I've been driving the "expand baseball scouting beyond its traditional areas" bandwagon for a good amount of time now and I really hope the Cubs can keep it up (as evidenced with the recent acquisition of Dwayne Kemp from the Netherlands).

 

My man Alessandro.

 

It's a quantum leap to project a succesful relief pitcher from low A ball, but we (and he) can always dream...

 

I've heard rumors that if he hadn't had the Italian team commitment, Maestri would have been the one to go to AA for the playoffs, not Ceda.

[Guest]

Anybody see the recent Oneri interview where he states that Shark had a good year and his stats lied? (I'll try to find a link) In it he stated that he believes Shark is the best pitching prospect in the system and Colvin is the best hitting prospect. Interesting perspective.

 

More Samardzija love: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070913cubsbits,1,7689859.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines

[Guest]

EDIT: Scouting is also probably an order of magnitude less important than player development, IMO.

Interesting statement. Are you saying this from the point of view of the scouts/coaches involved in the process or the initial quality/improvement of the players themselves?

 

Given the context, I'm assuming you are saying that the coaches are an order of magnitude more important than the scouts. Which would seem to say one of two things: 1) coaches can turn water into wine (coaches are great and therefore 10x more valuable) or 2) with the occasional exception, it's so easy to tell a quality player from a bad one that scouts are pretty superfluous to the process (scouting is fairly irrelevant and therefore 10x less valuable).

 

Is that a fair read?

[CubinNY]

EDIT: Scouting is also probably an order of magnitude less important than player development, IMO.

Interesting statement. Are you saying this from the point of view of the scouts/coaches involved in the process or the initial quality/improvement of the players themselves?

 

Given the context, I'm assuming you are saying that the coaches are an order of magnitude more important than the scouts. Which would seem to say one of two things: 1) coaches can turn water into wine (coaches are great and therefore 10x more valuable) or 2) with the occasional exception, it's so easy to tell a quality player from a bad one that scouts are pretty superfluous to the process (scouting is fairly irrelevant and therefore 10x less valuable).

 

Is that a fair read?

 

Yes, it's 2.

 

I don't know if I would call them superfluous though. I think they serve an extremely important function. In a real sense, they are the initial "player developer". I think scounting is a real skill, but not necessarily a hard one to pick up.

 

However, I tend to agree with Meph, How hard is it to pick in the top half of the first round? I guess I don't want that answer since I'm a Cubs fan, but again I think that has a lot to do with development and the nature of drafingt pitchers early too.

[CuseCubFan69]

EDIT: Scouting is also probably an order of magnitude less important than player development, IMO.

Interesting statement. Are you saying this from the point of view of the scouts/coaches involved in the process or the initial quality/improvement of the players themselves?

 

Given the context, I'm assuming you are saying that the coaches are an order of magnitude more important than the scouts. Which would seem to say one of two things: 1) coaches can turn water into wine (coaches are great and therefore 10x more valuable) or 2) with the occasional exception, it's so easy to tell a quality player from a bad one that scouts are pretty superfluous to the process (scouting is fairly irrelevant and therefore 10x less valuable).

 

Is that a fair read?

 

Yes, it's 2.

 

I don't know if I would call them superfluous though. I think they serve an extremely important function. In a real sense, they are the initial "player developer". I think scounting is a real skill, but not necessarily a hard one to pick up.

 

However, I tend to agree with Meph, How hard is it to pick in the top half of the first round? I guess I don't want that answer since I'm a Cubs fan, but again I think that has a lot to do with development and the nature of drafingt pitchers early too.

 

I don't know CiNY. You give me dog crap to coach and I could maybe make it smell better or look prettier but it still would be dog crap.

[UK1679666180]

It's two fold... you're not drafting in the now as we seen with Harvey, he was raw even by HS standards, raw power, strong arm, unknown future speed after the knee injury (which is the easiest to project), somewhat long swing, and fairly agile. He was drafted with two definite pluses and 3 unknowns, although I consider approach for position players as a 6th tool which at the time was likely unknown/aggressive.

 

Scouting isn't just about driving around and looking at ballplayers, you have to get to know the kids, know their demands, know who'll sign at what slot and who would go to school. You have to know whether or not he's soft mentally, work ethic, etc. If you don't factor signability, you'll be fired quickly. You have to know what other scout think about kids and where they'll draft a kid. You have to fight for your guys the week before the draft, go back and forth with the scouting director and the area guys to determine how it'll likely go. It ain't easy to pick up, beyond what I mentioned, the mechanical side of the game in regards to progression is very difficult to pick up. It takes about 6 years of scouting before you actually have a complete grasp of you're doing. Scouting for the now is pretty easy, scouting for 5 years from now that is difficult.

 

Baseball is won by superstars, to be a superstar you have to have tools to do so. It's up to the scout to see those tools early on, make a correct OFP and draft accordingly and then turn him to the developers and have them progress his tools into future production.

 

It's not either or, the development and the scouting side of the game need each other to do well to be successful.

[CubinNY]

It's two fold... you're not drafting in the now as we seen with Harvey, he was raw even by HS standards, raw power, strong arm, unknown future speed after the knee injury (which is the easiest to project), somewhat long swing, and fairly agile. He was drafted with two definite pluses and 3 unknowns, although I consider approach for position players as a 6th tool which at the time was likely unknown/aggressive.

 

Scouting isn't just about driving around and looking at ballplayers, you have to get to know the kids, know their demands, know who'll sign at what slot and who would go to school. You have to know whether or not he's soft mentally, work ethic, etc. If you don't factor signability, you'll be fired quickly. You have to know what other scout think about kids and where they'll draft a kid. You have to fight for your guys the week before the draft, go back and forth with the scouting director and the area guys to determine how it'll likely go. It ain't easy to pick up, beyond what I mentioned, the mechanical side of the game in regards to progression is very difficult to pick up. It takes about 6 years of scouting before you actually have a complete grasp of you're doing. Scouting for the now is pretty easy, scouting for 5 years from now that is difficult.

 

Baseball is won by superstars, to be a superstar you have to have tools to do so. It's up to the scout to see those tools early on, make a correct OFP and draft accordingly and then turn him to the developers and have them progress his tools into future production.

 

It's not either or, the development and the scouting side of the game need each other to do well to be successful.

 

I definately agree with everything you've written.

[Outshined_One]

Let's see...we've covered Colvin, some of the 2007 draftees, a few under the radar candidates...Samardzija has been talked about to death...hmmm...

 

Ah!

 

Who do you think will be the #1 overall prospect in this organization come this time next year?

[Guest]

Who do you think will be the #1 overall prospect in this organization come this time next year?

 

Josh Vitters seems the obvious choice.

 

I think it could easily be Jeff Samardzija, Robert Hernandez or Chris Huseby.