Jim Callis Chat, 06-11-03

[mlpeel]

Northside Baseball welcomes Jim Callis, who's taking time out of his busy schedule to answer your questions on this year's June draft. Jim is the executive editor of Baseball America and is one of the authors of BA's "Prospect Handbook". In between stints with BA, Jim worked for Stats, Inc., for some few years, most notably writing the prospect overviews in "The Scouting Notebook" (something he was still lending a hand with as recently as this year). Jim is one of the foremost authorities on baseball's amateur drafts, an expertise initially gained the hard way: when Baseball America produced "The Baseball Draft: The First 25 Years" back in the late '80s, Jim was the lucky soul who typed in the names, positions, and schools of all the draft picks -- something like 30,000 players up to that time. Take it away, Jim! Edited June 12, 2003 by mlpeel

[Jim Callis]

Northside Baseball welcomes Jim Callis, who's taking time out of his busy schedule to answer your questions on this year's June draft. Jim is the executive editor of Baseball America and is one of the authors of BA's "Prospect Handbook". In between stints with BA, Jim worked for Stats, Inc., for some few years, most notably writing the prospect overviews in "The Scouting Notebook" (something he was still lending a hand with as recently as this year). Jim is one of the foremost authorities on baseball's amateur drafts, an expertise initially gained the hard way: when Baseball America produced "The Baseball Draft: The First 25 Years" back in the late '80s, Jim was the lucky soul who typed in the names, positions, and schools of all the draft picks -- something like 30,000 players up to that time. Take it away, Jim!

 

I may be slightly delayed and arrive closer to 1:30 Central. Sorry for the delay, but I see lots of good questions await and I can't wait to dive into them. Be back shortly.

[Jim Callis]

Jim, based on Overall Future Potential can you do a compare and contrast of Ryan Harvey and Joe Borchard in 00'(even though he attended Stanford), I find them to be very similar as far as raw power and arm strength and a slight edge to Harvey in speed and fielding, who has the better hitting ability and are those fair assessments or is Harvey closer to an Austin Kearns?

 

I hadn't thought about this much but that's a great comparison. Harvey is even built along the lines of Borchard, too. I think they're pretty even for power, arm strength, speed and fielding. There are some scouts who have some issues with Harvey's immediately hittability, which has been an issue for Borchard as well. Until we see Harvey in pro ball, I wouldn't want to say he'd have Kearns' plate discipline.

[Jim Callis]

The Cubs have done well in recent drafts in rounds 3-10. Are there any potential Justin Jones', Rich Hill's, or Wellemeyer's (guys not highly recruited but with great arms?

 

Fifth-rounder Darin Downs doesn't really fit that profile, but he might be a steal. He doesn't have a great arm but he has great pitchability and could move pretty quick for a high schooler. Matt Brown (29th round) has had his moments in the Cape Cod League the last two years and is pretty good when he's at his best. He's probably a tough sign, though.

[Jim Callis]

The Cubs drafted catchers in both the third and fourth rounds. Do you see them both playing catcher in the majors, or do you think one of them is likely to switch positions?

 

Chicago obviously addressed its greatest weakness by going heavy after catchers. I really like Tony Richie (fourth round) out of Florida State. He's a great receiver with a good enough arm and a track record of performing at the plate (though the Seminoles play in a very benevolent park for hitters). Jake Fox (third round) out of Michigan is an offensive-minded catcher who's not as good as Richie behind the plate. He could move, though I'm sure the Cubs will keep both as catchers for a while.

[Jim Callis]

First off, thanks for comming to answer questions here. It's truly an honor to have you here.

 

I'm very happy with the way the first day of the draft went, obviously a few choices I didn't like or don't know alot about but overall I like what the Cubs did.

 

I Like the choices of Jacob Fox and Anthony Richie, but I'm really intrigued by the choice of Matthew LaPorta in the 14th round. I know HS catchers are risky and he has a signed comittment with U. Florida but here's my question, please forgive it being a two parter.

 

What is LaPorta's potential behind the plate defensively and on offense. with a secondary question of what's the over under of the Cubs signing him?

 

Thanks for all the kind words and I enjoy answering educated questions. LaPorta has some strength in his bat and in his arm, though he might be a little raw as a hitter. I'm not sure how much it will take to sign him. The Cubs drafted a lot of catchers, and I think some of the later picks may have been insurance in case they can't sign some of the earlier ones. I'm sure there will be a Landon Powell question upcoming, but I don't see the Cubs signing him if they land both Fox and Richie, which they're expected to do.

[Jim Callis]

Jim-

Thanks for taking time to answer a few questions. What's your overall impression of the Cubs' draft in terms of talent and club needs?

 

With the caveat that we don't know who will or won't sign or how these guys will look in their first summer of pro ball, I'll say I liked the draft. Ryan Harvey has exciting upside, and I think most scouts liked him a little more than Tulane first baseman Michael Aubrey, who was the alternative. Their catching will be much improved with Jake Fox, Tony Richie and whomever else they sign, and I love the Downs pick. I'm also intrigued by 46th-rounder Jefferies Tatford, though I'm not sure how signable he is.

[Jim Callis]

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for coming to NSB and answering our questions.

 

Much has been made in recent weeks in BA and in other sources (Moneyball) on organizational drafting philosophy. Organizations such as OAK, TOR, & BOS for example have utilized statistical analysis to evaluate players and have focused more on college level players with track records, whereas other organizations such as KC, NYM have leaned more towards the athletic toolsy type player with a high ceiling.

 

If you were to analyze the Cubs drafting philosophy, where do they fit into the mix? Do they as an organization stress statistical anaylsis (OBP) for instance, when considering talent, or do they view tools more importantly. Secondly, if you were a scouting director making the picks, which philosophy would you follow?

 

Thanks again Jim !!!

 

I think the Cubs blend it all, which is the approach I would take. I'm not sure how much statistical analysis they do, but their attitude seems to be to take the best available player, regardless of whether he's a high school or college product. You also don't see them overdrafting toolsy players whose production has fallen well short of their physical gifts.

 

It has to be a blend. You can't go all tools or all stats, or all college or all high school, because you're going to miss a lot of good players if you take a very narrow approach. If more teams go heavily after college players, then high school players may provided markedly better values in the second, third, fourth rounds, etc., in the future. I recently did a story on the high school/college debate (http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/draft/draft0311.html) and concluded that in the long run, there's little different between the two crops. College players are cheaper and develop quicker, but high school players are just as likely to become big league regulars and slightly more likely to become above-average big leaguers.

[Jim Callis]

Jim,

 

Thanks a bunch for stopping by,

 

Do you think the cubs will be able to sign any of Sam Fuld, Landon Powell and Matt Brown, they seen to be tough signs and what kind of money will the cubs have to shell out to get them.

 

Thanks.

 

As I mentioned with Powell before, I think he's more insurance if the Cubs don't sign Fox or Richie. Powell wants first-round money and he's not going to get it. The Cubs might be willing to give him third- or fourth-round money if they can't land Fox or Richie but I'd be shocked if they went higher. Fuld had a disappointing year and will be tough to sign away from his senior year at Stanford. Brown had a disappointing year also. Because the Cubs didn't have a second-round pick, it's possible they could chase Fuld or Brown with a pretty decent offer.

[Jim Callis]

Hello Jim,

 

First off I would like to thank you very much for stopping by here and answering some of our questions. I was very glad when the Cubs drafted Darin Downs because before the draft he really struck me as a really quality player. Do you think that as his frame fills out and he starts adding maybe a little more muscle that his fastball might start seeing the 90's more regularly or will he just stay pretty much where he is and be a soft thrower? How would you rate his pitches and command? Also, how does he project? Will he be a front-line starter or a 4-5 type pitcher?

 

I share your enthusiasm. I don't think Downs ever will have a plus fastball, but if he becomes a solid upper-80s guy that's pretty good for a lefty. His command is very, very good, and both his curveball and changeup have plus potential. He could become a No. 3 starter--though maybe not on the Cubs' deep staff.

[Jim Callis]

Hello Jim,

 

Who are the top Dunedin HS prospects we may look forward to drafting next year? Mr. Hendry seems to have quite a pipeline to his old high school. Has this school put out players in the upper rounds before?

 

I think RHP/OF Ryan Webb is Dunedin's top guy for next year, though I won't claim to tell you how high he might go. Dunedin product Scott Hemond became a first-rounder in the mid-80s after playing in college at South Florida. Brian Dopirak's teammate Steven Doetsch was an eighth-rounder last year and signed for $100,000 with the Braves as a 14th-rounder after a year of junior college. Ryan Harvey's teammate Scott Leffler was considered one of the best defensive catchers in the draft, but went in the 21st round to the Twins, apparently because of signability concerns.

[Jim Callis]

Jim,

 

I want to thank you for taking the time to do this chat. I know this is an enormously busy time for you guys at BA.

 

Are any of the shortstops the Cubs drafted a real prospect? With Montanez possibly moving to 2B, that looks like a weaker position right now in the system.

 

Thanks again,

 

Tim

 

No big-time standouts. Ninth-rounder Drew Larsen projects as more of a third baseman. Twelfth-rounder Chuck Hickman has a nice year at Louisiana Tech but is kind of undersized and might not hit nearly as well with wood. Thirteen-rounder Ryan Coultas has a nice glove and questionable bat.

[Jim Callis]

Jim,

 

There is a lot of talk about team's toeing the line on not signing late round picks (such as Powell) to large bonuses because they fear the wrath of the commissioner's office. What leverage does the commissioner really have? What would be likely repurcussions if the Cubs signed Powell to a $1M contract without permission?

 

The commissioner's office recommends bonus limits for each of the picks in the first 10 rounds, and has told teams to clear any six-figure offers beyond the fifth round with MLB. But in truth, there's no punishment that can be handed out if teams don't comply. If the Cubs signed Powell for $1 million, that would be a huge mistake because I don't think there's a team who thinks he's nearly that good. I doubt seriously that the Cubs, with Andy MacPhail as team president, would openly defy MLB.

[Jim Callis]

Mr. Callis, thanks for coming online. I read AskBA twice a week!

 

Is there any early buzz on the 2004 draft? Is Stephen Drew likely to be the #1 pick with a solid junior season? Who are some of the other top candidates?

 

Thanks again!

 

There's no clear frontrunner. Drew is in the mix, along with UCLA first baseman Wes Whisler, Rice RHPs Wade Townsend and Jeff Niemann, Vandy LHP Jeremy Sowers and Long Beach State RHP Jered Weaver. I'm not up as much on the HS guys right now.

[Jim Callis]

First off, thank you Jim for doing this and taking time to answer our questions (seeing as you know a heck of a lot more than me)...

 

Okay, for my first question, the Cubs drafted 4 catchers that I like (10 total). Of those four--Fox, Richie, LaPorta, Powell--which ones will sign with the club? LaPorta seems like a tough sign, as does Powell. Richie sounds like he'll sign, and I haven't heard either way on Fox.

 

So my question is which of the top four catchers drafted by the cubs are likely to sign with the Cubs?

 

I've dealt with this in some earlier questions, so I'll move on for the sake of time.

[Jim Callis]

Thanks very much for stoping by, Jim.

 

FSU's two Tony's impressed me the other night against Texas -- despite the loss. I'm pretty familiar with Richie's skills, but what can you tell me about McQuade?

 

I thought McQuade would go a little higher than the 15th round. He doesn't have a standout tool but he does a lot of things well. He can hit, has gap power and runs pretty well. He may throw well enough to play right field as a pro.

[Jim Callis]

Jim, the Cubs love to take risky project-type players with their 2nd round picks (Sisco, Carter, Mallory, etc.). This year with no 2nd rounder would they have popped Miller if Tampa had let him continue to slide or were they dead set on drafting the best available catcher?

 

I'm not sure they would have, because it's going to take more than $2 million to sign him. I don't see how the Devil Rays are going to find the cash, so I suspect you'll see Miller pitching for North Carolina next spring.

[Jim Callis]

Jim,

 

Thanks for taking the time to do this chat.

 

Could you compare the top few picks for the Cubs to current major league players to give us an idea of how they profile?

 

Thanks.

 

These are very quick, off the top of my head. Harvey, as mentioned, compares well to Joe Borchard, maybe an Adam Dunn or Austin Kearns without knowing about his ability to draw walks. Fox is an offensive-minded catcher, kind of like a Paul LoDuca maybe. Richie is a fine receiver, along the lines of a Mike Matheny, but his arm isn't as strong and his bat is much more potent. Downs is a crafty lefty, so I suppose I'm compelled to compare him to Tom Glavine. If even two of these guys turn out this good, the Cubs will be delighted. I'm more saying this is their style of play, not that they'll become as good.

[Jim Callis]

Jim,

 

I have a few questions on the later round selections. Coming into the college season, how was Adam Tidball of Richmond viewed? He had a disappointing year for the Spiders, but looked pretty good his freshman and sophomore years. Did something go wrong for him, or did he was he just unlucky? It looks like his strikeout and power rates were pretty consistent, he just came up a few hits short of where he was.

 

He wasn't considered a super-high pick or anything before his slump. He's a good defensive catcher whose swing got inconsistent this year, and he didn't make adjustments well. Not a bad 28th-round pick though. If he signs and can get back to where he was a year ago, he'll help bolster the system's catching depth.

[Jim Callis]

Jim,

Realistically... how many catchers will the Cubs be able to include from this draft with their minor league organizations and do you have any predictions as to who the lucky keeper catchers will be?

 

Lots of catcher questions and I've touched on this. I think they'll sign Fox and Richie and maybe one or two other catchers.

[Jim Callis]

I wondered what your take on "Moneyball" is. In particular, how many clubs are adopting a sabermetric approach to the draft? Do you feel that college numbers can project well to the professional game?

 

Short answer, because I could spend a long time on this. Interesting book, but it's also misleading and exaggerated in many parts. It gives absolutely no credit to former scouting director Grady Fuson, who was more responsible for acquiring a lot of the keys to Oakland's success than Billy Beane was. The A's, Blue Jays and Red Sox are the most statistically-oriented teams in terms of the draft, but a lot of other organizations look at the numbers as well. I think they're worth looking at, but having covered college baseball for many years, I can't see how they're perfectly translatable. Bill James decided years ago that it was impossible to translate any pitching stats at all or any hitting stats below Double-A. And minor league ball has a much more consistent quality of play within each level, wood bats, much better competition, more consistent ballparks, etc., than college baseball. Oakland assistant GM Paul DePodesta told me, "The further away you get from the major leagues, the less weight stats can carry," DePodesta said. "If a guy plays in the big leagues for six years, I feel pretty good about analyzing his statistics. Triple-A, a little less, because there's always guys who succeed there but don't make it. And so on down the line. College is better than high school, sure. But even among the college ranks, the conditions are incredibly different. Schedule strength, ballparks-all those statistics have to be taken with a grain of salt. You have to take A ball with a grain of salt, let alone college." And that's the guy "Moneyball" would have you believe does nothing but sit a computer 24/7 and determine whom the A's should pick.

 

The A's are an innovative organization, and "Moneyball" is a fascinating (if in my opinion, also distorted) look at what goes on behind the scenes. And while I believe there's nothing wrong with looking for new ways to analyze talent, I'm not overly impressed by Oakland's 2002 draft, even with its seven first-round picks. Mark Teahen the next Jason Giambi? I think not.

[Jim Callis]

Jim,

 

First of all, thank you for taking some time to let us Cubs fans bend your ear for a while.

 

Recently there has been a great deal of debate among Cubs fans about the need for Mike Lowell, and just what prospects it would be worth giving up to get him. Given the depth of pitching currently in our system, what kind of impact would it have on the long-term health of the organization if the Cubs gave up a couple of very promising young arms in return for a new third baseman?

 

Again, thanks for stopping by.

 

BK

 

Even though the scouting adage that you need 10 pitching prospects to find two good pitchers hold true, the Cubs have so many arms that they could afford to give some up. I suspect they don't want to part with Angel Guzman, but I could see them--and this is just a guess--trading a package of Bobby Hill, Todd Wellemeyer and a third prospect for Lowell.

[Jim Callis]

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions.

 

What do you make of Frank Beltran being moved into the Iowa rotation?

 

I wouldn't make too much of it. It's probably just an effort to get him more innings and on a consistent basis. He projects as a big league reliever, and with all the candidates for the Chicago rotation, I can't see him breaking into it.

[Jim Callis]

Does Dontrelle Willis have a higher ceiling than Carlos Zambrano?

 

Probably depends on who you talk to. I'd lean slightly to Willis because he's lefthanded and has a deeper repertoire, but I don't think it's a huge edge.

[Jim Callis]

First, off thanks for stopping by. I have followed you on baseballamerica for quite sometime and have a great deal of respect for your knowledge of the game. My question is this if you were running the cubs how much would you give up in order to get a young stud third basemen the quality of one of Texas' boys?

 

Well, I happen to like Brendan Harris a lot, so I might not make third base a top priority. Then again, Harris has been merely OK and not dominant in Double-A, and we're talking about Mark Teixeira and Hank Blalock. So I'll bite, especially because neither is as close to free agency as Mike Lowell. I'd try to hold onto Guzman and give up some of my pitching depth (maybe Wellemeyer and Felix Sanchez) and a lower-tier center-field propsect like Ray Sadler.