Jim Callis

No special optimism. I think they're just throwing darts, which is a worthwhile gamble, but I don't see any of these guys stemming the tide of pitching talent approaching Wrigley Field. I can't see Dempster showing enough to justify picking up his option either.

Harvey, Harvey, Harvey. Nothing against Dopirak, and I know Harvey's stats weren't pretty in the Arizona League, but Harvey is a more advanced and more polished hitter. His edge in terms of bat speed and raw power isn't as pronounced, but he still rates ahead of Dopirak. When Dopirak was in high school, scouts thought he had the chance to be a 40-plus homer guy but also had the chance to maybe wash out in Double-A. That's still a fair assessment.

While Brownlie topped out at 97, he didn't throw that hard regularly and that was his four-seamer, which was pretty straight. If he can pitch in the low 90s with better movement, and he should be able to, that will be more than enough with his command and his curveball. He got worn out early last year because his season really started in January, when he showcased himself for the Cubs. I think he's going to be very good this year. Harvey should be fine. He should be able to get back in the 6.7-6.8 range in the 60, which will be very good for a 6-foot-5, 220-pounder. He's another guy who could really open some eyes this year.

I'm here now, sorry for the delay but father responsibilities beckoned. Six pages of questions is a little daunting, so let's get right to them.

That's all I have time for today. Thanks for all the great questions and the nice compliments. As Cubs fans, I think you'll be very happy with your club for quite a while.

I don't buy that, as he thrived in a high-pressure, high-intensity college environment at Miami. He does seem to be falling out of favor, and I wouldn't be surprised if he got traded at some point.

Cubs, easy.

It sounds like we'll eventually have one, though I believe it will cause more problems than it will solve. I have yet to talk to a scouting director who likes this idea. I don't have the time to expound on this now, but my views are on record in a Washington Post story that ran last week and should be available online, and also in some old Ask BA's (just google "Ask BA worldwide draft").

I think Cubs scouting director John Stockstill was telling it like it is, and most teams do it that way. Of course, with Chicago needing catchers, it's also likely that they rated catchers a little higher on their draft board than other teams might have.

Very tough, probably Cruz. To be honest, because of their contract status, I'd be more interested in Blalock or Teixeira unless the price was radically different.

Nice pick in the seventh round. Boyer broke out this year at Cal State Fullerton, and maybe his lack of a longer track record scared off some teams. He's a pretty toolsy center fielder with a good chance to hit, a very nice seventh-rounder.

Not really. Harvey is a much better athlete and his swing is better than Dopirak's.

Justin Verlander may have the strongest arm in the 2004 college crop, and it's possible that he may go before Chicago's first-round pick comes up. I've got to run shortly, so I'm going to cherry-pick a few more questions (out of order) that interest me.

No problem, Mark, and thanks for the invitation. I agree, I do think scouting is more sophisticated than it used to be. There's more statistical analysis where it once was nonexistent, and teams also study where they've made mistakes in the past. There also are tons of high school showcases, enabling scouts to see those players with wood bats against great competition. But I also wonder, if someone were to analyze how many picks make it now and how good they become, if the older drafts might look better, simply because with the huge increase in the foreign players in the majors now, there are fewer spots open for draftees to fill.

Two reasons: He wanted first-round money and didn't have a year that warranted it. He cut down his swing, which helped him tighten his strike zone, but he didn't hit for power. And he has a bad overweight body that scouts feel is going to keep getting worse, which only will hamper his performance in all aspects of the game.

I'm no scout, so I can't look at a guy's swing and tell you how it will translate. Scouts look at how long the swing is, how quick it is, and whether the player makes consistent contact where the sweet spot on a wood bat will be. A big factor is how he performs in summer wood bat leagues, of which the Cape Cod League is the best.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.