craig

I think you're probably right, that he's bad across the board, his throwing is bad, his footwork is bad, and his hands are bad too. Other than that, he's probably fine. :) 13 errors in 42 games, that's pretty bad. project to a big-league 162 and we're talking 50 errors at 3B? Most big-league 3B's don't make more than 10-15, and the good ones don't reach double figures in a good season. Ramirez is not a good defensive 3B, but he was 24 when he last started a season in which he reached 20 errors. Aram is not a high-efficiency 3B, but his career fielding percentage is .949, and the league average over his career has been .955. Vitters is at .855 this season (at 3B)! That's incredible. Although his career fielding percentage is a lusty .901 at 3B. His range factor is 1.88. Over Aram's career the NL league average range factor has been 2.65. Look at the Cubs system (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2011-organization-batting.shtml?redir), then go to the section with infielders and sort by positions. There Vitters sits with 15 errors, while the next highest is Scott Moore with 8, and guys like Marques smith, DJ Lemahieu, Aram are sitting with 3, 4, and 5. (I realize that Aram is the only one who's played only 3B.) But the point, I think, is pretty obvious. Vitters is a couple of echelons in a different world than the other full-season 3B, and grossly for the worse. He's got horrible range; he's got a terrible fielding percentage; he doesn't make plays on balls that don't score as errors because his range stinks, and even what he can reach he's still incredibly errorific. This probably sounds really negative, and in terms of his 3B defense I guess it is. But it's just reality, the facts, I think. He's horrible at 3B. I think he's got a chance to be a very meaningful and useful hitter. And I know we hoped he'd do it at 3B. But I just don't think that's at all realistic, and he'll be turning 22 this season. It's probably time to get him ready to play some position where hopefully he'll be merely bad but not awful. Like I say, I think he's got a chance to be a big-league hitter. Maybe as a utility player, but perhaps as a starter at some corner spot or someday as an AL DH. But I think we're just kind of wasting time dreaming that at age 22 or 23 he'll suddenly turn into a big-league defensive 3B. I think being a decent (but not perfect) hitter is undervalued on this board. It seems we sometimes act like anybody who isn't an .850 or .900-OPS is useless at 1B or LF or RF. But if you look at the league positional stats, how many of the 1B's, LF's, and RF's really are above .840 OPS? I wouldn't dismiss the possibilities of Vitters ending up somewhere as a .780-.850 type hitter in due time. If he hits .290 and in time blossoms into a 15-25 HR type guy, with an .800-.820 type OPS, I think there's a pretty good chance that we won't always have three better 1B/LF/RF bats on the team. I hope we do, but I think there may well be value for an .800-OPS guy at one of those corners. But if he spends all his time making errors at 3B, he'll never get adequate to play any of the other spots as well as he might be able to (probably little chance to be average at any of them, but his chance of being almost average is better if he gets some experience than if he just keeps embarrassing himself at 3B. I guess I think Vitters to 3B was like Fox at catcher or Kelton at 3B.

Nice presentation. When he's not been in his rushed slump sessions, he's been able to fairly consistently walk up somewhere near or above the .800-OPS level: Boise: .863 Peoria: .886 Daytona: .795 Tennessee: .780 Like you say, hardly get-excited numbers, but not write-him-off-as-bust numbers either. I think Jersey's point is very well taken, though, as questionable as is his offense, his defense is as much so. As a future DH, those numbers aren't too hot. His 3B defense is reputed to he horrific. Poster on my other board is very positive type fan, not a cynic at all, he goes to tons of Tennessee games, and he likes Vitters. I was pleasantly surprised when he said recently says that Vitters has looked pretty good at 1B. But he says that Vitters is really bad at 3B, ant that you're putting your life somewhat at risk to sit on the 1B side when Vitters is at 3rd. The reports are pretty similar only worse to the kind of feedback we got when Kelton was at AA. But it's interesting to envision Vitters perhaps blossoming into a capable defender at 1B. I'd like to see him get some outfield action pretty soon. If big-league managers are never going to use him at 3B, his chances are a lot better as a 1B/LF/RF than as a 1B/DH only. Both as a utility player (not a lot of bench guys get carried who can only play 1B). And as a starter. If he's a .780-.840 OPS guy, some teams that would get regular playing time for a solid-fielding 1B. But quite a few teams will have somebody better than that at 1B. Ideally you'd have all three of 1B, LF, and RF occupied by somebody who hits better than that and will field better than Vitters too. But at least currently, I don't think there are very many teams who actually do have .800+ guys at all three of 1B/LF/RF. May be a reach to envision Vitters blossoming into an adequate LFer, though. We know he's not fast, and his infield throwing is really wild. Although sometimes outfielders set up and throw differently and a wild infielder ends up being not that bad an outfield thrower. But who knows if he can catch a fly ball, or track a fly ball, or get any kind of a jump on a fly ball. It may be that they haven't even tried him out there in games because they have looked at him and he has no aptitude. But I'd sure like to see him get that chance. One other Vitters comment. The rushed-struggled-adjusts paradigm seems to work. But I wonder is some of that isn't as much just coincidence. Guys get hot and then they get cold, everybody has his ups and downs. But since Fleita has promoted him anytime he got hot in the past, the perception is that he's mastered, and that at each level he's progressing through adjustment to mastery. But maybe not. Case 1: Peoria. The season he started at Peoria, he was pretty poor for a while, then he caught fire and went crazy. But he had actually relapsed back to his slump mode even before the promotion to Daytona. Not sure Daytona caused the trough, he'd already fallen off the peak and was in or heading to the trough before he hit Daytona. Where he snugly stayed in that trough for the rest of the season. Cast 2: Tennessee. IIRC, he started out quite hot at Tennessee. He was on the crest when he got promoted and he stayed there for a week or so, then he fell off and went into trough. Scotti has repeatedly noted that he was back up towards a crest when he got injured and his season ended. This year he started off on a crest, he was hitting up towards .400 with a .900-OPS n April, then he fell into a trough and dropped down to .240 BA and the .700 OPS bubble, now he's found a crest again and has gotten up to .280's and .780 OPS. My expectation is that he's a wavy hitter, he'll have his peaks and he'll have his troughs, somewhat regardless of league level. Of course that applies for every hitter, we all know that. But Vitters has seemed a bit more wavy than some. I'd like to leave him be, and see how well he can ride the wave at it's crest. All hitters have their ups and downs, but the better ones are better able to extend their times on the crest and both shorten their times in the troughs and make the troughs less low. Let's let him be for a while. Hopefully he'll stay hot and burn his average up over .300 and his OPS over .800, and keep them there. But it may also be that he's due for another drop and two weeks from now he'll be back at .260 with a .740 OPS. Just let him ride things and learn what he can. I don't think he's anywhere close to being big-league ready, at any position defensively, or as a hitter. Just let him work things through at Tenn for a while.

Good question. I think it depends on what Maples will settle for. One of the early posts said he ws demanding $3M. We've seen the kind of talent you can get for $0.15-.20 on guys like Struck, Beeler, McNutt, Kurcz, and Reed in recent drafts. If it's 15 overslot guys in that price range versus one Maples, I'm going for the fifteen projectable overslots. One of the concerns with Maples was that he has a worrisome delivery. So the odds are pretty strong that even if you sign him, he'll go the same way as Rhee, Brownlie, Blasko, Hagerty, and Christensen. So I'd lean towards the volume of good prospects over Maples, if he's really going $3. At $1.5, different story.

Thanks, cal. Sounds like both sides have some interest. I suspect most superslot prospects in the draft can say they'll likely sign if they get their money. But when "their money" is set so high that nobody drafts you until the 39th round, it may be that there isn't much belief that you're actual potential justifies your money. The curious thing here was the bit about how the Cubs want him to increase his velocity. Even though reports keep talking about 94 and 96 and velocities like that. Are the Cubs expecting him to throw 99-101? I suspect this suggests that he doesn't really often throw these Wow velocities, and the 94's and 96's aren't really any more valuable than Kirk's 95's and 96's from HS. But we'll see as always. Encouraging read for sure, though. If he really looks as good this summer as some of these gaga scouting reports, and as fast, maybe the Cubs will pay and be glad they did.

I hope so too. But I've always considered Arizona to be a pretty good place to hit, too, and every spring we hear reports about how breaking balls can't break in Arizona Cactus League, etc.. But from Az Phil's box scores, which I did not read faithfully so I may have a very coincidentally and selectively unfavorable batch, but I got the impression that Golden was kind of the Soriano/Ryan Harvey of XST, K-K-K-K-K. Maybe I just saw some box scores from a couple of his worst games, and he's ready to roll now.

I was told that the Cubs brought in about a dozen international kids to Arizona when they were scouting for the draft. (The same viewing where Springer, Vogelbach, Tayler Scott, and Gretzky all participated.) They had about 40 kids in, but about a dozen were internationals, mostly DR but some from Korea. A whole army of scouts to watch and make recommendations. I thought that was interesting, because I usually assume DR guys are scouted in DR and Koreans in Korea, and I usually assume these pre-draft things at Mesa are all draft prospects only. I'd imagine you could assemble a pretty good crowd of talent, kind of like one of these HS showcase events I suppose.

1. I assume you're speculating as to who will start? I'd guess the same names, I think. 2. I think the OF could be pretty productive for the league, regardless of how they project as major leaguer. I think that Ping-Chieh Chen could be a pretty high-average hitter, and I assume that Klafczynski should be quite productive relative to that league. I wouldn't be surprised if Golden was a .230 hitter, but if he hits too, the OF could be effective. Will be fun to see how they actually produce in box-score games.

Thanks, Claw. I think you make a good point that "filler" is a vague and general term, and may not apply. "Filler" is probably more appropriate for a 42nd rounder like Zapenas than for a 20th rounder like Klafczynski. Given how many real and meaningful prospects they drafted later than round 20, it stands to reason that if he doesn't have some big-league potential, they'd not have spent a pick on him that high. Likewise I think that Hoilman, 19th round, is more than just filler. When a guy is that big and has that kind of power and has put up the kinds of numbers he did in college, there's at least a chance that he'll make it work in the pros, too. Cal, the fact that Maxwell is a 5th year senior, and will turn 24 before the summer is done, is why I'm puzzled that he hasn't signed yet and makes me curious to see what his story is. Is he injured? Is he going to seminary or medical school instead of pro baseball? Is he in some kind of rehab? It seems odd that a guy who was a weekend starter for quite some time at a power like TCU, and was pitcher of the year in his non-trivial conference, is sitting around in the 37th round and not signing right away at his age. There's got to be some story involved with him. I'll be interested to hear what it is once somebody digs it up.

Those are basically the 22-year-olds, mosty roster fillers. Only three 22-year-olds remain unsigned, the two Florida State guys who can't and Steven Maxwell of TCU. I wonder what his situation is.

18.Pugliese, James Mercer County CC RHP R/R 6'03" 195 1992-08-12 18 J1 Pugleise is 18, so who knows what projection remains for him in terms of adding strength and velocity. http://www.nj.com/times-sports/index.ssf/2011/06/mercers_james_pugliese_leads_t.html

That said, not that many NFL prospects run at less than 4.5. Guys under 4.4 are immediately viewed as having elite straight-line speed. Second, NFL wide receivers are a rather extraordinary frame of reference compared to baseball players, aren't they? To have "average" NFL-WR speed I would think would immediately make you "elite" relative to major leaguers. I'd think that if you can keep up with an average NFL WR or CB, that there won't be more than a handful or two of major league guys who can run with you, much less faster? Or maybe I'm way off.

That's interesting, if true. Although I'm not sure it's true if/when Szczur is at full health. Since speed has been the one top tool that every scouting report I've ever read on Szczur has mentioned. I think speed has been the first virtue in 100% of the reports. I wonder where info like this comes from. When he started out 12-0 in SB, and stole half of those in a week, I was starting to hope that he had both the speed and instincts to be a premium base stealer, with the thinking that he didn't steal much at first because of injuries. But now that he's gotten thrown out on 4 of his last 5 or 6 tries, my enthusiasm in his base-stealing future has dimmed a bit.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&content_id=20203006&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc ... A bleacher bums poster posted the following, based on comments by randy bush in a pregame radio interview: http://bbf.createaforum.com/general-discussion/2011-draft-52/525/ Seems to confirm/reinforce what Wilken said. Pretty exciting and encouraging. I also think that Ricketts having enough interest to sit in for all three days is encouraging. I imagine that as a fan it would be fun, and as a boss trying to get to understand the process and to get to see a bunch of his important employees in action also smart. The three days of draft and the half-week of organizational meetings in October are perhaps the best opportunities to see a lot of the personnel in action. We'll see how that encouragement plays out in terms of actual signings. But I'm pretty encouraged. Really encouraged.

How fast is his fastball, what movement does it have, and what is he throwing breaking-ball-wise, and how good is it? Has his mix changed this year? You deserve credit for leading his bandwagon, toonster. I had my doubts about promoting him so soon, and was uncertain that he'd done enough at A+ to deserve any such promotion already. But he's certainly handled the transition smoothly, and has actually been better since the move up. I just don't have a good feel for what he throws and how it projects. Last year a friend saw him and reported on him twice, and pretty much said he was totally fastball-fastball-fastball, that he didn't mix in much offspeed stuff at all. I take it you think that's not a good picture, and that his breaking stuff is coming along favorably?

If Crawford can sustain the .442 BABIP he's flashed this year, he's got a chance. Not real common for guys with >25% K-rates and 50K/0HR ratios to end up successful. He'd not be close to my top 30.

The "great defense" stuff is encouraging. Sickels had some favorable comment about his defense too, but I'd wondered if he actually had heard anything favorable. Last year, the word was great athlete and fast, so it was assumed he might play well defensively. But good speed does not make a great center fielder, and I admit when they left Na in center and put Szczur in left I wondered. I hope the favorable talk about his defense is real and is justified.

Nice to see him hit a hot streak, he'd seemed to be non-hot for a relatively long time. While the hot --> injury or promotion is funny joke, he was hot in April, and was up in the high .300's and the .900's OPS for a while, then obviously he chilled out. I was surprised he stayed so mediocre for such a long time. Usually guys have their highs and lows, and he seemed to be plugging along as a .700-OPS type for a longer than usual time, I'd expect more variation. Final composite includes both the highs and the lows, so will be interesting if he can extend his current high a little bit longer than he's been able to do before. As hitters mature, I think sometimes they get better at shortening and shallowing the lows, and extending the highs.

Yes. The Cubs paid him a lot, $750 K, like a high 2nd rounder. He was drafted as a projection pick, happens all the time, except he hasn't grown into any of his projection. He was young and skinny, and was starting with supposedly good control, high 80's velocity that sometimes got into low 90's, and OK breaking stuff. The projection was that he'd fill out, get faster, and sharpen his breaking stuff. That projection was some focusing from 2-way to pitcher only, but even more so based on normal physical projection/maturation. Unfortunately none of those projected things has happened. His fastball has not gotten any faster (and may be a little slower), and his breaking stuff hasn't gotten any sharper. He's basically the same stuff that he had as a college fresh/soph. Cubs drafted a bunch of projection guys this week. Gretzky is supposed to add thirty pounds and grow a bunch of power. Scott Taylor is projected. Schlect is projection. Dunston is projection. Brad Zimmer. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

Some notes from Wilken on Gretzky and brief notes on the Canadien catcher and LHP. Wilken clearly sees Gretzky as a talented and significant prospect, with 3B/corner-OF possibilities and with the potential to be a good power hitter. I've wanted some guys with the potential to become middle-of-the-order hitters. Obviously it's never likely with a 7th rounder. But while there has been some criticism in past that Wilken goes too much for up-the-middle athletes who lack power or middle-of-the-order potential, it seems that four of the first nine picks were guys who were drafted because they might possibly end up being middle-of-the-order type power hitters. Baez might perhaps stay at SS, although a lot of people don't seem to think so, but he's got the middle-of-the-order bat potential. Obviously Vogelbach is a corner guy picked for his power bat. Gretzky is obviously a corner and obviously picked for his bat/power potential; and of course the same applies for Schlecht at #9 Dunston (11) may be a true CF but might also be envisioned as a power-hitting guy eventually; Trey Martin (13) Brad Zimmer (23) and Weeks (29) are power corner prospects; and obviously Hoilman(19) and Shoulders (25) were picked purely for their power and are totally 1B only guys. So that's a lot of the 2nd-day guys who are picked with power in mind and are likely corner prospects. Including Dunston and Baez, that's 9 teenage power-potential corner prospects taken in the first two days. Quote: http://bbf.createaforum.com/general-discussion/2011-draft-52/475/ Reply #497

Kevin Levine-Flandrup: How much have you thought of the draft? Speaking with guys some say that they think about it all the time, others say that they are not thinking about it at all. Where do you stand in that spectrum? Shawon Dunston, Jr: I’m not going to lie – I think about it just about every day. It’s a hard process. Right now I’m excited about being committed to Vanderbilt, but if the situation is right for my family and me, and everything goes right and I feel comfortable signing, then I’ll sign. However, if it’s not I'm not going to be mad or upset because I’m going to be attending a great university and playing in one of the best conferences in college baseball, for one of the best teams in the country. So when I think about it now I view it as a win-win situation. If I get drafted and sign I get my career started early – that’s fine. If not, I get to go to school for three years, develop, mature, get bigger and stronger, and live the college life experience which is something I want to do. So I think about the draft, but I also think about going to school, and I’m ready for either one. -------- Doesn't sound ridiculously unsignable to me.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&content_id=20203006&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc I find it curious because it seems to loosely confirm what many have suspected for awhile, which was that Wilken and Co. had more restrictions on money, particularly with over-slots, than was publicly acknowledged. I don't recall any statement prior to this year that seemed to suggest things in as strong a term, although maybe I missed something. Anyhow, seems to bode well for our chances to land some of these kids. Thanks for catching and sharing that. Yes, that's pretty significant. I wonder how exactly that all played out. I know at convention, Wilken talked similarly, that Ricketts was very committed to spending more on draft and international. I recall discussing that with dave. But I wonder if there was further reinforcement even on the fly, as he mentioned with somebody like Dunston. We know that almost all of these teenage picks will require some overslot. But this is encouraging to hear that he's got some ability to pursue a fair number of them.

Really? If that was true, that would totally change the draft, and shift the population of minorleague baseball towards college and Latin players. (Depending on details, of course.) But most teenagers who sign do so via overslot. If the minors was limited to guys who would sign for slot, there would be hardly any teenagers who would sign after the 5th round. If you're limited to slot in rounds 6-50, the value isn't often large enough to offset the potential payoff of getting drafted in the high rounds. I'm looking at last year's Cub drafts, and despite dave's concerns about spending, most of the guys they signed were overslots. From spot 12 on, Reed Richardson Fitzgerald Geiger Harmon Beeler were all overslots. And of course so too were Golden, Szczur, and Wells that we know of. Looking at this draft, I assume that none of the teenagers after Lockhart in round 10 will sign for slot, nor of course vogelbach. I expect they'll sign at least fifteen of the teenagers drafted this week, but not more than six if that would sign if limited to slot. The whole texture and demographics of minor-league baseball would be a lot different if you don't have overslots populating short-season and ready to feed into A-ball. If the only draftable guys are college kids or high-round high-dollar teenagers, it will become a very different game.

Oh, it's on. I never saw Ernst pitch, but I did see that Cole Frenzel kid who went in the 7th round from Dickinson, N.D. Kyle, are you a Dakota guy?

47th round pick Ernst from Fargo ND had at least a couple of no-hitters this year, including in the state championship game on Saturday, after pitching two innings of relief to save the Friday night win. Maxed at 89 at perfect game showcase last summer, but mlb scouts reportedly have had him at 92-93 this spring, at least on occasion. North Dakota baseball isn't very good, he was 6-0 with a 0.6 ERA or something like that entering the state tournament. That's probably 3 earned runs allowed on the season.

I agree, Kirk with a fastball that's viewed as 85-88 looks like one kind of prospect, if we're told that he works at 90-92 and touches 95, he's on all of our top-10 lists. My guess is that he probably is at least in the 88-92 range, otherwise he probably wouldn't be doing so well. Hard to be as consistently effective as he's been if he's living on a curveball. With Whitenack, there were doubts, then suddenly we were told 91-94 and everybody jumped on. My guess is that if Bruce asks Fleita, and reports that Kirk is now consistently in the 90-93 range, that he'll be easily a consensus top-10 guy.