craig

Including AFL with his regular summer stats, his 2010 K-rate was still 26%. Not sure I'm that buzzed about progress like that.

By BA's accounting, $6.5 would be our highest draft spending probably since Brownlie. They have the last five years (from most recent backwards) as: 4.0, 5.5, 6.1, 5.0, 2.8. (Obviously they have some formula for counting that did not include all of Samardz's cash.) I just browsed through some of the other teams, as listed by BA, from 2009 back to 2005: Cardinals: all around 5.0, max of 5.6. Atlanta: 8.1 in 2006 when they had 4 extra bonus picks, but otherwise max of 5.1 Boston: They are clearly signature spenders, and have really taken that direction over the last three seasons. $10.5 in 08, with Kelley and Westmoreland, and they dished out $7.1 in 09. Prior to 08, they weren't big spenders unless they happened to have extra comp picks. New York: Neither the Yankees nor the Mets have been regular big spenders, although the Yankees did pay a lot to Brackman that one year. Los Angeles: Dodgers have never spent more than $5, Angles only when they had extra picks, same with Giants. Anyway, in looking at various teams, it seems that the only notable super-spender over the last three years has been: Boston. And that just for the recent several years, it's not a long-standing habit. Otherwise, teams are pretty consistently under $6 unless one of the following applies: 1. They have extra comp picks. 2. They have a real high pick that costs more. (When you're drafting Strassburg or Upton or top picks, then of course you spend more.) An interesting observation, in browsing: often some of the biggest markets and best teams have had the most compensation picks. I suppose to get comp picks, you need to have players who are good enough that other teams want them. And you need to be willing to offer arb, which is more difficult when you're on a tighter budget. Hendry has been very avoidant of offering arb. Anyway, if the Cubs are up to a $6.5 kind of spending budget even without having had a pricey 1st rounder or any comp picks, that's pretty high. If Ricketts is telling Wilken he'll get more, that could potentially put the Cubs perhaps in the upper five in terms of aggressiveness. (To spend more to sign extra comp picks, or to spend more to sign a top-five pick isn't really being aggressive.) Of course, the flip might be that Wilken isn't really getting more to be more aggressive. It could simply be that the budget will go higher because we're picking higher. If we pay slot in the first round, that will add more than a million relative to what we've paid in either for the last two first rounds.

No. But money is part of the scout's job. Whatever faults the Cub scouting staff may have, they are not idiots. Everybody knows that after the first couple of rounds, the normal "slot" for college picks is significantly lower than for most HS picks. At least for HS picks who are college material and who have any sincere interest in college. Yes, some limited guy like Blair Springfield are the exception,but that is indeed the exception. So basically any time you draft a HS kid after the 3rd round, no scout boss will do that unless one of the following is true: 1. You know the guy really wants to go pro, and thus might sign around slot. 2. You know the guy doesn't really like school at all and really doesn't want to go to college, and thus might sign around slot. 3. The player has already indicated, for whatever reason, that he'll sign for slot. 4. If none of the above are true, and usually none are, then you draft the player only if you like him enough to pay overslot. That is the majority situation for HS prospects who might otherwise go in rounds 5-10. It's why not many HS guys are drafted in that area, and it's one of the reasons why rounds 5-10 are dominated by college picks and superslots. Over the last 8 Cub drafts, how many American HS guys have they both drafted and signed between rounds 5-10? 2010: Wells, major superslot. Missed on DeJesus 2009: Springfield, willing to sign for slot, had academic problems. 2008: None 2007: None 2006: Cliff Anderson (overslot); 11th round Huseby super-duper slot 2005: Scott Taylor, overslot and not that smart and schooly 2004: Adrian Ortiz (didn't sign), and Mitch Atkins (mild overslot, not that schooly) That's 7 HS guys in 7 years, of which two didn't sign; only one (Springfield) signed for true slot; only three others (Atkins, Taylor, and Anderson) required only modest overslots to sign. There just aren't that many guys in that area who are drafted and sign for no more than a modest overslot. My point is, there just aren't that many HS guys taken in that part of the draft. If you're good and promising enough as a HS kid to get picked in the 6th round, then you must be good enough to move up into the high-round high-dollars later on, if you develop. It's not really a great business decision to sign for slot. So unless you just love baseball and want to be going pro ASAP; or have family needs; or just aren't really academically oriented and don't want to be in college; it just doesn't really make great business sense to sign for slot. Of course there are HS players who are academically oriented who still do get drafted in rounds 5-10; but it's my assumption that in those cases the team understands it will need to pay what college-capable 5-10th round type guys get paid, which is well over the slot for equal-round college picks. The college-oriented prospect is a class of it's own, and gets paid at it's own rate. Slot isn't it. Therefore I suspect that the Cubs knew in advance that deJesus was college committed and wouldn't sign for slot. But they took him anyway knowing they'd be willing to superslot. Slot is $180K, guy says he wants $600K, you figure that guys often come down once actually drafted so that you've got a good shot at him for $350K. How high of an overslot they offered I have no idea. But I think it's almost inconceivable that they didn't offer overslot. It just wasn't superslot enough for him to bite.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2011/01/2011cubscon3.php Another account of the convention, with the most detailed account of the Down on the Farm Segment. DaveII, you will particular appreciate the following note: "Tom Ricketts told Tim Wilken he will be given a significant increase of funds to spend on the 2011 draft." I also found the following interesting, and toonster will too: 'Tim Wilken pointed out that is the reason he stresses athleticism in the draft and amateur signings. It is called "Projection Scouting." When LeMahieu was drafted he checked in at 6'4" and 195 pounds. D.J. is up to 220. Wilken pointed out guys are going to get bigger and stronger. "Projection will come to fruition," according to Wilken.'

I would think the Cubs draft spending from last year is now certainly in the top half, maybe the top dozen. And I totally believe Wilken when he says Simpson was a BPA pick. The fact that he signed cheap doesn't reflect a lack of willingness to spend or a lack of aggression by the Cubs. If DeJesus had been willing to accept their substantial overslot offer, their spending would have been even higher. Golden was overslot, Szczur and Wells both large super slots. Kurcz, Reed, Richardson, hartman, Fitzgeral, Geiger, Harman, and Beeler were also all overslots. Great news that Caesar signed, and I hope he works out well. It could end up being a terrific draft.

Yes, I agree with that. I like both pitchers, and I think to get three guys who were on Washington's top-20 list last year isn't bad. I don't like Burgess much; when a guy can't compute breaking pitches in low-minors and whiffs 29% of the time there, it's almost certain that he's just missing something in the mind/eye that good hitters have, and that he'll never hit big-league breaking balls well enough to be useful. But you never know, maybe he'll surprise me and as a 3rd piece that's a shot worth taking. And with HR's and walks, he can afford some K's.

I agree that Gonzalez has a chance to be a major leaguer. If you can catcher ball, as he apparently can, and you can hit the ball (he has very low K-rate), who knows. He's young enough that perhaps he'll still grow into some more punch, ala Chirinos. To be a useful utility type player doesn't require that much slugging. I also think that when eventually some of these very young guys repeat a level, you sometimes see some jump. And his winter league showed some progress. If he repeats at AA, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see him hit .280 with 8-10 HR's, which wouldn't be bad for a 22-year-old low-K infielder.

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5080#comment-101787 Those comments I think were taken from a lengthy post in miles's blog. http://www.wgnradio.com/sports/baseball/cubs/convention2011/ WGN radio has many of the convention sessions recorded. I have listened to some of them, and they are pretty interesting. One of the sessions ws with Fleita and Wilken. Wilken is really not at all a smooth talker, and the impression is really negative at first. But I think when he starts talking more specifically, and about baseball and baseball players, then he doesn't sound as bad. A question as asked about some guys to watch for who aren't close, and Fleita mentioned four names: 1. Marwin Gonzalez, who's still like 21. 2. Reggie Golden, can really swing the bat, good chance that he'll be able to start right out in A-ball. (For a HR guy who had almost no rookie-league AB's skip right up to Peoria, that would be pretty interesting.) 3. Ruby Silva, a LH CFer from Cuba that they signed this winter. Silva was a Cuban-league rookie in 2007, and his team won the Cuban championship in the 08-09 season. So he must be in his lower 20's. 4. Cabeza, a catcher that they signed just recently. I thought this was interesting, since Silva and Cabeza are NOT names that are on your list of significant signings or dollars spent. But yet these are two winter signees who were mentioned, of all the kids in A-and-under that Fleita could have talked about, he found these to be significant enough to mention. Not sure how many dollars that were involved, but I imagine you might want to put those two on your list of international signees to remember and watch for.

http://www.wgnradio.com/sports/baseball/cubs/wgn-sportsnight-ricketts-hendry-quade,0,5978058.mp3file Hendry comments. About 75-80% into the above clip at the convention. He says that the farm has been growing really well. *Oneria has done a great job with development and with overseeing international procurement in Latin America and in Asia. *Wilken is a really renowned as one of the 2-3 top draft directors in the business. Has a tremendous reputation in the business. We're not going to stop signing top players like we've done the last 2-3 years. The Ricketts family is totally committed to continuing to draft and sign good players and to continuing what we've been doing the last couple of years. They are totally committed to continuing our: -expansion of the world -expansion of our facilities in Latin America -continue our operation in Asia -Taking the best players in the draft and not passing on players because somebody might want more financial demands than that slot is. That pipeline will continue and we will continue to sign better and better players at a level that we haven't done in the past. ======== It sounds very encouraging. There is a strong understood value for having a strong procurement pipeline. There is reference to "expanding" in the world. To signing "better and better players at a level that we haven't done in the past". And to "not passing on players because somebody might want more financial demands" than draft slot. So that sounds pretty good. At the same time, their was at least as much reference to "continuing" as to "expanding". So I'm not sure how much it's going to be a case of being happy with how things have gone recently and just trying to sustain that, versus expanding the moneys that are available for signing. But I am always encouraged that Hendry talks the talk really well and has a good understanding of the importance of procurement and development. I think we've made a lot of progress in those areas in the last several years, and it may be that we will be able to remain strong and get stronger in those areas.

Thanks a lot, toonster. That's very helpful overview. That sounds like solid velocity, even if the movement isn't too hot. With plus control and plus breaking balls, that would be pretty good. Without, not so much. Hopefully he gets that slider going this year.

How much velocity do we think he works with? My perception early on was that his fastball graded as average and that he was effective based on his breaking balls and his control. I'm wondering if maybe his fastball just isn't that good. You know, maxes out once in a while at a speed that looks good, but doesn't throw that fast very often and his working velocity is pretty average? Or, lacks movement or deception so that it's really no more effective than with a lot of guys whose working velocity might be 2-4 mph slower? I'm not claiming, I'm just wondering?

Both of those guys improve their big-league chances this way, I agree. Nice post and analysis of the Ricketts payroll stuff. We'll see, and I'm a little skeptical. But it would be great if they had the budget to spend more aggressively on procurement. I think the scouting quality has actually been very good. I'd like to see what they could do with the ability to sign even more or even better players.

Good posts. I agree, Dave, we need to add some hitters, and I hope the draft goes in that direction. I'm not sure the drafting of up-the-middle is so much the problem, although it can be. But Colvin was kind of up the middle, he's got power. Flaherty was up the middle, now Phil says he's maybe too big for anything but LF/1B. So I think he was drafted to hit and hit with power, even though that's not looking so promising. Donaldson was supposed to hit and hit with power. Vitters. Guyer was drafted to be a hitter, corner from the start. Golden corner from the start. Marques Smith. Lansford. So I guess it seems to me there have been some hitters taken, and many/most of them with the chance to grow into power. Even Lemahieu, Hendry said from the start that he thought he could hit with some power. But yes, I wouldn't mind a true-hitting average/power 1B or corner OF guy. And with Lee gone, SS looks very different. What if Castro does outgrow it himself? A true SS drafted not to grow into 3B or LF but drafted to potentially become a SS wouldn't be out of the question.

dave, I think you're pretty likely to be very disappointed. Asking for all this investment in procurement, I don't think that's at all likely to happen. A little bump? Perhaps. But I'll be surprised if it isn't relatively status quo. By the way, if they do amp up the dollars to Szczur, that might make last year's spending look surprisingly high. If they spend more, maybe one or two more things internationally, that we here about. (Of course, they might sign a few more of the $130K type prospects that we don't hear about in Latin America.) A top-ten draft pick will naturally boost the budget, even they more or less stay with slot for a round. Last year Wilken drafted a lot of teenagers and gave out a lot of the $150K type deals, basically standard price for a HS/JC pick, although "superslot" by some terminology. I hope that continues.

The relative value of power has changed with the decline of HR's, I think that's a good and very significant point. If HR's are fewer and harder to hit, the importance of power relative to speed, defense, and contact changes. Still, I think the relatively greater importance of effective power compared to speed is still quite substantial, in many cases. Effective power, power that is interlinked with batting average, becomes a twin-tools package that largely trumps anything else. That's why Manny Ramirez is a HOF impact player, without speed or defense. Power is different from the other tools in that effective power is not independent. Speed, defense, hitting, those are independent skills/tools. And raw power can be graded independently as well, based on how far guys can hit the ball off of HS coaches in batting practice. But raw power is worthless as an independent tool, it only becomes effective and valuable if twinned with hitting. Winfield Mallory, Harvey, Brandon Sing, they have tons of raw power; but without the hitting tool it didn't matter. On power, I don't know how to think. For a while I've kind of felt like any corner who didn't project to have 20-30 HR power couldn't be much of a prospect. But I wonder if the volume of 25+ HR guys is going to be more limited. If so, that could have two implications: 1. Guys who project to still hit 30+ may be even more unique and more especially valuable. When most good teams have three 30-HR hitters, it's not that extraordinary. But if many good teams have barely one, coming up with one or two guys like that might be huge. The value of true hitter/power-hitter might become relatively even more important. 2. Guys who don't project to hit 20+ may deserve more consideration as prospects. If you don't need to have six 20+ HR guys in a championship lineup, perhaps there will be more occasions for teams to have good hitters/good players who hit 10-15 HR's at power spots? I think it's been routine that for a guy who doesn't project 20+ HR power, he needs to scout as a C/SS/CF defender or we don't like him too much. But I guess I've been wondering whether a guy like Guyer, if he was able to hit for average, and run, and field, might be a better LF or RF prospect than I'd appeciated? Or Lemahieu at 3B; if he hits .290 and plays pretty clean defense, and hits 12 HR's, would that be good enough to earn him more than a spot in the 15-25 range on my prospect list? Cerda's another one kind of in that pool.

Yeah, the list looks way weaker without 3 top ten and 4 top 17's. And as you say, cal, delete Szczur too and what was getting me pretty fired up will look decisively weak. That said, if Cashner were to make the rotation, and Colvin a primary starter in RF, that would be a system producing four starters over the course of two seasons (Garza/Cashner/Castro/Colvin). That's some pretty good production, I think. I think the chance of the Cubs getting A compensation for Pena and Dempster is remote. I don't think Hendry has arbed anybody he didn't intend to sign since Matt Clement. And the arb deadline has moved up a couple of weeks. For a while Kendall and Pierre got signed before Hendry could decline to arb them, so we got a free pick for each of them. But that isn't likely to happen before Nov 20 or whenever. Pena hitting under .200 probably means he'd have at best a shot at B, which is actually better. Teams don't lose a pick for a B, so they don't need to wait for GM's to non-arb.

Amen. Bad 6th/7th inning relievers can kill you as much as bad 8th/9th inning guys. Sometimes worse, I think. When the 6th/7th inning type guys are bad, managers like Dusty tend to keep their Priors in for 130 pitches. Or go to their one or two capable setup relievers so often that by July they are fried and they aren't any good anymore either.

I'd guess that the same all applies to Cales, other than: 1. the good stuff. (Mateo's arm, fastball, and slider are all much bigger than Cales) 2. The age. Mateo is 26, Cales will turn 24 this summer) But neither is going to be more than a middle reliever/setup guy. If that role keeps Mateo from the list, it also should preclude Cales, only more so. I'm not lobbying for Mateo, by the way. I actually prefer Cales, myself, because he's younger, because his control is better, because he's something of a groundballer, and because the prospect of a quirky delivery appeals to me and could give him some deception. But for no good reason, I'm trying to analyze/guesstimate who their list will include. (For no good reason; who cares what they think or which not-perfect-but-got-a-chance guys they have at 29 and on the list, versus at 33 or 37 and not on the list? Their slotting Mateo at 29 and Cales at 39 would have no impact on whether or not either guy becomes a useful setup guy.) Like I say, I prefer Cales myself, because of the control factor and the possible HR avoidance. Just as an entertainment thing, a cookie-cutter fastball/slider Mateo with not enough command, that a common story. But the prospect of the short overweight Cales who doesn't throw that hard but with a funky delivery, that's a much more interesting and entertaining story.

Interesting. I hadn't been thinking like that. Last year, he slipped in at 28 but the system wasn't as strong/deep (weren't they ranked like 17th or something?), and they needed guys like him and Jim Adduci to fill out the back end. His overall numbers were fine (4.03 ERA, 1.3 WHIP), but nothing eye-catching and he had a 6.6 ERA down the stretch at Iowa. He's a reliever, and I don't think he throws hard enough to be particularly scout-jazzy. If Callis was talking like the depth was so good and he just couldn't squeeze Bellivieu or Rusin in, I'm not certain that Cales is too good to pass. But, you may well be right. And he has been one of the guys that BA has kind of been tagging for a while, so maybe yes. Actually, a different candidate who I've forgotten about completely is Marcos Mateo. Would he still have rookie eligibility? He ranked higher than Cales last year (24 vs 28), and has a big-time big-league arm that often appeals more to scouts, with two potentially plus pitches (slider). He had some eye-catching numbers, too, 45K/7BB/34IP in minors. Counting his Cub innings, he was 71K/16BB, with a WHIP in the 1.2's (better than Cales). Maybe Callis kept him on the list? I wonder how a younger arm like that might do with Riggins and Quade. Riggins is probably pretty familiar with him and what he can (and can't) do from their work in the minors. Might he think he can work with him and get the best out of that arm? Or might Quade be a little more patient? Might also be that Riggins already knows that Mateo just isn't going to figure it out, really, and maybe would be less likely to fall in love with his potential based on a couple of spring training appearances. Will be interesting to see how the Quale/Riggins decision-making goes. For all we know Quale is a big do-it-right kind of guy, and maybe he'll be less interested in carrying guys who are more talented but don't have the head or talents for the more finesse parts of the game?

Out of the 15 unnamed spots, I agree that Lopez, Lake, Kurcz, Jay Jackson, LeMahieu, Golden, Wells, and Raley are locks. Based on what was said on here about what was asked in the chat and all, I think that Rhee, Ha, Reed(remember, he made their rookie league top 20 list) Barney, and Beeler appear like their on it as well. To me, it only leaves 2 spots where we really don't know who's going to be in. My guess is it comes down to Struck, Kim, Wallach, and Cales for the final 2 spots. Not sure what BA may have on Kim yet, but the 1.2 mill bonus should probably get him on the list and I think they'll favor Struck's season to Wallach's for the final spot personally. Good points. Barney: still eligible? If so, agree he's a lock. Ha and Reed also locks, agree. RheeI'd thought not, because I ranked him 22nd last year and he didn't help his status. But I think you're certainly right that he's in there. BA has always ranked him kind of ridiculously high, and they still had him at #12 only last year. He didn't help himself, but Callis's comment did seem to basically give him another free pass. Also, there was a question about which guys had fallen the most, and Callis mentioned Burke (11 to gone) and Flaherty (9 to 22). If Rhee had gone from 12 to gone, he'd have been mentioned (at least, if Callis remembered him.) Beeler Good bet to be on, based on 92-95 comment. But he might be on the "like but not enough for top 30" list category, as with Rusin and Bellivieu and Antigua. So I'm not sure he'll be on. Struck, Kim, Wallach, and Cales Agree that at $1.2 mill, and given that Kim apparently looked impressive in Instrux according to Az Phil, agree that he should be included and will be included. Rhee hadn't done much more and BA was listing him ridiculously high a few years back. I actually think Wallach will probably make it. Callis made a comment re Lopez to the effect that the Cubs do a great job in getting value in their trades, which might support think Wallach is of value. He had 116K/114IP, so it's not like his performance was entirely lacking from the scouting side. BA had him ranked 20th for the Dodgers last year; that wasn't Callis's list, and the perception that the Cubs have a high-level system that's impressively deep, to fall from 20 to off is possible and might not merit his comment. But my guess is they'll stay with their BA guy and keep him on. If we keep Wallach and Kim on, and you keep Beeler on, then I think we've got their top 31. To squeeze somebody else in, I'd think Beeler would be first option to take off, Wallach the 2nd.

I think straight-line speed is even less relevant in NFL than in baseball. Deep fly ball, I want to run as straight and fast to the ball as possible, I don't need to elude any safeties and no cornerback is going to obstruct my path. To steal second base, I know exactly where I'm trying to go as fast as possible, rarely true for an NFL running back or WR. Still, the in-stride speed is often less discriminating than the ability to read (a fly ball; a pitcher when I'm trying to steal...) and then to redirect my body (which direction to turn on a fly; from watching the pitcher and maybe diving back to first, versus driving towards 2B on a steal...) and get quickly up to max speed. Szczur stole hardly at all for Boise and surprisingly little at Nova in a low-level college league. Perhaps his lack of SB reflects that something in his toolbox is not suited for base-stealing. Maybe that's straight line speed, maybe something else. How fast his timed speed is could be a mixed blessing. I'd love to have him really have exceptional, extraordinary plus-plus speed. The kind that could in time and with training turn into even serious base-stealing speed. But if he has great NFL speed, he's more likely to get drafted in the 4th round or even higher, in which case it will be harder to actually get him to play baseball. If his timed speed is more 4.49, (or worse) he may be more likely to last till the 6th round, or later. And if he lasts that long, teams may even further drop him because he's got the baseball issue, and they may not be convinced he's all in for football. (If two prospects are about equal, one is all in, and the other might go to the Cubs, teams might logically take the other guy....) A teensy finesse in speed isn't that big a deal to my mind, actually. If in fact he's a pure natural barrel hitter, with average or plus raw power to boot, and very very good speed, he's going to be really good. If he hits .300 with 25 HR, and plays a rangy OF, I'm not sure it matters much whether he's on the 4.35 side or 4.49 side of a 4.42 time. I don't remember many but I like the concept of a prolific base-stealer, so if he was actually fast enough to do that besides, that would be sweet. But that seems so improbable that it's hardly worth even considering.

Heh, so this is a testament to how much damage having a somewhat fast baserunner can have! Watkins' production is demolished because of Lee's speed!

Second. Lee-Watkins was the regular top of the order. Watkins had more sacrifices than doubles. What really killed him was that his K's went up dramatically. At Boise I recall he had the best K-rate in the league, under 10%. With speed and no K's, you can hit .300 on BABIP alone even without and HR's. But this year his K-rate jumped to almost 19%. When you're whiffing that often, and have a 97K/1HR ratio, it's hard to support a good batting average.

I like Jackson for CF. I know he's not a blazer, but the sense is that he takes good routes and has good jumps. To some degree, I think CF and C may be two positions where sometimes it isn't as hard as we think to be big-league capable. Every farm team has some super-blazer in CF, so Jackson's speed probably seems relatively slow. But just as AA/AAA is littered with great-armed good-defense catchers who's non-bats keep them out of the majors, I wonder if that doesn't happen in CF too? In the majors, with CFers like Marlon, and in small field like Wrigley, perhaps Jackson's CF will look just fine? The possibility to perhaps move Lee to CF is not a bad idea. At present I'm not real keen, though. If he advances and affirms as a really good leadoff prospect, maybe yes. But I think he profiles so favorably as a defensive SS that it would be a waste to move him. The same footwork and glovework that works at SS also works at 2B, so a move there would be fine. (The DP turn is actually harder; 2B gets as many or more balls than SS; and because of the shorter throw 2B's actually produce more outs than SS's do. So a great fielding 2B would be very valuable.) But all the footwork and glovework and infield range that appeals at SS, might too much of his value be wasted in CF? I think if he blossoms as a prospect but we just don't want to mess with Castro at SS, and we don't want Lee at 2B for whatever reason, just trade him somewhere where his SS defense can be put to good use. Regardless, Szczur is now going to be the super-star .320-hitting 30-HR hitting Cf HOFer!

Yeah, I was trying to figure out how they were filling the top 30 without any of those guys, too. At present we know the top ten, Cerda at 31, five others of the 2nd and 3rd ten exactly. (Cabrera 11, Chirinos/Castillo 16/17, Watkins/Flaherty 21/22), That leaves 15 guys. He mentioned: Raley Lemahieu (he didn't fall as far as Flaherty did, so he's in 2nd ten somewhere) Jay Jackson (he was mentioned, and didn't fall as far as Flaherty, so he's in 2nd ten somewhere)Golden (something to the effect that he's around 20 or so) That would leave 11 more. Several he didn't mention as on the list, but in favorable enough terms so that they must certainly be: Robinson Lopez (mentioned him touching 97, being great value for Lee, and perhaps being the most interesting A-ball pitcher) Kurcz. (mentioned as possibly jumping to Daytona, and being one of the top A-ball guys to watch) Lake. Gotta be in there somewhere. Ben Wells. That would leave about seven more spots. Reed, Ha, Wallach, Barney, Kim, Jung, Rhee, Whitenack Struck, Cales, Smith, Smit, Beeler might fill up most of those spots somehow. Or who knows, maybe some other teenager or Korean who's off my radar. (I certainly didn't include Watkins in my list...)