craig

Thanks for this post, toonster. Believe it or not, I don't think I'd ever read about his history. My perception was way off: as a 6th-round senior sign lefty with average velocity, who'd been drafted in teens and 20's in previously, I'd just assumed he was your typical journeyman limited-stuff Loogy-wannabe. To find that back in HS BA viewed him as the 8th best HS prospect in the country, I totally didn't appreciate that. TJ. The car accident and head injury. Interesting I think I read the BA reports differently from you. I think 93-97 for Maine and 92-97 for smit, I don't believe they are saying those guys are resting/sitting within those brackets at 95+/- 2 mph consistently. I think the 97's are the highest gun reading any of their sources have seen, and that there are probably a lot more 92's/93's than 95's or 97's. It may mean that 93-97 is max speed depending on the day? In June, scout sees him mostly working 89-92 but touched 94 twice; other scout saw him 90-93 but touched 95 a couple of times. In August, a scout saw him working 90-94, but did see a couple of 95's and 96's and one 97. I guess I'm thinking that when I see 92-97 for Smit, fair chance that only 10-20% of his fastballs are in the 94-97 end of that range.

Jackson had a 126K/12HR ratio as a pretty physically mature college guy, one whom Hendry has projected to play left field. And according to Law, after his first weekend in AA, he hit .250's with 1/3 K's. I can understand why some people wouldn't put that in their top 60. Obviously the key is the HR's. He whiffed a ton in college, and at each pro stop. He's going to be a whiffer. But how many HR's? Scotti mentioned that he has plenty of power and always has dating back to Cal. More favorable rankers assume his power will blossom into lots of HR's, and I trust that's the case. This year would be a nice time to see that. But if he's a 10-15 HR guy, it will be a lot harder. He hit 12 this year, that's not a lot. I expect him to hit more in future, but we'll see. Scotti says he's been plenty strong for a while, so somehow he may need to make some adjustments and learn to swing for more HR's, if in fact he's not going to simply grow/physically mature into more physical power. If he's a 20+ HR guy, that goes a long ways further than when a guy is hitting 12. 12HR/126K isn't a great ratio, but 25HR/125 HR would be just fine. In Szczur's press conference, he said that Hendry told him Szczur could be the 2014 CFer, with Colvin in right and Jackson in left. Obviously Hendry is doing this in the midst of a recruiting trip and over some drinks, so perhaps he forgot that he'll still be paying Soriano $19 million in 2014. But I thought it was interesting that he projected Jackson for left field. Makes sense, since Szczur is faster and Jackson's arm is unexceptional. Obviously that was premised on Szczur progressing and earning CF spot. If Szczur never does, Jackson may have no need to be moved out of center, and may be found just fine defensively even if not gold-glovish. As an optimist on Jackson, (I ranked him 2nd in between ARcher and McNutt on my list), I think some doubters know he was a college guy and think he's older. But he'll still be only 22 until August. And by his own account, he was really drained by the end of the season (whether mentally or physically or both, I don't know.) So it may be that his August/September slide were as much a case of just being drained as that he was being overmatched by AA pitching. That being his first full season in the pros, I'm hopeful that he'll be better prepared and will sustain excellence better this summer.

Yes, that seems awfully high. I wonder how real or sustainable that is? But I think BA runs with the numbers they list, and that helps to establish why guys rank where they do. If they'd been told Maine was 89-94, he'd be in a different spot. I was also surprised to see Smit listing as touching 97. I hadn't appreciated that he was that fast. If Smit is the guy that scouting report describes (92-97 velocity, deceptive, pretty sharp slider), with 63K/14BB/4HR numbers that his stats report from last year, then he's better than I'd appreciated. I certainly didn't have high-velocity touching 97 in mind, nor deceptive.

A different report I saw (before I saw this thread) had Silva at $1.2 rather than $1.0. I wonder if part of the time is getting the legalese and the citizenship stuff squared away correctly? At any rate, I don't think the Cubs would be paying at least a million on a guy who couldn't get anybody to sign him for a year. If he's 21 now, he'd have been 19 back during his Cuban championship season? His numbers don't look great, but don't look bad given his age and the level of serious competition. Would be cool if he turned out to be good.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking this way either, but this is kind of their MO, next year when we're debating this, I bet we all remember the reliever fetish of BA. Well, I don't know that it's some crazy reliever fetish. But, I think they do tend to like to hit on guys who are going to make the major leagues. Barney will be in the majors. Cales was a reliever that didn't make it. So I'm not sure it's that much reliever fetish. Maine has a very good chance to be in the majors. He looked pretty good, and if they have him 90-92, lefties can hang around for a while. They said Kurcz's change advanced a lot, so they kind of think he'll be starting, at least for a while in the minors, even if most minor-league starters do end up in relief. They may figure Lake will end up in relief, but I don't think including him was really reliever fetish! (Joke...) I think they do tend toward guys they get upper-90's talk on, even if they are relievers. They always get talk about Mateo hitting 97 from their scouting sources, which helps keep him up around 20 on their list, and I imagine they liked his 10:1 K/BB ratio in AA. They had Smit at 92-97, tight slider, splitter, deceptive delivery. So basically they have their 18-19-20 Mateo-Lopez-Smit guys all touching 97 or better, with their 24-25 Wells-Kurcz hitting 95.

...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. Heh, so of those seven open spots, even by tossing out 13 names I got only three of them right (Ha,Barney, Smit). Dave, you were right on getting Rhee in there. cal thought Cales would be a lock, nope. I actually brought up Mateo, which got mocked, but there he is in the top 20. Funny. I admit when evaluating their original list, I didn't really even have relievers like Caridad, Mateo, and Maine in mind.

For a guy good enough to make a top-30 list, I think Lake's review highlighted more problems than I've ever seen. Basically Callis reports that of the five tools, he can't hit, run, or defend. The arm strength is the one truly exceptional tool. Callis's scouting report of Lake as a 1.5 tool guy seems rather different from the five-tool scouting report that Tim and this board have in mind. Not all scouts agree, of course, and somebody has to be wrong. Hopefully the scouts feeding Callis their views are the ones who are all wet. Callis mentions "now a below average runner", "lacks range for short", "needs to improve defensive focus", "holes in swing" "chases too many pitches out of the zone", "could return to Daytona", "could be moved to mound if he doesn't show progress in 2011." Heh, with all that negativity it's no wonder Callis doesn't have him in the top 10! The positive: "signature tool is cannon arm which is an 80 in 20-80 scouting scale". And "plus raw power". Great arm but can't hit, run, or field is probably why Callis thinks a switch to mound is possible.

... I'm kind of hoping that he can end up being kind of a Marshall-type pitcher, who is pretty good without being noticably fast. Not sure if Marshall is a good comparison, just because he has a plus pitch (curveball) that makes him an effective reliever, while Rusin doesn't appear to have any plus pitches. Best case scenario for Rusin is that he somehow improves his value (either in the majors or minors) to the point where we can trade him for something useful with a little more upside. Rusin's breaking stuff will obviously need to be plus for him to become a successful big-leaguer. But my best-case scenario is that it does emerge as a plus pitch. That is has enough bite so that major leaguers just chop them into the ground. Or whiff on them absolutely. He had 99K/110 IP, so his breaking stuff must have been good enough to make minor leaguers miss. Not likely that his breaking ball is as good as Marshall's, but that's what I'm hoping for. There are a lot of useful lefty relievers who aren't quite as good as Marshall, too. So even if it isn't quite as good as Marshall's, he might still be useful anyway. It isn't easy to be a consistent pitcher when you're living on the breaking ball. So being able to snap some sharp ones is important, but that doesn't do it without some degree of consistency. That Rusin had a 99K/19BB ratio in 110 innings suggests that his control must have been pretty good. If you have a pretty good breaking ball and you can control it pretty consistently, I think you've got at least a chance to make some millions in the majors.

Thanks much, TT. I don't think I've really gotten any scouting reports since the rather brief draft ones, which tended to basically follow the "senior, old, had surgery, doesn't throw hard, but polished" kind of formula. He wasn't in last year's B book. So this is helpful, even though I admit I'd hoped that i'd read that he doesn't work at high velocity but he can hit 92 at times, and has a great curveball, or something like that. 86-89 comes across bad, of course, but that's basically where Marshall works. 87 with sink and command is presumably a lot more useful than 90-94 that's kind of wild and kind of straight. Does anybody have any idea of what kind of an arm slot he has, or his splits versus lefties? Would he project particularly well as a situational lefty, or not really? I'm kind of hoping that he can end up being kind of a Marshall-type pitcher, who is pretty good without being noticably fast.

You're probably right. I don't have this drafts numbers, because I'm going off of my 2010 prospects book. But it has KC at only $6.7 for 2009, which seems explainable strictly with high pick. 2008 they were at $11.1, but that's $6 for Hosmer and another $1 for their other 1st round pick. So spending $4 after the first round isn't much diffeent from what the cubs hae been doing. And from 05-07, KC was always in the $6's, pretty easy to reach given a top-5 pick every year. But, certainly being willing to pay Hosmer $6, their budget didn't stop them. Pittsburgh, they didn't get over $6 until 2008 ($9.8, Alvarez $6.3) and 2009 ($8.9). In 09 they gave out two 7-figure superslots to guys after the 2nd round. So clearly their new management seems to be ready and willing to superslot, that's probably their niche to beat the competition. In any event, it doesn't seem like there are all that many teams who are way more aggressive in terms of superslotting guys that the Cubs. Other than the handful, most of the teams who outspend us do so by virtue of having high top picks or extra high picks. Dave, I realize that that the #9 slot isn't a million higher than the #14 slot. I'm just saying that since he didn't pay slot last year, doing so this year will raise the ticket by a million right there.

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.