craig

Nice list, Brian. And I enjoy the pictures. My list has extensive overlap with yours. Two guys I had in my top 25 that are not included on your list are Raley and Whitenack. What do you know stuff-wise scouting-wise about them? Any ideas what the Cubs think about them internally? Is it your view that they just need to sustain longer? Or that their stuff just is too mediocre to merit inclusion on a list like this? Or is it partly a case of guys who you just haven't seen much yourself, whose numbers weren't that eye-catching, and who you haven't really gotten strong reports on from trusted sources? Last, on Jay Jackson: I'm guessing your understanding is that the maturity issues go well beyond the 2009 incident? Tip of the iceberg, perhaps? My baseball concern with him is the volume of HR's allowed. Would I be wrong in guessing that much of your seen-them-yourself observation is for Peoria guys, and that guys like Rusin and Raley who bypassed Daytona, that you don't have as much feel for what they are like either as players or as personalities?

Nice. A day when he both walked and hit and hit with power all at once. That's the ticket. His AFL batting average (.255) is extremely low for a league where most guys hit .300+. But his splits look nice: 14H/6XBH (including 2 HR), .181 IsoP; 6K/55 AB is a very low K-rate. And 5BB/6K/55 AB is a fine BB/K rate. BABIP is only .255, that's pretty low, especially on the hard Arizona fields. Might be bad luck. Although hasn't he tended toward rather low BABIP over his career? His minor-league career BABIP is only .282, which I think is pretty low by minor league standards. I believe minor league BABIP tends to be considerably higher than major league BABIP? Perhaps given his slowness and his reputation for outing himself on pitchers pitches, both might be conducive to below-average BABIP.

ESPN insider stated that he hit 100 in the AFL. Nice to see the extra velocity. Well, that would be two. Law had him at either 97 or 98, as I recall, although I recall that being on a single pitch that went to the backstop rather than being near the plate. Grey's was more vague. Carpenter is at 5.79 in AFL, with 17 baserunners in 9.1 innings.

The concept isn't hard to understand, but the execution doesn't seem that easy. Corey tried it repeatedly but could never make it work. Colvin tried going really patient (for him) for a while, and wasn't driving anything, he couldn't hit at all. As bad as Colvins K/BB ended up this year, I still think that his efforts to be more selective did end up paying off for him in the end. Hopefully Vitters it will also. As great as the theory may be, that doesn't mean a hacker extreme like Vitters can just flip a switch and apply it effectively right away; there may be an extended struggle period before he can both walk and hit at the same time. One reason why I think the theory is great but the execution is often so difficult is that some guys just can't read the pitch very well. Yes, their pitch recognition can perhaps improve somewhat with time, but if the eyes and the brain just can't process fast-moving pitches quickly enough, and the body can't respond, it's just not going to work that well. Vitters like Corey has a short swing; that's supposed to help in that you don't need to commit as early and have more time to see the pitch and figure out whether to swing and where to put the bat. But it doesn't always work. I'm encouraged on Vitters because scouts say they like his swing. But I admit I'm worried that he just doesn't have the tools to be a good hitter. A pretty swing, a short swing, a sometimes powerful swing? Yes, and those are great tools. But he's hitting .222 in AFL where everybody hits .300; he hit .223 in AA; he hit .238 in Daytona in 09. That's a lot of awful-average and awful-OBP stops. Hopefully it's just because he's young, and actually he's a greatly gifted hitter. But it could be a case where he's a bad hitter when he's young because he doesn't have the tools, and he'll be a bad hitter when he's 26 and 29 and 32 because he just doesn't have the stuff to hit well. Too soon to tell when a guy is only 21. But if you can't read the pitch and react accurately to what the pitch is doing, the theory doesn't work. Being patient and picking a pick you can drive assumes that you can both recognize them while in flight, and that you have the reactions to recognize them early enough and then apply a hard contact to where the ball actually is when it reaches the plate. But what if you can't tell fast enough? Corey had power and bat speed and short stroke; but he basically needed to be a guess hitter. When he tried to be patient, he basically would decide before the pitch was thrown that "I'm going to be patient now, I'm not going to swing at this one." Even if it was a fat fastball right in his power zone. Then he'd get behind and say "OK, I'm not going to be patient now, I better swing if it's close", and he'd swing at fastballs at his eyes or sliders in the dirt. The good "plate discipline" guys have the talent to be able to recognize whether it's worth swinging at and then to swing effectively when they do swing, but to do all of that computing and decision-making while a fast-spinning ball is in flight. Not at all easy. I've nervous for Vitters. The guy whiffed 20% of his AB this year. Was he swinging at some bad pitches? Almost certainly. But I'm guessing that it wasn't so often a conscious "I'm going to swing at this bouncing slider" choice; I suspect it was often "Looks like a fastball, I'll whack it" that ended up being the ugly slider. A 20% K-rate isn't inherently that bad. But it might almost be more worrisome for Vitters in that given what a hacker he is, he shouldn't really have the chance to whiff all that often. If you swing at all the first and second-pitch strikes, how often should you even get into a K-count? To have such a high K-rate despite his hacker approach, that may be a red flag. Or maybe not. Perhaps he's just got some growing up to do, get stronger so that he drive the ball without trying to overswing, make some mechanical correction, see more breaking balls, get a little luckier, and maybe he'll turn out the next Aram. I'm hoping.

Make that 4 in his last 6 games. No sign thus far that he can hit at the same time that he's walking. But maybe there might be some struggle time period and eventually he'll be able to do both at the same time.

Guyer has walked in five straight games, and in 8 of 13 games in mexico. continuing the great average that he's shown at Tennessee and Daytona, hitting .367 thus far. But without power. Only 15 of 18 hits have been singles, unlike in AA where over 45% of his hits were for extra bases. Vitters has walked in 3 of his last 5 games. Probably coincidence, but it's possible that one or both of these guys has some agenda to try taking more pitches.

Where are you getting Carpenter in high 90's? And how high is that? 96, 98? Was he working usefully there? (I know a week or too back Law mentioned Carpenter throwing 98, but it was on a pitch to the backstop...) Perhaps relief is exactly the right thing for Carpenter. Or, perhaps he was pitching a lot of this summer (and last summer at AA) without being healthy, and now he's feeling better? Who knows. Given how everybody hits in AFL, his effectiveness is fun. On Lem, he'll play most of the upcoming season at age 22. He's got some time to figure things out. I hadn't read a lot of input that he's very strong or had much power potential, so any hints to that effect are encouraging to me, at least. I think when a player is younger or not strong enough, it doesn't make much sense to swing for power. If all it gets you is warning-track flyouts, why try? But sometimes when a guy gets a little stronger, then pulling the ball and swinging more often for power makes more sense; if it gets you over-the-wall hits. A guy can also grow in to enough strength so that he can hit it over the wall naturally without overswinging and compromising a healthy stroke. Also, it's common to teach hitters to go with the pitch and use all fields, which typically means getting pull hitters to hit outside pitches to the opposite field more. But shouldn't it be likewise to Lemahieu's advantage for him also to learn to go with the pitch and to use all fields, including hitting inside pitches to his pull field? If Lemahieu can become an improved hitter by learning to hit inside pitches to his pull field, and if he can add ten HR-hits to his batting average, OBP, and slugging, that would be a big boost. An extra ten HR hits is worth 20 OBP points, 80 slugging points, and 100 OPS points. It could do him a lot of good (if as you say that could be done without badly compromising the contact-hitting-for-average that he's currently good at, and which is currently the only thing that he's good at.)

Thanks, Wrigley. Some interesting stuff in there. His list is very different from mine or most of ours. A couple of things from Phil's stuff that struck me: 1. Reference to Golden being cocky and iffy whether or not he'll be coachable. That's not encouraging, although it may not actually be a problem. 2. Reference to Golden's power being very real. At draft we got that he was strong... (for a 5'10" guy; and for a HS guy); but was he actually strong enough to be a real big-league HR hitter? If Phil sees Golden's power as being legit HR power, strong as a bull, most power in that systme, that's really encouraging and exciting. 3. Lemahieu: Reference to Lemahieu being strong. The idea that his utter lack of power production is more a function of his stroke/approach, but might change if he adds enough additional strength future so that it's actually worth his time to adjust his stroke and pull the ball more often. 4. His favorable notes on Ha's CF defense and Lee's improving defense. 5. His enthusiasm for the speedster we got for Fontenot. 6. Phil's almost complete lack of valuation for IsoD. Of his top 20, he has Barney and Lem high, the Giants guy almost top 20, Castillo, Vitters. A whole bunch of guys who are flagrant non-walker low-IsoD guys, and several of whom have shown no sign of any IsoP to offset their absent IsoD. I think that's where Phil's ranking is most likely to be in error. 7. It's funny how Phil is constantly ranking Castillo high, but when discussing him he rarely has a whole lot favorable to say about him.

I think everybody understands that the confidence in projecting players varies with age and experience and scouting input. Still, this is just a discussion board, it's for fun. And whether or not a guy has played pro doesn't mean there isn't scouting information, or performance information. How much and how much confidence we put in some of the scouting info, that varies. But guys do exist, so it makes sense to include them in consideration. One subjective logic that I sometimes use is simply to think about which guy I'd be most reluctant to see traded or to have a career-ending injury. I often use that as a subjective litmus test. That approach has some flaws for sure: my concerns about losing Chirinos or Castillo are impacted by the reality that we have Soto. My concerns about whether or not we trade Lee or Barney is impacted by having Castro. So I try to filter those biases out, at least to some extent. Using that logic, I'd be more disappointed to find out that Simpson is gone forever than if Carpenter or Rhee or Lake is gone forever, so I have Simpson more valued on my list. But that's pretty subjective. Tim might have Lake as the guy he'd least like to lose!

Kind of discouraging to see a box score with a dozen guys hitting .300+, and have Vitters down at .229 or whatever.

Thanks, that's helpful. I guess I'd gotten the impression that while Raley was being sometimes ranked in the top 15 (which is where I have him too...), and is was being normally ranked right around rusin (I have Rusin only about 5 later myself), that both were being viewed in comparable terms: as low-ceiling back-of-rotation-at-best guys. As typical soft-tossing lefties who will need to make it as crafty finessers but who don't have the pure stuff to actually get any of us excited. I think Rusin is obviously inherently limited by inherently sub-average velocity. With sub-average speed, to make average you necessarily need super-average movement, location, etc. I think that's possible for him, but it's going to be hard to be way above average with velocity that is presumably so sub-average. But for Raley, I'm not sure his velocity needs to be sub-average at all, and may end up being above average. So I think he might end up being a plus-fastball guy with a pretty ceiling, enough to get excited about and enough to be a top-5 guy a year from now if he progresses well this year.

Thanks, Cubswin. That's a fun and a full list. Around 20 names, most with some pretty interesting potential. Of course some will stall, some will get hurt, and some will be exposed as just not having enough talent. But I think it's a really deep pool of guys, many of whom might have enough talent to become very useful players. Perhaps it's just the bad drafting (Stockstill) and the college drafting (Stockstill and early Wilken), but I can't remember that deep a pool of 20-and-younger prospects for us in a long time. I dont' know, maybe that's not uncommon for teams like Atlanta or Boston or whomever, but it's really fun for me.

Makes sense. Agree, first year back hard to know what to make of any of it. My guess is we won't see the splitter again. The Cubs have rarely had guys stay with those, and for the handful who supposedly had it, they either had them stop throwing it or else the guys had surgery or wrecked their arms. (Rhee, Ryu, Sisco..). Although, that may be wrong. Rhee's splitter was sometimes described as such and other times just as a change. So if it's just a matter of having a really good change, I don't see why that should be objectionable. But my guess is that Rhee may end up needing to make it as a fastball/slider/splitter guy. I think the velocity is also a Q. Three seasons ago when he was 19, the assumption was that his 88-92 velocity wasn't great, but that he'd project into more. This year he wasn't even back to that, much less matured beyond it. Hopefully next summer he'll have his fastball all the way back, and perhaps be a little faster than he was before and way faster than this year.

Rob, your list is really good. One surprise was having Rhee so high. What was your thinking there?

Of the pitchers, obviously I rated Simpson higher than most. Some I think I undervalued. (Cabrera). I share the wild hopes for Wells, although I'm a little cautious as to how good his offspeed pitches are or will be, and whether he'll throw hard soon. I expected that when I put Rusin at 18, that I'd have him higher than most. Much to surprise that seems not the case, even though when he's discussed nobody actually seems that enthused about him. I think I have his breaking stuff evaluated much more enthusiastically than do most. If you can consistently throw good breaking pitches for strikes, you can win. I don't know exactly how he does it, but he was effective all through college, and he's been effective in pros, and the Cubs scouted him favorably enough for 4th round. I don't know what exactly; but there may be something to it. But two I like more than most: Raley: I've seen comments to the effect that he's got no stuff and that he's just like Rusin. That may be true, and you guys may know best. But I listed him 12th on my list, and I'm very optimistic that he has both more potential and higher ceiling than he is being given credit for. As a 20-year-old slender draftee, I seem to recall he was being scouted as throwing up to 92, even if he didn't work there often. That's significantly faster than what I'm assuming for Rusin, I think. And given that he was only 20 then and was body-built for CF, Are we sure he hasn't added either a little velocity or perhaps more 89-92 consistency than he had? I guess I'm partly a scout-truster, but given the money the Cubs viewed him as being worth, I assume they projected more than Lilly velocity. I think his breaking stuff is already pretty good, and may also improve. I'm a big command guy, and think he's got a chance to have really good command, which combined with solid/good stuff could make him much better than average. Tim mentioned "Good Brooks/Bad Brooks". He was pretty good pretty often, especially during the second half. That may speak to his potential. He had a 1.87 ERA after the break, with no HR's after July. When the scouts like a guy's projection to the tune of $750K, and when he's showing 1.87 block in A+ as a first year guy, with low walks and a home-stretch where his HR problem was contained, I can't help but be pretty optimistic. Obviously the ability to sustainably keep the HR's under control is at issue, though. Whitenack: He pitched all year at 21, was solidly sub-3 ERA at Daytona and for his last several months at Peoria. He's tall, and a poster who was a pitcher and has a very good eye for pitchers liked him, said he had good pitcher's shoulders. Even though he's already 21, and will never have a Zambrano body, I think there may well be some meaningful physical projection left. I don't think anybody was enthused about his stuff, I think the perception is an unexceptional FB and no notable breaking ball. My take is that he seems to already have a very good fastball. 89-92 maybe, hardly exceptionally fast. But an 89-92 sinker/runner with good control, that projects as a very good fastball, and could be a huge weapon if he projects/grows into more. As I've mentioned, HR-allowed is a huge factor for me, and while Whitenack's control wasn't consistent enough to be a great anti-HR guy early, by June he really shut down the HR-game. I think going forward he projects as perhaps a really good anti-HR guy. If he can pump fastballs with enough command and enough sink that nobody is hitting them out, and he's not walking anybody, he doesn't need lots of K's and he can afford lots of hits allowed. At draft, there was talk of a knuckle-curve. He started off terrible, so my guess is that they've scrapped that. My guess is that at present he's a guy who's living off his fastball, but they're having him work on a slider and change. I think that progress was made on those offspeed pitches during the second half, and that with years to go before he hits the show, that he'll continue to work on those. So in a sense I see him as having a pretty safe floor; when you've got a very useful anti-HR fastball, you can eat innings and be functional. But if his breaking stuff comes along with time, and/or he adds significant arm strength, I think he's got a chance to be pretty good. I'm probably just wishing and imagining what I want to imagine, but I think he's being under-appreciated. To be as effective as he was this past June-September, given his background, I think he could be a pretty significant prospect.

Tim has mentioned that the list doesn't look real strong, in that most/all of the top guys (except McNutt) do have some major issues to worry about. I very much agree with that. I'd be surprised if we ranked much about middle, if that, on BA's list. That said, having graduated Castro, Cashner, Colvin, and Coleman this year, and even without all of them to still perhaps be somewhere around the middle (or perhaps better), I think that's pretty impressive. Personally even with our questions, and even though I don't expect BA to rank us above average, I feel like the system has improved and I think I would rank it above average now. (I may be totally Koolaid optimist and non-objective.) But even with their questions, I think our high group is still pretty decent, given their youth. (Of my top 8, Guyer is the only one who will be older than 22 until Jackson turns 23 next August.) I also think that behind the front group, that we've got a very interesting pool of pitchers. Kim, Jung, Rhee from Korea; Dolis, Cabrera, Lopez, Liria; Rusin and Raley as the big-college lefties; other lefties Greathouse, Kirk, Antigua, Bellivieu; Struck, Whitenack, Wallach, Kurcz, Beeler; and then the new HS drafts Wells, Reed, Hartman, Richardson; and of course mid-20's Carpenter, and of course Simpson himself. Not sure which or how many of those have star potential. But of those 25 names, Carpenter and Rusin are the only ones older than 22? I think it's not at all uncommon for pitchers to still be filling out and gaining arm strength at 21-22-23. So I think a number of these guys who may not have formerly scouted as having strong arms, by the time they get to Wrigley I think it's possible that they'll throw harder than we expect. And certainly many pitchers improve their breaking pitches and their changeups during the 20-23 years. So I am pretty enthused about the depth of pitching talent. From quantity comes quality, often.

If Guyer were LH he'd have a better chance with the Cubs, I think. But with Fukudome expiring, Colvin LH, Colvin not a sure thing long-term, and Soriano often injured, I think Guyer could get a fair bit of opportunity short-term and long as a platoon guy. BA's ranking him 14th in the deep and advanced SL would also seem to support the legitimacy of ranking him reasonably high. One way that I sometimes approach list like this is to see which guys don't have a major flaw, something that will keep them from being productive. And if they do have a current flaw that will keep them from being productive, how likely is it to be corrected? From that standpoint, ARcher has control. Vitters has defense, contact, and IsoD. Jackson has K's. Guyer doesn't really have anything. (Unless being 24 is a fatal and uncorrectable flaw). Neither does McNutt. That approach of course doesn't work real well for new players who haven't had a chance to demonstrate what if any flaws they might have. Simpson? If his flaws are having had mono, having a max velocity of only 95-96, and having only a four-pitch repertoire, that might be not to bad.

On Guyer: it seems my ranking him 5th is well higher than most. I may be way off. But my logic is that he's always been scouted as having really excellent tools. Now he combined in terrific performance. If his tools are so good and his performance is so good, I like him. He's a biggish guy and slugged around .600, and was formerly scouted as having strong HR potential. So my rating uses the premise that he may hit a decent amount of HR's. If the premise was that he'd have Reed Johnson HR-production, I'd rank him lower. A stated concern has been that he might be a 4th OFer. Possible, and none of these guys are remotely close to sure things. But if he's toolsy, and he hits a decent amount of HR's, I don't see anything in the scouting why he couldn't be a very capable regular. Last, I love his low-K profile. Vitters K'd a lot, Jackson K's a lot, Lee K's too much for a singles hitter. But Guyer's K-rate was really low, and has been for two straight seasons, so I take it seriously. I'm pretty hopeful for him. Being RH probably hurts some. Also, in my ranking, I'm not really devaluing a guy because might be blocked. I think some may devalue Lee because Castro is already at SS, but I'm trying not to let that influence me. Same for me with Guyer and the LF/RF situation, which is not easy to crack with Soriano locked in forever.

Given my concerns about Lee, Jackson, and Vitters, Archer came in 1st for me pretty easily. I may be crazy, but I think HR-profile is a very real and tremendously important characteristic, and I think it's routinely undervalued. Archer's is terrific. I think that may be a result of the really good movement, and good hard-to-hit movement is also a quality that withstands promotion really well. Obviously his walk-control is a problem, and may prevent him from being very successful. But given the questions that apply to all of our high-end guys, I think his is far less and his talent ceiling seems to be far higher. My ranking may also reflect that I have a high valuation for good relievers. For some posters, they can't rank him 1st if they're not sure he'll be a starter. But even should he end up as a really good reliever, that's not the worst outcome. And since there is a decent chance that he becomes a good starter, easy #1 for me. I also have the perception that his control may not be as bad as his walk-rate suggests. I was often surprised at how low his pitch counts were this year, or how many innings he got in under his pitch counts, despite the number of K's and walks he was throwing. I'm guessing there may be a lot of batters and innings where he is throwing a lot of strikes. Plus, his walk-control did improve a lot from previous year, so he's on a steady control-improvement trajectory. I think how young he is sometimes also gets overlooked. He was only 21 all season, so he's within that Vitters-Jackson age bracket. Scouts also seem to think his stuff is relatively exceptional. When the scouts who watch him say that he's special and different, I take that seriously. Heh, if the biggest criticism is that your stuff has so much movement that you may not be able to command it, that's not too bad. Last, I think the second-half Zambrano is a relevant analogy. Z had an incredible final two months, ERA-wise, but it wasnt because he stopped walking people. He walked as many as ever. But he didn't allow any HR's. If Archer's stuff is so good that he doesn't allow HR's, he can afford to walk some guys.

Some additional thoughts. 1. I had Lee 2nd on my list, but he could easily have been 5th or 6th. I think in retrospect I should have put McNutt there; he hasn't manifested any real problems/flaws thus far. But Lee, Jackson, and Vitters all have some flaws and just continuing as they are, not sure how good that will make them. * Lee I think has a chance to have an extended career in the majors as a really good defensive SS with speed and OBP, even if he doesn't improve his profile a lot. But to become seriously good, adding to his slugging power or reducing his K's is needed. *Vitters needs to learn to play a position, he needs to develop a playable OBP, and he needs to hit actual game HR's. And, he just needs to hit. As we've seen with Kelton, having a nice-looking swing doesn't mean you can actually hit breaking balls. * Jackson needs to cut down on his K's or raise his HR's or both to become especially good. Jackson is closest. His walks are high enough to neutralize a lot of his K's, and his HR's don't need to jump much to also justify K's. And obviously as a good-defense CFer he's got a much lower bar than Vitters as a 1B/3B. Vitters always gets mention of his age; it's noteworthy that Jackson is only one August older. I constantly flip-flop on Vitters. He had a poor year, IMO, and is off to another bad start in AFL in early action. (In early AFL he's again sub-.300 OBP, as was case in Tenn 2010 and Daytona 2009.) But I understand that scouts still like his bat. If he did put it together, a guy who can hit for average and power, those are invaluable. At the time I was ranking him, I had only the awful defensive reports in mind, most of which seemed to have him going to 1B eventually. Phil and Law have since suggested he's been trying a little harder and might still have a chance to blossom into a mediocre 3B, so that would help his cause a lot. As nice as his swing is, though, that doesn't mean he can read breaking balls. He whiffed 20% this year, pretty high for a guy who's supposed to be a contact hitter and who rarely allows the count to reach 2-strikes. Given his approach, his K-rate was probably a lot worse than Jackson's this year. Still, he hasn't been a consistent K-king before, so hopefully it was just a rough season and this year he'll turn that around. He doesn't need to do anything radical to look a lot better. Add 10 walks, cut 10 K's, add 5 HR's, improve his BABIP, none of those seem remotely implausible; but if he improved a little bit like that in each of his areas, his numbers could look pretty good (if he was getting acceptable 3B reports...)

Will be interesting to see how Wells goes with stuff and velocity. By report, he was throwing 80's for most of the spring and 80's in instrux. But Cubs saw him hit well into the 90's at end of spring, apparently as high as 95 once. Hopefully with a winter to work on his conditioning and strength, and with a spring to stretch out and for the Cubs to work with him on his delivery, hopefully he'll be a guy who will be able to comfortably and consistently be working in the 90's, and reaching 95 if he wants every game or every inning. But there are often guys who rarely or never work effectively or consistently at the "touched 90-X" max velocity that I read about in a BA report. Hopefully Wells will have the full package.

Picking on the prospects I spend the most time defending! :) Well, post your individual list here! So, is your Sunday night chat going to get posted, or how does that work? By, the way, Keith Law apparently had a gush note on Vitters: "That hard-hit groundball to third base was fielded by Chicago Cubs prospect Josh Vitters, who has looked good in the first week-plus here in Arizona, particularly on defense, which was always a weakness of his in the past. Vitters isn't Ryan Zimmerman at the hot corner, but he has shown better hands and footwork and an above-average arm, and I feel much better about his chances to remain at the position. As a hitter, he's showing more willingness to go the other way -- he hit a double off the right field wall on Wednesday -- and he still has one of the best-looking swings you'll see in the minors. And he did finally draw his first walk of fall league, although I'd like to see that become more than an every-other-week event." Lake and Vitters are certainly like pretty much all of our prospects this year, to varying degree. None are certain or safe. Many have a variable chance to be pretty good; and that certainly seems the case for both vitters and Lake. And both have a chance to flop completely, as normally applies to most position prospects. But, after all the negative stuff about Vitters lack of defense, lack of work ethic re defense, lack of brains, and lack of hitting smarts, lots of red flags. But the note from Phil this fall that Vitters looked at least a little bit interested in 3B, and now this note from Law that he looks less hopeless at 3B, that's pretty encouraging. I think given how seemingly relatively dumb he is, it may just take him longer to learn stuff and make adjustments than quicker minds like Brett Jackson. I think it's also possible that a more upbeat, teaching, communicating manager like Quade (theoretically) might be a better fit if/when Vitters hits the majors. Some managers might lose patience with him, but a guy who might be a more patient teacher and encourager and reminder and motivator could perhaps serve him well. Tim, have you heard much in terms of Lake's attitude and coachability and stuff? I know Phil thought he had some non-trivial issues back when he was in Mesa years back, and this fall he rather uncharitably speculated that the reason Lake might not be at Instrux might be because instructional camp is for instruction, and if they figure that Lake doesn't take coaching anyway what would be the point? I'm guessing Phil may be way off, but I was wondering if you have any info or insights into how much of an attitude case Lake might or might not be? Is that actually an issue that will hold him back or should be factored in our projections? Or is that totally a non-issue? Who knows if there were every any real issues, and even if there were he may well have already grown out of them or will do so. And even if he doesn't, there are certainly plenty of attitude guys and jerks in pro sports, so that isn't necessarily any problem in terms of performance and winning.... The radical change in his walk rate from Peoria to Daytona certainly suggests that whatever he is or isn't, he's not beyond making some adjustments for the better.

I think it's interesting that Carpenter is being used in relief. I have no idea what the dynamics and basics are for how AFL guys get used. Maybe other teams have sent guys who need work and need to be starting, or whatever, or maybe he'll start the rest of the month, who knows. But I think there is such a good likelihood that his big-league career, if any and if sustainable, will be in relief. Just to experience that, if even for a couple weeks, seems good. 1. Given his history of arm troubles pretty much every year, can his arm even be considered for relief use? Can he loosen up and let it rip every other day, or even back-to-back days on occasion? How will his velocity be? 2. Many pitchers take an inning or two to get loose and to find their stuff. But it is very rare for a big-league reliever to often go more than an inning. Can Carpenter find his stuff quickly enough for relief? 3. Many pitchers throw considerably harder in relief. In rotation they pace themselves, in rotation they get tired, in rotation they don't have big adrenalin rush for whole game. Is Carpenter a guy who, if he's working short, can get the adrenalin going and let it rip and suddenly is throwing sinkers consistently at 91-94, and flashing in 4-seamer at 95-98 routinely? 4. Carpenter has not been the king of consistency or control, IMO. As mentioned, without knowing when you're pitching and having a long warmup, sometimes relievers can have even worse control problems. But for other control-iffy pitchers, relief can actually help. Pitching every other day instead of once every five, sometimes it's easier to keep your delivery and mechanics in line. Maybe he'll settle into a relief role and find it brings out his best? 5. There have been some questions about Carpenter's "game face", that his pitching can get knocked out of equilibrium and he can seem to tense up, after error or getting in a jam or whatever. Is he capable of handling the pressure of relief? Or if a guy is a worrier and overthinker, might regular relief be a benefit. Instead of stressing for four days after a bad start, and then overadjusting and making something worse, perhaps relief might enable him to just get back out there and keep a more steady good equilibrium? Who knows. Whatever the answers, I think it's potentially a nice chance to see how he can handle relief.

All of the Koreans (except Kim and Na) have been injured. Lee had arm surgery, Rhee had arm surgery, Jung has had arm problems and ended the season with a bad shoulder (never a good precursor), Ha had a bunch of injuries that impacted last year, and the OFer has been injured so much that he has yet to play. They throw and play and practice a lot. I wonder if they aren't more prone to injuries as a result? An age ago Ryu also didn't wait long to have arm problems and lose his velocity. But it does seem that prior to getting hurt, the Cub scouts have done a pretty good job of scouting for talent. Rhee and Ryu may have gotten their arms shot pretty quickly, but until that happened their talent was undeniable. And Lee and Ha both have some obvious talents as well. So other than Na, it doesn't seem like the scouts are just whiffing on talent evaluations.

Agree. It's a small sample size. The 12K/1BB seems nice, the 7+ ERA doesn't; he was good twice, bad another time. Phil's reports on pitchers have been iffy IMO, but when they jive with the $1+ in scouting talk, I'm all in. Agreed. I've got Kim at 15, a bit down from Simpson, but could almost as easily have put him up at, say, 7 in front of Vitters and Lake. I tend to not give international guys quite as much scouting credit as I do for draft. Because the internationals are free agents, I always assume the free market bumps their bucks some. If limited by draft, perhaps Kim would have gotten no more than Golden or Raley? I suspect I've got Sanchez and the always-injured Korean OF a little higher than most, too. We'll see. I hope so. Kim is the best prospect, based on 10 innings of 7+ ERA ball in instrux! Rhee and Jung have both been injured, so it remains to be seen whether they know how to scout a pitcher who can stay healthy through even A-. Rhee didn't show much stuff last year, so whether or not he's going to make it anywhere, time will tell. Lee is the top guy from Korea, but he's in A-, K's, and shows no power. We'll see. Chen isn't much. Neither of the Wangs impressed much. Na appears to have been a complete waste of money, not sure what happened there. Ha is interesting for sure, but a corner outfielder with an IsoD of around zero had better either get some IsoD or else hit with an awful lot of power. So as hopeful as I am with those kids, I think it's something of an open question whether we're going to actually get much payoff out of those signings. Lets hope so.