craig

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...)

"

Jim Callis: That would be most usable power. Vitters and Golden might have more raw power, but as of now, I'd bet that Jackson will hit the most homers in the big leagues. Jackson's raw power is nothing to scoff at either."

In chat, Callis said "I had trouble squeezing lefties onto the Top 30. I got Brooks Raley on there but left Rusin and Kirk off. They'll all close, as are Jeffry Antigua and Cameron Greathouse." Elsewhere he also mentioned liking but not being able to include Belivieu. 

 If I was sure Antigua's arm was healthy, I'd personally have him in my top 30. But when he had a couple of DL's with arm trouble (I think shoulder) this summer, that's an added concern. His other red flag this summer was the high HR's, although perhaps pitching with a sore arm might have contributed and if he's healthy perhaps that won't be a persistent problem. But if I was sure he's healthy, I'd take him pretty seriously and definitely have him in top 30.

For every young hitter, the question of future HR power is central. Other than the negative comment on Ha's power (15-HR max), I very much liked some of the comments on other guys: Lemahieu: Cubs think Lemahieu could adjust and hit 15 per, that's terrific. Very encouraging. If he did that, and played 2B, with his contact/average skills, you'd have a great value. Likely, maybe not, but nice to think there's at least a chance. And with his contact skills, I think 15-HR power could support 3B too. Szczur: Talk about hitting 400-foot bombs and having average-to-better power with great hitting/contact skills, that's WOW encouraging. HR's need power and contact. If the power is average or better and the contact is really good, look out. Lee: "has the bat speed and strength in his hands to hit for some power once he develops". That's really encouraging too. He doesn't need to hit 15, but if he could hit 8-12 and keep the OFers honest, that's really encouraging. Cerda: "I think he fits best at third base, and he may not have enough power for the position." If it's even in question that he might almost remotely have some power to keep 3B in consideration, that would suggest that he's not Theriot light. Maybe 8-15 HR potential? A good contact hitter with 8-15 HR potential could be a very good utility or 2B bat. (Wasn't Golden: "I've had multiple scouts compare him to a young Kevin Mitchell. He has plus-plus raw power." That is awfully encouraging, too. Kevin Mitchell hit 47 and 35 HR's at ages 27 and 28 for the Giants, so we're talking serious corner OF/middle-lineup power potential. Very encouraging.

Callis is whipping these off on the fly, and he's just Callis. But that he's already talking about moving him to the mound is not a super ringing endorsement for Lake as a Hanley Ramirez upgrade. As a low-K contact-hitting .300+ guy with 7 HR in 77 games as a teenager, and being over 6 feet tall, I had hopes that Ha might have significant HR potential. Given that he never walks, if he's really only a 15-HR max guy, then he's much less interesting. O well, that's the value of getting additional input on guys. Hopefully that HR evaluation will prove incorrect, and the 7HR/77 games as a teenager will grow by the time he's 25. Maybe a wiry Luis Gonzalez type power guy down the road? HR-hitting is a function of contact and strength. If you're a premium contact guy, which I'm still hoping Ha may end up being, you don't need to be exceptionally strong to get a fair number of HR's.

Thanks, Cal. Interesting that Rusin and Belliveau didn't make it, but Logan Watkins of all people is still high 20's. Who knows. With three of the 2nd ten names, here's my guess for other seven names for the 2nd ten: Junior Lake Jay Jackson Reggie Golden Brooks Raley Ben Wells D.J. LeM Robinson Lopez, RHP I'll take a less confident shot at the pool from which the other names in the third ten are drawn: Aaron Kurcz Austin Reed Darwin Barney (is he still eligibile?) Jae-Hoon Ha Kim Jin-Yeong Cam Greathouse Robert Whitenack Brett Wallach Dae-Eun Rhee Nick Struck

Which guys outside of the top ten have been basically numbered, from the chat? A post said they had Chirinos and Castillo at 16-17, and Watkins/Flaherty at 21-22. (I'm shocked that Watkins is still that high. Whatever for, I wonder?) Who else kind of got pegged, whether with exact number of in ballpark area? On Bruce Miles's blog, http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5035#comments a poster copied in basically all of the top ten writeups. The Szczur writeup is really Wow. If he's really all that, I think they're going to be willing to offer more than the standing $0.5 to keep him.

For those like me who aren't BA subscribers, any tidbits from the chat would be much appreciated. For example, what did they say about Dallas Beeler? Will he be on the top-30? I know Az Phil liked him, too.

I think it's partly just a reflection of what BA is. It isn't a scouting org, it's basically a go-between that has access to scouts and passes on what scouts tell them. A guy doesn't make #1 pick without the scouts for that team believing. So when BA is reflecting what the scouts think, how can a 1st-round guy not make a top ten? That said, back in the Brownlie draft, I don't think that sandwich Blasco made even the top 25, and sandwich Clanton didn't even make the top 30. That probably speaks to how enthusiastic the Cubs and some scouts were about other prospects back then (perceptions were sky-high back then). And probably about how with other guys to gush about, how little gush attention was spent on those two sandwich picks.

Obviously if BA is popping the Cubs as #8, the inclusion of Caesar and Simpson is not just a reflection that they think we've got a bunch of junk prospects so they had to try somebody. I'm not even a little bit surprised that Simpson was included. If anything, I'm more surprised that he isn't even higher (ahead of Caesar and/or Carpenter). And I don't think it reflects unfavorably on BA, or causes any loss of respect. If anything I think it strengthen's my respect. I think they should be willing to change their rankings with new input, rather than stubbornly sticking with something they had before because they had it before. While he hasn't pitched since the draft, they got input after the draft that they didn't have when they published that list. I respect that they seem to have realized that their earlier listing was probably wrong. Hardly surprising. He was a short kid from a small school, and wasn't on their high-draft radar. I don't imagine all the scouts were buzzing about him. It's almost certain that the spin they got from Wilken post-draft (repeatedly hitting 96-97, good balance, good command of four pitches, good face) was somewhat more enthusiastic than the input they had when they made the list. New input, revise your rankings. Makes perfect and respectable sense to me. Would be stupid and stubborn to not do so. I also think that they know Wilken didn't make that pick on a 2-second whim, that he'd put thought into it. It's well possible that they never talked to more than a couple of scouts about him before that list (guys projected for 5th round or later don't get endless discussion, I don't think), and that none of those discussions was detailed or more than a half minute long. If they'd gotten Wilken's input before the original list, and having know how much time Wilken must have put into it, I'm sure they'd have ranked him WAY higher. Their lists are formed based on input from scouts they respect, and Wilken is one of the scouts they respect a lot. So when Wilken believes, I think they appropriately adjust their ranking accordingly. I think that's always how they operate. If we like Castillo, but they've got some trusted source scout who really doesn't believe, Castillo isn't going to rank very high. they are heavily influenced by their source scouts. It may well be that Dolis is so surprisingly high because one of their source scouts really likes Dolis.

Really? I'd love to get your thoughts, could you explain a little? Did you really, really love Szczur? Or are you pretty uninterested on Dolis?

I think these two posts kind of reflect the crux of how one evaluates Lee. If he's a dinky light-hitting guy, who can't even hit for average because he never gets any HR-hits (which help average) and he K's, that's one thing and it's a very limited thing. Then you're hoping for a lighter-version of Ryan Theriot with a better glove. And Theriot had the average he did because he didn't K. If you have Theriot-power with K's, you're really limited. If that's the projection for Lee offensively, he's not going to be valued much. But other people seem to think that Lee can sting the ball, at least for extra base power, and that while he won't be a 20-HR guy, that 10-HR power is not implausible and extra-base gap strength is within reach. His K-rate wasn't favorable, but perhaps it wasn't awful for a teenager in full-season. It may be that with more strength and more experience, that he'll reduce it. That's the hope, at any rate. Lake as a superior-fielding Hanley Ramirez, that would be pretty cool. I'd be happy with a good-fielding Hanley at 3B, 2B, RF, or LF. We'll see how it goes with Lake's power. When you hit HR's, that justifies a lot of things, like K's, and HR's are hits so it's a lot easier to have a decent batting average when you hit HR's. Tim, I agree 100% that not all tools are equal. If Lake is a serious HR hitter, who cares if Lee is a half-step faster in the 100-yard dash. Lake has been kind of a harvey-whiffer thus far. (>25% K-rate this past season.) Often that reflects some problems that bleed worse against better pitchers. But, he was only 20, so hopefully he'll improve, and if he develops into serious power, all kinds of things are forgiven for HR hitters.

Other interesting things: 1. Guyer as best outfielder. That's pretty encouraging. 2. Chirinos as best defensive catcher, ahead of Castillo.

Thanks for list. Eight of those were locks, one big surprise (Szczur), one small surprise (Dolis). So basically a pretty conservative list. On Dolis, I had him 14th on my list, and I think typically for guys in that 8-15 range, the separation is typically small. You could often rank the 8-15 guys randomly in a different order every day. I had risky low-minors risky position guys Lake, Ha, and Golden all ahead of him, but I can easily see how they'd put a big-armed AA groundballer like Dolis ahead of those guys. They'll have their turns in the top-10 for years if they produce. I'm generally enthused anytime a surprise name, even a small surprise like Dolis, gets included. That typically reflects that BA is hearing some enthusiasm, whether from the Cubs or from some other scouts or both. It may be that we underestimate Dolis's potential and value. He was 22, and had only pitched for 60 innings before his 2009 Daytona season. So he may have considerable improvement still ahead. Velocity and that kind of a groundball anti-HR stuff, that's a good start even if he doesn't have great control or a top K-ball yet. He improved substantially if not fantastically this year: his walk rate dropped by about 25%; his great HR-rate remained excellent even against the stronger AA hitters; and while at Daytona he knocked almost a run off his ERA. I've always assumed he'd end up as a reliever, and I still do. But a strong-armed anti-HR groundballer can be nice to have in the rotation, too. We'll see how he develops this year. Sometimes pitchers can take big steps, and sometimes the offseason is a good time for that to happen. I believe that some of the mechanical or grip adjustments are made during the offseason. And sometimes guys who are prospects because of their velocity, the breaking ball is the last thing to come around. If suddenly Dolis showed up with a sharper and more consistent slider, and a more deceptive and usable change, maybe he'd look like this year's Archer? Szczur surprised me much more. I had him only like 41st on my list. Partly because I expected him to go NFL. But for all the "great athlete" stuff, I didn't really know a lot about him, and some that I did know didn't seem that favorable. Supposedly fast, but he rarely stole even in college. If he didn't steal even against 1A pitchers/catcher in college, how likely that he's got the gift to steal in the majors? Supposedly fast, but Cubs played him mostly in left, and he scouted as having a left-fielder's arm. It seemed that most of the scouting reports on him talked about being a blood donor and being a football player; I didn't see all that much really about his baseball potential. So at first I figured he was a 5th rounder mostly because he's a 5th round baseball prospect. But if BA is listing him 7th, somebody must think he's got some tools that are pretty special, and that he's not just a 5th-round talent with some interesting blood/football stories. For BA to be hyping him up that high, I suspect that means Fleita must have gushed him up pretty seriously. Which in turn might mean the Cubs really do like him, and might even pay more if they think they need to to keep him away from the NFL. (As was the case with Samardz.) BA listing him so high might also reflect that the Cubs gushed him up as if they think they've got a serious shot to keep him, too. Which would also be favorable news. Even if it's some Fleita-gush impacted, I think it's some good news. Callis must certainly know Fleita well enough to know that he gushes. BA must have some kind of a Fleita-gush filter just like we all do. So I think for Szczur to rank that high, they must believe he's got some serious baseball potential and aren't just getting snowed by Fleita-gush. 1. Cal has suggested that Szczur played LF because Na was already locked in at Boise center. Hopefully the new spin will be that Szczur is a true CF prospect, speed-wise, instincts-wise, and arm-wise. Perhaps they're now thinking his arm isn't that bad and wouldn't preclude him from CF. 2. Perhaps they think that his speed might go towards SB in future? If he stole bases like young Lofton or like Pierre, versus like Felix Pie, that could make a difference. 3. Szczur hadn't hit for real power in college or Boise, and the reports usually talked about speed, football, and blood. So I had assumed Szczur projects little power. Maybe they think he has more potential to eventually drive the ball? A speedy contact-hitting CFer who hits 15 HR's is different from a LF who hits 3. We've already gotten a lot of enthusiasm about Golden and Wells from this draft. If Szczur is pretty talented, and merits being ranked up actually ahead of our 1st rounder, perhaps this was a more aggressive and high-ceiling draft that I'd thought.

My read is that Lake also definitely has a stronger arm. Whether it's as accurate, or whether he has the footwork and release time to make it as effective I don't know. But it's stronger. (Strength means a lot, but the stronger-armed SS isn't always the better-throwing SS. I am old enough to remember Shawon Dunston, who had a rocket, and Rey Sanchez. Dunston clearly threw harder, but Sanchez could play much deeper and was much better defensively because his release time was really quick, whereas Dunston had this massive windup that took forever. The time from the ball hitting the glove to actually getting to 1B was much longer with the Dunston-cannon than with Sanchez. IMO. I'm not at all suggesting that Lake has any such problem, just that a stronger-armed guy isn't automatically the preferable thrower.)

Lake was incredibly horrific for the first weeks or so. He was K'ing a ton, was hitting maybe .175 with no power and an OPS little better than .500. What he did after that offensively, to bring his season numbers back to where they ended up, was pretty surprising. I like Lee ahead of Lake, but I've never seen either and my thoughts are entirely derivative, based on what others have said or reported. Hard to know how much weight to give to different sources. Frankie P watches Lee for a week and writes his views, with background as a pro scout. Toonster, you give a very different spin. Unfortunately and with all respect, I don't even know how to contextualize your analysis. Do you watch these players yourself? Do you live in Peoria and see handfuls of games, or whatever? I don't know at all. Are you friends with Fleita or Wilken or one of the cross-checkers, so that even if you aren't watching them directly you're getting inside dope from people who are really watching them a lot? I have no idea. I'd love it if some of you most knowledgable posters shared that kind of perspective with us. And if you're like me, only a much more thorough reader of observations that have been posted on internet or in scouting books, that's fine too. For some years I think I captured and copied/saved pretty much every public comment or scouting evaluation about Cub prospects. So I had a much more thorough perspective on the range of scouting opinions about guys than I do now, when I know I miss quite a few. As for Lee, it's hard to know which opinion to give more weight. Seems to me there is the toonster version (pretty low and negative), the Frankie P perspective (way positive), and the BA assessment which is very favorable but is in between. To finish in the top 15 in the very deep Midwest League is pretty favorable. On any player different scouts have different opinions, so having a range of opinions is more the norm than the exception. But when there seems to be a lot of overlap from different sources, I generally give extra value there. There seems to be a lot of respect for Lee in general and for his defense in particular. I've seen more reports on Lee's defense than on Lake's, and the Lee reports have been consistently favorable. Report on Lee's physique also don't read as if he's likely to outgrow the position physically. So my impression is that he might become a premium defensive SS. I haven't read as much about Lake's defense, other than the obvious that he has a great arm and makes lots of errors. I'm surprised that this thread is suggesting that Lake's defense is almost as promising as Lee's. I'd just assumed that like most tall biggish teenagers with power potential who begin at SS, that he'd not end up there. If Lake actually projects as a high-quality plus-range plus-plus-plus-arm regular big-league SS, that's much more exciting than I've been expecting. I'm surprised, but I hope you guys are right. It's true that off of SS, Lee's offense would raise complaints. But high-level defensive SS's who have a chance to be high-OBP LH-hitting leadoff men don't grow on trees. I think Lee has a reasonable chance to be a .290BA-.350OBP leadoff guy. My understanding is that he can and does hit the ball hard sometimes, and will add some doubles strength. If he becomes a 5-10 HR guy with doubles power, I think that would be enough power to support a pretty good BA and OBP. It's hard to hit for real solid average if you're a 0-1 HR guy, but at the 5-10 level, I think that can be enough. SB's are unnecessary, but would be some nice frosting. Having a long-term fixture at leadoff would be pretty valuable. The Cubs haven't enjoyed good middle-infield defense or a quality leadoff guy very often. So I think Lee iis a high-value prospect, and I don't know enough to put Lake at that level. If Lee is that significant a prospect, and Lake is as good or better, and both kind of worked out, that would be just fabulous. I'm not quite sure, toonster, whether your take on Lee/Lake is a little different because you like Lee for some of the reasons I do, but also think Lake is terrific and have reason to value him perhaps more than I understood. Or if your relative valuation of the two is more a reflection of liking Lake, but not valuing Lee nearly as much as I or Frankie P or a lot of the guys who BA talks to. HOpefully the positive evaluations on both players end up being justified, and we have two long-term asset regulars on our hands. Seems to me that Lake's potential talent, to throw with a big arm and to hit with some power, that is much more position-switchable. A big arm is very desirable at 3B, and a big arm is very desirable at RF, and some athleticism helps at both places. If he had 20+ HR power and has a big arm, he could potentially fit in almost anywhere.