craig

Guyer is a clear candidate for 5th outfielder as is. I doubt he'd get very much action, so short of an injury I'd prefer that he plan in Iowa than be 25th man in Wrigley April. Right now his pedigree is basically a great half season in AA. But none of us know if he can really sustain that. Big question mark. If he goes as 25th man and is hitting .245 in 65 AB by end of July, he won't have proven he's anything serious, he won't have any trade value, and he'll still be the big question mark that he is now. Nobody will trade anything serious for that, nor will we possibly entrust a starting job to him or anything like that. I'd prefer he was back at Iowa. If he hits .275 with modest OBP and few HR's, we'll know he's not qualified for any significant role. But if he bounces back from his big year last summer by hitting .320 with HR's and a .900+ OPS, that will reinforce that he's serious, that it wasn't a hot fluke, and that he could be considered for a serious 4th-OF role or starter; and that if somebody wanted him in trade they should offer something meaningful. But if one of our front four OFers is injured, then Guyer would be able to show whether he was or wasn't ready in the majors. I don't want any injuries, but they aren't uncommon so that might provide opening for him to get more meaningful AB and allow more meaningful evaluation. Maybe Hendry is set with roster, but it's still possible that he'll deal Fuku to clear moneys to pay somebody else. A fuku trade would obviously change the landscape for Guyer's chances.

But that doesn't really fit Wilken's style. Yeah, I know. I think Wilken is damn good at getting guys who can contribute too. Which is hells better than most scouting directors. I know he believes in taking "up the middle" types, which kind of takes the power quotient away right off the bat in most cases. And this upcoming draft appears(too early to tell probably) to be pitching heavy moreso than hitting. Which is fine with me too, if we get a guy who can profile as an ace. In the end, I guess I'm hoping that since we are very strong up the middle now, maybe he'll start swaying from that philosophy a tad anyway. 1. I wonder how many "boom or bust" guys actually ever boom? Maybe it's just my experience as a Cub fan, but it seems like anybody who's ever been tabbed as "boom or bust" busted. I suppose Archer might be the exception, as it stands now. There are guys who have high "boom" ceilings, and that's good. But it often seems that if they already have "bust" concerns from the beginning, it's almost a lock that the "bust" flaw will kill them. A couple of thoughts on Wilken and up-the-middle orientation. 1. A good team needs to get some quality, asset middle-of-the-order hitters. Doing nothing but going after #2 and #7 hitters, that doesn't make for a winner. I was trying to think about this in the context of Ron Santo's death. Since Santo was signed in 1959, what middle-of-the-order players have the Cubs ever signed as amateurs, who have contributed as middle-of-the-order guys for the Cubs? In draft, pre-draft, or internationally? I think in 50 years, Colvin might be the 2nd best one? Mark Grace (who really should have been batting 2nd on a good team) the best. Joe Carter and Rafael palmeiro, who got traded before they became asset middle hitters for the Cubs. After that, Colvin, a few weeks of Corey, Brooks Kieschnick? Maybe Rick Wilkins for a year and Soto, even though as pokey catchers neither batted in the middle often? 2. Given the cost of acquiring quality middle-of-the-order producers as free agent or in trade, it's really critical that we come up with some through the system. Hendry struck magic by acquiring Aram and Lee via trade, which resulted in the best stretch of Cub rosters in my lifetime. But it's hard to get them that way. Would be nice to produce some ourselves, and get some cheap years, and have them willing to resign at stay-at-home price instead of the Soriano/Werth need to drastically outbid anybody else in FA. 3. I don't think Wilken's "middle" stuff is too extreme. He's drafted plenty of guys who projected for power. Vitters was certainly no shortstop, he was drafted for his bat and power. Golden is no CF, he's drafted with a shot to be a middle hitter. Colvin wasn't viewed as a power guy, but Wilken correctly foresaw, and now we see that he's got plenty of power, it's just a question of whether he can hit enough. And Colvin was a 1B/corner type in college. Flaherty was a SS, but he's supposedly grown very big and is now perhaps sized more as a LF/1B than even a 3B or 2b. That catcher we traded for harden, he was a power-producing prospect. Guyer wasn't a SS/CF either, and was drafted with hopes he'd blossom into a middle-of-the-order bat. So I don't really think that Wilken's draft's have been too prioritized on skinny SS's who will remain skinny SS's. His position picks have usually seemed to have plenty of value for guys who might end up with HR power if they could just hit the ball. The catcher we traded, Flaherty, Colvin, Guyer, those all seem like picks who had pretty high-ceilings as HR hitters. I believe there was also a report that the Cubs called a HS bat in the 2009 draft and wanted to draft him in the 2nd round, but he said he wouldn't sign so they went to Lemahieu. One might argue that some of the pitcher moves have also been rather boom-or-bust hope-you-get-lucky. Chris Huseby for sure. samardzija, those were both shoot-for-the-stars picks, that of course haven't worked. I think Carpenter was, too; Cashner, as a reliever with limited inning but a big arm. Shafer is another shoot-for-the-stars pick in round 2; with his curve and finesse, imagine how starry he might look if he'd regained the 93-96 velocity that seemed well possible pre-surgery? Even Simpson, Wilken says he was throwing a lot of 96's, with a four pitch arsenal and promising command. If you get a four-pitch control pitcher with a good head and a 96-97 fastball, that seems pretty shoot-for-the-stars to me, too. But, shooting for the stars works only if you hit on some of those shots. We need to see some of these non-conservative gamble picks work out sooner or later.

Given the youth of the Cubs system, how does that impact how they rank against other organizations? .... I know that age is important in gauging an individual prospects value, but what about collectively? toonster, thanks for that tidbit, I hadn't expected that either. I think the age-factor matters at the organizational level, particularly because it includes a large volume of guys. We know that not all younger players improve very much (see Corey, Pie, Choi, Kelton....), but over a large sample some will, perhaps unexpectedly. With a large volume of younger prospects, it improves the chance to get some pleasant and unexpected developmental surprises. This is especially true for young pitchers. I don't expect the Cubs to rank very highly by BA types, probably around the middle, because I don't sense that their top-ten are considered to be that great. But I think our depth in the 10-40 range is quite strong. How many and how much those guys will improve is hard to anticipate. A flip note: I think sometimes organizations with more young guys get over-rated. Simply because younger guys can stay in the minors longer building up their rankings. Pie could be appearing in our top ten for years; Prior's only appearance was before he'd even pitched as a pro. Lee and Vitters, they could each have multiple appearances in our top-10 before they either make the majors to stay, or finally get dismissed as not being that promising after all.

Likewise rooting for him. The notion that he can throw 93-94 is faster than I've heard, I'd never gotten that impression that he had the potential to throw that fast.

Jackson's demotion followed an incident involving Lewallyn. That might not mean working under Lewallyn would be bad for him. If the guy has unprofessional habits, it may help him to work under a coach who won't let him get away with being a slacker and cutting corners.

Vitters peripherals in AFL look really good. He could use a little more HR power, and his BABIP stinks. But if a guy was able to full-season sustain his 6W/8K/59AB ratio, with over 40% of his hits for extra bases (and some of them HR's), you'd have a guy with VERY attractive numbers. If he had a normal BABIP this AFL instead of .237, he'd be hitting .330 and some of us would be more buzzed.

I'd think they could fit all of those guys. Chirinos, Archer, Guyer, Cabrera, Smith, and Smit. Six additions isn't that many, and obviously the first four are pretty much locks. (Well, Chirinos has already been rostered, so he doesn't really belong in the equation.) I don't even know who we've all still got on the 40, but last year it seemed we had a limitless supply of Berg/Stevens/Fuld/Mateo/Schlitter/Fuld/Hoffpauir/Snyder/Samardzija/Parker/Scales type fringers. If Smith and/or Smit are seen as comparably fringy, of course you can leave them off. But if management likes either one very much, bumping somebody off to make room shouldn't be too tough.

We'll see how Gonzalez does. If Gonzelez is both playing well and if the Cubs think he's got a chance to become good, then he'll get his opportunity to play. Not likely that they'll return him to Daytona after playing decently at Tennessee and then having a monter winter, but I wouldn't imagine Watkins is good enough to be blocking anybody. It could be tough to get a lot of action at Tennessee. Guys can share time, DH, play OF, and play 1B, so there are ways to get AB's even during a clutter. But if Vitters was to stay healthy enough to play most days, there could be a pinch on 2B/SS AB's. Nice to see Gonzalez having a big winter. I wouldn't be shocked to see him emerge as a meaningful utility prospect. He's shown a knack for contact, and he's young enough to imagine him growing into at least a little bit of power.

Interesting and fair points. I think I might see it a little differently. I think Lemahieu is a pure contact hitter. Yes, I assume that's partly a function of swinging aggressively and having a small and low-power stroke. So maybe if he takes some pitches, and swings for more power, he'll be K'ing like anybody else. Possible. But my feeling is that the "hit tool" is perhaps more intrinsic. It involves the ability to recognize ball movement and to respond. I think if you've got that, you can potentially adjust your stroke but still have the innate gift. Yes, obviously if you take a somewhat more power-oriented swing, you'll miss more often. But I don't think he'd necessarily lose much of the tool. (He might lose some average, though; I guess that's a finesse distinction.) 2nd, I think that HR's count as hits, too. If a player adds ten HR's, ten HR's are ten hits and for a 500-AB player, ten extra hits is 20 points of BA and OBP. Adding some HR's is not necessarily bad for batting average; it can help. 3rd, I think the two years of age difference is pretty significant. Being two years younger, Lem. has a chance to improve meaningfully. I don't have the two very different, so it's not like I'm arguing for Lem to be way ahead of Flaherty if at all. But Flaherty better get something going pretty soon. He's dropped quite a bit on my list from a year ago, because he hasn't improved with time as I'd hoped. The same may happen with Lem, who knows. But being a young man, there's at least the chance to hope. I guess I think guys who just have the gift of being good contact hitters, I think they can make adjustments for the better. Can choose to add more patience; can build themselves into more power. If Lemahieu has the gift, he may have the capacity to evolve offensively in a way that is less possible for guys who just have trouble putting the bat on the ball.

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.