craig

Some of this stuff sounded interesting. Could you post a link to this? I agree with your thought that Golden will be an overslot. He's HS, after all, so that goes with the territory, and there was talk that he might be sandwich or even 1st round. It's interesting that the signings have basically stopped over the last week. I hope we get a lot of these guys. Last year by this time most of the slot and normal JC/HS-$100-150-slot guys had already signed. After this point, I'd guess that Lemahieu (modest overslot), Kirk, Raley, Burruel, and Struck were some who hadn't signed yet. But most of the Mincone/Springfield/Runey Davis types were in, and Burruel was the only one of the HS picks who signed later. I sure hope we haul in more... a *LOT* more.

I dont think 1 bad outing for searle grants that he is pitching worse? .... Yes, I phrased it badly. He had a 4.42 ERA last year in A+, this year has a combined 4.17 ERA, mostly at a lower level. So I guess that while he isn't really any better, given the lower level, that neither is he any worse than last year. I guess I'd just kind of assumed that when a young guy repeats a level (or goes backwards), he should be showing improved stats to be taken very seriously. But Searle has been good his last three starts, so maybe he's been at a plateau and is just entering a place where he's start improving noticeably. That would be pretty fun.

I'm guessing he's been lucky; he's been pitching better; he's throwing harder; and he's more relaxed. It's not like he's K'ing everybody or allowing no HR's. I think the BABIP against is like .180. That spells some luck. It's probably also some better pitching. If you can pop guys up, they often end up as outs. I'm guessing he's throwing harder. This spring it seemed he was trying to be this refined pitcher, but Greg Maddux he wasn't. But the guy who was drafted for his 98-mph velocity, it seemed he was largely throwing 88-91. A soft-tosser without control or much breaking stuff, he got killed. My guess is that they sent him back to relief, said forget about being this multi-pitch finesse starting pitcher, and start firing the ball. He's had times where his velocity was variably good in the past, so I'm guessing he's somehow recovered at least some of that. I've got to imagine his head is in a different place, too. Will be interesting to see whether he's just been on a lucky hot streak that will run out soon, or whether he'll be able to sustain anything.

That is a great story, Cal, and a reminder of why a junior really should sign. You've got to really go nuts as a senior and be a pretty exceptional player to make your bonus go up after your senior year. A $125K bonus is a great start toward a middle-class lifestyle. How many young families wouldn't love the potential to buy a $125K house and pay it all straight with no mortgage payments! On the pac rim guys, I'm normally a pretty big optimist and tend to try to understand management decisions etc, rather than just criticize everything. So I don't think I'm coming from a reflexive ripper mentality. But I have to admit the returns on the pacific spendings hasn't been very encouraging. I know that every player has a unique pathway to the major leagues. But the normal scenario is a funnel: lots of guys are good, with each year and each step up attrition weeds them out, and guys who don't look good relative to low-A don't real often end up looking good relative to major leaguers. Given the normal funnel, Im pretty disappointed that so many of the Korean and Australian kids look so mediocre or unexciting so quickly. I don't see any but Lee who have actually played here (the million-dollar pitcher who hasn't, who knows) looking like top-30 guys in a mediocre farm system.

Unfortunately Castro is the only decent prospect we've signed in the last decade from Latin, and the organization has seemingly consciously and intentionally chosen to not spend there. I'm not confident that will change (either the spending or the ability of our latin scouts to evaluate well.) And our PacRim money, that's looking pretty worthless too. Rhee looks like a fringe junk finesser at this point, pretty low prospect. Jung looks bad, Ha looks worthless, Na is a midget with no power projection who hit .100's in XSL and is hitless in first two games at Boise, nothing prodigy-looking there. A few years ago we signed some Australians, but that was 2-3 years ago, the only one still alive is Searle, who's pitching worse following a demotion. So basically all of our Pac Rim investments, no-power error machine Lee is the one major-league prospect.

Thanks, cal. Pinckney is a possibility for a modest superslot, but I can't imagine it's even remotely possible that he'd be a $0.5 type guy. Geiger sounds probably like the almost-no-chance, like Sonny Gray or something, to me. I don't get the crum deal, or think he's very likely, unless he's throwing 96 or something. A guy from houston, it's not like scouts have never heard of the guy. If he had a big-dollar arm and has even a remote chance to recover it, and if there is any chance that he'll sign for what teams might really offer, teams wouldn't likely be passing on him till round 46. So I'd guess he lasted that long because he really wants an almost impossible bonus.

Cal, which guys as you see it look like potential high-price guys, were we to do what it took to sign them? Guys who we'd need to go beyond the standard $100-150 cost that applies to any HS/JC pick? Crum (46)? How much is it thought he wants, and how high of a ceiling is it thought that, if healthy, he might have? Geiger (24)? To your knowledge were Wells, DeJesus, or Golden himself expected to require substantial superslots, or do you figure these are all basically slot-signable, plus the standard extra 40% or whatever that is per normal for HS picks? Are there any particular draft-and-follow guys, the way that Wilson was two years ago, other than Crum? We've talked about spending. I'm just wondering whether there are any real noteworthy or appealing targets. And whether we have enough juicy targets so that if the budget was actually high enough to put us in the top 3rd in draft spending rather than in the bottom 3rd, whether we'd have guys worth spending on?

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100619&content_id=11352666&notebook_id=11353288&vkey=notebook_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc Add teenage pitchers Reed (12th HS) and Rice (25th CC)

1. I keep seeing "prearrange" in some pejorative, negative context. I think that's over-criticized. If you're going to pick somebody, it makes sense to have pre-contacted about signability. Which includes but is not limited to money. Last year they called a HS outfielder, he said he wouldn't sign, they took Lemahieu (who himself required some superslot). They'd gotten feedback on Raley too, that he'd eventually be willing to pitch and be signable if the money was right and it wouldn't take millions. Getting feedback on money is totally routine, for Cubs and every other organization. And it should be. 2. The concept that the Cubs had talked to Simpson and been led to believe that he'd be signable for a million, there is nothing weird or problematic about that. 3. I still believe that Simpson was a straight scouting pick. Wilken's comments are to that effect. After hearing him, the BA people seemed to believe that. Was it dumb scouting? Very possible, but that's a different issue. If he's a stupid scout, that's a huge problem, and is a huge issue unto itself. 4. Did Wilken knowingly take an inferior prospect because he was willing to sign for sub-slot and the Cubs weren't willing to pay slot? That is it's own issue. Did Wilken take an inferior guy based on money? a) It's a fair question, and if the answer is YES it's really regrettable and disgusting. b) For the most of you who are assuming the answer is yes, your assumption may possibly be correct. It's not an inherently illogical or ridiculous assumption. so I'm not saying you're wrong or that I can prove or persuade to the contrary. c) But I don't think it's inherently illogical to believe that Wilken was drafting the guy he viewed as BPA, based on scouting stuff. (Again, this is in his perhaps clouded BPA evaluation). Wilken thinks Simpson is the best guy. Therefore he takes him. That Simpson has already expressed that he won't need $3 million to sign is coincidental frosting, not the cause. I think that view c is probably simpler than view b, Occam's Razor and all that. It doesn't require that Wilken be lying or pretending. It doesn't require that the BA guys who believed he picked Simpson BPA have been gullibly duped. It fits with his comment to Jim Crawford. And it fits with his past. (He's not been a subslot drafter.)

http://arkansasnews.com/2010/06/17/good-scouts-find-the-good-‘uns/ Not sure if this was posted earlier. Interesting little article about Hayden Simpson, Wilken, and scout Jim Crawford. 'The Chicago Cubs’ semi-maverick scouting director told a trusted lieutenant to watch the major league draft analysis and enjoy the squirming. As soon as we take Hayden Simpson, “ESPN will take a 10-minute break trying to find him,” Tim Wilken told Jim Crawford.'

HS Ryan Hartman signs. http://www.herald-review.com/sports/article_ed03e496-7b64-11df-a119-001cc4c002e0.html

This was probably posted somewhere, but I don't recall seeing it. A dominating curve and change to go with 90-92 for a teenage lefty seems pretty intersting. Why is a guy like that supposedly viewed as no better then a 10th rounder and so ridiculous for a 4th round pick? We'll see, of course. But would seem to have some pretty intersting upside if he's throwing three good pitches for strikes. 92K/58 innings, nothing wrong with that. I wonder how low-level the competition was? HUNTER ACKERMAN, lhp, Louisburg (N.C.) JC SCOUTING PROFILE: An unheralded prep lefthander from Virginia, Ackerman wasn’t on the radar of area scouts at the start of the 2010 season. He did little in the fall to tip off scouts that he might be a prospect to pay attention to as his fastball was a modest 87-89 mph; he struggled to throw strikes and got hit around repeatedly. But the light suddenly went on for the 6-foot, 180-pound lefthander, and he soon began throwing three quality pitches for strikes. The velocity on his fastball jumped to 90-92 mph, and he complemented it with a dominating curve and change. His curve, his best pitch, was extremely effective when thrown down and in on righthanded hitters. As he began throwing complete games or going deep in almost every start, his stock jumped, especially in the last month of the season. In 58 innings, he went 8-1, 1.40 with 92 strikeouts.—ALLAN SIMPSON

I came across the following in a 6/15 Arizona Phil bit (http://www.thecubreporter.com/2010/06/14/here-come-hawks-mighty-boise-hawks), referring to a June 11 interview report (ttp://cubs.scout.com/2/976666.html) Q&A with Simpson Submitted by Rob G. on Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:09am. http://cubs.scout.com/2/976666.html says he sits between 93-94 most of the time.. I throw a changeup and I’ve yet to see anybody throw it the way I throw it. It’s hard to explain, but I throw it two different ways – one way to right-handed batters where it drops straight down and another way to lefties where it runs away and goes down. And I throw a two-seam fastball that’s more like a sinker; an overhand 12-6 curveball; then the four-seam fastball and then I throw a slider that’s two different ways as well. I thought that was really interesting. Hearing what a pitcher actually thinks about his stuff and how he uses it is often more insightful than reading a brief outside scouting report. By his comments it's seven pitches: 2 changes, 2 sliders, 2 fastballs, and 1 curve. The ability to mix and match and make variable perturbations on their pitches is common for many effective pitchers. We'll see with Simpson.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/N/Chad-Noble.shtml Wow.

Big Bour hit a HR tonight (grand slam maybe?), his second in two nights. After hitting 7 in his first 420+pro AB.

Part of the scouting process is getting feedback on what a guy will sign for. Anybody know, does a guy need to fill that out 30 times for each team, or is there kind of a shared feedback survey that a prospect fills out and that everybody has access to? I'm sure many players don't know, or might be vague, or might change their minds between giving feedback in March and getting drafted in June. But if a guy has indicated he'll sign for $100K, and then the scout whips out the standard $100K baseline deal, I'd think a guy could sign pretty fast. I guess that's prearranged. But I think since everybody gives at least some feedback on what they'll cost, in a sense any such player who then is offered what he wanted and then really accepts that without deciding to push for more would qualify as a prearrange. In which case "prearrange" would be very common procedure. I suspect there aren't more immediate signings because clubs often try to offer a bit below what the kid indicated he wanted; or because no matter what the kid originally indicated, he ends up pausing or reconsidering or trying for more. Or because things get complicated by the school scholarship values added and stuff like that.

Thanks for the Wilken/Simpson, Greahouse, and Jokisch info, cal. Fun to read. The Wilken stuff that Simpson was 92-97 at end of the year, and on short rest as well, that's pretty encouraging. As for Kotchman, he could have been there for Simpson but he could also have been looking at whomever, to pick in round 32 or 26 or whenever. But, if he's there he's there, and he's seeing what Wilken is seeing. So regardless of whom he might have come to watch, if he's seeing Simpson pitching like a polished 4-pitcher 92-97 first rounder, he's going to tell his team that, and he's a respected name. So I can well understand how if Wilken sees the guy as a quality 1st round talent, he should rightly assume that Kotchman is seeing the same qualities and may well persuade his team to use one of their five picks in front of our #65 to get him. Again, I'm not saying Wilken was right to evaluate Simpson as so good, and so BPA-superior that he couldn't afford risking losing him. He might be nuts. But if his evaluation is smart, then the strategy of picking him as BPA at 16 was appropriate. Greathouse sounds pretty interesting. If he was 4th-6th round talent and he's signable in round 8, that's great. At 19, it would seem he's got some room to improve, and while 88-92 isn't special, if you added two mph a 90-94 lefty with a plus curve and a good change could look very good. Who knows. But not having pitched a lot, it would seem that what he will become could be quite different from what he is now. Jokisch sounds not too exciting. But I am a big believer in the cutter, so if he can add an excellent cutter to an excellent change, there are Lilly's and lefty relievers who make careers with that. And while a junior, he's still only 20, so again it's not inconceivable that he might get a little stronger or faster or better. I'd also guess that he's signable, since he seems to understand that he's not a power pitcher and isn't likely to vault into the first round or anything like that even if he returns to the draft next year.

Over slot, at that. He's a 19th rounder who got a $110,000 bonus. Nice to see. I'm always happier when they like a guy enough to pay him 7th round money than 19th. Not surprising. I think that basically *is slot* for a non-college pick taken after the first ten rounds. Barring strange circumstances, no HS, teenage, or JC picks ever sign for less than $100K. If you think you've got some potential, if you're young so that the clock isn't ticking too badly, and if you're going to be eligible to get drafted next year without lit being as a no-leverage senior, it doesn't make financial sense to ever sign for less than $100K, and I don't think anybody does, for us or anybody else. If you're a college junior, you'll have no leverage next year, and your age-clock is ticking, that's when signing for <$100K makes sense. Between rounds 11-30 we took eleven guys who fit under the HS, JC, sophomore-eligible umbrella, and 16 more in the last 20 rounds. I think $100K is more or less the baseline slot offer for guys like this; it's only really "superslot" relative to that demographic if they're getting significantly beyond $100K. (Watkins at $450, that's obviously superslot; but Fitzgerald, not really, IMO.) My guess is that pretty much all of that goup in rounds 11-30 get the baseline $100K offer, and probably at least a handful if not necessarily all in the last 20 rounds. My guess is that every one of those 11 guys has already been given a standing offer of $100K or better. And i'm guessing that at least some of the 8 college juniors in the 10-30 group have also gotten that much offer, if they seem to have enough upside so that a good senior year could put them into the top 7 rounds. So my guess is that they'd be delighted to have a dozen guys accept the standard $100 K "superslot" that isn't really that super. Fitzgerald is just the first. And obviously at least some of the college guys might get that too. (Coleman, for example, got 6 figures.) Obviously a lot of the guys are probably draft-and-follow. Either they aren't offering $100K to all 27 of the less-than-21-year-olds taken in rounds 11-50. Or else they know pretty well that not too many will take it. I assume in many cases they make either no offer or a low offer that is certain to be declined, and then see how they do in whatever summer league they play in. Then reevaluate whether to offer at all, or how far to improve an offer before the August deadline. If Ben Wells is pitching 92-94 with command in June and July, you're probably going to go well beyond $100K to try to get him. But if he's back to 86 most of the time, likely not. Last year's draft was a little disappointing in that a HS pick like Springfield, taken in the top ten, was signable for so cheap. He's played down to his unusually small signing bonus (for a HSer) thus far. McNutt, of course, is the key to that draft. But we didn't get many of the $100K guys to sign. But this draft has a lower population of 21-and-old college picks than any of Wilken's to date. By a lot. Hopefully we'll get a fair dose of the younger picks signed, and several of them will turn golden for us.

Thanks, pete. Any impression of whether he's got any agility defensively at 1B? Is there a chance he could actually play 1B, or at the big-league level would he be pretty much limited to DH? Bour is a huge guy, right? He lists at 6'4", 250. He just turned 22 two weeks ago, so while he's not young, it's not like he's really old either. If he improved enough to go step by step, to begin A+ at 22 next year, AA at 23, that wouldn't be grossly age-inappropriate. I think it's all about the HR power, and the defense, with him. In 200 AB he's got 34K/29BB. So he seems to be one of the best contact hitters we've got, 17% K-rate is excellent for a power hitter. If a guy can sustain 17K/14walks/100 AB for a career, he's got a chance to be very good... if he shows some power and can play a position. 4 HR/200 AB, that's not very good. But if he could double that and project more as a 20HR guy down the road, you might have a really nice bat. Not likely at all, of course. He only hit 4 last year too, in 237 AB. So HR's are probably not now part of his game, and probably never will be, especially against better pitching. But with that size and that contact ability, I'm keeping my eye on him a little bit. If he could start lifting the ball for some HR's, I'll start to get interested.

I'm no scout and don't know anything. But I'm inclined to go on trust. I do think that Wilken has done pretty well over his career with his 1sts. And as it stands, I am inclined to project Colvin to become a successful one. Obviously Vitters, it's hard to envision that turning into a success. And Jackson certainly looks like he won't be much good, but he was next to the sandwich round, and maybe in time he'll become OK, too. Several comments: 1. Teams are under no obligation to talk up sleeper guys. If a guy is a famous top-tier candidate, why not speak your mind? It's not like nobody has heard about sales or Whitson. But for a guy like this, maybe not? If I think a sleeper is a first round talent, but I'm not sure everybody else agrees, I might be a little less forthcoming to BA and give a little more emphasis on the "but" negatives. 2. BA lists aren't always real current. And I would think especially for an obscure prospect. So I don't think the fact that BA wasn't on him, and perhaps scouts weren't that open about how interested they might be, means that at this point he was really going to last to 191 or 121 or 68. 3. It takes one team to take a guy that you wanted. 4. Teams need to go by their own draft boards. Going by BA or mocks, that isn't reliable. If you think he's BPA, I don't think it's wise to trust Keith Law and Jim Callis to ensure that none of the other 30 teams will see the value that you do and pick him somewhere among the next 50 picks. I think it's almost always the best policy to pick your BPA. 5. The proof will be in the future. But Wilken needs to go with his own draft board. If he's vindicated, he's vindicated. If he's not, then of course he'll be subject to the criticism. But I don't think it's that complicated. You've just got to go with your BPA, and not get too cute guessing what other people are going to do.

I haven't been able to track things as closely this spring. Have there been any scouting reports on Rhee thus far this year? I know his numbers look very mediocre, lots of hits and the poor K/BB. But have we gotten anything on his actual arm and stuff? Perhaps two questions in particular: 1. What kind of velocity does he have these days? Is he an 85-90 type guy at this point? Or is he back to the 87-93 type range he was pre-surg? 2. His most admired pitch pre-surg, IIRC, was his splitter, which I believe was alternatively referred to simply as a really good change. Does he still throw that, and is there any indication of whether it's any good now? Or was the splitter thought to be responsible for his arm problems such that he doesn't use it anymore?

22-year-old Coleman with a fairly typical line, 6 innings and 2 earned. He rarely flashes any extraordinary 10K/0BB lines. Three concerns I've had about him have been: 1. Low K's 2. High HR's 3. Questionable velocity. But the low-K's have improved lately. Over his first 5 starters, he had a total of 14 K's combined, in 32 innings. But in 4 of his last 5 starts, he's had 4 or 5 K's, typically in 6-inning outings. Still not excellent, but significantly better. He's had strong groundball ratios, 1.04 GO/AO. That doesn't help that much if you're still a HR guy. But 6 HR in 62 PCL innings isn't bad. And if the walks stay long enough, his K rate may be just fine.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/bridge/index.php?f=3&t=56603&rb_v=viewtopic Heh, the link is to the discussion we had starting in January. Kind of fun to go back and reread some of that stuff. You had "reliever written all over him". I argued that there was a good chance that he'd not end up making it as a starter (maybe he wouldn't have the stamina; maybe his control wouldn't be good enough; maybe his fastball was too straight and invariable; maybe his change would never become useful....), but thought they should at least let him try, or that it was possible that he would work out as a starter. I don't think either of us imagined he'd do as well as he has thus far this season. We'll see how long it lasts. But it sure has been a nice story thus far.

Nice game for Struck. Heh, hope he sustains his 1.8 ERA! Good to see Flaherty getting untracked, and Castillo. What's been up with Castillo. Has he been hurt? He only has like 15 or 18 AB's; that's less than half-time playing action, right?

When signed, he supposedly touched up to 90-92. He had some arm trouble thereafter. He's scouted as a good control pitcher, but hasn't seemed to throw hard enough to get taken seriously. He was 23 last year in full-season, moved up pretty quick, and a 4.0 ERA isn't eye-catching (none of his numbers were), but it isn't bad, either. He was much better 2nd half. If we got some reports next week that Chen is now throwing 90-92, I'd be all buzzed. Not likely. But most outs are made with movement and command more than velocity.