craig

http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/ Not sure I trust their calculations much, but minorleague slits calculates Guyer to have over a 100-point OPS "luck" factor and over 40 BA points of luck. Probably at least some reality to it that he's been lucky. Still, I'm interested. He doesn't seem to have the obvious weaknesses that some prospects do. He doesn't appear to be especially great at anything. But by report he outfields well; he throws pretty well; he runs pretty well; his base-stealing suggests that he runs fairly smartly/instinctively; he hustles and plays hard; his K-rate (15%?) is quite modest for a guy slugging .575; his HR/K ratio is nice (11HR/46K, that's not a batting-average killer); and while his walk-rate is low, it's not prohibitively horrendous. Instinct is to always push anybody who doesn't look like a 40-HR guy into center, but I don't think that's happening for Guyer (or Colvin) other than on a utility-backup basis. But there just aren't really all that many LFers or RFers in the majors these days who are .850+ OPS guys. If Guyer was to make it as an .800-.850 OPS guy who played good corner OF and ran well, that could be more of an asset than just boring. Likely, no. Possible, possibly. The other thing I wonder about is his HR power. I've gotten the impression that he doesn't scout as a HR guy. But, that was always true with Colvin as well, his minor-league numbers were always built on his power; nobody talked about him as a power guy; but now he's living off his power in the majors just as he did in the minors. They say Guyer is built like a linebacker. When a guy built like a linebacker has 11 HR in 300 AB, and is slugging .575, I'm not sure I understand why he's scouted as an anti-power guy? Well, OK, obviously his 3 HR last year are a good reason! But if he's built strong, can hit the ball, and has 11 HR's in 300 AB this year, I'm not sure why it would seem unfeasible for him to be a 15-25 HR guy if he was starting every day in Wrigley? Again, not likely, because things rarely work out that well for players. But hardly impossible. Last thought: I wonder how meaningful the minor league line-drive data is, as pertains to the "luck" factor. There are a lot of hard-hit balls that classify as "grounders" that hit the ground once before they're in the outfield. And there seem to be quite a few balls that classify as "liners" that don't seem very fast or hard-hit to me. I'm sometimes a bit cautious in over-interpreting some of the minor league stats.

Not correct. It reduces club control by three years, not one. 1. HS picks get five years before they need to be rostered, college picks four. That was a change in 06; previously it had been 4 and 3, but now it's 5 and 4. 2. It's not when you sign, it's when you play. Having signed on Aug 16, Wells is not going to play in any official minor league games this 2010. So his options clock will begin in 2011. So without the contract clause, it would have been 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, then roster winter of 15, and have his first option year in 2016, when he would be 23. 3. I'm not sure I'm remembering right, or what the details are on Wells's alleged contract. From the Bryant Daily: "But it also includes an unusual provision that guarantees that in 2013, Wells will be included on the Cubs' 40-man roster. That means he'll go to spring training with the Major League club that spring with a chance to make the 25-man roster." Not sure what "in 2013" means. It certainly reads like he'll be rostered during all of the 2013 season, and spend spring training of 2013 with the Cubs. That would mean only two non-rostered years. But, perhaps it means he'll be rostered *after* 2013, he'll be on the roster in 2013 in front of the Rule 5 draft, and will actually spend the 2014 spring training roster with the cubs. That would be trimming only two rather than three years off of his pre-option clock. Which would certainly be no big deal. Most of my lifetime HS picks had 4 years before Rule 5. I've hardly noticed the difference since it's been expanded to 5. I doubt it would be a big deal for Wells to drop it to 3. But to drop it to two, when probably next year will be all short-season action anyway, that would be pretty fast.

I think it's fair to judge that Ricketts is not radically or noticably redirecting the way the Cubs pursue success. No indication that there is a major commitment to build via draft spending. Nor via international investment. Nor via a larger big-league budget. Nor via a dramatic change in leadership from Hendry/Fleita (Hendry has been GM for 7 or 8 years, but he and Fleita have overseen the draft/development system for almost 15 years.) Nor with pushing/driving a significant usage of high-level statistical analysis. Ricketts seems like a nice upbeat optimistic fan who spent a zillion just to get the team, and perhaps doesn't have a bunch left over to steinbrennerize it either in FA or in draft. He also seems pretty delagatory. Hendry and Fleita have their jobs, Ricketts seems thus far to be fine with empowering and entrusting them to do their jobs, for better or for worse. My impression is that Ricketts is OK with working more from an upper-mid-market standpoint than to spend as if it's a true megamarket. Washington can go full-bore for draft; Ricketts seems kind of spread-it-around. Personally I think the big-league budget was awfully high, and I'm thinking that Ricketts is partially rebounding and pulling back from the massive contract commitments. If you packed the house and went to the playoffs, you make enough to justify the $140+ payroll. But when you're in 23rd place, and next winter you aren't likely to have season-ticket holders killing each other to buy tickets to see this team next year, I'm guessing he probably needs to have the big-league payroll come back to the pack. A budget that makes sense when you're realistically a playoff probable and a realistic WS possible is different from a budget that makes sense given our current personnel. And given how many of our current personnel are contract locked, it's not budget-feasible to buy yourself into a playoff probable. It's been suggested that the Lilly savings should have been spend on draft picks. I like the idea. But it might reasonably be thought that rather than freeing up discretionary money for spending, that Ricketts basically viewed that as simply reducing substantial losses. Cub the losses from $20 mill to $18 mill, or keep it at $20 mill and superslot DeJesus, Stites, and Santiago? I have no idea, but that's my guess.

thanks much. "...a number of teams that spent a lot less than usual (Brewers at $2m; Twins, Padres, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Marlins, Mets, and Phillies all around or below $4m)." That's sourced from BA, or Muskat, or mlb, or a poster's tabulation, or what? I'm wondering in part whether my guesstimate is significantly wrong, and if so why or who? (I'm probably a chunk of a million over by counting Szcur as $500K instead of $150 or whatever...) But maybe Reed and Harman are straight $110 guys, too, beats me.

Couple Q's/thoughts: 1. What does the average team spend on a draft? 2. I'm thinking the cubs will come in somewhere in the $4-5 million range, probably above $4.5. Middle of the pack, more or less I'm guessing? (I just popped the picks into excel, put in $70K for college signings after the first 10 rounds, and put in something on the order of $110-150 for the normal HS/JC picks after the first ten. Gave $300 for Reed (I have no idea...), $200 for Harman, and somewhere between $110-200 for about 11 other guys. Summed up to $4.961. Also put in $500 for Szcur, since they offered it at least even if he declines to take it. 3. That's a lot of guessing. Maybe they paid Reed $0.5, maybe $0.15, I don't know. Maybe they paid Harmon $110, maybe $310, pure guesswork. Geiger, Reed, Smith, Beeler, we don't know. But I'd be surprised if we finished much below $4.5, or much above $5. Which I'm guessing would be fairly middle-of-the-pack spending? Or would $4.5-5 be a little below or a little above average? 4. I haven't tracked all the links. Is the list provided by the Cubs or mlb? Or is there an outside chance that later we'll find out that Danny Winkler or Jacob Rogers actually did sign but we didn't hear about it, ala Nick Struck last summer?

It will be interesting. Unfortunately it often takes a while to find out, so even with the deadline, it's not like we'll know everything definitively tomorrow, the way it works with deadline trades or whatever. We'll probably still be left hanging. And with it being late August, we won't find out by virtue of having these guys show up in minor league games anymore. So if DeJesus or Wells signs, we'll probably hear about it, particularly Wells and particularly if he overslots some. But if they sign somebody analogous to Struck last year, it may not be easy to find.

How high he rates will depend on what BA hears about his arm. If they get some buzz reports, whether from Cubs or from other scouts who mention him, that he has a really electric arm and projects well as a player-converting-to-pitch prospect, he could rank pretty high. (McNutt ranked in the mid-teens last year, for example.) But if nobody is talking present-or-projected-95+, and it's totally about his rookie-league stats, maybe not that high. I've never gotten any feedback on what his signing bonus was, either. I've assumed he's standard slot $150. But if BA has that he got $325, and that he projects well, and that he has an exceptional arm, and that the Cubs are really buzzed, he could get into the teens. I just know too little. The two positives are that he's doing well and Arizona Phil referred to his stuff as "electric". That could mean a lot, because Phil rarely says that kind of thing, he usually just reports results and whether the guy throws strikes. But it might not mean that much either. If not, Reed could be one of a ton of guys who put up some good numbers in rookie without getting immediate recognition. I hope he is a big stud prospect, and is this year's version of McNutt. Or better.

While Cal is asking, I'll pile on. Struck has had a number of effective outings. Batista has been K'ing tons of guys. Jung, after few K's early, has really turned it around lately. And Whitenack has an ERA under 3 over his last 10 starts. And of course Antigua struggled often, and missed time. Could you comment on each of their stuff and velocity? Perhaps I'll guess: Whitenack typically 88-91, pretty good control of fastball, has some sink. Breaking ball erratic and not very advanced, but has been better over the last two months than was true the spring. At the Peoria level, though, he has really lived on his fastball primarily. Composure and personality, I have no idea. Long-term potential could be good if: his velocity increases as he fills out (he's pretty skinny around the middle although his shoulder aren't thin), and his breaking stuff gets better. Struck: Fastball is pretty decent, 88-92 typically. His control is inconsistent. Throws a slider and a change. Is he as short as the 5'11" listing suggests? And is he stocky or just a slim little guy? Composure and personality, I have no idea. Long-term potential could be good if: his command is consistently good, and if he can fairly consistently be at or above 90 mph with his fastball. Batista: Is he as short as his 5'10" listing suggests? And if so is he fairly slim, or is he pretty stocky and strong at this point? Throws harder than Struck and Whitenack, I'm thinking? Probably gets into the 92-94 range fairly often? The best velocity among the rotation guys? His second pitch is a slider that he can use for K's. Changeup is very unrefined, he can't control it very well and doesn't throw it very often. Can he communicate OK in English, or is that pretty rough at this point? Any personality input at this point? Long-term potential could be good if: his velocity can hold up long-term, his slider command improves, and if his changeup comes along as a 3rd pitch versus lefties especially. given how short he is and given his fastball/slider combo, may profile better as a reliever than a starter at the big-league level? Jung: Throws around 88-91, with both slider and change? Fastball velocity has been a little better/more consistent lately, and command of all of his pitches, slider especially, has improved during his recent good outings. What kind of English and get-along-with-the-team profile does he have at this point? How big is he? Does he look like he could fill out more and perhaps get somewhat stronger? Long-term potential: He'll need to be a pitcher, but if his control improves some more and his velocity ticks up a little bit further, he could become pretty good. Antigua: Throws 86-93 fastball, has a change and a breaking ball. Inconsistent control. What happened with his being out of action? Elbow, shoulder, oblique, discipline, what happened? Before the injury he maybe wasn't throwing that well, but has looked better since. Personality and communication skills? Minorleague baseball still lists him at 6'1 170, but I think he's a lot bigger than that now? Maybe 6'2" and 215? When he wasn't feeling right he wasn't throwing very fast, and had some fat fastballs and some hanging breaking pitches which got bopped over the fence. Long-term potential: Arm needs to be healthy, and it's a question of control. Needs to be able to throw hard enough and command the fastball so that he's not giving up HR's all the time. And needs to throw change and curve for strikes so that he can mix everything up. If you were rating right now: Fastball velocity: Batista > Antigua > Struck > Jung = Whitenack Close, or how would you revise? Fastball effectiveness at present (considering movement and location as well as velocity): Whitenack = Batista > Jung = Struck > Antigua? Close, or how would you revise? Overall big-league potential at present? I have no idea how to rank these five! If you were Jim Hendry, which would you probably be most willing to trade, and which the least?

Yes, I wouldn't think ARcher should be that hard to make our top 5. We always talk about the K's and the walks, and those are huge. But the guy is establishing himself as anti-HR guy. When you don't allow HR's, it's not so bad to walk guys. Given what fraction of big-league runs score via HR's (about 40% of RBI's come via HR, correct?), guys who don't allow HR's tend to be good.

road, nice to hear cousin's report of Antigua at 95 and dominating. You're sure it was Antigua the starter who pitched 3 innings, not Jung the reliever who pitched 4, yes? Would be great if Antigua came on after the layoff. Cal, you already noted it, but it's really neat to see Jung kicking in. Last year he seemed pretty mediocre, and pre-all-star he didn't seem that jazzy this year either. But suddenly he's racking up K's like crazy, and he's getting a lot more interesting. Some good news on the Dominican league front, too. Marco Hernandez is looking pretty interesting, at 6'0" he's not a little guy, and a LH-hitting SS sounds interesting too. All-star at 17 with some interesting stats. A lot of pitchers with nice numbers there, too. I wonder how many if any really will make it very far in the states? A poster reported that Archer was at 93-94.

When August comes in, often Fleita will promote players in order to either expose them to higher level, and/or to move them onto a winning team (which also affords the chance for extra playoff games.) With that in mind, what is the playoff situations for the varying Cub farm teams? I pay so much attention to the players that I often have little idea how the team is doing W-L wise. And with split seasons, I don't even know which of Peoria, Daytona, and Tennessee already locked up playoff games during the first half. I'm guessing that: 1. Peoria did not get 1st half playoff lock, and isn't likely to make playoffs 2nd half either. Correct? 2. Daytona didn't make 1st half playoffs, but is running away with things second half and is likely to make it? 3. Tennesee got 1st half playoff locked up, and is leading again in second half? 4. Iowa is in good shape for playoffs. 5. Boise is not likely to reach playoffs. Who might be impacted. 1. Daytona *Rusin. If wasn't in a race, or falls out, I'd expect Rusin to move up to replace Papelbon. But since Daytona is in a race, and Tennessee is already secure, no motive for that yet. 2. Peoria: Nobody really there with any big need to promote, or who would help Daytona much. 5 games out, they've still got a chance. But if Peoria isn't in a race... *Lee might go to Daytona late in the season, just for some exposure. However, with Lake, Lemahieu, and Flaherty already locked into their infield, and with Lee not being a fast-track guy anyway, not a lot of need to advance Lee. He'll need plenty of time to reduce his errors and hopefully to physically mature into at least a little token power. *No Peoria pitchers with any huge rush to promote. *Perhaps Whitenack, if they did want to promote Rusin. Whitenack has very blah overall stats, finally dropped under 5.0, and his splits are very boring. But over his last ten starts and 50+ innings, his WHIP is barely 1.0 and his ERA is sub-3. A friend watched him in the Wrigley game, said his offspeed stuff looked fairly mediocre/unrefined/raw, and said he wasn't real fast. But he thought Whitenack looked like his frame and shoulders suggested he might be able to carry significantly more weight/muscle, and perhaps to throw significantly harder in future. A well-controlled sinker at 89-91, that's a good A-ball pitch. But if he matured into a 93-95 mph hard sinker with good control, that could be a really good big-league pitch. If an opening in Daytona's rotation opened, he could be the guy they'd like to expose and get a chance to be a part of the playoff action. 3. Boise doesn't have much to promote. *Kirk could, if he adds a couple more good starts. But assuming Peoria didn't win it's first half and doesn't get into the playoffs 2nd half, I wouldn't imagine Kirk is going to get jumped up to Daytona's contender. *LePage could certainly get promoted, but again no playoff motive and 2B is already somewhat cluttered with Cerda/Watkins, so it's not like he'd move right up and start at 2B everyday. *Kurcz obviously deserved a promotion, and he's been so good that perhaps he could get shot up right to Daytona to see how he faired and to be a part of the playoff run in the event that he can compete. Thoughts? And am I right that neither Peoria nor Daytona earned 1st-half playoff spot? Or Boise?

thanks, Cal. If you don't mind, I'll copy this to the international thread.

Some time back, somebody listed three DSL players who were selected as all-stars. But I don't see that in the International thread, and think it's buried somewhere in one of the box score threads. Can somebody re-list those three, and perhaps also copy it into the International thread? Thanks in advance. Perhaps I just never knew. But the Cubs haven't had many all-stars there. One I know was Castro. So I'm hoping that he's a sign that whoever is selecting them aren't really just picking 3-year fillers, but are recognizing players that look promising and have a chance to be meaningful prospects. The Cubs DSL teams seem to have more interesting prospects this year, although a lot of the prospects seem rather short, and thus of questionable likelihood to progress into huge velocity or middle-of-the-order power.

Thanks, I've wondered and have never seen any scouting comment before. Of the 19 Batista's in the minors, none lists shorter than Franky.

Given his subsequent performance, both offensively and defensively, and given how little it took to sign him, no more than if he was a college junior, it would seem Springfield wasn't a huge prospect. Regardless, I think a point regards money. Springfield was in a different position from most HS guys taken in the 7th round. Most HS picks who are good students and are on track for a major-conference opportunity, most aren't going to sign for college-junior slot or for Blair Springfield slot. If you're going to draft a D1-bound HS player in rounds 6 or 7, as with DeJesus and Wells, 90% of the time you know they aren't going to sign for college-junior "slot" money or Blair Springfield slot. Wells and DeJesus are in an entirely different demographic than Casey Lambert and Ty Wright (6th and 7th, 07), or Josh Harrison and Luis Flores (6th and 7th 08), or Springfield (7th) last year. Wells and DeJesus are in a different "slot", and will almost certainly be paid at a different "slot" if you are going to sign them. That's totally to be expected. The "slot" for good HS players who are big-college bound is just a totally different and higher slot. If a team isn't interested in paying the normal slot for kids like that, then it wouldn't be drafting them. Just like if a team isn't interested in paying a 15th or 20th or 28th rounder at least $100, it either shouldn't draft him or else should draft only as a formality with no expectation or intention of actually signing the player. All of which is my ramble that "superslot" and "overslot" is perhaps a misnomer when you pay $250 or $300 or whatever for Wells, or $100-160 for geiger or Fitzgerald or McNutt or Struck or Burruel or Richardson. Those are normal moneys for players in their draft slots.

80% of HS players that sign in the 7th round sign for above "slot" which is heavily dictated by the cost of college picks. I'm sure Wells will sign above the overall college-influenced average. Whether he'll sign above what's typical for a HSer taken there, who knows. Of course, last year Springfield was a HS guy and he still signed for no more than college slot. Which was an almost immediate indicator that he wasn't that great of a prospect.

http://www.thewetumpkaherald.com/articles/2010/07/22/breaking_news/news01.txt Golden has agreed and will formally sign tomorrow. Rhoderick said he had basically reached an agreement a couple weeks ago. Wells I believe was pulled from his high school/legion pitching schedule because they didnt' want to risk spoiling his deal with an injury or anything.

He was a relief pitcher for only one year with TCU; prior to that he was a starter at his JC (or it may have been his CC?). As a starter, his stuff wasn't particularly impressive for whatever reason. However, TCU moved him to the bullpen and made him their closer, which worked out pretty well for him since his stuff improved dramatically. Just to add, when a JC/CC kid transfers to a major college program as a junior, it's not surprising that he wouldn't start. Typically the big programs will have a couple of established guys already on the team. since college teams don't play 7 games a week like in the minors and only need a couple of starters, it would take both a really impressive transfer pitcher as well as some vulnerability in the rotation to get a starting spot.

Jung lifted after 2 innings and one run.

cal or anybody, do you know anything about Frank Batista? Surprising to have a 2nd-year Dominican starting some games in Peoria, and doing fine. After I believe being injured or something early in the year? Weird case, if in fact he's good. Not often that 5'10" RHP are significant prospects. And not often that significant Dominicans don't begin as pros until they are 20. But last year was his first year, DSL. So to skip straight to Peoria is unusual. His ERA wasnt' notable, but his K/BB were (63K/7BB in 57 innings last year, 27K/8BB in 27 innings thus far this year.) Probably just a filler. But I was just curious whether he might be unusual in some way and perhaps have some interst/

OK, now the word is that he's had mono. That would explain not so rarely how the 21-year-old is unavailable for so long. Too bad for him, but obviously that explains everything. No need to wonder if there is something they are covering up or more wrong than they are letting on. That explains everything.

Do you know where he wrote that? Yesterday, he wrote that "Hayden Simpson has been held back just to make sure he's back to full-strength before he gets into game action." But nothing to the extent that he's throwing or actually doing anything. (http://www.thecubreporter.com/2010/07/17/2010-rule-4-draft-update#comments) I agree that it's not urgent that he pitch much or pitch at all this summer. What matters is whether he's healthy and good. If he pitched some good games this summer, I'd know he was healthy and good, and that's what I want. If he pitches well next spring, I'll know he's healthy and good then. The reason I'd like to see him this summer is selfish: it would relieve a paranoid worry that I have. When a guy pitches as much as he did this spring, with such massive pitch counts, and then pitches twice in a weekend at high velocity as witnessed by Wilken, I wonder whether his pro arm will be as good as his draft arm. So when he's on the DL, I wonder. Is his arm 100%, and he's just the rare 21-year-old stud who gets so sick that he can't play sports for a month? It's possible, if not super likely. Or is he the 21-year-old pitcher who has a sore elbow? It's possible, if not super likely. If he pitches and pitches well and we get rave reviews about how good and fast he looks, we'll know he's fine, and I'll put my paranoid side to sleep! But I'm a little nervous that he conveniently got sick and actually has a sore elbow, and that the Cubs are now just hoping it will take care of itself by next spring.

Yikes. So that's why he was a 12th round pick. Eh, the Cubs have been successful improving Archer's control. Maybe they can help Reed as well. I took that as great news - getting an electric HS arm in the 12th round is always good. Professional coaches have a much better chance of fixing mechanics than a HS coach. I agree with cal and had the same reaction. "Big, strong kid with electric stuff" for a 12th round pick is exciting. He's 18, IIRC he just switch to pitching this senior year, and that was the only of his four appearances where control has been a problem. There are lots of competitive short-season pitchers, but you never know which have "electric stuff" that will play in the majors. I think this is encouraging.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100711/SPORTS07/7110328/1093/SPORTS07/Transitioning+to+the+pros I posted this in minors, but thought I'd copy it here where it fits better. A lengthy interview with Geiger. Confirms he's 3B for now. No scouting info other than that. They asked him about money, and he said he got the full college scholarship clause, but wouldn't say about what his actual signing bonus was. The interview didn't give any indication that he was any massive superslot or anything. Sounded like he was happy to go pro, that he saw the money for school as a major part of his package. So I'm guessing this is the standard $100 (or less) plus college kind of deal. Not Logan Watkins or Huseby or anything like that. " It's usually a pretty good signing bonus. What they did for me is they gave me a signing bonus up front and a full college scholarship plan. If I ever want to go back to school after we're done, I have money locked away that is strictly for school that I can touch whenever I want. The stipulation is that I have to finish up my college degree in 10 years, which is probably one of the easiest situations ever."

A lengthy interview with Geiger. Confirms he's 3B for now. No scouting info other than that. They asked him about money, and he said he got the full college scholarship clause, but wouldn't say about what his actual signing bonus was. The interview didn't give any indication that he was any massive superslot or anything. Sounded like he was happy to go pro, that he saw the money for school as a major part of his package. " It's usually a pretty good signing bonus. What they did for me is they gave me a signing bonus up front and a full college scholarship plan. If I ever want to go back to school after we're done, I have money locked away that is strictly for school that I can touch whenever I want. The stipulation is that I have to finish up my college degree in 10 years, which is probably one of the easiest situations ever." http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100711/SPORTS07/7110328/1093/SPORTS07/Transitioning+to+the+pros