craig

That seems right for Gaub, good stuff, not great, not mediocre, erratic control. I've got to imagine that when the control on his breaking ball is off, he's in trouble. I think Castro is a solid-floor guy. Jay Jackson seems a solid-floor guy, too, although I think his character issues may lower that. I think for the reasons already mentioned, that the rest all have variably low floors. Cashner, if his slider control doesn't shape up and the change doesn't actually turn into anything, his floor is bad-Samardz. Carpenter, obviously has both control and injury questions, plus questions about his composure. B Jackson might K too much and HR too little to turn out. Ditto for Burke. Lee struck out a lot, has no power, and makes lots of errors. Gaub is wild and has history or arm issues. Rhee arm issues. Dolis had surgery and is super-wild. I think it's fairly easy to envision how almost any of these guys other than perhaps Castro and Jay Jackson and perhaps Cashner could end up never making it or contributing for long. But there are certainly plenty of guys with scenarios how they could become very valuable assets.

Indeed, thanks much for posting the lists and posting the scouting reports. Those are very gushy, positive evals. It's nice to see Jay Jackson's stuff getting that kind of review. Would sure be nice if he turned into a capable starter. Given Lilly's age and contract, and Gorzellany/Silva's dubious prospectus, there should be rotation opportunities in the not-so-distant future even apart from injuries or disasters with Z, Dempster, or Wells.

That's not "only", that's the whole point. That's a flawed point. Zambrano relieved in the minors, That's a ridiculous comparison. Zambrano started 24 games at age 18 in A ball and was pretty decent, playing pro ball. He went into the pen for a bit the next year, but it was always noted that he could maintain high 90's into the late innings. And at age 20 he started 24 more games in AAA. Cashner was a nothing prospect as a starter and only got hype once he went to the pen. Cashner and Zambrano are horrible comparisons for career path. Cashner has shown absolutely no ability to be an actual starter, unless you just want to get 4-5 innings out of him every time. Cashner is 22 years old and averaged 4.2 innings in 24 starts this year. Zambrano made 32 starts in the major leagues at 22, pitching 214 innings. You are refining your argument, which is fine. But you originally argued that Cashner had reliever written all over him, and the whole point was because he had relieved, and at the time that he relieved he didn't have a 3rd pitch, and there were questions about his control. Coming out of his relief period, Z had pitched more innings (56 at Iowa) than Cashner did at Texas Christian. Your second aspect, the scouting reports coming off of Z's relief period did not confirm any 3rd pitch (and questioned whether he had even a 2nd pitch). Your third aspect, questions about control, Z had walked 40 guys in 56 innings, if you go back to that point in time there were absolutely questions about his control. I am suggesting that the three points (he's relieved; he doesn't have 3; he's wild) could have been used to write reliever all over Zambrano. In retrospect, it is very fortunate that the Cubs didn't write reliever all over Zambrano, and got him back into rotation. There were context circumstances that certainly were relevant in why they shouldn't have written reliever all over him. He had shown that he could sustain his velocity through high pitch count starts, and he was young enough that there was time for both his control and his 3rd pitch to come along. I think it's appropriate to consider case-by-case of context circumstances to Cashner. It would have proven premature to write Z off as a starter after his relief summer. Might it be premature to write Cashner off as a starter and decide that the pen is his only future now? Cashner's circumstances context are well known; he didn't get fast (95+) until age 21. He relieved at TCU because he was a 1st-year guy and they had established starters. He strained his oblique in Mesa so came back late and was built up with caution. Cubs don't let any pitcher throw 100+ pitches anymore even when built up. Cashner didn't need the change until the pros. It's just my opinion, but those circumstances allow for the possibility that IF they stick with him, and IF his command progresses, that he might possibly become an excellent starter. Is it probable that he works out as a really good starter, no. But I think it is possible enough that I for one would certainly like to give it more time before writing reliever all over him in permanent ink.

Man, back when Tracy was 26 or so, who'd have guessed he'd be a scrub minor-league contract guy at this point? I don't think Hoffpauir is relevant, since Hoffpauir was no better than 26th man even before Tracy. I'm not sure I see where Tracy fits. I think he's basically a true minor league free agent: make the team (maybe) in case of an injury, but in absence of an injury to an intended roster guy, go to the minors and try to be ready when an injury creates an opening. Barring injury, how could he make the team? 1. Tim has mentioned the one way: go with Nady and Tracy as the backup outfielders, which would mean Fukudome as the only CF alternative to Byrd. That would probably mean no defensive substitutions for either Byrd in center or Soriano in left. 2. Have either Blanco or Castro knock Baker off the team as second baseman. If Baker makes the team, Blanco needs to also make the team since neither Baker nor Fontenot can play SS. So if you need a backup SS and two second basemen, that's blowing two of your five bench spots. Catcher, Nady take up two others. The fifth goes to Fuld or Tracy (or Hoffpauir.)

True points for sure. But, some are tangentally similar to Cashner. 1. Cashner like Z will get rushed over to relief in part because the Cubs are again desperate and looking for immediate help. He hasn't shown (at least not yet) that he might not be able to cut it as a starter. 2. Second, like Z Cashner throws hard, and by report has sustained his velocity as a starter. Granted, he's only been allowed to sustain it to the tune of 85 pitches. (And granted, his velocity isn't as good as Z's was back then). 3. I didn't watch his games, so I can't testify. But according to BA reports, they scouted Zambrano entering his relief stretch as having a wonderful fastball but weren't too keen on even a second pitch, much less a third, at the time he moved to relief. I don't think they rated his slider as favorably as they have (at times) rated Cashner's. 4. Cashner relieved in college because he was a 1st-year transfer guy, they already had two weekend starters, and they needed reliever. It wasn't because he'd shown he couldn't cut it as a starter. Listen, I'm not saying Cashner could become as good as Z if the Cubs stick with him as a starter, or that he throws as hard. That would be ridiculous. All I'm saying is that the fact that he was a good college reliever for a couple of months doesn't prove whether he could or couldn't make it as a starter. Nor does the fact that, like lots of amateurs, he didn't need or have a 3rd pitch. He's in the same situation as most other rotation prospects who are a couple years into the pros. They've got some good raw stuff; some of their 2nd or 3rd pitches sometimes look good but aren't big-league consistent; if they don't get better or more consistent they won't become all-star starters, if their command continues to improve they might. Maybe they'll get better enough to make it big; usually they won't.

The absence of Huseby is interesting, and I suspect it reflects negative feedback on Huseby's health status. I don't think BA just forgot him, and if they'd gotten favorable feedback on his health I think he might have found a spot in the 20's. I haven't gotten any health reports on him since he ended the year injured, and if I recall Nathan's report was barely touching 80 when he walked away the season in the playoffs. To my knowledge, he didn't appear in Instrux. Absence from instrux, the way his season ended, and absence from this list probably implies his arm isn't right and Cubs admitted as much to the BA people. Possible, I suppose, that they just didn't think his stuff as a low-A reliever was that good. combining the rare emergence of low-A relievers as big-league players, combined with the end-of-year-injuries, perhaps they just didn't include him even without getting any feedback from Cubs or having heard anything that we haven't heard.

I'm not gung ho about that back part of the list. It's alright, but not gung-ho on Lake making the top 30, and I think McNutt at 16 is too high for my tastes. Thanks for the list. I made up my own list shortly after the season and before some winter feedback had come in (such as the Dolis velocity reports). The biggest differences: 2. B Jackson so high for them (I had him 7th, right after Carpenter!) 7. Watkins so high for them (I had him 17th) 13. Dolis (I had him at #40, but didn't realize the big velocity subsequently reported, or the instrux impress) 12. Rhee (I had him #22, but realized he was an obvious candidate to jump if he's healthy, can recover his control, and is allowed to use the pitches he used to use...) 24. mateo (Heh, he didn't make my list of 50. Throws hard for sure, but no control....) Some of mine who missed: Huseby, Na, Kirk, Stevens, Berg.

That's not "only", that's the whole point. That's a flawed point. Zambrano relieved in the minors, had control questions, and hadn't shown a 3rd pitch of merit, but became a very valuable starter. Dempster had relieved, had control questions, and hadn't shown a 3rd pitch in 5 or 6 years, but became a very valuable starter. Cashner has started in the pros, has shown a 3rd pitch, and has shown improving control. (His control compares reasonably with most rotation prospects of his age and experience.) So if you had "reliever" written all over him when he was drafted, mightn't it be reasonable to erase that now? Unless you'd prefer to use your good pitchers as 60-inning relievers rather than 180+ inning starters?

I want to trust that the Cubs have done their due diligence and expect him to be healthy, or at least healthy enough to hit even if he doesn't throw as well as formerly. Career .792, and not counting last year (29AB), he's been .867, .805, and .790 the previous three seasons. If we get an .800+ guy as our 4th OFer for 3.3 guaranteed, that's pretty fair value. Defense matters for anybody who's going to play the field, and the 4th OFer will. Possibly a lot. At least he'll platoon, but if Fuku, Soriano, Lee, or Byrd get hurt he could get expanded time. And if he's hitting well and Fuku or Byrd don't, he could also get expanded role even apart from injuries. Certainly he might not hit, and there is no certainty that he'll hit better than Fuku. But given that Fuku can be slumpy, having an option who might OPS around .800 if Fuku can't could be good. I like his chances a lot better than Gomes. I'm a naive optimist, so I assume they wouldn't do this without having optimistic medical evals on him. Given the premise that health won't wreck him, he was ahead of Johnson, Dye, or Gomes on my preference list.

I don't think that 92-96 is much variation, no. I think he had reliever written all over him only because he'd relieved in college, hadn't shown a 3rd pitch, and had control questions. If his fastball and slider were as good as it would take to **excel** in relief, then if he added a solid change his stuff would scout like a good starter, control permitting. I'm not confident that his change really is, or will become, good enough for rotation. If it doesn't, then it's obviously relief. But if his change is looking good, rotation still seems better use for him. But it's also well possible that neither he nor the Cubs have the patience to optimize that, and will settle for Cashner as a 6th inning reliever who doesn't use a change rather than waiting a little longer for Cashner to blossom into a good 6-inning starter who needs a change. As for fastball, every pitcher has some speed variation for sure, and Cashner's range seemed no larger than normal. But many good starters intentionally provide more variation, both in speed but also in movement. If all Cashner is throwing is 92-96 4-seamers, that might not be much variation. Hopefully that isn't the case. I inferred that he rarely throws his 2-seamer. But if he throws a fair number of them they would provide variation in speed and in movement. It's also possible that there is some variation within his 4-seamers, between the low 4-seamers and the up-the-ladder 4-seamers. Given how few HR's he allowed, I assume he must have pretty good movement when he elevates his fastball. Maybe he's working on a cutter but didn't mention it. Who knows. The ideal starter has a good, effective, variable fastball that he can throw for strikes, that sustains life, and that has enough variations so that it's still effective three times through the lineup. Fastballs are the easiest to throw for strikes, to get quick outs, to control counts. If a guy can get away with throwing a lot of fastball strikes without getting hammered, and then mix in changes and sliders, often as putaway pitches, that can be ideal for a real value starter. Not sure if Cashner's fastball is starter-quality, or if his change will ever be. Maybe it was naive to ever hope for that much.

Thanks for the link, that was a really informative interview. Reveals a lot about his thinking and what he throws. Some things I liked and some things that I read as risk indicators. The positive things were that he seems like a reasonable guy; that he seemed surprisingly optimistic about his change; and that he seemed positive about some adjustments he's made on his slider. And he didn't say anything really dumb. Several concerns struck me, though. *Maybe the curve is as hard or harder, but the change is super hard to control and to throw with the same arm speed. If he's depending on his change, I think it's a risky tool to depend on. *While his fastball sounds fast, he indicated no variation or any intention to develop any. I don't think big-league hitters are going to have big problems with a straight 4-seam 92-96 fastball that has no variation, and I'm not sure that fastball is any better or necessarily even as good as somebody with a 88-92 2-seamer with some movement (particularly if the guy can vary that with some 4-seam and some cutters). Cashner gave no indication that he even tries to change speeds on it, or to mix more than an occasional 2-seam. No hint of working on cutter or the ability to fine-adjust his grip to get run when he wants it. You better have very, very good control if you want to be running a lot of predictable 93-mph 4-seamers. That he has a hittable fastball seems to fit with the observation that he doesn't K a lot of guys and that it often takes a lot of strikes to get guys out. Hitters can foul off a lot of straight, predictable fastballs. *I was disappointed that he didn't seem very ambitious to become a good starter. His comments about how relievers can pitch every day and it's tough between starts implied he doesn't aspire to start. Likewise his goal of reaching the majors this year seems consistent more with a guy who'll be happy to be a 6th inning reliever, rather than a guy who's burning to be a star starter and spends time thinking about how he could finesse his game to enable that. Probably my fault for being disappointed that he doesn't want to start and probably won't become an effective starter. I was probably hoping for too much in wishing that from him. But at times I have thought that a guy with a fast fastball that he can get over the plate; a good slider that he can mix in, get some groundouts, and get some K's with; and a decent change to mix things up, that combination could in principle be a straightforward, not too complicated recipe for an effective starter. Maybe that will still happen, but it doesn't sound like Cashner or Lou or anybody has enough patience to actually enable that to happen.

Thanks for link and interview. Fun. Seems like a good kid, easy to root for. Some things that caught my attention: 1. Throws curve (early in count for strikes) and slider (uses as an out pitch with 2 strikes) 2. Would like to throw about 70% fastballs. 3. Claimed that he reduced walks 40% (I don't think that's correct, or at least on a per-inning basis.) 4. Said that he thought he made some finesse adjustments in fall that helped his command. 5. Said the Cubs were much more focused on mechanics (and restricted pitch counts much more) than Indians, who spent more emphasis on mental/psychological stuff.

Predicting who will get called up first is pretty tough, as Scarey mentioned. Who knows which position will get injured? There are also the token callups; guy is a good prospect even though he's not ready, but we just wanted to give him a September callup for the experience, or just to give him a taste of what big-league life is like. Getting called up to be the 25th man and get 2 appearances, that doesn't mean that much. I think a somewhat more meaningful version of the question is to wonder which guy will really get called up because the cubs want to use him. I think all three of the pitchers, Cashner Carpenter and Jackson, all have a chance. Any of them could plateau; if they don't improve, none were ready as of August (although Jackson perhaps closest.) But each of them showed enough flashes last year that if any of them could further improve their repertoire, or could simply throw the same pitches they could throw last year but with more consistency and more command, any of those three could emerge as a guy the team might want during the summer. Carpenter included.

What changes did you make last year that you thought helped, and were there other changes that you tried that you realized weren't going to work? For example, grip on your breaking ball, or arm slot, or something? What do you throw for breaking ball? Is your fastball 2-seam or 4-seam or both? Do you throw a cutter, and if not is that something you want to add? In a typical game, if you were throwing 100 pitches, how many would you think would be fastballs vs changeups vs breaking balls? Have you been working on anything in particular this offseason? Did you work on anything in particular down in Mesa this fall? Is there anything in particular that plan to focus on this spring? You've been starting in the minors. Do you know if the Cubs are tracking you for rotation? Or do you expect to move to relief once you get higher up in the minors and closer to the majors? Fastball velocity: do you know what your typical velocity is in a normal game, and how high you maxed out this season?

Combination. 2008 draft was good, with Cashner, Jackson, Carpenter, and Coleman. 2006(?) season was horrible; I have many concerns with Vitters, but that was such a strong draft that picking #3 it was hard not to get somebody with at least some promise, which Vitters clearly has. Castro. You spend 15 years signing low-dollar Latins, once or more every decade one of them does blossom. Korea. Money and superslot. Not every superslot works, but Watkins and Huseby were both major superslots who have helped raise us from bad to average. Wilken. Not sure how good he is these days. But whether you view him as really good or not, he's better than Stockstill. Big-league budget. The big-league budget has been pretty capped out since the Harden trade, so Hendry hasn't been able to trade meaningful prospects for salaried big-leaguers. If he'd had more space to spend, some of the guys that are elevating us into the middle of the pack farm-wise might have been gone.

Really interesting stuff, Rob. Question: do you believe it, and do you have confidence that you didn't make any mistakes? The reason I ask is that fifteen players are calculating to have been "unlucky", several by pretty substantial amounts. Only three are calculating as having been lucky, Lee, Aram, and Baker, and lee and Aram only by small amounts. The simplest explanation is that we really did happen to have a year where almost everybody was unlucky. But an alternative, which might be almost as simple, is that there is some flaw in the analysis. In order to calculate such a disproportionate number of players to be so unlucky. Not ripping, just curious. Looking at these, it almost suggests that if we just sit pat and bring back the same guys, the offense "should" be much, much, much more productive. If I believe that, it puts a somewhat different angle on how to project the future and what moves do or don't need to be made.

Not sure why I never followed up on this thread - anyhow, the few reports I've read on Watkins suggest that he won't get near that type of power (Walker/Barrett) without completely retooling his swing. Thanks, toonster. (Unfavorable as that info may be.) If he'll never show any HR power, that's a major limitation, and is the reason on my list I had him more at 18 than up at 7 where Callis had him. It's interesting that I (and I think my view isn't that far from consensus around here) had Lee as a top 5 guy, exciting, potential star, high-ceiling perspective. But Watkins down at 17, in the limited-ceiling, low-excitement perspective. But Callis, as mentioned perhaps heavily influenced by some internal Cub enthusiasm, has them back to back. Obviously Callis, like me or any of the rest of us, rank guys based on our current perceptions. And perceptions and projections can often be way off. My perception that Lee might hit with some power might be totally wrong. Callis's perception that their power profiles aren't much different might be totally wrong. Time will tell. I think the reason that I like Lee much better is for the following: 1. Power potential. Lee is younger and taller, so I hope that he will grow into some power. I don't expect that from Watkins. 2. SS/defensive potential. My perception is that Lee has a shot to be a very good defensive big-league SS. Watkins I assume is a 2B/utility guy, and not sure where he projects as a defensive gem even in that capacity. 3. Speed. Lee could become an impact disruptive leadoff-man basestealer, Watkins doesn't project that at all. That Callis has them back-to-back suggests he doesn't perceive as much differentiation as I do. Most likely I'm guessing that his power perception is not like mine. That could be good; perhaps he envisions watkins with more power hope, and perhaps that perception will be vindicated? That would be win-win. His writeup did seem to act as if he thought Watkins could at least hit with more XB authority. Under "weaknesses", he said that Watkins needs to "get stronger to hit the ball with more authority". Teenagers often do get stronger, so that doesn't seem a hopeless wish. Almost indistinguishable from his Lee comment: "Lee doesn't possess much power and needs to get stronger". I believe elsewhere in a chat Callis elaborated, to the effect that even if Lee does get stronger his style is more slap and run, chop and run, and doesn't appear conducive to HR's even if he was stronger. That could be lose-lose. If Watkins has and projects no power, and if Lee has and projects no power, then maybe we're looking at a couple of guys who are more Theriot-type prospects (with perhaps more range and more speed) rather than Lee as a potential star. Obviously how Callis and I rank guys is dependent on our perceptions. If our power perceptions differ, at least one of us must be perceiving poorly. Hopefully with every player on the list the more optimistic perceptions will end up being vindicated.

Good point here, Dave. I believe that Hendry (like I think most GM's) identifies a handful of prospects that he views as potential future cornerstone guys and that he won't really include in trade discussions. (At least until that opinion changes.) Castro is certainly on that list, and will not be really considered for trade. If he's not going to be traded, then his reputation and the way other teams value him doesn't much matter. whether he's overvalued or undervalued outside the organization means nothing. All that matters is how good he's really going to be. His valuation within the system does matter to some degree, I guess, because that determines how he gets used (stay at SS vs switch to 2B or CF?), how quickly he gets promoted, and perhaps also how he gets coached. For me as a fan, my perception of his value is impacted by input from the scouting world. So the more good things I hear, the more confident and hopeful I am that his actual value is good. But the real future value is really al that matters in the end.

I believe I read somewhere that given the timing of when the Cubs derostered Diamond, they weren't allowed to re-roster him. So even if he'd pulled things together enough so that they'd have wanted him, they just couldn't. May have misread, or source may have been wrong. So it's possible that he's impressed enough that they don't expect him to clear Rule 5, rather than that as of the other day they still didn't think he was worth a spot.

Not sure I see why the Watkins thing is so surprising. Here's a quick young player who can run, has a big arm, made very few errors at a new middle-infield position, and is an outstanding contact hitter. And has great makeup qualities. We aren't shocked that Lee is ranked top 5, so why should we be shocked that Watkins might be in the top 10? By comparison: 1. Offensively: They had about the same numbers (average/slugging/OBP/OPS). The offensive differences: Watkins was the best anti-K guy in his league, a really good contact hitter. Lee is a much higher-K guy. Watkins K-rate was less than 60% of what Lee's was. Advantage: Watkins. The other difference is that Lee was a better basestealer. 2. Defensively: Lee made 27 errors, Watkins 13. Obviously Lee played SS, which is more difficult. But based on some of Callis's stuff, Watkins may have been kept off of SS more because Lee was a pricier prospect than that Watkins's range/arm is inherently inferior. (Although it may be, I don't know.) SS vs 2B is obvious advantage Lee. And I ranked Lee much higher than I did Watkins. (I think I had Watkins around 18 or so on my list.) I'm just saying that if 27-error Lee is a no-problem top prospect, why can't much-more-reliable Watkins be a valid top-10? 3. Age/experience: Lee 18, Watkins 19. Again, obvious advantage Lee. Still, Watkins was a Kansas quarterback. Given the Kansas winters and with late summer/fall focused on football, I'm not sure that Watkins has as much or as good-competition baseball experience as has Lee. So I'm not sure that Watkins is really any more maxed-out in terms of his baseball skills maturation. Although that extra year could be a big factor in terms of physical maturation and strength. Listen, I'm not saying Watkins is or will be great, or will be as good as Lee or should be ranked as highly. Just that I don't think his ranking is that bizarre. He's got a bunch of the tools: speed, arm, hitting, apparently fielding, plate discipline, and attitude/work/etc.. Obviously he doesn't appear to project as a SS, and it doesn't appear that he projects any HR power. Two huge limitations. If he projected to get stronger enough to get into the Todd Walker/Michael Barrett class HR-wise, I'd have him VERY high.

I'm one of those people, and I agree with your point. I personally am selective in what Callis views I think might be suspect due to Fleita influence. For example, I don't think his estimation that the Cubs have the best farm in the division is suspect. He thinks that, and is objective enough that his analysis is not overly fogged by Fleita. Plus, I think that for the top-ten prospects that dominate where a system is going to be ranked relative to other systems, I am sure that he is getting input from outside scouts. He knows when Fleita still loves Colvin, but nobody else seems to. Just like years ago when Fleita and Hendry were still gush on Kelton but outside scouts were not. So the more important and scoutable the prospect, I think the less he's likely to be skewed by Fleita. Where I am selectively more skeptical is for prospects about whom other scouts aren't likely to talk or provide balance. I think there are a lot of prospects outside the top ten for whom he isn't making lots of calls to outside scouts, or if he does where they probably don't have lots of focused ideas. The two that come most to mind in the recent chat are Chirinos and Rhee. Yes, Rhee pitched in a couple of games, and appeared in instrux. But I wonder if there were a lot of outside scouts studying him and telling Callis he looks great? Maybe. But I think it's perhaps possible (perhaps even likely?) that Fleita is the primary guy telling Callis about how Rhee's rehab has progressed. Likewise I wonder if when callis is calling two dozen outside scouts to discuss Cub prospects, if the discussions involve a lot of in-depth extensive discussion about how 25-year-old Chirinos is doing defensively, and how he compares to Castillo or Clevenger defensively? I wonder if he might not instead be getting some discussion about that from Fleita, and if that isn't rather heavily shaping his relative evaluations of the three potential backup catchers? (I am pretty confident that he has gotten outside feedback, and that not altogether enthusiastic, about Castillo...) It's the guys that outside scouts aren't likely to know or discuss where I think his views are most heavily influenced by Fleita.

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system. Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them. I understand the reasoning with Rhee, and it's similar to what Jeff said with Archer. If everything goes perfect with Archer, by some accounts his stuff has a velocity/movement combo which could be exceptional even by major league standards. With Rhee, he might end up being a crafty control pitcher with a plus fastball, a decent breaking pitch, and a putaway change/splitter that hitters are so scared of that they don't want to even risk getting into two-strike counts. Personally, I didn't even have Rhee in my top 20. I thought pre-injury that his fastball was more 88-93, with the projection to perhaps get faster. But not really Wood/Cruz/Zambrano/Prior exceptional velocity/movement, or Wellemeyer/Farnsworth/Samardzija/Cashner/Guzman caliber speed. An excellent-if-not-exceptional fastball with control and a knockout pitch can win, if you have control. But I was concerned that his rehab seemed so slow, and that his velocity was well down into the mediocre-or-worse level 13-18 months post-surg. Many rehab guys recover really well, but there are still quite a few who don't do so, and never get the speed they had or were projected to throw with, or the control. Or who need to ditch an effective pitch that is too dangerous. I am pleased and surprised that Callis is acting like Rhee is progressing well. I assume he's gotten that from Gush Fleita, so I'm cautious whether it's actually true. But yes, like a fresh draft pick, it's fun to think that perhaps everything will go well, and if so he'll have a chance to become a top-10 prospect and someday more than that. That would be really awesome to have him turn into a good rotation pitcher.

I agree that those things are true (he's 19 and not big), and those projected increased in power are very, very possible. And I fully agree that he's our best prospect. But Gathright, Fuld, Joe Girardi, Neifi, and Izturis were all 19 once, too, with the possibility of growing into more power with time. But they never did. Castro might grow into Renteria power. Or he might not. How good will he be if he doesn't? It would be foolish to assume he won't grow into some power. But it might also be foolish to be too certain that he will. Time will tell, as always.

Castro seems to have a lot of profile overlap with Neifi and Theriot. Like Neifi in that he is a good defender, doesn't strike out, consistently tries to hit the first strike up the middle, no IsoD or IsoP. Like Theriot in that he doesn't K and hits for contact; unlike Theriot in that he hits with even less power, doesn't walk, but on the positive side has more defensive range. It's theoretically possible that someday he will hit with more power, given his age. But a lot of guys who are no-HR hitters when they are 19 are no-HR guys when they are 27, too.

Exactly, and naturally so. For the top 100, they all chip in their thoughts and have some consensus. But it's one guy making one list, one making another, and each is informed by what he sees in his league and what his sources in that league tell him. Cashner didn't pitch very well in the SL, didn't whiff anybody, and his non-fastball stuff wasn't as good as it seems to have been in FSL. So rightfully people who saw bad Cashner wouldn't tout him as favorably as people who saw good Cashner.