craig

Austin Reed at 6'3", 12th round, supposedly athletic HS pitcher who I thought scouted as at least touching 90 as a 1st-year pitcher, have we gotten any bonus idea on him? Is he in the same standard $100-150 zone that covers Greathouse, Kurtz, Rhoderick, Richardson, hartman, and Fitzgerald? Or do you think he might have gotten more, perhaps significantly more? Just curious whether we should envision his pre-draft status as comparable, or whether he's perhaps viewed in a somewhat higher class? Also, I'm just assuming Richardson was standard $100-150. Do we know that, or might he have been a $250 guy for all we know? It certainly is kind of fun to have a bunch of young HS/JC picks signed and starting off fast at Mesa/Boise. The combined numbers for Reed, Fitzgerald, Kurtz, as well as Loosen and Ebinger at Mesa have been terrific. Would sure be fun if this went down as a real impact draft with a big volume of young picks who develop and change the organization. I'm just a fan, and I know that one successful 1st round pick typically trumps a batch of 10th rounders who look fine in short season but get hurt or wash out before AA. But as a farm watcher, it is fun to have numbers of guys who are young enough that I can imagine whatever I want in term of their potential excellence, and who aren't starting off haplessly enough to make them uninteresting. (Gibbs is the only pick who's working in that direction early on...) And it may be that the ability to get Simpson so cheap, a guy I honestly believe Wilken really believed in as BPA (rightly or wrongly), might be facilitating a lot of these picks. It's feasible that if the choice was between $1.0 Simpson and a HS prospect that would have required $2.2 overslot, that an extra $1.2 saved could be funding a dozen Fitzgerald/Kurtz/Reed/Richardson/Geiger signings that would otherwise have needed to be college slot picks.

On Golden, I hope we get him in, that he works out, and he proves he deserves 1st round money (whether we pay him that or not.) I'm really eager to have the Cubs somehow get some position prospects who look like with luck they might bat somewhere in the 3-6 middle if they develop as hoped. Whatever Golden is asking dollar-wise, I would assume that the Cubs did their due diligence, and drafted him with an awareness of what his bonus expectations were. If they knew he was demanding 1st round type cash and don't think he's worth it, then pick somebody else. If they picked him, I'm pretty confident they thought his money expectations were not unreasonable or beyond what they thought they'd be able/willing to pay. Hard to know for sure, of course; a team can expect a guy to back off some when push comes to shove; if the player doesn't budge or compromise at all, maybe a guy you thought you could sign ends up stonewalling you and it doesn't work out. *On Raley it's his first year, and he's had some effective games, so he's certainly still got a fair chance. *Huseby as a 22-year-old short-season DH, I've heard he's done with pitching for good, and is now hoping to go forward exclusively as a hitter. Crazy things can happen in baseball, so maybe he'll turn into Dave Kingman. But I'm guessing most organizations have at least 100 prospects each who have better big-league odds than a 22-year-old, 6'7" long-swinging DH hitting .208 with a .519 OPS in short season. Perhaps Rundel's chance as a pitcher is as good or better than Huseby's as a slugger. *Watkins has shown no indication of growing into any power (I'd hoped he'd mature into at least a little punch when we signed him), has shown no instinct for base-stealing (12B/5CS), and K's like a slugger (60K/255 AB). With a 60K/0HR ratios, he's going to need a very healthy BABIP just to hit .250. (His BABIP this year is just fine, that's what's kept him as high as .247.) I think Watkins may approach roster-fill status soon enough, and that Cerda has been starting some at 2nd lately may reflect that.

The superslot offer to Sczur got me thinking. We are always eager to pay superslot. But have we ever had a superslot who actually worked out? I'm trying to go through my list of superslot types over my memory dating back 10 or 12 years: Bobby Hill. Bobbie Brownlie. Andy Sisco: Mark Reed: Grant Johnson Samardz. Huseby Rundle Watkins Raley Seems to me our record with superslot signings, guys we got relatively late because other teams passed due to their signing demands, is not too impressive. I don't count the $100-200 type late round guys, really. $100-160 really is slot for non-juniors, no matter how late they are drafted. So I don't really see McNutt or Struck. Perhaps our most successful superslots: 1. jeff Russell, although his success is modest and his money was "over" but not really "super". 2. Samardzija, I suppose, since like Russell at least he's made the majors. But given the size of his "super" bonus, his success hasn't been that successful. 3. I don't really include Mark Prior, because picking a guy 2nd isn't exactly sliding. But I suppose one could argue he'd qualify. Dontrell Willis I think was paid $250 or something, something of a superslot. Although Hendry has said he made some kind of mistake in this, and paid him overslot in part because of some promise made or something. I can't remember. I just thought it was kind of fun to go back down memory lane, and think of some of these draft picks I was so motivated to have the Cubs sign, how glad I was when they paid some superslot to bring them in, and now to look back on how little value they provided. Funny. Hopefully Sczur will be break that mold. Also, I don't ramble this just to be snarky, or to have another "Cubs are so dumb" thread. We know the success rate with any draft pick is pretty iffy. So I'm not sure our lack of success with superslots is any reason to quit trying, or that it is particularly unusual.

Nice catch, Wrigley. So that's basically a $600 deal to play baseball, if he chooses it. That's pretty strong super-slot for a 5th rounder. Fun. I hadn't realized that he was that interesting as a baseball player. Would be cool if he worked out.

I think there's a LOT of hope as a real prospect based upon his improved play, his age and his level. However, he's still striking out way too much. He has a completely unsustainable babip propping up his numbers at this point. Agree and disagree. If doesn't work to have 57K/1HR ratios. When you whiff 30% of your AB, it's hard to be much of a prospect, especially if you don't offset that with a bundle of HR's. So it looks to first approximation that he's just a guy who doesn't have the god-given eye-brain-hitting gifts to hit fast-moving professional pitching. Most likely that won't be learned. That said, his BABIP is not at all unusual, is it? A-ball BABIP's are routinely higher than in the majors. I think Lake's is around .330 or so? That's not in any way atypical for an a-ball player who has any kind of legs, I don't think. He's up near .240 now, that's major improvement, and he's vaulted past the .600-level OPS-wise. But man, if you K all the time and just consistently miss the ball too often to hit it hard enough for HR's or XBH, it's hard to hope for too much. But, maybe he'll be the guy who does learn late. Everybody's different, so maybe he'll figure something out.

Pinckard http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/Pro-Baseball-Notebook-Time-in-independent-leagues-pays-for-Groesbeck-standout.html 'Baylor outfielder/pitcher Brooks Pinckard is still weighing his options on whether to sign with the Chicago Cubs or return to school. Pinckard said via text message this week that he is “just waiting and seeing what’s going to happen” with his contract negotiations.' Sounds like a matter of price. But doesn't sound intrisically unsignable or that he's pretty committed to *not* signing.

In going back through the draft thread, I don't see hardly anything in the thread about him, other than several people seemed to think he'd be harder to sign. But I never really did see any scouting info about him. Anybody? His high school is big, and he's in Florida. So I'd guess he faced some good competition, and that his stats aren't quite as meaningless as if you're in the Wisconsin schools with graduating classes of less than 50. If his competition is good, then his .500+ with 7 HR's, the raw numbers are much better than harvey hit (I don't think he hit .400); Montanez (he was low .400's); or somebody like Vitters (he wasn't even .400, was he?) At 6'2", Geiger might be a nice size. Not too small to have some power. I know there are plenty of taller guys who are great hitters, but my experience with the 6'3-6'5" type Cub prospect hitters is that those tall guys typically end up having more BP power than game power. The long levers-> long swings -> holes and contact problems. Maybe at 6'2" Geiger will be just a hitter. I know Wilkens has tended toward up-the-middle amateurs, figuring they can move to corner later. But that does tend to correlate guys whose attributes are foremost speed/arm/defense, and power is something you hope emerges in due time. (Which can happen, see Colvin.) But it's nice to see the Cubs getting a couple of HS kids who might, if they were to blossom as you'd wish, blossom into middle-of-the-order run producers. Jackson might. Colvin might. Not sure how good he'll be or if we'll sign him, but Golden might become a hitting RF. Geiger isn't going to make it as a CF or SS, so if he makes it, it's as a hitting corner. I believe DeJesus also has some possible projection to grow into enough bat and perhaps power to be more a corner than just a needs-to-play-center.

Geiger http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100705/SPORTS/7050307/1002/SPORTS/Merritt+Island+s+Geiger+will+play+for+AZL+Cubs

Thanks for Rhoderic update, cal. That's good news. Nice to get the bonus info right off the bat, too.

Interesting. Other than the alleged big-ticket 3B we signed from Venez last year, Sanchez to my knowledge might be the first significant-dollar position player we've signed since Felix Pie and Alfredo Francisco(?) back in the 2001 type era. (Resume debate about whether Pie got $125 or $250 or was a $25 bargain, heh heh heh...) Back in the mid-90's they signed a large-dollar catcher, Juan Salazar. But otherwise I'm unaware of the Cubs really spending very strong on position players in Latin. Some pitchers yes (Suarez, they spend a lot on a Martinez? back in the Francisco era who quickly fried his arm...) Sanchez also sounds interesting because Alfredo(?) seemed to be the only dollar guy we ever signed as a power prospect. Most of the position guys have seemed to be liked by the Cubs either because they were fast (middle-infield CF types) or had strong arms (after they couldn't hit, they'd perhaps switch to pitcher.) But Sanchez, if he's 6'2", projectable, above-average raw power, that looks like a guy who might be a power guy and almost certainly won't be a SS. Agree, these Latin players are highly risky. Not like the old days where they'd scout scrawny malnourished kids who'd sometimes blossom fast with a healthy diet. Now a dollar-guy has been run by a buscone who's building him up with both food and steroids. Kids hardly show in many games, so you see a game or two and watch some batting practice. I'd guess scouts are pretty vulnerable to the Harvey/Mallory syndrome; a kid can bomb a few BP pitches, but whether he has any plate discipline, whether he can react on hard stuff, whether he can handle movement, and whether he has any baseball instincts or baserunning instincts or actual game defensive abilities, can't tell. You've got to figure you're going to train the player on every one of those things. Being in the buscone's cow-factory doesn't emphasize that kind of stuff. But fun to have the Cubs do anything, and sign somebody where we know he's a name to track, such that if he does produce, we know we should notice. Tangent: there are a variety of Latin pitchers who are doing OK at Boise/Mesa thus far. But they are all in the 6'0"-6'2" range, and all but one are 20-21 and in their 3rd or 4th pro seasons. (One guy is 18...) If I'd known one was signed for $250, I'd watch him more. But I have no idea whether any of these 20-21 year old Latins are more than roster fillers. Are these like 38th round college draftees who sign for $15K and have no future? Or are some of these guys who do or will throw 90-95, and while they were 6'1" 160 when signed at 17, they are or will be 6'3" 225 and plenty strong? (Angel Guzman type story....)

Stites was supposedly thought by some to be much better than 33rd round talent. And pitching in Florida he wasn't hiding under a rock. When teams know a prospect and let him go beyond round 30, it means one of two things. 1. He isn't viewed as being more than 30th round talent (which appears not to be Stites is case) or 2. His price tag appears to be enough beyond his perceived talent that nobody expects to sign him. And the chance seems so remote that nobody bothered to waste even a 13th or 17th or 21st or 25th or 29th round pick on him. Scouts can be wrong on talent (see McNutt). Scouts can also be wrong on signability (Sean Gallagher was signable at typical $100-150 slot), even though apparently many teams thought he wasn't. Players can change their minds. (Trout of the Angels supposedly demanded $2.5, which may have moved some teams off him; but ended up signing for$1.2 or whatever late first round slot). And certainly players can improve fairly quickly (again see McNutt, and perhaps Wells?) But my guess is Stites will either need to decide to change his mind about his price (lower it), or pitch so impressively that he changes the Cubs mind and valuation of his stuff (relative to what they and the other teams drafting thought a few weeks ago.) I think one or the other will need to move quite a bit to actually get him. The Cubs haven't signed any superslot pitchers that late to real superslot money ever, I don't think. (The token $100-200 slot that McNutt and Struck signed for is not going to sign this guy unless he drops his tag a bunch.) I hope he pitches so great this summer that the Cubs are happy to go beyond the $200 slot.

Now I'm hearing that ARcher and Shafer have also been promoted, Carbrera and Maestri sent to Daytona.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jun/27/jacksons-hr-debut-not-enough-for-smokies/ According to knoxnews, I'm wrong. "The 22-year-old Dolis, a 6-foot-4 right-hander from the Dominican Republic, will start tonight's game at West Tenn."

Agree that the Dolis promotion, rather than Rusin or Archer, seems surprising. Two hypotheses: 1. Dolis has pitched effectively enough, but he's typically been better early and his stuff seems to deteriorate after a couple of innings. He doesn't have the K-stuff or the pitch efficiency to be a starter, so they're ready to finally move him to his eventual home, relief. If they don't want to add a starter to Tenn, then Archer and Rusin up as starters. 2. The other possible logic is that Archer is in a groove, he's got a pitching coach who's got him rolling, and they just don't want to mess with his success. Let him stay locked in.

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