craig

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.

Another walk? Is the apocalypse upon us? Heh, of the big four position prospects, Vitters is one of the better walkers! With two walks in only 44 AB, his 4+% walk rate is much better than Castro (1 walk/38 AB) or Lee (1 walk/39 AB). Watkins has only two. Will be interesting to see whether Lee does take some walks. Would be nice to see these singles-hitting no-power middle infielders do something to add to their offense, rather than just live on their BABIP. Obviously 40 AB is a small sample, so anomalies of any kind can appear. Chen is off to a good start. By most accounts his fastball is doubtful for mlb, and he doesn't throw K's. So not sure what he's winning with or how sustainable it will be. By recall he started well last year too, before some negative stuff evaluations came in. But IIRC, over his last fifteen starts last year he had about thirteen of them where he'd allow 2 runs or less, so other than an occasional really bad game, he was somehow getting a lot of guys out. His July-Aug-Sept WHIP's were 1.18, 1.35, and 0.75. Seems to be picking up. I'm surprised Raley's been so good. The scouting reports had confused me somewhat; they liked him, but never suggested he had any exceptional pitch or stuff. They described him somewhat as a developmental guy, always mentioning the split focus and only a sophomore; but also somewhat contradictorily spun him in other ways as somewhat advanced as regards control. I'm guessing all of those can be harmonized. Developmental guy physically, could get stronger (he's college but he's only 21) and without working out to be a speedy CFer, maybe he can rebuild his body somewhat to optimize his fastball. Two-year guy with fastball control and offspeed stuff. Perhaps with focus the command of each of those could be sharpened a bit? Whatever, I'm very encouraged. I wasn't sure he'd be A+ ready vs A-, and all the peripherals (K/BB, GB/FB) have been very attractive. I'd thought he'd be more in the Coleman/Chen style of stats (modest K's). So the K's thus far are really nice.

Thanks, cal. Phil actually has had a whole string of reports this week. I was struck by how un-enthused his reports were. He didn't really have many guys with more than one or two tools, none that profiled real well as hitters, and none that appeared to combine both hitting and potential power. Maybe Darvill. Obviously these are pretty young and inexperienced guys, so improved hitting and strength is possible in future. But it seemed that for a lot of them, it's bad approach; or whiffs a ton; or a no-power waterbug. The two best reports, other than 36th round DH/1B May, seemed to be for "ton Campana" Na, and for "waterbug" Alcantara (?). Also not many young Latins, the Dominicans seem largely in their 20's. I suppose that fits with Hendry's low commitment their. I suppose if a Dominican was 17 or 18 and had any size and polish, he'd be costing beyond our budget. Pitching: he mentioned one Latin pitcher, Luis Liria who he said had a very nice changeup, a low-90's fastball, and not much of a breaking ball. 20, 6'2", has already spent two years in DSL. Said carmona 92-94 and heavy fastball, but he didn't seem very enthused, didn't project as good enough to be real late inning stuff guy. Earlier he'd buzzed on Mincone, but in the game this week he was very ineffective. He was pretty positive about Kirk, although his box score wasn't notably good. Other than

agreed. his command still needs a little work, but by next season i think he can be a solid middle of the rotation starter. I wonder if he might not be a good guy to trade. I'm always cautious when prospect pitchers give up so many HR's.

Cashner at 84 pitches through 6 innings, I assume he's done. About as perfect as you can get. No hits, no walks, 10 K, of the 8 in-play outs 5 are groundouts. And he's 2-for-2 as a hitter besides! Flaherty has a couple of hits, he's now well up into the .100's.

Yes, my feeling too.

Thanks for info, Nathan. Nice to know how things line up and who to expect, some of us had wondered if Morla or anybody else might be also piggy-backing. Nice to confirm that Struck is in rotation and just doing a "side session". Good to see their offense get off to a good start and score some runs, getting any offense in April is often pretty tough. Kopitzke said that Whitenack pitched better than his line, of the seven hits two were seeing-eye and two others were infield. So three "real" hits and no walks in five innings, that's just fine.

cashner has more movement on his fastball (and better velocity out of the pen) plus his slider is way better than any breaking pitch that samardzija is throwing. the write-ups on him in the offseason made it sound like he's very likely to be a good reliever; starting potential is what is questionable. I have two questions with Cashner. 1. Does he or will he ever have the control to be good? (Command, consistency, control...) 2. If so, will he have the durability to be good as a starter? I think the question of whether he'll ever have the consistent command to be good at anything is more important and a larger question than the question of whether he'll be a good reliever or a good starter. I want both for sure. But it's no given that he's going to be a good reliever. Samardz was apparently a poor example of a good-arm-bad-control-bad-reliever. But I think there are plenty of guys with Cashner-caliber arms who failed as relievers due to control problems. So I think it's more than just starter-potential that is questionable.

I don't think Rhee or Struck pitching relief means much this first week. If you aren't going to start until Monday or Tuesday, and you broke camp last weekend, they may want to just get you some work. You've just been trying to get things rolling in camp, to then take an 8-day layoff isn't necessarily ideal. Wonderful to see Dolis have a dynamic start. No walks, and only one air out, that's fabulous. As cal had mentioned, I was surprised he's starting Daytona rather than Tenn, which made me worry that some of the buzz was baloney and that he'd been a wildman all spring and the alleged great velocity was overstated. Great to see Cashner put together some control and some K's for a couple of innings. Too bad to see him unable to sustain it for another inning. I think for him what we know is excellent is the arm. But whether he'll ever be much more than a Smardzija depends entirely on control. He was awfully wild in camp. I suspect having some modicum of command consistently could remain a challenge. On Rhee, I could easily see him being a regular piggy-back guy. He's young, and he's not that strong. I think at this point it's arguable whether he's one of the five best rotation prospects on that roster anyway. Archer, Raley, Cabrera, Rusin, Searle, those aren't junk prospects. For Rhee as a rehab guy whose post-operation health, velocity, durability, and command are all unknown at this point, I can well understand why they'd put some of the more advanced and better-now and possible better-later guys into the rotation. That he's at Daytona rather than Peoria may be more a matter of putting him in a safer warm weather team than that he really deserves to be getting rotation work ahead of the other strong prospects.

Thanks for link toon. I wonder when the last Cubs last had a full-season lineup with a sequence of players as unlikely to hit a HR as Valdez-Lee-Watkins-Cerda batting 9-3? Or with as much speed as Valdez-Lee-Watkins back-to-back-to-back? I hope the couple of players in the 4-7 spots do provide at least some power. That could be an exceptionally exciting lineup to watch offensively, with lots of contact hitters and make-things-happen speed. Could be a pretty low-pop low-scoring operation too, though.

http://wc4.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1deace69 Poster does not link his source. But says that Peoria will ahve Antigua, McNutt, Jun, Nagle, and Struck in rotation, with McNutt/Jung piggy-backing. We already know that Whitenack is in. I'm thrilled that they like Struck enough to be starting him. The one guy I thought might be in the mix who isn't listed is Ronny Morla. That he wasn't mentioned doesn't preclude that they'll actually end up piggy-backing him. But they may just see him better suited for a relief role. typical rotation usage for Peoria in April is sometimes very confusing, since sometimes half the Midwest-league games seem to get called for rain, snow, or cold!

http://peoriachiefs.mlblogs.com/ Take a look at nate's picture of Whitenack. That guy is a stick! Pencil arms.