craig

Agree, Colvin at Iowa. Lou says he's added 25 pounds, and looks great. This has been his first summer to build himself up. 06, after long draft spring/summer, went home and chilled out. 07, went to Japan and got hurt. 08, had surgery and rehabbed surgery. So this has been the first offseason when he's been healthy and focussed on baseball strength. Hopefully he'll add more power, although as a .524-slugger at AA last year, he's got a pretty good platform to build from. I think Castro will go to Iowa. You don't hold back an elite prospect for the welfare of a darwin Barney. And since Barney isn't going to reach the majors as an every-day starting SS anyway, he'll be well served to take utility training, including time at 2nd and 3rd. Might make sense for Castro to play some 2nd, too. Another Iowa 1B possible is the 4A slugger from Seattle, Bryan LaHair. He hit 26 HR and had an .883 OPS in AAA last year at age 26. Vitters is a wildcard. I'd rather leave him in Daytona until he proves he's too good for the league. (Which was certainly not the case last year.) And I'd like to see them leave Lemahieu at 2B for a while. He's got a chance to defend fine at 2B, and to be a very strong bat for a 2B. At 3B, not so clear that he'll have the power or bat that you'd want for a regular.

Cal, I was trying to remember what catcher Kweon got. Do you know? I thought he was pretty pricey...

It's not "just" scouting. It's both, but the scouting is a major factor. If he had the same numbers, but the scouts didn't say that he had a great arm, good defensive potential, a quick and really promising stroke, strong wrists, and the frame with potential to add power, his OPS wouldn't have him rated as enthusiastically as many of the major do. If he'd hit .210 in AA, he wouldn't be raved as much, either, or if he'd K'd 25% of his AB's. He got his singles and didn't strike out, and that's good. But if the scouts didn't like his swing, his frame, and that he "looks" like a player, I don't think he'd be so consistently getting listed as one of the top-50 prospects in the game. It's both. That's an opinion, and it's yours more than mine. I have no reason to think the scouts and BA and Law type people are wrong to rank him where they do. I have a lot of respect for their experience and insight and sources. But I also know that there are lots of prospects who get rated that high who don't turn out, and that if he doesn't improve on a lot of areas that he won't either. But I don't think it's just his low-K-singles performance last year that has scouts so buzzed. I think they see qualities common to many good big-leaguers beyond the ability to hit singles and not strike out. Is he going to be an "impact player" star? I don't know, and as you say it's a matter of likelihood. Most guys who are ranked where he is do NOT become "impact players" or stars. Some do; some become good but not special; some become average; some never become even that; and some bust entirely. I hope he ends on the favorable end of that spectrum. But every player is unique, and some stop improving at younger ages than others. For Castro to become a good regular, he's going to need to keep improving. His errors, his power, his walks, those are three obvious areas that need improvement to become useful. If he stays what he is, a high-error singles hitter who doesn't walk, he's not going to be very valuable. He needs to improve. I think that's very likely, but it's not certain and how far he'll improve I can't claim to know. I think the projections of the scouting community are better than my own. I'm hoping he becomes really good, so I'm more concerned that he'll just be average then that he'll bust entirely. Neifi and Cesar Izturis were very good fielders who didn't K and hit singles, and who started a lot of games and made a lot of money. I want Castro to hit with a lot more power and reach base more often than they did. I think players like that kind of represent his floor. (Neither was in AA at his age; and neither is as tall. So it's not like they his equals as 19-year-old prospects.) I think this is only partially true. Not striking out is an inherently good quality, and it manifest the inate ability to put the bat on the ball, including breaking balls. Many players don't have that and never get it. To have such good recognition/response ability to handle AA-pitching at age 19 is very rare. There are plenty of older players in A+/AA whose power and walks gave them much higher OPS than Castro had; but who don't have that gift. And I think if a guy has that gift, and later adds more strength, that could enable substantial upgrade in IsoP down the road.

I agree with Cubsin, it seems there have been a lot of very favorable reports on his SS defensive tools. I think the 2b-move stuff relates to three factors: Theriot is more stable than Fontenot, so for now it would be easier for Castro to beat out or share time with Fontenot than Theriot. 2nd, there are many who see Lee as a pure defensive SS, without power; and if you assume both guys end up being a long-term DP combo, it's easy to figure the stronger Castro could better fit the 2B profile. 3rd, there are some who expect Castro to get significantly bigger. This obviously varies from source to source. I seem to recall callis or somebody projecting Castro to perhaps end up at 6'3" 210 or something. Not sure that view is very widely held, but you can't have it both ways. If he's going to grow into a lot more size, thus facilitating a major boost in power, that isn't likely to happen without involving some reduction in both baserunning and defensive speed. But my understanding is that most people think he has very good defensive tools. And can make spectacular defensive plays. It's just that at present he makes errors, and he'll have to reduce those to be a quality big-league SS. I think we have to remember that for any players, there are routinely a wide variety of scouting opinions. The scouting sources don't always see a guy all that much. That some rave about his defense and others say average now and will move later, that's not unusual. That some may say below-average arm while most say really good arm, that kind of range of opinion is routine. That somebody thinks he could end up 210 with 25-HR power, and others don't think he'll ever be more than 190, that's normal.

Sure. Perhaps every .734-OPS high-errors singles hitter generates as much excitement as Castro, if they do it as his age and level. My subjective impression is that the expectations and projections seem a little beyond what is normally expected for a high-errors .734-OPS singles hitter, even a young one. So I think scouting evaluations are making a significant impact on his reputation beyond just the existing statistical record.

Dave, your list was great. Caveats: it's always hard to know how management feels about some guys. Ten things that I never know, variables that can throw things off: 1. Who knows about the lower levels? 2. Who knows about piggy-backs, as you mentioned? 3. Who knows when their is a reliever that they've decided has a good arm, and has little future in rotation, but who they might start in order to give more innings and to develop secondary pitches? (In recent years Ceda, Mateo, Lambert, and Maestri have all opened in rotations, even though they were all understood to be relief prospects.) 4. Who knows when a prospect who's been starting and has some talent will be switched to relief, because they know that's his eventual role? Leverton might be at that stage. 5. Injuries always shuffle things. 6. Who knows about personality factors? Non-confident guys, i think they go slower to avoid ruining their confidence; arrogant guys, I think they may be more willing to move faster; either the guy can handle it, or perhaps he'll learn some humility? (Might this have factored in Searle starting at Daytona last spring?) 7. Who knows how camp impacts? The minor league camp is **way*** shorter than big-league camp, and I think there is a wider variance in how ready or not kid prospects are when they arrive. One or two bad outings versus one or two really sharp outings can perhaps influence where a guy opens and in what role? 8. Who knows to what degree they value having some lefties in minor league rotations? 9. There are always just wild surprises. Who knew last February that Searle and MacDaniel would open in Daytona's rotation, and Lambert, Jackson and Coleman in AA rotation? Certainly not me! 10. Who knows how much they value winning? Fleita and managers both like farm teams to win. Do they start guys like Bibbens-Dirx, Muscho, and Mathes or some younger guys with perhaps higher ceilings? *Muscchko was 2.63 with an 0.88 WHIP and a 0.32HR/9IP ratio as a starter. If he was a 3rd round draft pick or we had scouting that he touches 96, we might have him in some top-15 lists. Does management start him until he fails, because that is just good practice and there is nobody compelling to try anyway? Or is he a roster filler who happened to string 10 good starts together, but management is too long-sighted to get deluded by that? Or do they think his stuff is pretty good, that he might become the next Randy Wells, and that he throws hard enough (88-92?) to be effective with the movement, offspeed, deception, and command that he showed? I have no idea. I'm going to steal from Dave, without the quotations just because it's easier: Dave's Iowa: Coleman Cashner J Jackson Atkins Diamond (this leaves off JR Mathes) Thoughts: Coleman is the one sure thing, IMO. Jackson, almost as sure. But his AA time is still limited; and with his attitude/maturity issues who knows what kinds of lessons they may be wanting to teach him. He was also awfully slow out of the gate last year; so if he again starts rough (this time in camp), an AA start isn't impossible. Cashner likely (I hope); but he might perhaps return to AA, might even possibly win a Cubs spot, or might already be moved to relief, whether in Chicago or in Iowa to prepare him for a summer recall. Caridad might factor; if he doesn't make the Cubs, will they now relieve him at Iowa, or might he go back to rotation to continue to develop his offspeed stuff? Samardzija is certaintly still a possibility. What if he does have a nice camp, but Silva and Gorzellany also do well and Lilly is almost ready from the gate? Send the options guy down to try to refine and sustain something and be ready when needed. James Russell might also still be in the picture, although I assume he's relief for good now. My guess: Coleman Jackson Diamond Cashner Samardzija Dave's Tennessee: Carpenter, Leverton, Searle(although I'd like to see him back at Daytona, since he's still relatively young for the league), Dolis, Bibens-Dirkx Thoughts: This clearly appears to me to be the weakest level. Carpenter seems the lock (although given his stuff, a great spring might even make Iowa. And given his history, a DL might also be well possible.) Dolis also seems a lock. After that, anything goes. Bibens-Dirkx seems a good bet. Chen was 2.86 after the all-star break; he's in the picture. Muschko was great at Daytona; he's in the picture. Leverton and Searle weren't that good at Daytona, so either could repeat or get bumped to relief. But they weren't that bad either, so both might get the normal step and a chance to show improvement. And then there is still Papelbon, if Sandberg just wants to fill and wants a lefty. My Tenn guess: Carpenter Dolis Searle Muschko Bibens-Dirkx Dave's Daytona: Shafer Archer Bristow Antigua(I think that he will be "challenged") Hernandez Thoughts: Massively uncertain here: These names are all in the mix. I wonder if Shafer might be getting bumped to relief sooner or later? You've gotta fill this rotation somehow, so either some guys in the AA mix are held back, or these or some other Peoria candidates get pushed up. Archer seems the one lock. I'm pretty confident on Archer and Cabrera, and much expect Rusin to start here rather than Peoria. My guess is Rhee stays Peoria, given his lack of experience, unless concerns about arm and cold weather make Daytona preferable for arm reason. Also in mix: Shafer, Bristow, Oswaldo Martinez, Raley, Antigua, Searle, Bibens-Dirkx, Hernandez. Raley threw strikes in an elite college conference, and the Cubs liked him enough to pay him a lot. I'm going to guess he gets the edge and starts here. My guess: Archer Cabrera Rusin Bristow Raley Peoria thoughts: If Daytona is hard, Peoria is worse, and as Dave said, with piggy-backing, not sure rotation means much. Raley and Rusin are obvious candidates, but I'm guessing both straight to Daytona (Raley maybe 50-50, though). I'm guessing Kirk may do Boise. I think Morla, the kid from Oakland, is very probable. I wonder if Mincone is even healthy, much less ready to start in full-season? My best (and meaningless) Peoria guess: Antigua Rhee Morla Hernandez McNutt

Fun discussion. Blues has some very fair points: Castro to date has been a no-walk singles hitter with a lot of errors. Optimism about his future performance is based on projection and scouting: he might get stronger and add some IsoP, he might become more disciplined and add some IsoD, he might improve as much as his level of competition and hit for as high an average in better leagues as he has in low leagues, he might mature defensively and cut way back on his errors, he might get physically a little taller and a lot stronger. all of those are possibilities. But this isn't the first time that a young infield prospect has been in that situation. Some do improve in some/many of those areas; Ramirez and Jeter are extreme examples. Many do not improve enough to become premium players. As the Hanley example shows, it's also obvious that improvement is not always a smooth and steady thing. Guys who go from one place and end up at a much higher place, the time for getting there can vary greatly, and in many cases there are relapses or plateaus along the way. I look at stats a ton. But I do think we can go overboard in ignoring scouting observations. It seems that there are hitting observations regarding Castro that suggest he has: balance, bat quickness, and the ability to hit breaking balls. Sometimes guys whose stats might seem to be comparable or superior are lacking in one or more of those areas. Some of those qualities remain advantageous into the future, and perhaps make it easier to sustain performance against better pitching, or to maintain the ability to hit fast-moving pitches even after you add some muscle or perhaps try to swing a little harder?

Great list. I think I'll come back and think about this better later. But I think Cabrera will be on the scene, very possibly at Daytona, although perhaps again at Peoria. BA had him as their #31, as a guy with a chance to step up significantly, and I suspect their scouting is at least partially reflective of what Cub contacts are telling them. Second, one guy who pitched rather well last year was Muschko. He might be in the mix for AA, option for Bibbens-Dirx, or if/when some of the intended get hurt, or if Leverton is moved to relief or Searle or Leverton repeat Daytona. Third, I'm guessing to flip Rusin and Antigua. Rusin is pretty polished, and I have a guess that sometimes they like the Latin kids to experience pitchng in the cold midwest, this could be Antigua's only opportunity to experience that.

Using BA's top-30 list: From the top 10, everybody is potentially good enough, and has enough chance to disappoint, that each of the first 6-7 are of premium interest. Any of the front 7 could emerge as premium prospect or a very good big-leaguer right this very year. And any of those front 7 could put in a "Man, why was I so enthused about that guy?" year, too. In the second ten, the three I'm most curious about are Rhee, Dolis, and Antigua, the young pitchers. Young rotation pitchers like that in the teens, with a good year and perhaps a step forward in stuff can come out of the year as a top-5 prospect; or with a blah year can be off the top-30 and be nothing. In the third ten, Raley and Coleman. Again with good years, I think they could be sitting as top-ten prospects not far from a shot at a big-league rotation job. In both cases that will probably require that after an offseason of growth and focus on pitching, that their fastballs step up a bit. I guess I can see that in the top ten, I'm pretty interested in everybody. After the top ten, given that we don't have any HS position prospects after Watkins and Burke, I'm more interested in the could-become-good-starting-pitcher-if-everything-works-out than the could-be-good-utility-player or could-be-usable-reliever type prospects.

I think you might be right. I actually had him #8 on my list, before getting much post-season feedback. He's got a chance to throw strikes, have offspeed stuff, and throw hard enough to be a good all-around pitcher. I hope.

Of BA's top 30, ten are internationals. Nine signed by Cubs (Mateo acquired in trade, so he doesn't really credit to the international scouting operation.) 1. castro 6 Lee 12 Rhee 13 Dolis 19 Antigua 22 Caridad (somewhat special case...) 24 Mateo (not really an international scout and sign...) 26 Chirinos 27 Castillo 29 Lake 31 Cabrera Obviously a lot of those are back-end guys. But that's a better dose of internationals than was true a few years go. And I believe is closer to the distribution that strong organizations tend to have. Nice to see some progress there. That could go either way a year from now. Other than Caridad, Castro is the only guy with good chance to graduate, and that is not strongly probable IMO. One could easily envision this list next year again having Castro high; Rhee, Lee, Dolis, and Antigua all have a chance to be much more highly respected. Castillo, Cabrera, Searle, some of the recent Korean dollar signs, who knows which Latins, there are candidates to emerge more strongly. Might also go the other way, of course. If they don't step up, Cabrera, Lake, Castillo, they could all be totally forgotten. If Dolis doens't show much, and when it comes to the real season is just an ineffective wildman who is throwing 92 more often than 98, he might be way back. Castro probably isn't likely to have as much "list" value; if he has a great season, fair chance that he'll have graduated and not be included in lists like these. And if he doesn't have a season good enough to graduate, he won't be as valued a prospect. If Rhee's stuff/feel doesn't come back; if Lee keeps making errors, having zero power, and striking out as often, he may have less list value too. Regardless, it's very good to see the international efforts showing up in this list, and I'm hopeful that a fair dose will work out and that next year the value of our international prospects will be even stronger.

"The Cubs apparently believe he can be a mid-rotation starter, and his fastball is around 89-94." Cabrera is 6'4", 21. 94H/6HR/73K/54BB/96 innings. Nothing very outstandingly good or bad or eye-catching there. Seems fairly typical for the young prospect with good velocity, so-so fastball command, and unrefined breaking ball. Walks are the only thing that is too high. If the command of everything gets better, the K's will rise and the walk decline. Kind of like the #10 prospect situation; for a #31, you're guessing and projecting either way, whether you're putting Cabrera or Searle or Justin Bristow or one of those kinds of guys there.

A friend passed on some of the BA book comments on some guys. Pretty gushy about Dolis's stuff, and claimed that Rhee supposedly was looking good in instrux, good velocity back and close to getting his feel back. Had Alberto Cabrera as the #31 guy.

By spot 10 it's kind of a reach regardless. Law has Raley; BA includes Watkins and Lemahieu; on my personal list I'd included Antigua; IIRC some posters had included Rhee or even Archer. Seems like whoever we put at the back of our top ten, there's going to be a lot of projecting and guessing involved, since this type players have little or no strong success in full-season.

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.