craig

I think I've seen several complaint/concern comments regarding the Jackson pick: 1. Too cheap. Why didn't we spend more on somebody better? 2. Contact/K problem. When does a guy fix contact problem against better pitchers? 3. Power problem. What makes you think Jackson can develop even mediocre power? 4. Too conservative. "I really hope the Cubs aren't taking a Conservative approach...., The boom or bust type players are still the ones I prefer to take early on." Two others that have gotten less buzz here but that I thought were issues: 5. CF issue. Is he (or will he become) too big/too white/too slow to stick in CF? 6. Arm issue. Does he have CF/RF arm, or LF arm? 7. Speed issue. Runs well now, but not base-stealing fast and is he really CF fast? Essentially critics have questioned every aspect of his game: his arm, his defense, his power, his contact hitting, his speed. I didn't like the pick, because all of those scouting concerns worry me, most especially the contact/K problem that Ping mentioned. So don't read what follows as being an apologist or a big believer. But I have to believe that professional scouts who spend their lives scouting prospects have all thought about these issues too. Wilken has 20 scouts. I know it will be funny to say they are all idiots; but I have to think they have some logic in thinking that the risk/reward combo made him a choosable guy. 2nd, it doesn't appear to have been the Cubs only. By BA account, based on their input from scouts of many organizations, jackson was a consensus top-50 guy. So there must be a lot of scouts who think he's got a reasonable-risk chance to be more than a weak-armed low-power K-machine left fielder. I know it's fun and cliche to assume that all scouts, especially Cub scouts, are idiots and don't know anything. But personally I find it helpful to try to understand what the scouts could have seen to have valued him as much as they did, given the plethora of concerns. And I think doing so helps to put some of the comments into context. Of the four concerns listed above, I have no argument with #1. I sure wish we'd have found somebody who was worth a million, and been willing to spend a million to sign that guy. Nor with #2. It's hard to find a K-guy who fixes that against better pitching, and it seems frightfully improbable that Jackson will do that. But #4, the "too conservative", that strikes me as completely inappropriate. That Jackson is way too improbable, way too risky and way too bust-likely, I can relate to that thinking. But the pick is anything but too conservative. It's too boom-or-bust in my book. Some analysis on issues: 2. The K problem. Jackson's sophomore K's were 17%. Scouts have mentioned a loop or hitch or something. Pro scouts spend their lives scouting hitters, and at least some of them apparently believe that Jackson might be able to hit with enough contact to be a top-50 type guy, Wilken included. I assume they've noticed that K-guys don't often change their stripes, yet they valued Jackson anyway. I don't know why, and I don't know that they will be vindicated. But I may be boring and naive enough to think that perhaps that belief is not without some reasonable basis for possibility. 3. The HR problem. He hasn't produced many HR's, but a lot of guys add more, and many of the scouts seem to think that's possible. One of the reasons why he scouted as favorably as he did. Sure, they are probably all idiots and we know better. And sure, they may think he has a chance to add HR's but that chance may not be realized. But I don't think it's unrealistic to think that he could add HR output. The Edmonds analogy that some have mentioned. 5,6,7: CF/speed/arm. Wilken addressed this pretty explicitly. He believes that he is a good CFer, has the speed and range and instincts to be a good CFer, and has an arm that is strong enough and accurate enough to play in center. (Don't recall whether he thinks it would play in right or not.) I think this is the context for the Kotsay reference. I think Kotsay is the scouting name for the white CFer who is a very good CFer without having olympic speed. I don't think Wilken was really meaning Kotsay the hitter when he used that comparison; I think he was using Kotsay the very excellent center fielder. (I think by most of the good defensive metrics, Kotsay consistently scored near the top.) Sure, it's easy to mock a Kotsay reference: Jackson is a whiffaholic with a low risk of making it, and even if he does his ceiling is Kotsay! Talk about low ceiling! But if the Kotsay is for Jackson's defensive CFer ceiling, that's a very high ceiling. Other comments relate to jackson's offensive ceiling. (Edmonds type comps).

I think Jackson is a high-bust risk. So he's anything but a conservative, safe-to-make-majors, low-risk-limited-reward guy. You're drafting in the sandwich area. Back when we were taking Brownlie, Blasko was picked at about the same spot as jackson. I don't see any real change in philosophy. As cal notes, if (huge if) Jackson was able to fix his K problems, and if (huge if) he was to grow into the HR power that Wilken thinks could come, and if (not nearly so huge an if) he can stay as a legit defensive CFer, you'll have a very good CFer. No problem with his ceiling. The problem, if any, is with his odds of getting there. I don't think that Cashner was exactly a safety pick last year either. Plenty of risk that he'd be a wildman, and of course that he'd get injured. And given how much they claimed to like his stuff, if in fact he works out as a starter (at which he's doing well currently, throwing strikes), that could be a huge gamble payoff. I think it's also important to see what else we do with this draft. The last time there were concerns that the Cubs had taken something of a signability guy, it was Colvin.... and then we spent $11 million or whatever on Samardz, and $1+ on Huseby, and $0.4 or whatever on Rundle. So we don't really know where else the money is going to go. Maybe with the sale-that-will-never-happen holding, it will be different. But they've spent quite a bit each of the Wilken drafts. And with a cheap 1st and no sandwich this year, their high-round cost is way down. If they were to want to spend as much as last year or the Vitters year, that could enable quite a bit of superslotting. Raley? Sergio Burruel? Keenyn Walker? Who knows how much they might spend on guys like that. And for that matter, who knows how much they may have already spent to get Mincone, Runey Davis, and Fitzgerald signed, all guys who could have had several years of college leverage.

A poster at BB said that Maneiri said Lemaheau won't be coming back, and the poster said he'd heard some talk that DJ had already agreed to terms, more or less. We'll see, but the coach wouldn't say that unless he was pretty sure the kid is going to sign, whether sooner or later. Good news. Will be interesting to see how much he gets, whether he's another cheap signability guy, or whether he's actually a superslot. What BA may think, it's possible that the Cubs just like him a lot more than the consensus, their views don't always go with the BA consensus by a long shot. Wouldn't be a shock if they see him as good enough to justify some superslot.

Good comments on colvin. Personally I'm doubtful that he'll be viewed as CF material, but I hope you're right and I'm wrong. You are so right that it's hard to know what to think. He's been so streaky, and it's hard to know why. Surgery, instruction to be patient, what sort of factors have been influencing his production or lack thereof, hard to tell. My view is that he will live or die with his HR power. If he can evolve into a real HR hitter, that's good for his average and OBP and justifies a lot of low walks. But he's never been a consistent or a volume HR guy. Hopefully his output at Tennessee will be sustainable. And hopefully he's approaching a point in his career where he'll be fully healthy, and where he won't be so often experimenting with new approaches. But will eventually be able to settle into a good approach that, while perhaps not as walk-rich as I would like, isn't quite Soriano-wild either.

A guy said Springfield had academic problems with college eligibility anyway, so may not have had much leverage.

I'd put Cashner in my upper group. He seems to be healthy enough, he's been throwing strikes, he throws pretty fast, and he's in A+ already. I certainly like him ahead of Samardz. Heh, our totally objective farm boss Fleita, who never exaggerates about anybody, has compared him to Kerry wood!

He was signable from the start, he projects as a utility guy as the main thing that hurts him is his lack of speed. These local news stories don't know much about the ins and outs, so it wouldn't surprise me if a writer didn't really understand how the value was between school and actual signing bonus. Maybe it's $80 in signing and $35 in scholarship to get up near slot, or whatever. Perhaps the kid doesn't get it himself. A major-leaguer wouldn't say he's signed when he hasn't signed and is negotiating his bonus, for example. But whatever. Seems that Wilken talked about his hitting. Guys who can hit, with power, can get opportunities. Sounds like he'll need to hit, and if he doesn't, he won't have speed or defensive greatness to fall back on. But if he hits, anything can happen even if he's slow.

Yes, Todd Noel was the last Cub first round pick to get a 6-figure bonus:... And even in 2004 when we didn't have a 1st, we still payed Grant Johnson well over a million.

If raley signs for less than a million, this could be a draft in which we don't pay anybody a million. (Who else would we even consider going that rich on?) I wonder when the last time that happened? Back in the Larry Himes era? Or did maybe Todd Noel not quite make a million back in 96?

Jackson's signing bonus is $972. Wow, less than a million for our "1st round pick". Years ago pre-inflation we were spending more than that for 2nd-round Sisco and late-round Huseby etc. If he fails, as usually happens with guys taken in that area and usually happens when super-K amateur hitters face pro pitching, we should keep in mind that while he was a 1st round pick formally, he's really closer in $$$ and draft position to sandwich guys (Flaherty, Donaldson, Clanton, Blasko) and high 2nd-rounders (Kelton, Sisco, Bobby Hill) than to most 1st rounders. His dollars are closer to Aaron Shafer, who's already pretty much a washout, than to Cashner, for example, and Cashner wasn't even in the front half of the 1st round. His dollars are basically as close to Cerda and Watkins as to Cashner. 7th rounder Springfield got only $80K. Wow, I'm surprised, that seems low for a HS kid to sign for. I wonder when the last time was that we signed a HS kid for less than 6 figures? It's seemed that anybody with even a hint of leverage would get 6 figures even if drafted in the teens or later (Acosta, Russell, McDaniel, Coleman, Tarlandus Mitchell, Nate Sampson, Canzler, Jericho Jones, etc..) If he's only an $80K guy, we probably shouldn't expect too much from him. I didn't get the idea that Darvill was any big-dollar tough sign either, IIRC he said he had thought 5th-20th round. I'm curious how the bonuses are going for other guys. Are we going cheap/signability across the board? Or are guys like Runey Davis or John Mincone or Fitzgerald getting well into the 6-figures range? And are some of the bigger commitments obviously taking longer? The guys who sign quick are the signability guys, and Keenyn Walker, 19. Burruel, Sergio, 24. Esquivel, Gerardo, 31. Clark, Andrew, and Raley are going to be where the superslots go?

He was one of the late round guys who intrigued me. Lots of great tools and physical gifts, but not much in the way of production. I'm all in favor of those kinds of guys at that point in the draft. 'Round 23: Jeff Pruitt, OF, Cal State Northridge Quote: "Outfielder Jeff Pruitt has a pro body at 6-foot-5, 210 pounds, with plus tools in his arm strength, speed (6.5 seconds in the 60) and defense. A redshirt sophomore, Pruitt has not hit enough to get scouts that interested, batting .212 this season and striking out 53 times in 179 at-bats." BA ranks him the 109th best prospect in California.' IIRC, Pruitt, who is a full college 21 years old, had like 2 HR and 1 stolen base or something to go with his .211 average. As a soph, he hit better, bashing it out at .254, although he didn't have a single extra base hit, and still stole only 5 bases. Prediction: as nice as BA may say his speed and defense may be, and as statuesque as his body may be, my prediction is that he was not drafted to be a position player. The first plus tool mentioned was his "arm strength". I predict that Wilken actually drafted him and signed him to pitch, not to play. At least, I hope so. Hard to imagine a .211-hitting singles hitter who K's 1/3 of the time in college being very draftable as an outfielder.

Interesting. My recall was that he supposedly had a promising arm when drafted, but was very wild. 4K/0BB/4IP is a change from a guy who walked 29 guys in 18 innings last year.

The Mesa roster shows a scad of guys have signed.

After 7, bonus babies Lee, Cerda, and Watkins have combined for 5 errors and 4 hits.

Glad you pointed that out. I saw the box, that he had only 2 AB, and was figuring he'd gotten injured. So ejection is good news.

Thanks, cal. Nice to know which way they are thinking with Raley. That they will "follow" is slightly disappointing, IMO. I'd hoped that they'd drafted him knowing what his bonus expectations were and knowing that they were willing to meet them. The idea about following him this summer suggests otherwise.

Will be interesting to see how they use the pitchers early, given the current roster. Suarez, Nagel, and Jung would seem pretty sure rotation guys. Antigua is the only active lefty other than Sontag. I assume he'll start, but it wouldn't totally shock me if he didn't. He's only 18 (turns 19 next week), the youngest guy on the staff. So he'll be on very limited pitch counts regardless of role. We'd like him to start, of course, because he'll be on regular schedule, we'll be able to look forward to checking his stats when he's scheduled to start, and if he does very well he'll get opportunity to show that he's good. Jung and Mitchell are both only a few months older than Antigua. I doubt Mitchell will start, but I hope he does. He's got a fast arm, and being as raw as he is I'd like to see him get innings. I'm more interested in him than somebody who's kind of stalled out with mediocre stuff like Hernandez. Keefe could go either way. An older college guy who's been starting this spring, he might be viewed as interesting enough to merit rotation, and he might be a better innings-eater in rotation than some of the lower-pitch-count kids. Or, perhaps after a full spring season of innings, they'd as soon have him limiting his innings and just doing relief. Nunez and Sierra I'd view as probable roster-fillers, although at 6'4"/6'5" perhaps they are just coming into their own and will surprise. But I'd guess they are guys who, if they don't do well early, will be the expendables if/when some draftees sign. I hope Rohan is capable enough defensively to be a major-league prospect in the event that he could hit like a major-leaguer. I hope he plays 1st, rather than Hoorelbeke who I assume is filler. Probably Rohan will never be more than filler either, and probably his defense makes him a Fox wannabe.

Hart is fast. In relief, his K/BB was very good; but he gave up a bunch of HR's. In rotation, he hasn't. It's also been my observation with him, as with Samardz, that they often aren't as sharp in their first inning. As a reliever, if you struggle in your first inning, you aren't good because you don't get your 2nd-5th innings to lock in and cruise. Also, Hart doesn't have a long history of having a good breaking ball. If the cutter isn't working well, he hangs a couple or hitters sit on the fastball and a couple that aren't located just well turn into HR's. Get innings in rotation, enough to find the cutter, and now you've got enough stuff to keep guys a bit more off balance and to lock in better so you aren't hanging many. I'm interested.

Some low-fame guys who have been doing well: Beliveau. His walks are way down over his last couple of games. A low-walks Beliveau, if he didn't need to sacrifice his K's to do that, interestng to dream what he could do. Dustin Sasser. Hasn't allowed an earned run over his last ten games/16 innings. Solid GB ratio, and K/BB ratios (although the K's aren't fabulous). Williamson, 23. His first non-cameo shot at full season, started slow. But he's been a workhorse with Daytona's short starters, and he's 26K/4BB/24IP over his last ten games, very nice. I'd be curious to get some scouting on him. Hart's streak has been pretty remakrable, too. I feared Cashner would be a wildman. I'm really pleased with how few walks he's had over his last five games.

Good point on Kemp, Cal. I thought he'd be a given. I recall him being injured late in XST. Maybe he's not ready? Interesting that all three Koreans, Lee included, will go. I wonder whether Lee will play regularly, or at all, or just DH? They will make the opening roster more interesting to track. Cerda, I hadn't been confident he'd go. So that's nice to see. Watkins not mentioned; because he's a 24th round draft pick that the boise writer didn't know got a big bonus and was meaningful? Or just not up there? (Perhaps don't want to have Watkins and Lee both on same team, splitting SS?) Other guys like Antigua, who we are interested in, may not merit mention by the Boise author.

Quezada would indeed be skipping, but he seemed to get good reports from Phil. He's already 23, so may be more likely to skip than the average Dominican. I'm guessing that Boise will be very fluid, as is always the case but especially this year with the draft so late. If they break camp from Mesa on Friday, that will be only 8 days after the draft was done. Not a whole lot of time to do any back-and-forth on any bonus offers, or to think about them much. Or, once agreed upon, to pack and travel and go through whatever days or weeks of orientation-to-professional-baseball training that the cubs do. I like your list very much, cal. Probably more like an August 15th roster than the June roster, though. Your list includes 13 draftees; I'll be surprised if even five of them are ready for the opener next week. Jackson will take a while, 1st always do. Lemahieu will take a while, he's still in the world series, and then as a soph it will take some time to negotiate. Usually the ones who sign fast are the 36th rounder types who have no leverage, are glad to get a chance, and who want to make an impression fast. One of the variables I wonder about is how they feel about breaking up the Koreans. Perhaps they'll either want to send at least two, or perhaps none at all. Certainly possible that if they all are friends at Mesa, and they already have a teacher lined up to help with English lessons etc., that they may just prefer to keep the whole gang at mesa.

Quezada would indeed be skipping, but he seemed to get good reports from Phil. He's already 23, so may be more likely to skip than the average Dominican. I'm guessing that Boise will be very fluid, as is always the case but especially this year with the draft so late. If they break camp from Mesa on Friday, that will be only 8 days after the draft was done. Not a whole lot of time to do any back-and-forth on any bonus offers, or to think about them much. Or, once agreed upon, to pack and travel and go through whatever days or weeks of orientation-to-professional-baseball training that the cubs do. I like your list very much, cal. Probably more like an August 15th roster than the June roster, though. Your list includes 13 draftees; I'll be surprised if even five of them are ready for the opener next week. Jackson will take a while, 1st always do. Lemahieu will take a while, he's still in the world series, and then as a soph it will take some time to negotiate. Usually the ones who sign fast are the 36th rounder types who have no leverage, are glad to get a chance, and who want to make an impression fast.

I think Andres Quezada is on the staff in some capacity. falcon, are you sure Dylan Johnston is going straight to Boise? I'd have thought he'd go to Mesa, which is more instructional. Would seem a new pitcher would benefit more from that. I think Lansford might also be there in relief. Am I wrong, or is this the shortest interval between the draft and short-season opener? I think it's going to take a while for draft picks to start to trickle in.

http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_12562115Does that mean the Cubs have to pay him 2nd-5th round slot money for him? Should the Cubs pay that for him? I would think so, absolutely. Some projections, of course, leaves a lot of range; if there were 10 projectors, and 8 of them had him as a 20th rounder, the local media will obviously mention the two possible high-round projections, even if they outliers. But, regardless of that, I think it's a given, that he'll require 2nd-5th round money. The question is, where in that very wide spectrum? Should we pay him 2nd round? Don't know. But certainly we should pay 5th round. We drafted a whole bunch of guys who I think we are prepared to offer 6th or 5th round money to. I think the question for many of them, for walker and Burundi Davis and Sergio Burruel and Fitzgerald and Esquivel and DeJiulio and probably others is whether 6th or 5th round money is enough. And if not, how much higher do we need to go, and then is it worth it? In Walker's case, I thought he had cornerback scholarship offers to half the major teams in the northwest. As a two-career guy, not much point in sacrificing both a possible NFL future and a possible high-dollar future baseball draft spot to take a 5-figure bonus now. He's certainly going to be a 6-figure guy, no question. It's just a matter of whether $.15-.20 will do it, or if we're talking more $0.4-.8 or something. Wrigley, thanks a ton for some of the comments on some of these picks, and some clues about where they are at signability-wise.

I'd be surprised if they didn't do their homework. They've got an army of 20 scouts prepping for the draft for months, guys fill out surveys, area scouts can talk to kids and their advisors and their families, and the teams can call guys up and ask them point blank. (For example, the HS kid who said the Cubs called him and said they'd pick him in the 2nd round if he'd sign; negative feedback; so they picked signable Lemahieu instead. Or the Sean Gallagher story, that we got him in the 12th round or whatever in part because he wasn't answering his phone when some other org called him in the 4th round.. .) Granted, I'm sure the dollar discussions aren't that detailed. I'm sure kids can change their minds. Teams probably assume that kids often will settle for less than they demanded pre-draft, so probably gamble accordingly.