craig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, that's pretty high for Castro. Nice. I was also very surprised that Vitters made it. I thought that given his limited AB's at Daytona, given that he'd already been listed at Midwest, and given that he was terrible at FSL, that they'd just leave him off. This is the most high ratings I can recall in a few years.

Cook turns 25 in December. He needed to be a natural pretty quick for it to be worth his time and the cubs. On Jones, I don't think there was any numbers game that precluded him. The low minors wasn't exactly crawling with good OFers. If he'd been good, he'd have earned playing time, but he didn't. My recall is that he demanded superslot, and it was rumored that teams liked him much better as pitcher than hitter but he wanted to hit. I'm totally speculating, but perhaps Cubs drafted and superslotted, figuring either he'd hit better than expected, or after failing for a while he'd agree to pitch. Perhaps when he didn't hit enough to merit full-season this year, and didn't do much in extended spring either, perhaps they figured he'd have to either surprisingly hit in Daytona (he didn't) or realize that it wasn't happening and he should switch to pitch. My guess is that as with Harvey, the Cubs asked him to pitch and he didn't want to, so they released him? It's often been said that if you aren't a high-level prospect, your development doesn't take priority. When you're a roster filler fringe guy, you go to the roster that needs a body, and either sink or swim.

Thanks. I didn't even realize they had a Dominican version, although it makes tremendous sense that they do. Nor had I realized that we'd sent some American kids down there. I assume they schedule at different times, so that perhaps some of the coaches can watch and teach at both instrux? Did the American kids just go to both instrux, or did they skip the Mesa instrux and just go to Dominican instead?

Thanks for the list, Cal. Interesting that not only Rosa but also May is listed at catcher. I'd heart May's name suggested at catcher, but I hadn't gotten a sense whether that was just an idea or was something they really wanted to look at. (Ty Wright of all people was once mentioned as a catcher possitibility; so just saying "maybe" and actually trying it are pretty different.) This also lists Springfield as OF. Given how little he hit, 2B/3B seemed dubious enough. If he's got to move to outfield without much speed, he's really going to be a hit-or-quit guy. Interesting to look at who's in and who isn't on the pitching staff. Basically most of the drafted pitchers are included. (Kirk, Rusin, Raley, Grife, Martin, McNutt...) Interesting which aren't: Whitenack, Mincone, Keefe, Clubb, Schmidt. Did we ever get details on how bad Mincone's arm was? Did he have surgery already, or what? He's obviously injured or he'd be invited. Whitenack, I wonder what's up with him? If I'm Keefe, Clubb, and Schmidt and I'm not invited, I'm not feeling very good about my prospects for next year. Pitcher switchers: Lansford yes, Dylan Thomas no. Thomas was said to have a huge arm, Sandberg supposedly said he threw as hard or harder than Dunston. After they said he was giving it a shot as a pitcher, I thought we'd see him in short-season. The fact we not only didn't see him then or in instrux suggests the pitcher thing is a no-go, he either quit or got released or hurt his arm. Based on reports from Peoria, he was frighteningly wild from SS, so maybe he was a wildman extraordinaire on the mound. If Mincone's got obvious healthy problems, Tarlandus Mitchell's inclusion surprised me. Good sign that his arm isn't surgery-type hurt yet. Interesting that none of the Australians, all of whom seem rather unrefined and in need of coaching, are included. I wonder what's up with that? Also interesting on who's in and who's not from the Latins. *Cabrera has been around for years, but he's still in. *Juan Pena, the good-sized strike-thrower who hasn't been moved along fast enough to confirm that they liked him much. Good sign for him. *Jose Rosario, the short righty from New York with the jazzy numbers this year who got a cameo at Daytona, good sign that he's possibly interesting. I'll be curious someday to get his story, if he gets far enough for anybody to be interested enough to track it down. *20-year-old short right Hector Mayora, after spending two years in DSL without the kind of usage or peripherals that signals "prospect", he's the biggest surprise to me. Hopefully that means he's got a really nice arm. Maybe also reflect a real tiny supply of Latins of any interest, I guess. If they had some 6'4" 95-mph throwers, they'd be in instrux. So probably our weak Latin program just isn't producting guys like that. *Eduardo Figuroa, 20, short righty, really forgettable ugly numbers as a 3-year pro. Had a 1.9+ WHIP at Boise. This is one of the better Latin arms we've got? Disappointing. Not included, so possibly not viewed as much more interesting than Figuroa or Mayora: *Yohan Gonzalez. He's young and big, was signed for some bonus, and had a lot of effective outings at Boise. I'd hoped he might have a chance to emerge. Non-inclusion here, combined with modest promotion rate and usage in relief rather than rotation, does not auger well for his status. *Dionis Nunez. They put him at Boise, and he had good ERA. I'd hoped maybe it would turn out that he's raw but throws 98 and has a chance, or something.

1. On Burke. I know his age. But I do think that a guy who's had several years as a full-time professional baseball player with full-time professional coaches can often be likely to be more advanced than an equal-aged kid who's been going to a small college with a fraction of the coaching and a fraction of the game experience. I have him #9 on my list, so it's not like I don't very, very much appreciate his potential. I like him a lot, and think the season he's had is rather astonishing. My concern is with his K's. He's always been a K-guy, and even this year he still K'd a lot. So even though his age is young, he's had the opportunity for three seasons to face this level of pitching and adjust to it. But there are apparently still an awful lot of pitches that he's missing and that are going for strikeouts. He's always K'd; he hasn't always hit for average. My hope at this point is that he has improved and adjusted enough; his K's aren't bad at all this year in the context of his high walks, his HR's, and his slugging. Obviously he's made some adjustments and improved, otherwise he wouldn't be hitting .300 with a .400+ OBP, a .500+ slugging, and a .900+ OPS in a season that began before his 21st birthday. But I think anytime a guy K's that much, especially at such low levels of competition, I always wonder if there are some holes in his swing that will get increasingly exploited at higher levels. Summary: I think Burke is a really interesting and appealing prospect if he can sustain the kind of production he showed this year into the future. If I'm cautious about buzzing him too much, it's because of the K's. And given that he's been in the pros long enough to suggest that his K-thing is a persistent reality with him makes me hesitant to assume it won't be a persistent limiter into the future. 2. On Colvin: I actually put him #10 on my list. Just getting into the majors, ala Luis Montanez, agree that isn't that good of an accomplishment. Even that, though, is not automatic for a #14 pick in what was viewed as a weak draft. I think he's going to become a major leaguer, not just a guys whose big-league experience consists of one or two September callups. How good will he be? I don't know. But I don't think it's that unusual for a #11 guy in toonster's list to have some questions associated. If there's no question about whether you'll make it at all, and no limits to your ceiling, you aren't hanging around down at the #11 spot. You're down there because either your ceiling is somewhat limited or your probability of approaching your perceived ceiling has some limits. Colvin slugged over .500 at age 23 in AA, and hit plenty of HR's, and hit .300, and OPSed at .859. At age 23 in AA, that's very good. Having been injured last year and coming off surgery this spring, that's perhaps especially impressive. It's possible that 2nd-half Colvin much better reflects what healthy Colvin is than the guy we saw last year and early this year at Daytona. Was the recent slugging high-average Colvin a fluke, or the guy we'll see into the future? I don't know for sure. If it's fairly representative of future Colvin, he's got a chance to make a lot of money as a starting big-league outfielder. He's got two more steps to go, so maybe the one or the other will kill him. But when a youngish guy is hitting .300 and slugging .524 in the Southern League, and plays acceptably in RF, I don't see why it's a stretch to rank him #11 or #10. Yes, his low walks/plate discipline are a weakness. If he walked 12% of his AB's with his numbers otherwise the same, there would be zero question about ranking him #11 or higher. We'll see whether that kills him or not.

Not to argue the relative merits of these guys. I personally have Cashner ahead of Jackson, but the point of this point isn't to argue the relative merits. [i can certainly track the argument for putting jackson higher: the big-leagues are no different from A+ in that you usually put people away with the breaking ball. It appears that Jackson's slider is superior to any breaking ball that Cashner throws, as is manifested by his much stronger K-rate. it can also be reasoned that he has better control overall. If jackson goes through his career with better control and a much better breaking, he'll end up better. So I'm not really contesting your relative ranking.] My point is that your discussion of these two does not address a most important characteristic for them, or for any pitcher: the propensity to allow HR's. I don't have numbers, but I believe around half (perhaps more) of the run scored in the major leagues score via the HR. And in this regard I think Cashner and Jackson are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Cashner has allowed one HR this season, I believe in his first game; jackson has allowed 11. I understand that HR's come in small quantities, so it's possible that with such small samples that predicting future can be difficult. But it appears that Jackson is unusually HR-vulnerable, and Cashner is unusually HR-resistence. I don't claim to know why. Perhaps it's that Cashner's fastball is not only typically faster but it has more tail to it, so that minor leaguers just can't drive his fastball. Perhaps Jackson's is straighter, or less consistently fast. Very possibly it's a reflection of Jackson's personality, so that he sometimes loses focus and lays in some mashable strikes. More likely it's that that Cashner lives heavily on the fastball, whereas jackson throws a lot more breaking balls. That's great for strikeouts (some of the good ones are unhittable), But if he's throwing 15 more breaking balls per start than Cashner, that's 15 more opportunities to hang one and get it drilled. Scouts talk up the good breaking balls, but the same guy who throws 20 really beautiful deadly breaking pitches in a game can still throw 5 hangers, one or two of which get drilled. From this view, it's well possible that next year, when Carpenter starts the year healthy and is another year older and more accustomed to handling a workload, that they'll push him to throw more breaking balls; if so, perhaps his HR-rate will rise, too. Perhaps it's because jackson is more aggressive and willing to challenge hitters with strikes, and would rather challenge a guy with a fastball down the middle than walk him. That could jive with why his pitch-count-per-inning is better than Cashner's, and his walk-rate lower. But whatever the underlying cause, in general a guy's tendency to allow HR's is somewhat characteristic, and Cashner looks like he's plus-plus in that aspect, whereas jackson looks like he's no better than average and possibly something of a minus in that regard. When I ranked Cashner higher, that was part of my reasoning. (The better fastball, not only velocity-wise but action-wise also factored in, as did personality/character/commitment/coachability factors.)

Your take on the K's is different from mine. Your hope is that the strikeouts come from aggressiveness more so than from bad plate discipline. I don't get the impression that either of these is the source. My understanding is that he is very patient and extremely good plate discipline. I don't think that he's hacking too much, or hacking at junk. My hope is that some of the K's are exactly becuase he's as patient as he is. He gets called out on marginal 3rd strikes, because he's patient. He gets struck out on good 2-strike pitches, because he's patient enough to go deep in counts and allow himself to get into 2-strike counts not infrequently. Perhaps his inordinate success (probably unsustainable, but perhaps there's something real going on?) when he does contact the ball reflects that he's very disciplined, and swings selectively at strikes he can mash, but is willing to take some strikes if they aren't ones he can hit hard? My fear is that the K's are because he just can't hit pitches all that well. As Wilken termed it, that he's "a misser". He's not swinging at unhittable bad balls, he's not swinging too aggressively. There are just a lot of pitches that he should be swinging at, but that he misses. As you say, if that's the deal, there will be more and more hard-to-hit pitches as he moves up, and fewer and fewer easy-to-hit pitches. So if he's just a "misser", that could get exposed more fully in time. But I agree with the main points of your post. He's been a wonderful and unexpected surprise. Other than the scary K's, early feedback on all other questions has been uniformly fabulous. Does he really have any power? Favorable results. Is he really a CFer, or will he soon move to corner like so many other amateur CFers? Super favorable feedback. Will he be able to sustain any average with all the K's? So far so good. Will he still be able to be patient and walk in the pros? So far so good.

I think there has been tons of Huseby hype this year. Much more so than for any low-A Cub reliever since the internet was born. I do think the hype has been stronger from the stats side than the stuff side, though. Reports on his stuff have been good but not great. The only standout stuff report has been about his cutter. Scouting reports have confirmed what's obvious from his box scores, that his control has been good. The other somewhat positive scouting has been that perhaps his delivery is somewhat deceptive. Reports have had relatively average velocity. So at present the scouting would suggest that he's excelled in A- as a good-cutter finesse control pitcher. One good pitch, excellent control, and a not-bad fastball can produce a good career. So I'm very hopeful that he'll become an effective major leaguer. I agree with toonster, though, I won't have him in my top-ten unless/until I get some word that the Cubs plan to move him to rotation. The high bonus, that's years ago and that was an unusually high-uncertainty gamble then, I don't see that being particularly relevant anymore. He was projected to become a bigtime power pitcher then, and it hasn't happened, (at least not yet). And he was projected to possibly develop a big-time curveball, and that isn't reality either (although his plus cutter helps). Will be interesting to see how he progresses as a finesse/control pitcher. He's so big, sometimes it doesn't take too much to be off for the finesse/control to get out of whack (as was the case last year.) At 21, it's not inconceivable that he might still add a tick or more velocity-wise. If he was resting 90-94 and touching 97, instead of resting 86-91 and touching 93, that could help and it can happen with pitchers sometimes. I would love to see him get another crack at rotation. Starters who throw strikes, and have one good knockout pitch to put guys away when they get up in the count, that's a recipe for success. And sometimes guys who can throw strikes with fastball and cutter have less trouble working up a change or some other offspeed pitch than do guys who can't control any of their pitches. The rich get richer, typically, as regards the ability to control pitches. There are plenty of successful, invaluable starting pitchers who aren't overwhelmingly fast, so his limited velocity almost seems less limiting in rotation than relief. I hope they try that next season, and see where he goes.

4th OF on a good team. ....because he doesn't exhibit very good patience or power at the plate, he likely won't hit enough to be better than average as a corner OF.... I don't disagree with most of those thoughts. The "consensus" is probably 4th OF on a good team, and he likely won't hit enough to be an above average starter. Two points: First, we can underestimate the value of average. There are a lot of good corner OF's, so it's a lot easier to end up with an below-average awful situation in a corner (for example, Soriano/LF this year) than it is to be better than average there. Average for low pay, often teams wish they had that. I do question the statement that he doesn't exhibit very good power. His Tenn slugging is .528, which would make him the league leader if he had enough PA's to qualify for the list. Slugging .528 in AA at age 23 is not power-deficient, I don't think. Neither is 13HR/284 AB. Project that to the number of AB's a big-league regular gets and you've got a HR-hitter. He's not a big guy and he's never been scouted as a power hitter. But actually power hitting has been his best virtue as a pro. Often guys as slender as Colvin get stronger and more skilled at driving HR's. So one could optimistically hope that perhaps he will sustain and improve his power. And with the kind of power he's shown, combined with his this-year-solid K-rate, he'll hit for average too. The pessimistic side: scouts don't often miss out on potential power. If in fact his power output is fluke and not sustainable, then he's going to have a hard time. But I think he's got a chance to be a good player.

I agree with most of outshined's comments. Overall, I think the draft was largely conservative, at least in terms of spending. Raley was the one superslot, other than that I'm not sure of anything other than modest overslots. There were some overslots, and perhaps later on we'll find out that some are larger than I know now. (Who knows how much McNutt got, or Burruel.) But the indications are that the spending was pretty conservative, not far from slot other than Raley. It was reported I think that within the first ten rounds, the spending was only 27th. Not far above slot. As for the players: Jackson has been really good thus far, a huge and pleasant surprise. The K's and things are risk, but he appears to excel defensively and to project as a legit big-league defensive CFer; he appears to have some real HR power; he appears to have excellent walk patience; and he appears to have made some favorable adjustments mechanics-wise. The K's and contact issue remain a big risk, but thus far everything looks better than I could have hoped for initially. The early returns on Lemahieu have also been very favorable, other than the lack of power. From what I've heard he's looked very impressive defensively. The tools are limited, so it's doubtful that he'll have the tools for big-league SS, but even that may not be impossible. But sounds like at worst he'll be very smooth and coordinated and play an excellent 2B. He's clearly been a good hitter average-wise thus far, and while his BB/K hasn't been noteworthy, it isn't worrisome. He's been utterly powerless thus far, and other than Hendry there doesn't seem like anybody scouting-wise who sees power in his future. But he's young, and he's got some size. So it seems he's got a chance to be a high-average top-defensive 2B. May never hit many HR's, but if he could blossom into a double-figures HR guy, he could be very good. The lefty pitchers, none have shown much yet. Mincone looked good for an outing or two, but is disabled. Kirk and Raley have only pitched a couple of times, poorly but it's too soon to read much. Rusin has pitched enough to be rather disappointing, for an old polished low-velocity guy I thought he'd dominate short-season guys. Nobody has stood out after the top 2, other than perhaps McNutt and Burruel. Most of the later college pitchers have been lousy, and none of the college hitters after Lemahieu have showed much, either. Top 5-10: Jackson Lemahieu Raley Kirk Burruel Mincone Whitenack McNutt Most disappointing early: Rusin, Springfield. (And Kirk, but it's so early that it's probably premature to hold it against him.) I'd guess the keys, not surprisingly, are Jackson, Lemahieu, and Raley. Those are the guys who seem to theoretically have a chance to become good starters, rather than depth/pen/support players. Jackson could very easily strike out too much and miss too much to make it and be a bust, or he could end up being a quality starting CF. So I think it's fair to assume that the success or failure of the best prospects is the key. Whether or not Mcnutt or Whitenack or Rusin make it setup relievers, or Burruel as a backup catcher, that's interesting. But the real hinge in my mind is whether we get any or a couple of solid starters, and if so the most probable would be from Jackson/Lemahieu/Raley.

Comments on a couple of topics: 1. I think we are overrating many of our guys. Sure, other orgs can make weird decisions. But I don't think there's all that much to worry about having Papelbon or Dolis getting picked, and I'm not sure that .210BA-Castillo or .630-OPS Clevenger are that likely to get drafted or to stick. I think there's a fair chance that if we rostered not a single one of our guys, that Gaub might be the only one to both get picked and to stick. 2. Losing a player isn't necessarily a big deal. If we lose Papelbon, or Castillo, there's a chance that Papelbon will someday blossom into Mark Guthrie, or that Castillo will someday emerge as a decent backup catcher. But how likely is it that we'll ever greatly regret losing somebody who's likely ceiling is to be a fringy guy who's never likely to be among the best 20 guys on a big-league roster? 3. We've got tons of space. Anybody the Cubs half like they can keep. Not only do we have like 3 open spots, and Cotts and Chad Fox, and Harden and Grabow perhaps ready to leave, but the roster is jammed with expendable fringers like Atkins, Mateo, Berg,,, Blanco, Scales, Fuld, Hoffpauir, and then there's Stevens and Samardz.... Management may choose the wrong guy to protect and the guy they expose might be the one who emerges from the field. But if they keep Mateo and Berg and Atkins and Caridad and Scales and Blanco on and leave Clevenger or Papelbon or Maestri off, I think it indicates how modestly the Cubs view the guy they expose. 4. On Colvin and the "one hot month". I think that one hot month can greatly influence our perception on guys who don't have that extended a track record. It can give a glimpse of what a guy's ceiling is and what he might look like if he was to figure out how to more consistently use the physical talents that he has.