craig

It sure would be nice to see them sign some more of the intersting guys. Maybe they've already superslotted some real talents; who knows how good Davis or Mincone or Fizgerald or McNutt were perceived to be or how much they commanded. But given that almost all of the known signings thus far have been slot if that, and that we don't even have a real 1st round million-dollar guy, I've really kind of assumed from even before the draft that we'd be taking some superslots and signing them. Taylor, Walker, Burruel, and Esquivel, those are some kids I really hoped we knew what it would take and planned to give enough to get them signed, and might add some real talent to what could end up a really weak draft for us. Hopefully that will still happen, I'd sure love to log in some day and read that we've signed.

Thanks for the info, cal. Including the very interesting Huseby scouting report in the other thread. The Coleman article had some good info in it. The info about good movement on his fastball was encouraging. The info that he maxed with maybe hitting only 94 last year, and that maybe only once, and perhaps only recently maxing at 93 this year, that his working velocity is below-average for a RH prospect. The article said 88, he said 88-89-91, that's usable if the movement is good and the location is good. But you aren't going to be a dominant righty when you're working at 88-91. He's going to really need to pitch, movement, command, etc.. I love how successful he's been, for a kid so young and so new. So I think he certainly has a chance to blossom into a Randy wells-type starter. http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?pl=488787 It's interesting that minor league splits estimates that his fielding independent ERA could/should be 4.05 rather than 2.56. Is it all luck that a guy with so modest a K-rate, but still without an incredible GB rate, has allowed as few hits and runs and HR's as he has? I don't know. But I think his ERA may be a little deceptive. Still even if he was nearer 4 than 2.5, that would still be pretty decent for a 21-year-old in AA. So don't read this as a put-down, anybody. I just don't think he's as "dominant" or projects quite as excitingly as might be anticipated based on ERA and age alone. I think about him as a Randy Wells-type possibility. But that may be a bit generous, since Wells K's a lot and always did in the minors, whereas Coleman doesn't seem to get many swings-and-misses yet. However, he just turned 22 last weekend. So perhaps his breaking ball will get better over the next coupe of years and by the time he's Wells's age, he'll have just as many K's as Randy. The Belliveau article didn't have tons of scouting details, but it's interesting to read that he only started pitching before his HS senior year. The talk about high-80's-low-90's suggests he isn't overpoweringly fast, at last on his good days. The comment about trying to throw as hard as possible and having that compromise control, that might jive with the poor control he had in draft year, both in college while trying to show off for scouts, and with Cubs in trying to impress the organization. Perhaps if he's now taking a little bit off to have more control, perhaps the K's and hits allowed will become more normal. Either way, though, he must have some pretty good movement on his fastball or else have some breaking pitch that wasn't discussed to have so many K's seemingly without exceptional velocity. Huseby, the report that he's been seen to touch 93, at his high end, suggests that he too isn't overpoweringly fast. But the comments on his cutter, that was great to hear. If he can be throwing a "dominant" cutter for strikes, and doing that up around 90, that's awesome. If as the scout(s) suggested both his cutter and slider are big-league pitches, and he's throwing them for strikes, that's terrific.

Cal, I'm not much in the loop on this. From what you know or have heard, do you trust the source? And if so, do you think he's within a couple hundred K on the price? Third, if the kid isn't that young so wasn't getting the attention and was actually eligible last year, do you know how old he is? And fourth, if he's listing as a catcher, I wonder if he'll stick as a catcher or switch positions?

Thanks, normal slot money makes more sense. Will be interesting to see where they play him. In his signing article, which I thought might reflect some limited discussion with the Cubs, he mentioned 2B/3B, and 2B is general catchall for all the SS's-who-can't-play-SS's that we get. But with Fitzgerald and Watkins, 2B seems somewhat occupied. Will he go to 3rd instead, or straight out to outfield from the start? Or will he just mix-and-match, and share some 2B with Fitz, and play other spots when Fitz is DHing or not playing at all. Fitz may also be a bit of an interesting case. The longer he continues to hit .600, the more I wonder whether we just got lucky, or it's just a temp fluke, or whether he was known to be a prospect but had signability issues, and how high we had to pay to get him. was he a 6-figures guy too, just like Springfield? Good chance; not that many HS/JC guys who sign for less. Was he comparable to Springfield, or did he actually cost more, since Springfield is towards the bottom of the range where HS/JC guys are willing to sign for? Thus far the only scouting on Fitz that I've seen have been comments by his JC coach, and coaches tend to hyperbolize the value of their players since they are comparing them to their level of competition rather than to pro or big-league standard.

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.