craig

Wow, lots more interesting stuff. Ascanio in rotation. I know they'd talked about maybe doing that, But I didn't really expect that they would, and with the big club he was doing one-inning relief as usual. He's only started a few games at any level of the minors, I think. I like it. He's got a good arm and some good pitches; what if he does really well? Could be good for us, or good for trade. Back in October I'd kind of assumed we'd have some junker vets in Iowa rotation, Mathes or some other fringy FA's, but Wells is the only one like that. Caridad, Ascanio, Samardz, Atkins, those are all guys young enough that if they perform well, you could have something. I'd hoped that Cashner would be caught up enough to pitch, so that's disappointing. But not only Albuquerque but Dolis being healthy enough and rushed all the way up to Daytona, given how little and with such limited success either has ever pitched at A-, I hardly expected them to be at A+. Obviously a week ago I'd hardly have imagined Searle being there, although Nathan already tipped us off on that yesterday. But looking at that roster, Cales Muyco Sasser Williamson Muschko Sommer and Vento seem like relievers to me. But who's going to be the starters? Obviously Searle and Leverton. Presumably Mateo will start again, that's three. But that would seem to leave Albuquerque, Dolis, and McDaniel as the main candidates for 4 and 5. McDaniel in rotation, that would be a surprise for sure; and at Daytona, that would be a double surprise. If that happened, and he excelled, I'd be all gaga with enthusiasm for him as a prospect. If it's both AAlb and Dolis, it would be really surprising to have Dolis who's hardly pitched at all and was a wildman supreme when he did to be pitching rotation. I'd have assumed that he'd be lucky to be able to control any pitches, much less the two needed for big-league relief, much less the three or more that a rotation pitcher is expected to have. but think how enthused we'd all get if he was not only in Daytona's rotation but was able to excel there? Would be really cool.

OK, with Peoria and Tenn defined, I'll make my guesses for Daytona: C: Carlos Perez (another high jump?), Mark Reed (attempting to set a record for the same number of consecutive years with the same class-A team), and perhaps John Contreras (switching to C) IF: Rosa 1B, Samson 2B, Castro SS, Marques Smith 3B, Marwin Gonzalez utility, possibly Jhon Mota? OF: Johnston RF, Rundle CF, Canzler LF, Wyatt utility OF, Colvin DH Rotation: Cashner (if/when he's healthy enough), Searles (big jump), Mateo (interesting that he's repeating when so many others are jumping), Leverton, and perhaps Marco Carrillo again or a surprise. Relief; I'm thinking the appropriate number from perhaps a pool of McDaniel (another high jumper), Muyco, Cales, Vento, Williamson, and maybe as needed from Hernandez, John Muller, Siegfried, Sasser, Muschko, Luke Sommer type pool of options.

Marcus Mateo was not on that Tennessee roster. DL'd, rushed all the way up to Iowa while they're skipping everybody else much higher than I expect, or did he get bypassed and he's returning to Daytona?

Marcus Mateo was not on that Tennessee roster. DL'd, rushed all the way up to Iowa while they're skipping everybody else much higher than I expect, or did he get bypassed and he's returning to Daytona?

A few days ago Az Phil had posted some stuff from AZ speculating on assignments; at the time I thought there didn't seem to be much for surprises in terms of players. But wow, now there are tons of surprises. The kind of guesses we would have had a month ago aren't even close. Big surprises thus far: 1. Coleman starting in AA? wow 2. Jackson starting in AA? wow 3. Lambert starting in AA? wow 4. Guyer starting in AA? wow 5. Castro starting in A+? wow 6. Ryan Searle starting in A+? wow Other things that struck me or surprised me: 1. Huseby being on a full-season roster at all, in any capacity. Didn't expect that. Will be interesting to see whether he can find the plate during real games, and get anybody out. 2. 2nd and 3rd rounders Shafer and Carpenter starting in low-A, while at least three lower-drafted pitchers starting at higher levels: Not only Jackson (8th round) and Coleman (15th round) all the way at AA, but James Leverton (9th round) must be starting at Daytona, and probably in rotation. 3. I expected to see Dan McDaniel (14th round) at Peoria. I assume that means that he too skipped right up to daytona. 4. Flaherty skipped over by Castro. as with the other skippings, not expected by me. With all of these guys being unexpectedly rushed up/skipped up to unexpectedly high levels, it raises all kinds of questions. 1. Is there some new philosophy going on? In recent years it seemed that other than an occasional Acosta-at-Peoria, that Fleita hasn't done a lot of dramatic or surprising promoting. Some fans were bugged that guys weren't moving up more aggressively given their ages. Has Fleita been persuaded somehow to try a more aggressive mode? 2. They often recite this "We're in the earn it business"? Are some of these meant to show how they don't care how you did last year or where you were drafted or how old you are, if somebody looks better than you in camp we're going to give jobs and promotions to the good-camp guys? Some really surprising placements. Lets just hope that some of these rushed-along guys can produce in the real season, and not just look good in the 2-3 weeks of camp games. If Jackson and Guyer and coleman excel in AA, we'll be all enthused. But what if Jackson and Coleman are 4.5 and 5.0, and Guyer is hitting .240, and Lambert is 6.5 ERA? What if Castro hits .230 with a .605 OPS, and Searle is cooking along with a 5.5 ERA? Then these "wow" promotions might not look so wow.

I think this one has been up for a while (Billy Petrick being on there stirred up some discussion on whether or not he was really out of the organization). Looks like Castillo and Robnett are the only cross overs which makes things a bit easier to guess. Castillo and Robnett are off; no current overlap with the AA list. But the list has some names that won't be there (Petrick and harben), and is missing a bunch (no catchers yet...), and is missing some really obvious names (Caridad). Obviously it's more active a list then just leftovers from last year; because Stevens has been added, and Robnett and Castillo removed.

Having the skills, athleticism, arm, and power to be a corner outfielder is one thing. But if you hit like a Harvey, you don't go far. I assume the issue with Jones is whether he has the pitch recognition and the stroke to hit the ball often enough for his power to matter. I hope he does. Most likely he doesn't. I have a friend who is friends with a long-term Orioles scout, who is responsible for scouting the Cubs prospects every spring, and who had some comments about what he saw this spring. He tends to be somewhat enthusiastic, so sometimes guys sound better than they are. But to pass along some tidbits: 1. he said that Coleman has looked good this spring and might possibly even open at Tennessee, certainly no lower than Daytona. 2. He said that Castro has added an inch and 15 pounds, and thinks he may be done growing at this point so that he'll probably be able to stay at SS. Scouted his SS defensive tools very favorably, seemed to think he has a chance to become a good big-league SS defensively. Seemed to think he had a pretty good stroke and was reasonably disciplined at the plate. 3. He thinks Flaherty might be able to stick at SS, might have the power for 3B, but his guess was that if he had to guess he's a bit more likely to end at 2B than at either SS or 3B, although any of the three are possible. Seemed to think Flaherty's stroke is long and that he'll have K problems, even though his plate discipline is good. 4. Very favorable about Clevenger. It probably speaks to the scout's lack of objectivity or brains, but he still seems to think Clev might end up hitting as many as 15-20 HR's. Seemed to think he was a natural in terms of defense, calling pitches, all of that stuff. Said Castillo has improved and can make some really great stops, but is inconsistent and can let some easy ones sail by. Thinks his swing is kind of long and that it's iffy whether he'll end up with a starter's bat or a backup's bat. 5. Very enthusiastic about Guyer. Said he has looked great this spring, excellent plate discipline, uses all fields and showing some HR power, said he plays mostly center but has the arm to play right. 6. Very positive stuff on Gaub, said his breaking pitch has been more consistent then before, death on lefties, but also has a cutter that works against righties so might be more than a Loogie. Says he typically works at 91-92, but his velocity is inconsistent and he has often hit 95 this spring.

True. But I think to some degree it reflects what the manager will use when the season opens, and how they view the guys they've got. Those views are often based on experience or on short-sighted stuff, I'm sure. But for Daytona, the lineup looked pretty much what you'd expect: Samson leadoff, Castro 9th, Colvin and Rosa 3rd/4th, Rundle near the bottom. For Peoria Harrison leadoff, Bautista 4th, Nelson Perez 5th, those are some power guys. Interestingly, Lake is 3rd, where typically a top guy would go. Vitters and flaherty 6th and 7th. Minor league camp is pretty short. I'm just thinking that if Flaherty and Vitters had been hitting .400 with power, and Perez and Lake hitting .110 with tons of K's, that probably Flaherty and Vitters would be batting 3rd and 4th. But all of that could get turned around in a weekend, it's really early.

Some surprising stuff from Phil. Guyer to AA? Castro to A+? Vitters and Flaherty batting near the bottom of the order for Peoria in that Peoria box? Harrison as a left fielder? Other than Guyer and perhaps Castro, no hints of anything to raise our hopes for any of these guys. No pitchers to get very interested in in either of those box scores, either. But it's not uncommon for things to still change some compared to what things look like a few days before camp breaks.

Agree, it will give Clevenger a nice and needed opportunity. BA had Clevenger as our #11 prospect, so it stands to reason that his development does merit consideration. I just didn't expect that would be important enough or that Castillo would be advanced enough to be in AAA. Castillo is 21; has played in less than 200 minor league games; has supposedly only been catching for a couple of years after being moved off 1B; by several accounts (ask ping about this) is not a very advanced receiver at this point (has too many passed balls and balls he could stop that he doesn't); and last year he had a .720 OPS. Given how young and unpolished he is, I just assumed it would make sense to start him at AA, no rush. But, perhaps he's developing faster than expected? That would be wonderful. Perhaps it's just about Clevenger, as you suggest. And perhaps they simply believe that Castillo is advanced enough so that he really can be the #3 catcher, the guy who'll get called up if Soto or Hill get DL'd. Soto of course played three full seasons at iowa, IIRC. So perhaps they feel that what worked well for Geo is good for Castillo too. Perhaps catching some of the more experienced guys at AAA might be better for him, more breaking balls etc. and simply more experienced and wiser pitchers who can teach him more. His hitting might also benefit from being exposed to all the AAA junkball stuff thrown by a lot of the AAAA pitchers he'll see. And as you say, they may simply figure that AA/AAA are pretty similiar, so why not when it helps Clev. I do agree with you, talented young catchers are not abundant. If Castillo could be really productive at AAA, he'd turn into a very useful trade piece. Clevenger, being the LH guy and with no power, he projects more as a backup. So if both were to develop well and become successful major leaguers, trading Castillo for serious value while keeping Clevenger as a career backup would make more sense.

cal, I also don't pay for Holley's material. How expensive is that, and is it pretty good? I'd also appreciate highlight info from there. (Or feedback on how worthwhile it might be to pay, for a guy on a very tight budget...) Wrigley and cal, thanks for a lot of interesting info. The farm rosters and who pitches rotation is always really interesting with some surprises. Glad to hear Guzman is switching to pitching, couldn't hit. Glad to hear Marwin Gonzalez mentioned in the "athletic" class. When guys are tabbed as athletic, then if they ever hit I can take them seriously. Guyer seems to have had a good spring, that's very encouraging. I hope it carries over into the actual year. Phil mentions having him in his top-10 at this point. If he starts at AA, that would be pretty impressive, would mean he's had a strong spring, and then if he produces you'd know you've got a prospect. But I don't have a problem with him at Daytona.... as long as he produces there. Stunned to see Latham released, obviously not based on performance. (1.98 ERA last year with peripherals that were similarly intriguing.) That Acosta was off-field stuff was pretty obvious from the start. Fleita is gush, so having him talk optimistically about the pitching may not mean much, but it's still encouraging. His comment about lack of athleticism in the outfield, that's pretty obvious. No real surprises in Phil's forecast for the AA/AAA rosters. If Guyer were to make it, that would be the fun surprise. The other surprise, which is not a surprise at this point, is Castillo at Iowa. Given the spring he's had it's no longer a surprise; but if you'd asked me back in December, I'd almost certainly have assumed that he'd be opening at AA again. That provides a nice opportunity for Clevenger. With Castillo at AA, Clevenger would have had limited AA work. But now he'll have the chance to be the primary catcher and catch as much as his performance merits. Obviously most of AA/AAA positions are roster-fillers, not a lot of surprises or suspense there. The A assignments and the rotation assignments will probably have more surprises.

I hope Archer starts in Daytona. The control was bad but he did get 8.3 K/9 and a sub 4.5 ERA at low-A Lake County. He'd benefit more from going to high-A than repeating at low-A. Not to quibble, but just to share a perspective. I don't think it matters much whether he's in A+ or A-, in terms of his development. He'll play all season at age 20, and for a kid who walked 84 guys in 115 innings, I think it's safe to assume it's going to be a number of years before he's contributing in the majors regardless of whether he opens at A- or A+. Unless he has an extraordinary progression he's going to be doing some level-repeating sooner or later. The plate is the same distance and the same shape whether he's in A- or A+. His actual improvement depends on him; can he locate his pitches more consistently or not? That's independent of whether it's an A- or A+ hitter standing in the box facing him. So to large degree, I really don't care at all which level he begins at. Well, I'd rather Daytona. Because we're thin on A+/AA-appropriate pitchers, so I'd rather he started there and there was an opportunity for somebody to emerge at Peoria. If Suarez or Antigua or Belliview or I can't guess who is able to start and succeed at Peoria because Archer is starting and succeeding at Daytona instead, fabulous. And if Archer does start at Daytona, that would be good in that it would probably imply that he looked reasonably favorable in camp (good). If he promotes to Daytona and iimproves his numbers, that will also obviously be better proof of progress than if he simply improves his numbers at Peoria. But as for Archer's actual development, I think it's probably independent of A level. If he's got it in him to get better, he'll get better regardless of which level. And if he doesn't, he'll be too wild a wildman regardless of level. Caveat: I do sometimes think level matters for pitchers, in a case-by-case way. If a guy needs to work on his offspeed stuff, placing him either too high or too low can be a problem. (Too high a level: my breaking stuff and change are getting killed; I'll just throw fastballs= bad for development. Too low a level: I'm dominating here, I'm great as is, I don't need to work on anything = bad for development. Or, I can dominate here with my fastball, why mess around with this lousy change? = bad for development.) Likewise depending on personality, level can matter. Some guys need to be challenged and get bored if they are succeeding too easily; other guys need confidence and are damaged if they are getting roughed up too much.

These guys were all drafted under the old Stockstill regime. Wilkin took over with the Samardzija draft. I'm not sure I perceive any of this as a bad week. It's just a reminder of how many failed selections we had. We knew Harvey was a big bust, good riddance, don't waste AB's on him. Pawelek was a bust, glad to not have him embarrassing himself or the system. Goodbye, good riddance, onward and upwards. I'm glad to get these failures out, and i'm glad to see management getting real, facing reality, and writing these guys off. I'll be glad not to see these names cluttering up box-scores and depressing us during the season.

Thanks for the list, Wrigley. Good speculation. Obviously the lower you get, the more speculative. And everything hinges on injuries. Some thoughts where my expectation differs a bit: 1. I expect that Chris Archer will be pitching rotation, whether at Peoria or daytona. I think they scouted his stuff pretty favorably. While it's doubtful that his control will improve enough to pitch big-league rotation, I think they'll keep giving him the opportunity and the innings for at least a while longer. 2. I was under the impression that Bristow had some kind of surgery. I'll be surprised (pleasantly) if he appears on any full-season rotation this summer. 3. Muldowny also had surgery, just recently. Not sure how invasive that needed to be. But I wouldn't expect to see him before summertime, and then probably in Arizona first.

Wow, that was quick. $550K, that seems significant and seems to be a common sort of range for a number of our Korean signings. Need to be getting multiple signings there; that would seem conducive to kind of establishing us as a pipeline place to go. If I'm a teenager or his parent, I'd probably feel more comfortable signing with a team that has a batch of other korean kids who will be his peers in spring training and very possibly on his minor league teams. this will make five now all in short-season. Not sure how soon Kim will come over; the SS didn't last year. But; if Kim was to come over this year, all five of these guys would all be in Mesa, able to room with each other, talk together, eat together, play video games with each other, perhaps take English class together. If I was a kid or his parent, I'd much rather sign myself into that sort of a pipeline; I'd probably sign with the Cubs unless some other team made a significantly higher dollar offer. Could be awesome if the Cubs established themselves as the default team that gets the benefit of the ties-or-close. I also like the concept of signing a guy who projects as an outfielder with some power. Brief as that info was, it didn't suggest defense or speed or catching as his appeal. We could use some true-blue hit-first outfielders with possible power. Soriano, Bradley, Fuku, Johnson, all of our outfielders will be done or fossils by the time kids being signed or drafted now graduate. So I think getting some outfielders could be a high system priority.

Thanks for the "more on the way wink wink" note, cal. I'm overreading, I'm sure, but "more" sounds less singular than plural.

Truffle, thanks for a very interesting pack of ideas. The college 1B idea isn't that surprising: good power-hitting hitters are invaluable at any level. And you don't get drafted as a college 1B unless you can really hit. Those dudes are drafted for their bats, not for projection stuff. So probably easier to scout who can and who can't. Question: how old is this article? It's interesting that it doesn't support a number of formerly widespread axioms: don't draft HS pitchers among them. The other interesting thing, to me, is how much a reevaluation of the 90's data versus the 80's data gave some very different pictures and "rules". The problem is that any such studies need always be made many years after the actual drafting. By the time the data is in, the drafts analyzed are so ancient that the scouting industry has very likely left the practices far behind and the relevancy for forthcoming drafts is questionable. Old "rules" that were based on 80's drafts, the actual drafters seemed to have largely already solved those problems by the time the 90's drafts rolled around. Likewise, might it be possible that some of the problems leading to rules based on the 90's drafts are likewise no longer applicable? Second, I wonder if the data isn't heavily influenced by a small sample of impact players? One Utley can maybe change the data on college 2B's. There aren't that many top-ten catchers; a Mauer here and a Wieters there (if he's successful) and the data on catchers looks way different that formerly. HS pitchers had a bad rep, then suddenly WS teams are crawling with Hamels and Kazmir and Beckett etc. and maybe the data on HS pitchers isn't so bad after all? It may also be that some of the HS/college pitcher data has changed because development people are a little smarter, and the abuse ratio between college and HS pitchers has shifted some?

I agree with what cal says, I don't expect the Cubs to move Flaherty yet. I know it isn't likely, but if it turned out that his SS defense ends up being acceptable, then we'll be glad we left him there. He's potentially got a big-league bat, whether that be at SS or perhaps 2B or 3B. I could easily be wrong, of course. You don't learn to turn the double play from 2B in a weekend. If his future is going to be 2B, the sooner he moves over the better. Unless he just rocks and comes up and is given 2B as a regular, he'll probably eventually need to play some 3B too. So if he got this year at 2B, that would give him a leg up, then perhaps as soon as next year he could get some 3B besides, and if his defense and bat improves quickly, he could be ready for a bench job in as little as two more seasons or perhaps somewhat longer. As for Samson, I don't rule him out, Theriot is a reminder that these Barney/Samson types can smetimes become important guys. But the rule of thumb is that you do what's best for the better prospects and do what you have to with the lesser ones. don't decide where Flaherty should play based on Samson; decide where Samson should play based on Flaherty. Samson isn't likely to ever play in the majors, and if he does he will mostly likely enter the league as a bench guy. So he's going to need to learn be a multi-position guy anyway, no problem having that start this season.

Mikey, did any of the pitchers look very impressive? Caridad?

Agree with Cal, Guyer will probably start at Daytona. In which case it will be harder to tell whether he's real or not. Well, if he hits .250 with 13 HR's at Daytona, it will be further proof that he's *not* serious. But if he hits .280 with 15 HR's and an .835 OPS at Daytona, that won't rule him out but it certainly won't make him a top-5 guy either. On the HBP, that's a great catch, thanks. I think HBP is definitely a sustainable "skill". The volume of HBP tends to be low, so that it's inherently more variable. Having a lot seems to go with crowding the plate and kind of diving into the strike zone. If that's your style, that's your style, and it comes with more HBP. It also sometimes comes with more injuries.

Absolutely. If he starts at AA and produces, while playing RF or CF, then we'll know he's for real. I would think that if he can OPS over .800 at AA, and if RF reports are favorable, then I think you've got a prospect. If he goes to AA, hits .250 with 13 HR and 100K/20BB, while playing LF/DH, then we know he's got no future.

Hard to guess, since he's had arm issues. But if his arm is recovered and is strong enough, I think he projects defensively as a good RF, possibly a very good LF, and possibly perhaps even a guy who can play some CF, although not anywhere close to top-tier level. As a baserunner, he projects as a guy who runs well, although not a big-league basestealer. As a personality he projects as a real hard-working player who might play with effort and intensity and might perhaps get the most out of whatever physical ability that he actually has. As a hitter, if his defense is uncertain, triple that for him as a hitter. Last year he hit 14 HR in 327 AB. Guys often increase their HR output beyond their first pro season, so if you project his HR power to 550-600 big-league regular AB, it's within reach to imagine a guy who could hit 25+ HR. More than half his hits were for XB; again that suggests a guy who could have pretty good sock. Not likely that he's going to sustain all that against better pitching; but for example one comp might be Geovany Soto, without the walks, perhaps with fewer K's, and with a lot more speed. Thus far he hasn't shown many walks. Those, of course, are all on the optimistic side. Most likely he projects as a guy who most likely won't hit pro pitching all that well. Who won't walk much; who isn't good enough for center and whose arm won't be enough for right; who has some power but not huge and not enough to actually put the full contact on the ball relative to big-league pitching; a guy who will K too much, walk and HR too little, and will get eaten by the kind of breaking stuff and hard moving fastballs that are much more routine in majors than in low-A. So good chance that he'll be a LF who hits .250 in the minors with 13 HR and a lousy K/BB.

Beane may be really dumb, and traded Murton below market. But I usually assume that most trades reflect market and GM's don't trade guys for less than what other teams would be willing to offer. It's probably a sad commentary on how murton's stock has dipped that he got traded for a 25-year-old prospect who was available but went undrafted in the Rule 5. I hope Murton gets things going.

I admit I don't really understand this. What does it mean to be a "pure hitter"? And to what degree does it make any difference? In the NWL in '07, Thomas whiffed 22.5% of his AB. That's a college guy in a short-season league. He didn't hit with power, and wasn't scouted/projected too. So was he really a pure hitter, and if so what good did it do production-wise if it neither correlates with any power nor with the ability to actually touch the ball versus weak low-A pitching? Like I say, I don't really know what if anything "pure hitting" really means. It's obviously meant to be positive, and I've tended to assume it implied an asthetically pleasing swing, with good balance, probably with the ability to look good and look balanced regardless of which corner of the strike zone the pitch comes; I always correlate "pure hitter" with a contact hitter; I envision a pure hitter as having a compact, consistent swing that is slump-resistent; and I envision a pure hitter having good pitch recognition so that he isn't looking foolishly off-balance versus breaking pitches. I don't imagine a guy who looks awkwardly off-balance to be easily termed "pure" like a guy who always looks balanced. I'm likely inferring much more than is perhaps actually implied by the term. It certainly doesn't seem to apply in Thomas's case. When a non-power college hitter is K'ing over 22% of the time versus short-season pitching in 07, that doesn't seem "pure" to me. This year he was a 26% K-guy. And he was a huge K-man in college, although his junior year he reduced it to merely poor. So I'm probably misdefining it. Because if he's whiffing all that often, I would think either he's swinging prettily through the air but not touching the ball; or else he's looking awkward and off-balance as he's getting baffled by breaking stuff. But something isn't right. Either he isn't very "pure" or else "pure" doesn't really get you very far.

"He's got a great knowledge of the strike zone." That's a surprising comment, for a guy who had a 63/19 K/BB ratio (in 327 AB) as a 22-year-old in low-A. His BA report had a different view: ".... will need to make adjustments at the plate such as improving pitch recognition, plate discipline and ability to hit breaking balls..." A possible way to reconcile: he does have relatively good knowledge of the strike zone. But he can't hit breaking balls, and is a relatively aggressive hitter. His K's are high but not real bad: 19% isn't bad. So perhaps he isn't swinging at a lot of bad balls. But he swings aggressively at a lot of strikes and at least some bad balls, thus the low walks. And perhaps he just can't hit breaking balls very well and swings through a lot of strikes, whether breaking balls or fastballs, thus K'ing pretty often even without fishing badly. So even if he knows the strike zone well, if his contact-hitting of strikes is problematic (especially moving strikes that have movement), that could be pretty problematic for being a useful big-leaguer. the alternative is that the views don't reconcile. Fleita could be just talking baloney; would it be the first time that Fleita-gush lacked substance? Or it could be that BA doesn't really know him that well and their statements aren't that accurate. Fleita has much more interest in Guyer than BA has interest in some non-top-ten guy in a weak farm system. So maybe the pitch recognition-discipline-breaking balls needs work comment is sort of boilerplate, for anybody whose stats show unfavorable K/BB, and for anybody for whom perhaps that was said a couple years back in college. Hopefully Guyer will be 100% healthy this year, will have a stronger arm so that he will look good as a RF or even a CF, will show continued/improved power (14 HR in 327 AB, 44 XBH in 327 AB versus only 40 singles, that's very power intriguing...), and will show the zone recognition to keep his K's within reason and hopefully to boost his walks some, perhaps we'll have a really interesting guy.