craig

Cal and Craig - This month's VineLine says that Wells had a stress fracture. It doesn't say where. Thanks, Jeff. Was their any implication of whether or how it would affect his upcoming season? I think a fractured leg and I think six weeks cast, but no impact 12 weeks later, so that a September fracture might have no impact five months later when guys go to camp this month. Hopefully that's how it will go for Wells.

Oops, Maestr! But the same concept, that lots of guys whose sliders look favorable relative to A- don't end up with outstanding make-a-successful-career-on-it sliders in the majors, applies to both. Obviously. Hopefully both of them will end up making a successful career that way, though.

8 internationals in top 30. Counting Watkins, that makes 4 teen shortstops. And 8 teens total. The weakness of the system allows all these low-level unprovens to make the top 10 and the top 30. But (I suppose this is always true) if some of our younger guys do pan out, the system could rise in reputation very quickly.

Having a good slider relative to A- hitters is one thing; lots more sliders work in A- than dominate in the majors. But I agree that Parker seems to have the possibility of becoming a useful setup guy. Those are invaluable. That he had shoulder problems this year doesn't necessarily bode well for his arm, though.

According to Inside the Ivy. The optimism about Ascanio is good news. I'm not quite sure what the "full repertoire" bit is about. Are they thinking about him in terms of big-league rotation? As another option in the 6th-7th-8th starter derby? Given that he's only started 10 games in his pro career, only 1 of them within the last two years; given that he is only 5'10"; and given he didn't flash much beyond his fastball last year, rotation seems somewhat unlikely as a career home. Having him throw more innings so that he can get more practice and get his slider totally back into shape, and hopefully improve so that he can have a 3rd slower pitch for surprising guys, that would make sense. Either way, it would be nice if he had his slider sharp and his fastball fast. I didn't think his fastball was all that fast most of the time last year, either.

I think it's unfortunate that Burke warmed up a bit in late July and August. That will probably encourage him and the org to give him at least another year as a hitter, where I think his chance is vanishingly small. A corner guy who can't get his bat to touch the ball against short-season pitching, no big-league future there. They should move him over to pitcher ASAP, but not likely this spring. I would be very surprised if Thomas turned up. He was pretty consistent last year, after a decent April he hit in the .250-260's range ever subsequent month. He was a really bad hitter for a couple years in college before having a good 2007, but he's been a big key guy. Hard to get a lot of hits and be on base a lot when you're K/HR ratio is 111/7. Hard to see that he has enough power to hit enough HR's to balance out his high K's. When you burn so many of your AB's on K's, and have such a bad K/HR ratio, he'd need a .400+ BABIP to hit .300. Limited power and problematic average is not a good combo for a bat-first questionable fielder.

Jeff, my memory is fading fast. But for some reason I'm thinking I thought (perhaps without merit) that Wells ended up September on the DL. Did I make that up? Video, thanks for your observations on Guyer. As ping noted, it seems pretty safe to say he's not going to be a big-league CFer. But it's nice to hear that he looks like a major leaguer in the field and on the bases. His hitting is obviously iffy. When you're hitting .269 as a 22-year-old in low-A, it's pretty obvious that evolving into a big-league hitter against big-league pitching is less than probable. But with the pop so that half of his hits were for extras, and in his first pro season, it's not beyond hope. We'll all be able to track his hitting stats, obviously. It's encouraging to get the input that if he can hit enough to be interesting, that the other aspects of his game look major-league. With his injuries and football stuff, I'd imagine he might not be quite as advanced as you'd hope for a 23-year-old. So I assume they'll put him at Daytona. Hopefully he'll do pretty well there.

"Breakout" to me means either of a couple of things: a guy who steps up performance; a guy who steps up his status significantly; or a guy who emerges out of obscurity into recognition. Often a "breakout' guy is somebody whose status might upgrade a lot because hopes (previously hoped but not with much confidence) become confirmed; but often that same guy is a "disappointment" candidate. We've had hopes for a guy, he has some physical talent, and if he has a really good year he could establish himself as a much more highly respected prospect than he is now; but if he goes the year without showing any production, his status will go way down. Examples: *Vitters. We hope he'll be a big star hitter, and mature into power, and with maturity show more patience, and with practice become a satisfactory 3B. If he does a lot of those things in the A-A+ level at age 19, he'll "break out" from current "could become good" to an elite prospect. But if he hits .260 without many HR's, and with a 95K-20walk ratio, while looking like a DH at 3B, he could break toward the bust end. *Guyers: He's shown some power, and some promising qualities, and perhaps if his arm is 100% maybe he'll be able to throw like a RF, not just a LF. If he hits for power while playing good defense, in A+/AA, he could emerge as a legit prospect. But at his age, if he hits .250 with poor K/BB and remains limited to LF/DH, nobody will give him much consideration next winter. *Suarez: Somebody mentioned him. As a big guy with a former high bonus, we assume he must have some potential based on the money and the size. But if he spends another season with blah results, no K's, and no breaking ball, he might be totally forgotten by next winter. *Shaffer and Carpenter: College pitchers drafted pretty high. We have hopes that their draft status means they've got real ability, that whatever their ups and downs this summer were adjustment-oriented and still lingering from their injuries, and that after some winter refinements and spring training, and being further distances from their injuries, that they'll show up in full-season with big-league arms and big-league stuff and be very impressive relative to A+ hitters. If either one does very well in Daytona, and we get some favorable reports about their arm/stuff/control, they could fly up the organizational chart pretty quickly. "Break out". But either could be relatively forgotten, too, if their velocities/results/control are all shown to be deficient. There just isn't much patience for college arms who don't produce. *One who I'm interested in a nice breakout is Ty Wright. I think he had some nagging health issues that he played through, and obviously his power potential is limited. But there is a certain value in good contact/OBP guys. If he were to show up at AA, hit .315 with a .390 OBP and 14 HR, I think we might be looking at him at a fundamentally sound baseball player who will play in the major leagues, even if not as an All-Star.

I think video's point, and ping's comments, were appropriate. Good hitters often recognize strikes, swing at strikes, and are able to hit strikes. If Vitters is doing that, I don't think the Cubs will nag him about it this year. A lot of guys who walk a lot take a significant number of strikes; I'm not sure Vitters will do that this year. And I agree with video that not doing so won't mean he'll be a bust. Vitters may have a good year and be developing favorably, without necessarily walking a lot. I think video's thing overall was pretty reasonable. He's not setting up exceptional targets. I think the HR's may be rather high. 15+ HR? Not sure that's very likely, or that the lack thereof will mean he won't be a 25-HR guy in the majors someday. I think that at that level, I'm looking for red flags, reasons to know why I should project a guy to bust. I think video is basically marking out production levels that would not be indicative of future bust-hood.

Clearly the cubs and anybody else who has actually seen him have ID'd the slider as being his signature pitch. Any pitcher with one exceptional pitch can have a pretty good career if he can throw strikes and has another pitch or two that are at least OK. I'd think a lively 90-95 fastball would qualify as quite OK. If the slider is overpowering and exceptional.

6'1" certainly is below average in height for a RHP or for a power pitcher, or for a guy scouts project as a power pitcher. Shorter levers and all that, different angle, ball release a few inches further from the plate. I do seem to recall the comment that Jackson had long arms, though, so perhaps his levers are no shorter than a taller prospect. Sometimes orgs tend to think guys who aren't tall enough or burly enough will lack the durability to be high-pitch-count innings-eating rotation men. Not sure how Jackson fares/projects in that regard. But last year they really limited his pitch counts. He rarely pitched very many innings, and given how few walks he had I'm not sure his pitches/inning ratio was very high. At present the reports seem to have him throwing with plenty satisfactory velocity, if in fact his fastball has the life and location of a big-league fastball. But it would not seem to project as an overpowering fastball. BA wrote it up as 90-93, touching 95. You aren't going to live on that in the majors, if it doesn't have exceptional life or location and you don't have dynamic support pitches. But there are plenty of all-stars who throw that fast or slower, but have good command/action/breaking stuff. The scouting report had him throwing a very good hard slider, with so-so unrefined but not hopeless curve and change. video, do you know anything about his fastball, as in 4-seam vs 2-seam? I'd guess it's 4-seam, in order to explain the K's. 4-seamer moving around high, slider diving, if low-ball hitters couldn't tell which was which, then if they swing for the 4-seam they'll swing over the slider; if they swing for slider then they'll swing under the 4-seam fastball.

I'd think they'd each probably go for minor leaguers of varying quality. Cubs have interest in lefty relievers, so anybody who could throw left-handed and has even sniffs upper minors, they might go for that. Rotation is also shallow, so if they could get somebody who might be some kind of a minor-league insurance guy, perhaps better than Atkins, that could make sense. Or if they can't get somebody who's good enough for even those kinds of roles, just take whatever low-minors guy they can who has a chance to become a major-leaguer later. I'd think the guys have different values. Somebody will take Cedeno to be in the majors: I'd think he might bring back a prospect who could crack our top-20 list. Pie, maybe about the same, although perhaps lesser. Cedeno's limited offense is more acceptable at SS than Pie's no-offense is in outfield. Hill is a total wildman at this point, and a head case besides, so I don't think you're going to get anybody who would crack our top 30 for him. Probably get some 24-year-old A-ball wildman or something.

Bill White pitched for Texas last year, he's smart signing with us, given our need for LH relief. If he can put something together, this is as good a spot as any for him to get an opportunity, especially an opportunity on a winning team. Not sure how likely that he'll "put something together", though. Last year for Texas: 11BB/1K. I can only imagine how intense the pressure must be for a guy like that, 29 years old, you've been bouncing around, you get a shot. I know it's not like the world series or whatever, but the pressure on a middle-aged 4A guy must be just incredible when they get an occasional short opportunity. Hardly surprising that when control is your problem in the first place, under that kind of pressure that it only gets worse.

Despite the strident tone, and the conclusion which I don't share, I think video makes a bunch of accurate points. Spears doesn't have anything exceptional in four of the five traditional "tool" areas: power, speed, arm, or defense. Clearly he has no star power, and as noted most guys with a chance start out at SS even if they end at 2B, so his 2B history is suspicious. That said, he may perhaps score well in the most important tool: he can hit, and he can walk and get on base. There is sometimes a place in the major leaguers for middle infielders who can OBP at .380+ in the Southern League at age 23. I think the defensive aptitude issue is crucial for him. SS demands a lot; there are other utility players who have useful and money-making big-league careers who can't play SS. Maybe video is correct and the fact that he was moved off of SS so quickly is clear proof that he is inadequately tooled defensively. If not SS, then why not 3B? Has he played so little 3rd because he's got a noodle-arm? If she's limited to 2B/DH/PH/LF, he's going to have a hard time finding a big league spot. But often minor-league 3B is given to bigger guys who look like they might develop some power, whether or not they ever do. At 5'11", that was never Spears. So perhaps he does have a shot to be a decent 2B/3B utility guy? If he has the ability to play a competent 3B in addition to a competent 2B, then he's got a shot. "Again, the ugly sister must prove herself again and again to be a legitamate prospect." If Spears is ugly defensively, he's not a prospect. But ugly and average are different. When looking for a utility/bench/platoon player, you aren't looking for a star; you are often satisfied with somebody without any 'anti-tools", somebody who is anti-awful. If you aren't awful at anything, and you keep putting up .380+ OBP's, you can play in the major leagues even if you aren't exceptionally fast or strong or rocket-armed or SS-caliber. And yes, he'd need to prove himself again and again, in terms of being the good OBP-guy. With no eye-catching tools, an average defensive guy better keep getting hits and getting on base.

"The Cubs spent $2.14 million on just these 8 guys in 2008:..." That would put us up in the top10

Thanks, cal, good question and nice to see the dollar figures in response. Earlier Kenney had alluded to "two Koreans" costing $1.5. Not sure his dollars were spot on, but it would see that Lee and Su-Min Jung were the guys he had in mind.

Jonathan Mota (Aragua): 21/71, 4 2B, 2 HR, 21 BB, 16 K, 3/7 SB, 6 E - .296/.468/.437/.905 Not often you see a cat with a .172 IsoD.

I'm not all that upset about Hendry's moves. I think they've been logical, given the following four premises (none of which is necessarily true, but it's my hypothetical logic train:) 1. Cubs will sign Bradley 2. Cubs are budget tight, and could not have signed Bradley while keeping DeRo 3. Cubs already knew they were going to be facing budget wall during midseason when they acquired Harden. Picking up Harden was essentially borrowing from moneys otherwise spent this winter. From those premises, the choice was to go for it with Harden while 2008 seemed like a prime chance to win it all. But if we count Harden as kind of counting on this winter's team-building, and if I assume Bradley will be signed, then the change of faces might look like: DeRosa-Wood-Murton-Ceda-Murton/Gallagher/Patterson out Harden-Bradley-Gregg-Miles-Vizcaino-Stevens/Gaub/Archer in Overall I wouldn't criticize that overall exchange of outs and ins. The "ins" all have risk, Harden and Bradley especially durability-wise. But if you'd asked me on June 1 whether I'd rather have the top group on the roster come Jan 10, or the bottom group, I'm pretty sure I'd have chosen the bottom group. Getting Harden came with a cost. It really pinched the winter budget, big-time, and I think in large part you can see the DeRosa/Wood/Marquis money-driven moves rooted in the Harden pickup.

Just to clarify on this, this is stated by Olney in the context of an article regarding Manny Ramirez, who he might sign with, and why the cubs aren't candidates. Perhaps the Cubs truly are "maxed out", and can't even afford a lefty reliever, much less Bradley or manny. But it may also be that they don't have $$ for manny ("maxed out"), but do still have enough discretionary flexibility to add lesser contract(s).

I like the analogy that Outshined placed for Vitters' ceiling: Aramis Ramirez. Ramirez is not an "athletic" type player, and Vitters isn't either. Both have strong arms defensively, both have excellent coordination (according to the scouts at least), obviously Vitters currently is much faster than Pokey Aram (Vitters may never be as slow as Aram, but who knows once he's 30....). Offensively, both profile as guys with quick bats and good contact skill. Easy to say that for Vitters now at 18; will we still say his contact is so special when he's facing the movement of big-league pitching? Likely not, but that's the ceiling. S if indeed he does have that excellent contact ability that Aram has, he'll be able to hit for high average ala Aram. The ceiling is that his strength will mature; the combination of good bat speed, good contact skill, and maturing power should give him excellent in-game power, again ala Aram. Not sure how great his BP-power will be, perhaps not Harvey-esque. But actual HR-output is a combined function of strength and contact, and if his contact skills are good enough, I'd be surprised if his strength didn't end up sufficient to be a good HR-hitter, possibly even an exceptional one. A .300-30HR-.900 OPS profile, that's within the ceiling. Once you're in that arena, it's a small incremental step to .320-40HR-1.000 OPS range, MVP-range. Not likely, but I don't think those levels can be said to be beyond the ceiling. The other qualities that make me like the Aram analogy is the limited walks and the limited speed. Hopefully Vitters will approach Aram's remarkable anti-K contact ability. It's hard to swing as hard as Aram and miss as rarely as he does; so that's not an easy ceiling to reach. Obviously the floor is below that of known major leaguers. The floor could be Ryan Gripp. I recall at draft Gripp being ceilinged to Jeff Bagwell as hitter, and as competent 3B defensively. He hit with power in A-ball, but by AA his defense was deficient even at 3B; that could well prove the case with Vitters, he might be a 1B/DH/LF, and perhaps too slow even for LF, by the time he's 21 and in AA. His HR power is projected; but it's possible that he'll never be a HR-loft guy, and if he doesn't improve faster than the competition, by AA the movement and velocity may be such that he just doesn't hit the ball on the nose often enough to be a 20-HR guy. If contact becomes a problem versus superior pitchers, not only will the HR's remain modest but the K's will rise; without the benefit of HR's to sustain BA/OBP/slugging, and with the hit that K's place on BA and OBP, you could easily be seeing a guy who just won't hit enough, or with enough power, to justify 3B defense or 1B position. And if he never takes more walks, that will further limit a guy who may not have enough contact to hit for high average or high HR's. As with most any player, I think his future will hinge on his contact skills, pitch recognition, and power offensively, and on his defense. There is a lot of space in between Gripp on the bottom extreme (both defensively and offensively) and Aram-plus on the top extreme (both offensively and defensively). At this point it's too early to know if he'll be really good. But there's chance enough that he might be.

I love the fact Flieta is excited about Eljaua, hopefully Eljaua can have similar success as Oneri did in that role before handing it to Serra. They were in much need of a brand facility in the DR as it was legendary how poor thier previous facility was, I've been critical of their Latin American scouting program for years amd it appears they are on the right track. .... Questions/comments: 1. Two Koreans, 1.5 mill, "not" the "two that just started in the system last year. Guys, who is he talking about? Rhee was already in the system in 2007, so I'd think he'd be "not" in the two. Lee was sort of in the system this past season, and he listed at $700 or $750, IIRC. Is he one of the two? With Kenney considering Lee "this" season (included), and Rhee "last" season (not included)? Or is not even Lee included, since he did play in that Australian league? I've got to assume that Lee is one of the two, but even if he is, who's the other? OFer Ha and pitcher Min are the other two Koreans I recall having signed. have we gotten $$ info on them? I hadn't appreciated that either of them would have been a $750 guy, or both together. Have we signed somebody else, or which of those two is the $750-type guy, or what's your take on this? Or is Kenney just talking big and he doesn't really know what he's talking about? 2. Kenney's enthusaism for the international scouting is very encouraging. 3. Kenney's (and yours, ping) spin on the Dominican acadamy, I'm not sure I understand. MacP showed up in what, 95, and said he was going to get that done. Hasn't the Dominican facility been built and fancy for five or many more years by now? I don't quite understand how, if MacP kept talking about that, why 14 years later management should still be talking as if it's just happened and the corner will turn now. Even if it has been only within the last 6 years, I'm not sure how inspired I should be. During the 95-01 era, the system was getting Cruz, Z, Guzman, Marmol, Pie, Pinto, Beltran, Cueto. If that was pre-facility days, having the facility doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere close to getting the kind of talent we got then. 4. Eljaua, the rock star scout. Like you, ping, I'm very enthused that Kenney is so fired up about him. Even more so, I'm delighted that Kenney specifically refers to him as rock star scout .... "for the Dominican". His title was "special assistant", so I'd wondered whether he was really going to be digging up international talent for us, or tagging along with Hendry at GM meetings and discussing trades and free agent signings with Hendry's other special assistants, all with the purpose of training himself to be a GM down the road more than to acquire teenage Dominican talent for the Cubs. The concept that he will really be scouting the Dominican for us, and might do a "rock star" job of it, that's really exciting. If he's a star scout, I also wouldn't think he'd take a new job unless he was assured that he'd have $$ to spend on guys that he likes. 5. Eljaua further: Eljaua has background as an organization boss of Dominican or international scouting, with previous orgs. But he has not been given that title with the Cubs. Instead, just recently and subsequent to his hiring not Eljaua but instead Serra was announced as the Latin boss. What do you think is going on here? If Eljaua going to really be the guy on the field, charming kids and parents, networking with all the people he knows from his previous experience to get better leads and better access to real talent, possibly hiring some additional people who he knows are good from his previous operations? And Serra is getting bumped upstairs to a more office/administrative job where he doesn't need to travel as much or sell as much? Or are these titles really meaningless, that Serra's redesignation means little in terms of actual responsibilities, it's just a resume padder and with it comes a salary bump needed to keep a guy they think is effective? And Eljaua is tabbed as "special assistant" because that's the best paying job, and you couldn't get him if you designated him as "Dominican scout"? Any thoughts on what's really going on here?

Nice article, cal, thanks for finding and posting this and other stuff like that. Very helpful to get the personality insights. Too bad that Lee had surgery too. Hopefully they will be "like oil changes" and they'll both come back better than before. Article seems to confirm that Lee scouts as a pure shortstop, not as a guy who'll have outgrown the position by the time he fills out a little bit. Hopefully his arm post-op will bounce back enough that he can stay there, and not need to move to 2B or LF on account of his arm.

That's a pretty interesting resume. If he's 39 now, then he was only 23 when he started scouting in 92. Assistant director of Latin American operations at age 25 (in 94). Director of Latin American scouting by age 30 (1999). Director of Latin scouting for the powerful Red Sox at age 32. These are some very high-responsibility assignments at very young ages, in very good organizations. This guy must have some qualities that draw attention. It's interesting that he's moved around so much. Since 97, he's left four organizations (Florida, Detroit, Boston, Pittsburgh.) Perhaps that reflects a very talented, ambitious guy who has his target on becoming a GM someday. His first years with Marlins overlap when Hendry was a Marlins scout, that's probably where Hendry met him. Hopefully he'll add something to the organization. My guess is that he's done his Latin directing, and wants more experience as "special assistant" so that he can compete for a full GM job. But my hope is that he becomes active in overseeing our Latin and international operations. During the late 90's, the Cubs were effective in Latin America, when they had Fleita as Latin director. Once Hendry went up into special assistant, Fleita came over to farm director, and we haven't really had a Latin director since. Serra and Ortega have been the guys, with nobody checking or pushing them or crosschecking their guys. It's interesting to wonder whether a guy who have been the director for three programs that have had success in Latin America might not have some ideas for making us more effective down there. Who knows, maybe he even has some connections so that he could hire some additional good scouts to supplement or perhaps replace Serra or Ortega. Anyway, hopefully down the road we'll see this guy as having made a difference for our International operations.

unless he has figured out how to throw strikes consistently, i don't know how you can be so sure about that. You don't need control to be a LOOGY... just a slider. Heh, I'm not sure I understand what's being said or implied here. Just a good slider? Does the slider need to have any control, or not? Is the thinking that Veal has a slider? A good one? A semi-controlled one? I don't really know. I know at one point he was said to have a curveball that moved, although he couldn't control it. More recently he's been said to throw a slider, that sometimes had good movement and sometimes showed brief flashes of consistency, but did not show good movement and good control both with any consistency. there have been times when it's been said that Veal throws a good fastball, but rarely with control and again the velocity was inconsistent. I'm a bit surprised that Veal didn't get rostered, and that dudes like Mateo and Berg got rostered ahead of him. That's especially interesting, in that we have absolutely zero roster pressure. Even with those three added guys, none of whom are especially significant as prospects, I believe we're still only at 36 roster spots. I don't expect we'll come close to maxing out at 40 pre-Rule 5 or after we finish signing free agents. (It's not like we're going to sign four meaningful free agents, that's for sure. And if we make trades, we're likely to lose as many or more 40-man guys as we gain.) That Veal didn't get rostered, when all he needed to beat was Mateo or Berg, and when it would have been no problem to add him in addition to Mateo and Berg, probably tells us something. I'm not sure what, exactly, but it isn't anything favorable about Veal. Maybe they know he's already got arm problems. Maybe they know he's already got substance problems. Maybe they simply know that whatever he was once projected to become or was scouted to have past, that his stuff just hasn't grown into what they hoped it would; that his control is awful; and that his actual stuff is less than it used to be. At one point Fleita viewed his curve as the best breaking pitch in the farm. Since then, they've decided his curve is so wild that they scrapped it, and tried to replace it with a slider. Is that slider any good, and does he have any control over it? Based on his 10.00 ERA in AFL, and his >1.5 WHIP in back-to-back AA summers, it would appear not. At one point his fastball was viewed as excellent, with a chance to be a plus-plus pitch. More recent reports are that while it touches low 90's on occasion, it's mostly upper 80's. So it would appear that perhaps he currently profiles as a soft-tossing wildman: *Fastball: minus velocity, minus control *Breaking ball: decent movement, minus control. He's been a really, really bad pitcher, and he's gotten worse each year, and got further worse in front of the AFL scouts. Sometimes a wildman figures something out, and sometimes a guy who has occasionally thrown hard recovers velocity. So maybe he'll put things together sooner or later, I hope so. Maybe that will happen abruptly in somebody else's camp this spring, and he'll not only get drafted but stick, and not only stick in spring but stick all year, and not only stick all year but actually be somewhat good. But most likely Veal is just a really bad pitcher with bad control of mediocre stuff.

How much SS has he played? I'd be very surprised if he was ever viewed as more than a 3rd or 4th string emergency SS in the majors.