craig

Sorry for posting, since I haven't read all 20 pages in detail. Ceda has a big arm, and a chance to be very good. But he's also awfully wild. He might be as good as Gregg fairly soon, and a lot better eventually. But I don't think he had any likelihood of being used immediately and contributing this year, given his wildness and inexperience and lack of a second pitch. And I'm not sure how great the odds are for him. Between wildman and body-fat, I'm uncertain how likely he'll ever be to have the stuff/control/brains/commitment to be a high-level major-leaguer. I agree with meph that Howry 05-07 was very good. I also admit that I don't at all expect him to revisit that. He's 35, he's been worked hard, and he'd lost a lot of velocity this past year. If there was reason to think he'd have the arm strength and velocity (and with it the arm strength to make his slider work better than this past year), I'd prefer him over Gregg. For Bob's sake I hope I'm wrong, but I don't this this past year was just a random reliever thing. I think it was an arm thing, and I'm not in position to assume that at 35 his arm is going to be much stronger and healthier and faster next summer. If Gregg can perform at or near the level that Howry did over 05-07, I'd be OK with that. I agree with Tim, losing Ceda still leaves Guzman, Samardz, and Cashner as potential power relievers. So losing Ceda neither leaves the relief cupboard bare, nor costs us a 2009 contributor since I didn't expect him to pitch in the majors this upcoming year, at least not in any meaningful way. The easiest way to make an "A" free agent is in relief. There are so many relievers that being in the "A" percentile is not difficult. So if Gregg performs at anything close to the Howry 05-07 level, he'll certainly classify as an "A" next winter. It really stinks that despite his lousy year, that Howry still made A. Nobody is going to give up a draft pick to sign him, and obviously we aren't going to arb him. If he'd been a "B", anybody could have signed him at no cost, and we might have snagged a nice pick for him if somebody had signed him cheap before the arb deadline. O well. This will probably sound really repulsive and brainless and non-analytical. But over the last several years, Cub management has made a number of scouting decisions that have been consistently panned on this board, but have sometimes turned out to be pretty justifiable. (Edmonds, Derosa, dempster-to-rotation, Lilly, Marquis, Theriot, signing Howry, signing Eyre...) I'm hoping that Gregg will end up being justifiable as well.

Remember, Shinsano is a part-time Cub scout in Korea. If Shinsano is at all in touch with how Cub management feels about the guy, I think it's safe to say that we won't be involved in any competitive bids.

I wonder if Infante is at all interesting. He lists at 5'11" RHP, 20 years old, so not a lot of go crazy about. But he was used exclusively as a starter as an 18-year-old in Venezuelan league twosummers ago, with humdrum numbers (37K/79IP, tons of hits, 4.0 ERA). This year he again got to start every time in DSL, and again had humdrum but improved stats (53K/81IP, 2.66 ERA, with low walks and improved G/F ratio). Now this winter he's 16K/0BB/9IP. I wonder if he's got a decent arm and is starting to improve his breaking pitch enough to get more K's?

We still haven't gotten any ideas about what kinds of dollars these two got, have we? I'm guessing unless a guy is going to make $100K or so, it wouldn't be much worth it to sign. I'm assuming these two would probably be in the $100-200 type range where most of our pricey but not top-shelf internationals have fallen. (I'm imaging Choi, Kweon, Ryu to be premium class, well beyond $1; Rhee and Lee and Suarez to be high level although not millions; and then some of these kinds in the $0.1-0.2 range.

In other words, the players will obstruct an international draft. Standard negotiating tactic. They will obstruct it unless mlb makes some concession to them. As always, and as is negotiations-logical, their necessary approval means that they have veto power over anything mlb wants to do. So they can use their approval as a bargaining chip, and certainly will withhold approval unless they get something back in exchange for granting it. Weiiner says the players will consider it "if it's important to management" is code for "if it's important enough to management to give us something we want in order to buy our approval". You want approval for a world-wide draft? How about raising the minimum wage by $100K? How about affording minor league free agency after 5 years instead of 6? How about raising the luxury-tax cutoff by 20%? How about raising the percentage of players with at least two but less than three full years of service time who are arbitration eligible (Super Twos) by 20%? How about expanding the rosters from 25 to 26? Anytime management wants to change anything, it's always an opportunity for the union to leverage a better contract for themselves. So the union will always obstruct anything, as a matter of general principle/opportunity, even if they could otherwise care less what happens. This is in part why minor changes are so very difficult. If the change is not that big, it won't be important enough to management to motivate them making a sufficient concession to buy off the union. I don't expect anything to change in the forseeable future. This just isn't that high of a priority for management, not enough to justify giving the kind of concession that the union would require in order to agree.

Thanks for info, cal. Interesting that Shafer was so slow. First outing of official instructs, may be that he wasn't at full speed. But I think an upper 80's fastball helps explain why BA hasn't been too buzzed. The Carpenter report sounded better than normal, not at his frequent wild yesterday I guess. But that his fastball is a 2-seamer, and still was running at 93, that's encouraging. I should have known, of course, since he's been a groundball-oriented guy. The MacDaniel comments, that scouts thought he was unsignable, is encouraging. This 94-95 with a hammer curve, I've heard that before. Helps to explain why he was top-25, and how he got such stellar numbers at Boise. Did we ever get any signing-bonus info on him? Did the Cubs superslot significantly? Or did they get him for $100K or whatever, somewhat high for a 13th or 14th rounder, but nothing extraordinary? Hope Phil gets us some more reports this Instrux.

Thanks for the info, raisin. Nice to read the somewhat favorably comments about Castro at SS, and Lake both defensively and as a potential power guy. Power matters a ton, so that's in Lake's favor. But if the ability to hit curveballs is in Castro's favor, and he's a fundamentally smarter and more sound player, he may have the edge. I'll go with Castro for now, preliminary as that may be. I was very happy that those guys were viewed as interesting enough to merit. Wasn't sure how good either looked to an outsider. Disappointed that nobody else was. As others have mentioned, I'd have hoped that at least one of Neifi, Cerda, Watkins, Jones, Gonzalez, Antigua, and Suarez would have looked jazzy enough to make it. That said, the fact that we've got at least 9 guys who we thought might merit consideration reflects how many guys there can be at that level who still have a chance. Probably every org down there likewise has a handful of guys who have some potential, whether it be some power or some speed or some defense or a fast fastball or an interesting breaking ball. Probably somewhat hard to guess which guys will improve and which won't. Hopefully a good ratio of the Cub rookie leaguers will develop. It's a pretty inexact science. Soto, Marmol, and Castillo were nobodys in rookie league. Kelton, Mark Reed, Billy Petrick, those were hot commodities. So you never know.

1. meph mentioned good size, but he lists at only 6'1". That probably worked against him in draft. Drafters prefer 6'3"+ types, and often assume 6'1" types aren't durable enough for rotation. 2. As badnews notes, the slider seems to be the signature. Draft reports did not so note, and his college results didn't show the spectacular K rates. I assume the slider got better. At draft, he was viewed as a shortish guy with neither a signature fastball or a signature breaking pitch. Now he's got a knockout slider. The disconnect between his pro results and his draft status is the difference the development of a killer slider makes. (The appearance of an effective splitter had a simillar effect for Samardz in going from AA to AAA.) 3. badnews notes that the number of guys whose breaking ball succeeds in minors but not in majors is multitude. (Smarter hitters, better scouting, hitters get more familiar, etc..) That happens. But there are also plenty of useful major leaguers who live on the slider, and may not have any other asset pitches. Obviously that depends on how good the slider is, and how good the fastball is (average, slightly above average, way below average, etc...) Wuertz had several useful years with nothing even close to average to support his plus slider. Time will tell how good Jackson's slider really is: good for A-ball but big-league pedestrian, or really good even at big-league level. badnews is absolutely right that since the standards of slider excellence are way lower in A-ball than in the NL, his slider might not be enough. But maybe it really will be a plus-plus pitch, even relative to big-league sliders? Same for fastball and control; good enough against bad A-ballers so that he can throw strikes, get into 2-strike K-counts, avoid walks, and not get punished? But will the same fastballs he's throwing for strikes and for count-control in A-ball be big-league HR-fodder? Or is the fastball fast enough and with enough corner control so that it's likely to be workable even in majors? We'll see. His window of excellence has been pretty short. He may never recapture the magic that he had this summer, and even if he does it may not be enough to be useful in the majors without additional improvement. No sure thing. But I admit I'm pretty interested, and think he's got a decent shot to become a useable reliever, and possibly even more. The number of K's he's gotten suggests he's got a pretty good slider. And the low number of walks suggests that either his control can be pretty good. or else he has enough life on his fastball that he doesn't need to paint the corners with it. 4. Meph already notes that from the start it seemed a surprise he'd slipped that far. Perhaps he could have been almost as easily taken in round 4. But I wonder if he lost the benefit of some doubt in that perhaps some drafters wondered if he was serious or committed? I thought I heard that he's kind of a carefree, happy-go-lucky, joke it up kind of guy. Not sure if that's true, but I wonder if some drafters weren't sure he had the work habits and the drive and intensity that they tend to like?

You said something to the effect that at max he was .750'ish reserve. I suggested that wasn't true, and that there were indicators to suggest he could hit for power, or for low walks, or for a lot of XBH, and possibly even walk some. If he was to hit the high end on all four of those categories, he could be squarely in Ethier territory. (With better defense. But even at my most optimistic projection Colvin has no chance of reaching Ethier's walk-levels.) Likely, no. Most likely he'll fall short of his plausible possibilities in one or more of the four areas I mentioned. In which case he'll fall shy. But there is a lot of space in between .750 (at best, as you implied) and where Ethier is this year (.889). He's got a shot to be an .800+ guy; if that seems beyond credible/plausible/possible to you, then I don't think you're being objective. You're not a dumb guy, so I assume you can also fathom the distinction between possible and probable. So while .800+ is *not* probable, it is possible. Your earlier post suggested that .750 was the best we could hope for. Not true. On Fleita, I am a complex enough thinker to recognize that he is a gusher, but that sometimes he is unexpectedly vindicated. (Using the logic that if Fleita every speaks favorably about a player with uninspiring minor-league stats, that the player is certain to fail, that would mean that Theriot, Soto, and Samardz could not be showing big-league success.) So it's possible that Fleita will be vindicated in the Colvin case, as he appears to have been vindicated re Soto and Samardz. Second, I am a complex enough thinker to realize that no matter how dumb management might be, they still make decisions regarding playing time, playing position, and opportunity. If management decides a guy can't play center, it doesn't matter what BA says: the guy won't play center for us. But if management decides Colvin can play center, he may get an opportunity to do so, even if BA doesn't think he's well suited. So since management-decided opportunity is important, I think it's always relevant to listen to what positions management thinks a player is suited for.

Thanks for the notes, cal. I got a 3rd-hand scouting report that agreed he threw in low 90's, but suggested that he can touch faster than that, and that he gets into the low 90's pretty easily. So perhaps he's being realistic, that he's got more in him and may throw harder more consistently future? Anyway, I thought that was pretty encouraging, a guy can go a long way with low 90's, good control, and a sharp slider that can overpower you at any time. We've had 8th round types before who pitched pretty well, but were somewhat limited guys whose stuff didn't work up the ladder. I don't get the impression that Jackson profiles as a guy who's already hit his ceiling, or has a fringy arm or fringy stuff.

Fleita talked at length at an AA game shortly before Colvin started to hit, and mentioned that Colvin had just changed his stance. Anyway, a poster at bleacher bums is friends with some Smokies people and was in on this, and had the chance to ask Fleita a few questions. He said that at that time Fleita believed/expected that Colvin could become an all-star (yes, in the majors, not in an Indy League...) and saw him as a CF. I mention that because while BA has their sources, the Cubs are watching their guys continuously. BA can talk to a scout who hadn't seen Samardz for ages, or a SL guy who saw him twice this spring. But the Cubs people are watching their players every game. I'm not saying that means the Cubs are the best scouts. But that sometimes if there is a difference of opinion between the Cubs and BA, it's not 100% certain that the Cubs will be wrong or ill-informed. They may be better informed about what their people can and can't do than BA, because they simply have much more observational basis for their judgments. Obviously any comment by Fleita is, well, by Fleita. We know the Fleita-gush. He's not only a glass-is-half-full guy, he's a glass-is-overflowing guy. He probably still thinks that Fox can be a good big-league catcher, or that Harvey's tool-you-can't-teach can still make him into a star slugger, or whatever. So Fleita's view may be total dopey. But Fleita apparently is still pretty convinced that Colvin will make very good, and that he can play center.

Larry, I think it is meaningful. As NY suggests, I assume it means they don't think that Colvin is as good a defensive CFer as is Fuld. They love Fuld in center (Fox, who has played extensively with Pie, said that Fuld is the best defensive CFer he's played with...), so being viewed as less than Fuld doesn't necessarily mean Colvin will never play big-league CF. But most likely they don't project Colvin as a regular big-leaguer CFer. Colvin isn't even fast enough to be a serious base-stealer in AA, and most minor-leaguers projected as big-league CFers are expected to be base-stealing fast. That said, every scouting observation I've ever read has been very favorable regarding Colvin's defense. Strong arm, accurate arm, good at catching what he can reach, and gets good jumps. [Edit, OK change that. The BA article just posted by Cal suggests he doesn't have a RF arm. That's too bad.] I imagine him to be something like Fukudome. Really good in RF, relative to other RFers. But given how many defense-first speedster CFers there are, Fukudome's not special in center. But I think everything is good regarding colvin as a defensive corner. We're not talking Jason Dubois or Eric Patterson or Matt Murton here, we're talking a guy whose defense will help him, not hold him back. All that said, I do hold some hopes for him in center. Lou likes guys who can hit. There were questions about both Reed Johnson (he hadn't played all that much center before this year) and Edmonds (awfully slow for center.) But they've been the guys. If we don't have any CFers who can hit, and colvin ends up being a good hitter, it's at least theoretically possible he would get some CF time even if he's a sound but not spectacular CFer.

I can hope for more than a .750-ish OPS guy (and in Jacque's case, with a brutal arm and lousy baserunning besides). I can hope for a guy who hits 25 HR a year. It's not that rare for a guy who's hitting 14 HR's in AA at 22 to end up hitting 20+ once established in the majors. Certain, not, but it's certainly plausible and hope-able. I can hope for a guy who K's at around 16% rate, perhaps better. Certain, not. But it's not implausible that a guy who K'd at 14% post-break in AA at 22 to play as a guy who doesn't K a lot. I can hope for an 8% BB rate. Certain, anything but. But it's not rare for a guy who is a pretty good contact hitter and hits 20+ HR's to get some walks, and to evolve into a walk-rate in the majors that is comparable to the walk-rate he had as a 22-year-old in AA. Given that Colvin has always hit a good share of doubles and triples, I think it's also reasonable to hope that a fair share of his non-HR hits will go for extras. Here are a set of numbers I could hope for: 600 AB, 25HR, 16% K-rate, 8% walk-rate, 30 doubles, 4 triples, .315 BABIP. Without including any HBP, that would produce a .347 BABIP .483 slugging, .830 OPS. That's more the range I'd hope for: somebody who could be an .800+ OPS guy, while playing a plus RF. None of those numbers are individually unreasonable, and some are a bit conservative relative to what I "hope". (he got 38 doubles/triples this year, in a minor-league season. In the majors, when you give an additional month of August in which to accumulate numbers, my 34 doubles/triples "hope" may be a bit conservative...) There is a big difference between a .750-type guy and an .830-type guy. .800+ guys who play good defense, they are valuable players, even in corner outfield spots. Again, I'm not saying I **expect** him to be an .830-type guy. He could fall well shy of being a 25-HR guy. he could K way more than 16% in the majors. And he could walk well below 8%. But I've got to think that when a good-fielding good-throwing 22-year-old in the Southern League posts a .975 OPS over 116-AB August (not that small a sample), it's not being realistic to say he's got no chance to be more than a .750-ish major leaguer. He's definitely got a chance to be an .800+ major leaguer, even if it's safer to predict he won't.

Colvin did a nice job reviving his season down the stretch. With only 2+ pro years, and having played the year at 22, it's still way too soon for me to think I know what he'll end up being. The optimist in me notes progress in crucial areas: 1) plate discpline/walks improved a lot during the season 2) power continued to progress 3) his K-rate improved down the stretch 4) according to Fleita he adjusted his stance and did much better after that. His hitting was very good over the last month or so. So the optimist sees the chance of continued progress in key areas. Were he able to put those things together, if he walked like he did when he was walking best, while at the same time K'd as little as he did post-break, while hit with the authority he did down the stretch, while continues to show the developing power he was showing, he could be a pretty total package. If you have a good stroke for extra bases, if you hit a healthy dose of HR's, and if you walk some without K'ing a ton, you're going to be a good hitter. It's entirely possible that he'll emerge as a solid-hitting outfielder. The pessimist notes that he's never really put it all together. That he has yet to both hit and walk at the same time, and that his hitting seemed to come when he abandoned the walking routine. So there's a good chance that he'll never be able to be even a passable walker. And the pessimist notes that he's not a big guy, and has never been scouted for major HR-power. Good vs bad: *25HR/12HR per year *16% K-rate vs 20% K-rate *9% walk-rate vs 4% walk-rate If he were to come in toward the good end in each of those three areas, he's likely to be an asset player. If he comes in at the bottom end, not. Time will tell, as usual. That said, I'm tons more open to the notion that he might work out then I was back in mid-July.

Agree with your observations here. That's a really small group of DSL guys. I don't know who this Corletto is; do you? Encarnacion is the only young DSL pitcher (other than perhaps Corletto). Disappointing there aren't more. Hopefully he's good. Medina is already 22. There are so many guys throwing, I think they just need to accumulate catchers. So his invite probably is basically bullpen catcher, without indicating any noteworthy prospect-hood. Morales turns 20 this winter, and made a million errors without hitting great in any area (not a noteworthy power guy; or anti-K contact guy; or base-stealer; or high-average guy.) I'm pretty interested in Quesada. Position-switch pitchers normally have pretty good arms (why switch a guy if he doesn't?), and he had pretty slick numbers in DSL.

I hadn't noticed how extreme that is, he's got 33 XBH out of 56 hits total for Boise. 33 XBH to 23 singles, that's not your normal ratio! .955 OPS is better than Flaherty or Vitters, and while it seems he's been bumbling forever, he's still only 20. So theoretically you could keep some interest. http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi suggests he's been much park and luck benefited. For what it's worth, it projects him as a .259 hitter with a .872 OPS. I'm guessing he'll probably be Harvey-ized when he goes back to A-ball, and I still have a pretty hard time taking him very seriously. What guys are at 20 doesn't prove what they'll be at 25 or 30, of course. Some guys do improve a lot (Theriot, Soto, and Samardz are recent examples). So maybe Rundle will blossom in ways I can't anticipate down the road, I hope so. But it's hard to anticipate a tall guy who's whiffing a full 1/3 of his AB's against the mostly trashy pitching in short-season is going to make enough solid contact against the sharply improving pitching at higher levels. Rundle's Boise K-rate is even higher than Harvey's was as a 19-year-old. when your holes are so big that even Boise-level guys are whiffing you 1/3 of your AB, you've got an awful lot of hole-closing to do.

Leverton had a 7K game yesterday. IIRC, he was scouted as having a pretty good arm, but he was a position player who switched to pitching fairly late, and was used only in relief. As with any lefty drafted later than the first round or two, he's more likely to make it as a lefty reliever than as a rotation guy. His overall numbers are pretty blah: ERA is mid/upper 4's, K rate is low, walk rate is high. But I'm somewhat interested and encouraged. 1. He's got an extreme G/A ratio of like 2.8. That's a good sign, and suggests a fastball with desirable movement. If you've got a hard sinker, you can make a career without necessarily needing to be great in your support pitches. 2. He's improve a bit, and had a 7K/1BB yesterday after 4 innings or so. That may be a sneak peak that perhaps in time, he will come up with a breaking pitch. If he's got a hard sinker and developed a K-quality breaking pitch besides, you could have a pretty good value. 3. I think he's had several games in which he pitched OK for a while and then gave up damage in his final inning. So his overall numbers may be overly influenced by his bad last innings. That may reflect his past as a reliever, and if he continues to start, perhaps he'll be better built up by next year. More likely his eventual role will be relief, in which case how he does in the 4th or 5th inning won't matter much. Obviously he's nothing great now, and he'll need to put some things together to become a useful major-league pitcher. But it's possible that some of the components are there that if he can improve his breaking ball, and/or his control, and/or his endurance, he could become interesting. He's 22, so may be that he doesn't have much improving left, and what you see is what you get. But maybe he's got a lot of untapped potential and has a higher ceiling that we'd expect.

A guy gave a report on him back in July I think, and said he was mid-90s. Guy goes to a lot of Tennessee games, liked him a lot better than Veal or Samardz.

Isn't it almost a given that he'll have to switch positions? I might have Craig wrong here (he might think Flaherty has a chance to stay at SS) but I think the question is more of will he give up SS already or will they give him one more shot. Yup, I think it's "almost a given", based both on pre-draft scouting and on Boise errors. Probably a question when, not if, he'll move. But the discussion was placement for next year. Cal has him listed at SS, so while I think an eventual move is almost certain and a move by next spring is perhaps likely, it's not a given that he'll be moved by next spring. I do think that sometimes the BA scouting reports are wrong, or differ from what a particular organization thinks is possible defensively. Or what I think is sometimes wrong. I didn't think Theriot could play SS; Lou thought he could, and he's OK. When the Cubs drafted Khalil Greene, the BA reports seemed to be very clear that Greene wouldn't play big-league SS; whaddya know he not only plays SS but fields it very well. So perhaps there's an outside chance that Cubs see Flaherty differently and more accurately than BA, and think that he may be able to make it as a big-league SS. Again, I don't think it's at all likely, either that he will be a satisfactory defensive SS or that the Cubs expect him to be. But I think that sometimes taller infielders get underrated defensively. They don't look as quick but may sometimes cover as much ground. And scouts see so many tallish amateur SS's who end up outgrowing the position that they may assume it will happen to everybody. So I'm not sure there isn't a 1% chance that perhaps Flaherty will stick. Last, even if BA and 29 other teams are convinced, that doesn't mean the Cubs are. If the Cubs did think he might have a shot at SS, that possibility might place him a little higher on their draft board than would be true for most other teams.

Looks good. Finesse: 1) I'd add Ascanio, if no surgery. 2) While I'd like Samardz back in rotation, prepping to replace Marquis or whomever gets injured (whichever comes first), I expect Lou to claim him for bullpen. 3) I strongly anticipate Veal's rotation days are over. I think he's at the stage where they'll try to groom him for his eventual role as a Loogy. I hypothesize that will happen in AFL and is the reason for his assignment there. 4) This isn't to your point, but assuming no Samardz, I'd project Cardidad as the best rotation prospect on the staff, better prospect than Atkins, or fillers like Mathes. Obviously a comparably weak and thin-on-real-prospects roster as applies at current Daytona. Key questions involve perhaps the three best prospects on your list: 1) Will Castillo repeat or promote? I hope he repeats, he's got time and I want him really ready. But assuming the Cubs keep Blanco, next year might be his last, so they might want Castillo at AAA next year ready to step in as backup Catcher in 010. 2) Jackson: I'd keep him at Daytona, myself, and tentatively project the Cubs will do so as well. The kid's only 20, and has only compiled 41 innings in A-ball. If he dominates in a playoff game or two, and rocks in camp, maybe AA. But I'd guess that his success has been sufficiently brief that he may not pick right up next spring, and they may want to see how he looks at Daytona next spring, and promote only if/when he shows he can sustain the effectiveness he's had this year. 3) Maestri: Rotation or relief? I'd like to see him stay in rotation, myself. I think the system is short on rotation pitchers (assuming Guzman, Samardz, and Cashner are all destined for relief). So with Marquis one year and Lilly two, I think there may be opening for a nondominant back-of-roation starter. I'd like to keep Maestri in that pool. As always, what gives in A-ball is very hard to predict. But I agree with some of the key questions: 1) Cashner start or relieve, Peoria or Daytona? Hope he starts, and hope he earns Daytona. But he'll need to make a lot of improvements relative to present wildman to justify. 2) Flaherty: stay at SS or position switched? Peoria or Daytona?

9 days.

I'm actually still somewhat interested in Barney. The saber guys suggest he's hit in some bad luck. The following suggests that his luck-adjusted average should be .287, with a .340 OBP. http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?pl=446381 That's not great either, obviously. And with 19 errors, it's not like he's a gold glove defensively. But if he'd be hitting .287 with a good OBP and very hard to K in A+ first year pro, I wouldn't consider that bad for a potential good-glove middle infielder. I think he's got a shot to be a Theriot-style player. Not likely to hit as well, but an alert hustler with little power but who K's so little that he can hit for decent average. Obviously most guys who hope to be Theriot-style guys don't end up as successful, but Barney's got a shot. Surprised to see Veal in there. Obviously he's a wildman who needs all the experience he can get, and perhaps needs any hope that he can that a new pitching coach can somehow find something to help him out. But very, very rare to have a guy with 140 innings absorb even more innings. I may be just imagining, but I'm going to hypothesize that they've given him his starting innings, that AFL will be his introduction to his permanent conversion to relief. Time to do what he can to blossom into a passable Loogy. The other thing, I suppose, is showcasing for trade. Berg and Veal can look like pretty-good-stuff guys at times. If they were to happen to put together a few good innings in AFL, which crawls with scouts, maybe they could trick some other team into overvaluing them?

http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/org.cgi?org=Chc Is a nice site for finding minor league splits and stats stuff. They do have a park adjustment, and a "luck" adjustment. By their stats, Rosa has been a modest beneficiary from his park, and has been a strong benefiary of good luck. They calculate his actual OPS to be about 50 points too high. http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?pl=489266

If I believed he was really 22, I'd have him on my top-ten list for sure. For a guy with his fastball and his anti-walk control to be doing what he's doing in AA with so little previous experience, that would be definitely top-10 stuff. Maybe it's true, and it will be yet another happy surprise. (Haven't we had an endless supply of pleasant surprised this year?) But I can't ever remember a time when a guy had two ages listed when the younger age was actually correct, except when lying older enabled a 14- or 15-year old to sign sooner, which doesn't appear to apply here. I'd assume baseballcube and minorleaguebaseball.com get their info from the bulk official mlb player databank, which is less likely to have it wrong. But I suppose transcription errors can turn up anywhere.

Jeff Beliveau seems to be something of a lightweight Rich Hill. Beliveua is at 43K/25BB/30IP. Remarkable, but not quite up to the 50K/39BB/29innings Hill had at Peoria during his second pro season.