craig

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.

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.