craig

"They [the Mets] could go for pitching help with Friedrich, Cashner or Perry, with the idea of converting the latter two from relievers to starters." Callis, BA. The notion of drafting a college reliever, than switching him to rotation, seems surprising. I wonder if other teams are looking at these guys this way?

Thanks for the observations. Yes, Spears came from Baltimore in the corey Patterson trade. Your observation fits with what I recall reading and hearing: that he's an average minor league 2B, not horrible but nothing special either, and would likely be below average relative to big-league 2B's. (The same might be said for Fontenot or Patterson, more or less.) At present, Fontenot works because DeRosa plays 3rd, so even though Fontenot can't play 3rd, essentially he can replace either DeRosa or Aram, so Lou's OK with that. But on most teams, it's hard to make the roster as a one-position rookie sub. If Spears could show the ability to play 3B as well as 2nd, I think he'd have a better chance of eventually accumulating some big-league service time.

Cal or anybody, what do we know about Nate Spears's defense? Is he a Fontenot-like liability, or is he viewed as a good-fielding 2B? I've kind of completely forgotten about him after he started slow at Daytona two seasons ago. But his OPS in AA last year was over .800 and he's up around .800 now, with OBP in the .380's. He's been a consistent IsoD guy in the .080+ range, and he's 20BB/18K this year. No power, but he bats LH, so I'm wondering whether down the road he might be a candidate to be a LH Theriot-style hitter who might compete for the Fontenot-type LH reserve infielder role. Spears opened the season at age 22, so it's not like he's too old for his level. Obviously utility infielders are supposed to be good defensively (Fontenot notwithstanding), and utility players are normally expected to play more than one position (Fontenot notwithstanding.) Spears has played almost nothing but 2B. I wonder if he's just a bad fielder and as such is a long shot for any big-league service or contribution? Or is it possible that he's reaching the stage where Fleita will say, "Heh, Spears is doing pretty well, he's getting close enough to the majors where we need to start moving him around in preparation for big league utility jobs"?

badnews, some good points on the relievers. Few of the big-stuff fast-track college relievers have actually turned out all that well. So there is strong precedent for failure. Unless there is reason to expect that the odds of success with the reliever are way higher, and history doesn't indicate such, then it really doesn't make sense. In some ways, I think it's perhaps not so surprising. I think a lot of pitchers get put in relief because they don't have the consistency or the control to be innings-eating starters. The guy we drafted last year, for example, is having a great year, but the scouting suggests that his control isn't that hot. So it may be that if a premium college arm is pitching relief, maybe the very fact that his manager put him in relief rather than rotation might suggest that his control isn't really that hot. Or that the high-90's velocity he shows pitching only on weekends doesn't hold up when pitching starter innings, and might not hold up under the kind of heavy workload that pros like Marmol and Wood are experiencing. Still, those are scouting/probability reasons, and they are logical. But, I'm still somewhat of the view that BPA applies. If there is a stud prospect who happens to be a reliever, and everybody else is passing because relievers aren't as valuable as starters or players; or everybody else is passing because some teams have whiffed on dumb reliever picks in the past; if there is a reliever that is really talented and is justifiably scouted as much, much better than the alternatives, I wouldn't necessarily pass just because relievers don't matter as much and don't pitch 200 innings. If you pick one at 19 or 41 and he proves to be really good, I wouldn't look back as a wasted pick. But badnews, I agree that it's unlikely that any of the relievers this year are likely enough to become good to justify. Too many control questions. So I agree that the odds don't look to be very favorable of getting good value with a reliever at 19.

Thanks for the Kelly comments. Yeah, he doesn't sound very appealing. "Raw power", "somewhat raw", "production is still a projection", and "will need to improve his ability to make consistent contact", all sound like no-no-no-no-no's to me. As does " may outgrow the position, leading to a move to third base". And the following does not "safen" much to me: "With a fastball that sits in the low to mid-90s and one of the nation's best hammer curveballs, Kelly is a safe pick in that if he doesn't pan out in the field, he could be successful on the mound." As we've seen with other two-way guys (Ryan Harvey in particular), you choose one or the other. And if he's a raw hitter, Oneri is going to give him many years to struggle through the problems before bagging the idea. So even if he might be a top pitcher, Fleita wouldn't switch him there until he's 23 or so, by which time he's likely lost much development time and will be used only in relief. OK, so I'll mark him off as a "definitely avoid" guy.

DSL1 is 3-0, DSL2 is 1-2. Team one seems to have more older guys, a lot of guys in the 20-22 range. Not sure if there are any clues; if DSL1 the "good" team (even if mostly overaged roster fillers) and DSL2 the JV team for the young kids to get some action? If so, then does it mean that if a 17 or 18-year-old is on team 1 and is doing well, then those are the "real" pospects? While the older guys are roster fillers and the team 2 guys are "well, you never know when a guy might blossom, or add 7 mph to their fastball, or suddenly figure out the grip on a breaking ball..."

Thanks for the note that Ceda was a rain delay deal. That's a relief.

The bonus wasn't disclosed when he did sign and he wasn't a high profile signing, so it was likely a 5-figure bonus. I don't know, but he was sent directly to the states at a rather young age, and directly installed into the regular rotation. Few guys the age he was when signed go straight to the states, or get the regular innings he got. Point is, by his first summer they were obviously treating him like a prospect. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if he signed for 6 figures! Nice to see him with a strong debut. Any update on whether or not Ceda is hurt, getting pulled after 4 good innings? Sure hope he's OK.

Kelly's only signing as a SS. I've heard Cinci like him at their pick... Kelly is projected for Cubs in several of the mocks. And I know some posters like him quite a bit. What's the scouting report on him, and how many hear think he'd be a good selection? Seems what I read from draft things, they rarely talk about his baseball projections. Rather, in the brief synopsis, it's always "Son of Pat Kelly", "QB commit to Tennessee", "football option could make him pricey", "can pitch as well as play, although he wants to play SS, not pitch, in the pros". Those are all interesting news bits, but by the time they finish with that there's no space left to discuss much of his baseball attributes. He's a multi-athlete (QB, pitcher, SS); does that mean he's raw? Or as a baseball son, is he plenty polished? He's got a QB arm for SS; does he have the hands and quickness and when he's 26 will he have the flexibility to play SS? Does he project much power? Has he been a big hitter in HS, or like Harvey and Vitters is a he a guy who can't hit .400 in HS? Hacker who can't recognize breaking balls, but the hope is that his athleticism will someday enable that? Or is he a smart, disciplined, polished hitter already? I have no idea.

Samardz has gone 9K/1walk/5 hits/0.5 WHIP over his last two starts/12 innings. So the "not hot" is actually a bit behind. If he puts up another couple starts like that, maybe he'll show back on their "hot" sheet by the next time they post one!

Very informtative to see those scouting evaluations by Weaver. The bad, of course, is the "average arm" and "I wouldn't say he's going to be a power guy". Not many big-league SS's with average arms. So I'm already imagining him being a guy who might be switched to 2B; heh, maybe Brian Roberts prospect without the switch hitting? The good is that Weaver views him as a "premium prospect", "he's got some power", views him as an 80-runner, and "He's got a good swing and he's got good balance." Obviously good balance in the box is the key to hitting, and good hitting is also the key to power. A guy with average power who hits the ball on the nose produces more XBH than a Harvey or Dopirak with extraordinary power who rarely hit the ball solidly. The "80" on the running thing was a surprise, giving anybody an 80 is rare, so I assumed he'd be a 70 or less.

We're in agreement here. I get the feel that Lawrie will be gone before the Cubs pick, he seems to be rising quick. Seems like a classic Wilken pick. I'm no scout, and haven't read enough to have strong feelings about the candidates. Lawrie sounds very good. both of our corner OFers are in their 30's, Aram will turn 30 in a few weeks, and Lee is 32. So if Lawrie projects as a true-blue hitter with some power, it seems like all four of the corner spots might be opening up somewhere around the time when he might be ready, if he turns out great. (I assume almost no baseball for a 1st rounder this summer, so if it's A-, A+, AA, and AAA, a highly successful HS selection would still be comfortably 5-years out.) So I'm very supportive of getting guys who are true-blue hitting prospects, despite the Cub failure rate with such. I don't think it makes sense to give up trying, maybe the next guy is the smart hitter who will hit and always hit. And who knows, maybe once Vitters hand/wrist gets right (if ever), he'll prove to be a true-blue hitter as well? I like position players, as I've reasoned in past. If one turns out to be actually good (big if, obviously), they tend to stay healthy and productive longer than pitchers. Some get hurt, obviously (Vitters?), but it's the norm for players to keep going. Whereas for pitchers, it's the norm (despite some exceptions) for them to have much lesser arm and lesser stuff at age 25 than they have at 18. Plus, I see this season as evidence how a strong-hitting team can make some average pitchers win. So, if two best-players-available are equal, I'd break tie in favor of the bat. Reliever? If we draft a gifted college reliever, I'll be excited. Not my first preference, I grant. But the number of guys at 19 who end up being good contributing big-leaguers is not that high. If they take a good college reliever who can quickly come up and be a good big-league reliever, I'll be glad of that. On the current team, for example, I'd love to have another Marmol reliever; or even a good-Howry. Good relievers are invaluable. I'm not sure I'm too keen on the names I've read; they seem like good arms but seem kind of wild from what little I've read. Certainly it would be exciting to get a high-ceiling HS pitcher. Our farm is obviously very thin on high-level pitching prospects, guys who have any chance to have both the big arm and the quality control that a good #1-2 starter has. So if we draft a HS pitcher, I'll assume the scouts know the risks and decided that the potential is so good that it justifies the risk, and I'll be enthused until the kid loses his velocity or has his first surgery. I don't know the personalities. I think when a HS kid gets the big contract, if the guy isn't both pretty grounded and pretty smart, I think there are a lot of risks. I've enjoyed having some Cubs who seem fairly smart. I'm always somewhat leary of guys who seem like jerks or seem dumb. That said, some degree of arrogance can be crucial. Thinking you're really good, and not being afraid to fail, those can be vital qualities.

The Cubs couldn't control/keep Prior without paying him at least $2.6. (he signed for well below that with San Diego.) They wanted a deal in which they'd be able to keep him for 2009, and he didn't like that. They wanted a deal for less than $2.6 for 2008 alone, but he preferred the San Diego deal. They never renewed his contract because the contractual price would have been higher than they wanted to pay, and they never were able to get very close on an alternative free-agent type one or two-year contract. So they never tendered him or formally offered a one or two-year deal. He is going to have another shoulder surgery, so at minimum he should miss this year and most, probably all, of next year as well. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080601-mark-prior-shoulder-surgery-chicago,1,7829819.story

Good topic. A friend attended his most recent start, said he showed good control and a pretty good curveball, stadium didn't have a radar gun but thought his fastball looked decent, said he used it high in the zone for some of his K's, but said his stuff didn't look filthy. Another guy showed somebody having charted his pitches in a spring training outing, and had his fastballs mostly in the 89-91 range. I think he's interesting but in a limited way. He's always been a high-K guy. His minor league profile showed excellent K/BB coming up, with some vulnerability to the HR-allowed, which I think goes with throwing 90-mph fastballs up in the zone and throwing curves which sometimes hang. When he hit AAA two years ago, his hits-allowed went up. Last year, his K's were still excellent, and his hits-allowed weren't as bad, but they were still high, plus his walk rate was too high. Thus far this year, his K-rate is excellent, his walk rate is back down, and his hits/HR-allowed have both been solid thus far. My guess is he's a guy with decent but sub-average stuff who needs above-average location to succeed in AAA/NL. He's a proven K-pitcher, so he's got something that makes minor-leaguers miss. He's still only 25, so after conversion from catcher it's possible his command might be a bit better than last year. I don't think he's a high ceiling excitement guy. But if the contol is there, guys with decent stuff but excellent control can be pretty useful. We've got Marquis and Lilly in our existing rotation, and Lieber and Marshall in the wings; none of those three have exactly high ceiling excitement stuff either. I think Hart's stuff is better than Wells's. So I think there's a possibility that Wells might emerge as a back-of-the-rotation or back-of-the-bullpen option who might be the prefered anti-awful choice at some point. Who knows, maybe next season he could fill the kind of role that Lieber has this year?

Nate, I second Cal's question, about what Blake throws that makes him legit. I'd guess the standard fastball/slider combo, that both are very tough on Midwest League, and I'd guess that he has promising but sometimes inconsistent command of the slider? In terms of fastball, how fast is he? 88-92, touching 94-95 on occasion? Who, if anybody, on that staff throws harder? Is his fastball more notable for speed, or for movement? In other words, does it look more like a 4-seam high fastball, or a 2-seam sinker/runner? Any thoughts you can give us would be appreciated, since other than his statistical excellence and your comment that he's legit, I don't have any info on how he's getting so many guys out and K'ing so many.

Cal or anybody else, do you have any scouting info on Parker? I know some of the basics: RHP, 6'3", two-way guy in HS, positions in college, switched to pitching last spring or the previous fall? But do you know anything about his stuff? Does his knockout K-rate reflect a big-time big-league arm? Does he have a second pitch?

Thanks for those notes, Cal. 95% of RHP in the majors at least touched 92-94 when they came up (obviosly many lose their velocity over time). So none of those sound Wow exciting. But they all sound possible, if they add a bit with time. Thanks for the dope.

Not high on him. He's 24, in the minors he's been a no-power .270-type hitter. Career .269-.330-.332, .662 OPS. Seems like a nice hustle player, and as a low-K guy you might imagine that if everything clicks he might blossom into an Augie Ojeda/Theriot/Eckstein type offensive player, but only a few guys who hope to follow that model actually succeed. More significant, I assume he's not a high-gifts defensive player. If he was a stud defensive SS, I imagine his college or the Cub farm system would have noticed before now. So I'd guess that his defense isn't likely to match Ojeda/Theriot/Eckstein.

Where did you get the "upper 90's"? I recall Az Phil writing that he "throws hard" once, but I got the impression that he was pretty wild, and I don't recall reading "upper 90's" before, but my reading is pretty spotty. That would be nice if he does throw that hard, once in a while.

Thanks for the thread, cal. It's hard to get very excited. It seems the Latin pipeline has really shut down. Marmol and Cedeno, they were signed a long time ago, back around the turn of the millenium? Pie in around 2001? Since then, it seems we've hardly had anybody who was able to make it all the way to A-ball and still stand as a prospect. Cabrera is in his 3rd year, and he's been pretty much getting killed in low-A. And that's the best we can do every five years or so? Jesus Valdez make it to A+ as a non-prospect? I guess I'm wrong on that, Wellington Castillo is probably the best Latin guy in the last five years, and people talk him up as a possible Henry Blanco. But, hopefully this year will be better. Obviously it takes only one guy to click to make a difference. One Marmol, one Pujols, one Zambrano, can change a franchise. I've thought it interesting that they've been going so hard in Asia with Steve Wilson. Back in the day, I thought they kind of pulled out of Asia because they thought they were getting better bang for their buck in Latin America. I wonder if after year after year of whiffing in Latin America, the dive back into Asian players in part is an acknowledgment that our Latin scouts are really not doing the job. I wonder whether they shouldn't shake things up scouts-wise down there. For a while, Jose Serra in Dominican seemed like an impact scout. But with every year of striking out since, I wonder whether he's lost his scouting energy or whether his couple of successes really were luck in the first place. But, hopefully with the two DSL teams going, that will help. And hopefully somebody from the Carmona or Antigua or the guy they liked better will show some progress.

Karen or Nate, can you give any scouting info on Muldowney? I assume he's got some control, more than your average Peoria guy. And he's got a better curveball than is normal at that level. In terms of arm, would you say he has better-than-average velocity (relative to midwest league?), with a chance to be fairly average in the majors? Or is he definitely a guy who'll be slower-than-average in the majors and will need to have special command/breaking stuff to make it at the highest level? On Colvin: I'm pretty astonished that he's sustained this walking business for as long as he has. I still assume it's an experiment in progress. That's why getting some hits now is, I think, perhaps crucial. If he's taking walks plus he feels like he's getting hits besides, he might buy in and stick with it. But if he feels uncomfortable and like he can't get as many hits this way, he may scrap it or relapse sooner or later. It's pretty amazing, though, what a transformation there's been, and seemingly so abruptly. Unlike Cedeno, who was a hacker and then somewhat abruptly seemed to decide to be patient, Colvin has been a big-K and a can't-handle-breaking-stuff guy. Very difficult to go patient when you know reaching two-strike counts means breaking balls that are going to make you very uncomfortable. I understand the theory that if you're selective, it actually helps your hitting and slugging because you're whacking at whackable pitches. But I still think that's not realistic for most hitters. Strike one really is one of the best pitches to whack at, and often the patience game requires cutting down on the swing. So we'll see how it plays for Colvin. We'd like the walks, the power, and the batting average all three. But it's well possible that the power and/or the average will need to be compromised to get more walks. Hopefully he'll be one of the lucky ones where it really can all work together. It would be nice to see him enjoy a hitting binge that makes his average and his power look more respectable. Still, I'm a lot more optimistic than if you'd asked me three weeks ago. As an optimist, I think it's also worth remembering that Colvin is 22 and will be all season. That's pretty young for AA and for a guy with such limited pro experience. If in fact he really is learning and adjusting favorably, then he's certainly not too old to get better.

Nothing good for Donaldson's numbers thus far, overall. But his BABIP is only .235. If he was hitting your standard .300 on BABIP, without otherwise changing his HR/BB/K rates, he'd be sitting at .265 with an OBP in the .310's. Certainly not good, and routinely BABIP reflects the quality of contact a hitter is making, so it probably stinks for a reason. But sometimes there's some luck element involved as well. Obviously none of his numbers are good. But 3 HR/11XBH in 112 AB's, that's fine. And his K-rate, 20K/112 AB, that's not good but it's not scary either. His walk rate is likewise poor but not scary. Point being, I think he's got a chance to get his numbers straightened out in time. He's not going to be the dominant star hitter that AzPhil was projecting, and to be competing but not dominating in A- at age 22 isn't that great. But I don't see his numbers and peripherals indicating as much hopelessness as goes with Tony thomas and Tyler colvin, who are K-factories without enough power or walks to justify.

I think Dunn only did it for one year, too. And Dunn seemed to be rather universally supported by pitchers he actually coached at AA. Lester Strode was the system pitching coordinator from 96-06. Courtney Duncan was one of the only prospects I ever recall testifying to Strode helping him. I recall thinking it might be a real plus when he got promoted to big-league coach. But, pretty much all of the people have been hired through the Hendry-Fleita pipeline. And a lot of the guys who work in Mesa have been there for a while. Hendry has had a dozen year to establish how he wants things to run in the farm. If you don't like aspects of it, Hendry and his underlings have either established how they do things or hired the people who are doing the teaching, etc..

On Veal, does anybody know what changes he's made? He was an extreme K pitcher who rarely got a groundout. Now he's a fairly low K-guy who gets a normal distribution of groundouts. In A, it was one groundout-per-two-innings. Now it's 1+ per inning. Has he ditched the curve, or what? Anybody know?

I may well end up wrong on this one. Vitters may well work out as bustaroo, and Parker and Porcello may become routine all-stars. But one of the pre-draft arguments that I made (and is hardly original to me) goes as follows: 1. Many really elite position players are drafted straight out of HS and high in the 1st round. If there is good reason to believe that a guy has a good chance to be a premier hitter, give him good consideration. 2. A lot of pitchers have wonderful arms when they are drafted. But pitching is hard on the arm. A lot of guys with awesome arms at time of draft no longer have awesome arms 5 years into their big-league careers. By contrast, stud hitters often remain stud hitters for a long time, and are much less subject to the physical deterioration that a stud pitcher faces. Most of the pitchers who are drafted with extraordinary arms don't have extraordinary arms by the time they hit free agency. Between major injury and just general erosion on the arm, it's the norm rather than the exception that a guy who's arm is exceptional at age 18 no longer has so extraordinary an arm by the time he turns 25. I know there is no such thing as a true "sure thing" when you're drafting 3rd or lower. But if I had a sure-thing player and a sure-thing pitcher, I'd always opt for the player. If both guys are to become stars, the star player is much more likely to remain healthy enough to star into his mid-30's than is the pitcher. Unfortunately such arguments are based on probabilities. So Vitters' tendonitis may be a case where the less probable player injury will occur, be chronic, and perhaps ruin his career, who knows. And obviously it may be that whatever the scouting consensus thought, that vitters was not near enough to a "sure thing" or an equal talent for this kind of logic to be applied as a tiebreaker.