craig

Willits is a plausible target. He doesn't have the power or the role with Anaheim to be real expensive. With Torii, Matthews, and Figgins around, it's not like they have a big role for him in CF. With zero power, it's not like they are going to be counting on him for a lot of LF or RF. He's a bench guy for them with no projected future to start, and with a glaring hole in his toolbox. So I assume that he is expendable. For somebody who might have a chance to play a larger role for them. Obviously we aren't going to trade Pie or Gallagher for a cat like that. But I could imagine him being available for one of our expendables. I could also see us having interest. Pie has been awful versus LHP, and last year vs ml pitchers in general. Willits could provide a nice platoon with Pie, and some anti-awful insurance in case Pie totally flops this year. One possibility, in the event that pie did hit pretty well this year vs RHP, would be to actually platoon Pie/Willits at #2 spot. Keep the speed at top (which Lou wants, regardless of board opinion), and park SS at #8.

Marquis is the poster-boy for the low-K groundballer who gives up plenty of HR's. A good match for 07 Sam. Low-K groundballers are supposed to offset the low K's by few HR's. But both Marquis and Sam gave up lots of them. Hopefully another year and the HR's will drop a lot for Samardz. And the K's increase significantly, even if perhaps not as far as we'd like.

OK, I'm home now, so I want to clarify those VineLine things. I didn't represent them with the best accuracy. VineLine guys surveyed all the Cub minor league managers and coaches, and ended up publishing short comments on 50 prospects. They're covering 10 guys per page, so it's normally four lines of print per player. Sometimes there is some scouting information about the player or about what some management person thinks about a player, but some is information somebody like you would already know. Samardz's, for example, reports that he caught passes for Notre Dame, had growing pains this season, and struggled especially at Daytona. "Seen as a thrower early, Samardzija grew into a pitcher by season's end." Well, maybe yes, maybe no. But that's the spin the Cubs are selling. However, Vineline also surveyed the coaches/staff about some tools. For the pitchers, there were 4: best command, (holliman, with Petrick and Atkins runnerups); best poise/makeup, besst athleticism, and bet mechanics. Surprisingly, Samardzija appeared in each of the latter three categories. Tops, followed by Petrick, for poise/makeup. Bombard commented that he went through struggles but kept competing and challenging hitters. Tops, followed by Scott Koerber, for "athleticism". best athlete in org bar none, said Fleita. At the end would call him a pitcher. At the start would have called him a thrower. Then, for best mechanics, Holliman was first followed by Samardz. (comments only about Holliman). That they talk up his competitiveness and athleticism is not that surprising. But that he'd be listed as 2nd in terms of mechanics, that's a big surprise.

I agree with meph that this will be a huge year for Samardz, and we'll know tons more afterwards. It's possible to excuse things the first year. But if he's still K'ing nobody, allowing way too many HR's, and struggling in general after another year, the football excuse will run thin and he'll be on track for bust-hood. Or maybe he'll have much better command, both slider and change will be a lot better, and he'll have the same arm slot working for everything, resulting in much better deception, more K's, and fewer HR's. Maybe he'll look like a very legit rotation prospect. Most likely it will be something in between, not a great year, but not a horrible year either. Some progress, enough to keep the optimists hoping; but not enough to cynics off his case. Either way, we'll have a much better idea about him after the season. I do agree that he's such a weird case that setting expectations, especially age-based ones, is tough. I also think that if he does end up reasonably successful, it's possible he may do so with a somewhat unusual profile. Of the big three stats, K's, HR's, and walks, I think there's a chance that he may be somewhat effective in spite of low K's by being an anti-HR and anti-walk guy. But, we'll see. I completely disagree with the "nobody really thinks of him as a prospect... he's more of a pet project of Hendry and Wilken" line. I think he's very much a prospect. Like most meaningful prospects, he's a prospect with a good chance to fail. But he's got a not insignificant chance to be a meaningful player for the Cubs.

[delete

I don't have it with me, but I bought a copy of the February Vineline, which every February is dedicated to prospect stuff. They survey all the Cub farm coaches and managers. I was surprised that among the pitchers, not only did Samardz score among the two highest for competitiveness/toughness/work ethic kind of stuff. But he was listed as one of the two (I think) who had the best deliveries. That was totally contrary to what I expected. The following comment is multi-hand, but my friend is friends with a Baltimore scout. that scout has been very high on Samardzija, but said that to date his fastball and slider have different deliveries so that there is no deception, that hitters can tell which pitch is coming. It was his view that if Samardz could adjust so that both were thrown indistinguishably with the same arm slot and arm speed, that he'd become effective. But that until that happens, not so much.

Mark me in the group who thinks that even were the Cubs to acquire Robert, that he would bat 2nd and Soriano 1st. That would be good. 1. Lou likes speed, and that would give your two fast base-stealers at the top. 2. Roberts is a good batsman, and lefty, so could be a natural hit-and-run guy at #2, also, on the rare occassion that Soriano is on 1st base. 3. Roberts is a good OBP guy, which batting directly in front of Lee and Aram would be ideal. 4. Roberts is lefty, a LouHendry priority. That breaks up the righties. 5. Non-HR baserunners are most likely to score when OBP guys are bunched rather than spread apart. Roberts-Lee-Aram-Fuku-Soto (or DeRosa when he's in there) would be sequencing the five best OBP guys at 2-6. Pie, Theriot, pitcher, and Soriano would bunch the poorer OBP guys. 6. If you didn't bat Sori 1st, where would you? Or, more to the point, where would Lou? Lou isn't going to bat Alf or lee 2nd. And he's not going to bunch lefties Roberts/Fuku 1st/2nd, even though they might be good OBP guys. Sori obviously doesn't belong at 3rd or 4th. If you put him 5th, that's doing the 3 RH power guys back-to-back-to-back, exactly contrary to what Lou wants. So if you take Alf out of leadoff, he'd drop to 6th. I'm fine with that. But I doubt they want to put the most expensive guy at #6. And if Alf and Roberts weren't 1-2, and they didn't want to put the two lefties Roberts-Fukudome 1st-2nd, then who fits into the two spot? If Sori was moved down, that would presumably leave Theriot 2nd. I don't think that will be how it goes. Sorry for stupid post, since we don't have Roberts anyway and presumably are unlikely to acquire him.

Those orioles dudes are funny. They seem to think that Roberts should command multiple no-risk all-star likely guys. Pie might not be a star? Don't even want him. Cedeno might be good, but not certain? Don't want that. Patterson might be good, but not guaranteed? Junk. Murton? They think Orioles are so crawling with .800+ OPS outfielder prospects that Murton is superfluous. It's like they think Roberts ought to either get about as much as Bedard, or else keep him. That's certainly Andy's right. If he doesn't want to trade Roberts, fine. Lets not go nuts bidding ridiculous for a guy who they'll only trade for ridiculous offer. I still think Gallagher-Cedeno-Patterson or Gallagher-Murton-Patterson caliber offer is fine. A plus pitching prospect, a solid position prospect, and a question-mark position prospect. The notion that Gallagher-Murton-Cedeno isn't good enough for their mighty Orioles seems kind of silly. I think the MacP stuff, whatever. He says nothing is imminent. That's similar to what he said with Seattle; eventually, they raised their offer. So his waiting paid off. Smart work by MacP. After the deal, he commented about how Seattle was really slow to give the last prospect. It certainly makes sense for him to hold out again, as long as he thinks that by doing so might result in Hendry bumping an offer. But I'm not sure it makes sense for them to hold Roberts back and not make a deal at all, if hendry holds firm. That might not be smart for Orioles. Or perhaps Hendry has withdrawn Cedeno from the pool, and things have gotten even less attractive for Andy.

GTAG, it's one thing to have been clocked at 96, once. It's another to consistently be throwing mid-90's. Seems to me that expecting Gallagher to be throwing his fastball at 95 with location 8 times an inning is beyond what we should expect. If he's 89-93 most of the time, hits 94 once an inning maybe, and hits 96 once every third start, that's still not an overwhelming fastball velocity. If we keep him, he'd open camp as the #8 starter. He could advance from that as need, performance, and failure by those ahead of him demand. But I'd think that if we keep him, he'd project to open at Iowa and see what happens from there. IIRC he didn't eat a lot of innings last year. In the minors they have very limited pitch counts in April; then he had a bad shoulder and missed a start or more; then was building back; got called up and sat; send back down to build back again, etc.. And in many of his starts he was really a long-count guy. Not a guy who'd get many 8-pitch innings. I like him very much as a prospect. But I'd certainly prefer to see him open at Iowa and see whether he's raised his game. I like his future, though. He seems to be committed to trying to be as good as he can become, as his weight-loss stuff reflects. While he's more advanced than his age would suggest, my take is that he's been trying different things with his breaking balls over much of his career. Slider, curve big, curve small, cutter, change, he's tried them all, and I'm not sure through last year had ever really settled in on which of those to use, or which combination. Seems also the Cubs have gone back and forth; for a while, it was curveball, don't do slider. Later slider got added back in, but two years ago i recall him saying he had trouble throwing them both well at the same time. I thought this fall there was talk of going primarily with slider rather than curve. Not sure about all of that. But I think he's smart enough, and has enough control, that I don't think he's hit his ceiling yet. And I believe that a guy with a 90-95 fastball that he can locate well, and some variety of breaking balls that at times can be pretty good, and is smart, I think a guy like that can be very good. With Marquis, Lieber, and Dempster all being on short leashes, there will certainly be rotation openings over the next couple of years. So if he stays healthy and works out, we could be very thankful if we end up keeping him. But it's also possible, of course, that he'll never be much better than he is now, and with some arm wear that soon enough he'll be less than that. Time will tell.

Atkins has a clear opportunity to start at Tenn, given how shallow their rotation is. Samardzija and Veal are the two obvious profile prospects. Cubs liked Adam Harben enough to roster him. Interestingly enough, in VineLine they suggested his ceiling could be as high as a #2 starter if everything comes back post-surgery. So I expect he'll start. (Although he'll have to prove his arm can hold up to rotation grind, which is no sure thing.) After that, Atkins has clear shot at #4 starter. I'd have liked Berg back for rotation, but Fleita has said otherwise. So #5 should be some roster filler or some dude like Santo or Reinhart. Possibly even Papelbon, although Fleita seemed to think he'd start at Daytona. I wasn't surprised he didn't make top-30. On my list, I think the only one of BA's top-30 that I had him ahead of was Fox, and maybe Barney. At present, not enough stuff to be more than a finesse pitcher, but not enough command for that. Plus I am concerned about his arm, he had some shoulder problems last year, IIRC. But, he's like a lot of guys; if he could improve, he's got a chance. As wrigley noted, he's young enough and big enough that if he shows up healthy, maybe he'll be consistently low 90's touching 95-96, hardly unprecedented. Or perhaps his offspeed stuff will sharpen up. He could be something like a Hart. Perhaps in relief he'll through a bit harder. Or he'll get taught a cutter and it will really make a difference. He's got a shot. But I'm not surprised he's behind guys like Russell and Acosta and Ascanio on the list.

According to an Orioles scout, Hendry originally offered a pick-3 pool of upper-level prospects, excluding Pie and Colvin. The original pool were all 40-man people. Obviously MacP hasn't liked the pool enough to make a deal thus far. Both sides have veto power. MacP can say no unless Pie or Colvin gets added or unless Hendry expands it to pick-4. Hendry can say no if they demand Pie or Colvin. As bruce noted, the Cubs logically can reason that O's will lose 90+ with or without Roberts, very likely next year as well as this year. So the Cubs might logically figure that MacP will want to trade as best he can. If at some point Andy figures he's not going to bluff more value out, he may go ahead an make it. Andy may figure that LouHendry really want Roberts, and often talk about being "aggressive". So he may well figure that if he stonewalls for a while, that he'll get more. That Hendry will eventually compromise, either by upgrading one of the 3 (Colvin-or-Pie instead of whomever), or else by adding a fourth prospect (of negotiable value). Partly it may be a matter of reading the other guy. By many accounts Angelos and MacP may not be that motivated to trade Roberts. Maybe they'll only do it with a ridiculous offer-you-can't-refuse. If so, their trade-motivation is low, and it will be hard for us to get a deal that I'll like. By other view, Orioles are in pure rebuild mode, and Roberts contract will be up before they contend. By that view, their trade-motivation is high, and if you wait them out they should eventually settle for a less-than-ridiculous offer. The flip for us. Lou says he likes the lineup and likes DeRosa; maybe our trade-motivation is modest and we won't make a deal that isn't fair. Others say our trade-motivation is huge, that LouHendry are nuts about Roberts, they want to do something, they want to be "aggressive" (= overpay at least a little). From that view, if Andy waits us out he should eventually get Hendry to settle for an enriched offer.

Interesting view. Not sure I see the logic in that view. I do certainly agree that Crisp would not be comparable to Roberts as a top-of-the-order guy. And I agree that you don't want a dude like that blocking Pie or Colvin. Maybe I don't know the market right. But I'd think there could be merit in picking up Crisp as a 4th outfielder; given his contract, I don't think he'd cost that much in trade value. As a switch, no reason he couldn't be the platoon partner for pie. (Other than that he isn't a very good offensive player). As a switch who can field the spot, he'd provide some insurance should pie and farm alternatives (Fuld, patterson) bust. So I don't see why he couldn't be a 4th/5th outfielder candidate, the same type of role envisioned for Byrd or whomever. Unless the following were why: 1) his dollar price is too high 2) his trade price is too high 3) he isn't good enough offensively for 4th outfielder/platoon CF. Given he's not very good offensively, maybe #3 applies.

Wise idea, but after Patterson, if Pie fails, I think they almost have to make a trade for someone who is more likely to hit -- Fuld is the all-glove, no-hit defensive CF. So I think Colvin is blocked, either by Pie or by failure of young CFs..... No. It's well possible that all three of Pie, Fuld, and Eric Patterson will stink so badly with the bat that hendry will need to trade for a replacement this year. But that's not certain. Perhaps Fuld or Patterson, or the RH outfielder to be acquired later that Hendry has repeatedly talked about pursuing, could step in for Pie and do an adequate job. But even given the premise that you need to trade for a replacement, it's not likely you trade for a blocker. Most mid-year pickups are more limited short-range plugs (Lofton in 03, Gaetti in 1998) who won't block a good prospect after the year is over. Not likely that you pick up somebody whose quality, age, and guaranteed contract locks the job up for years.

There have been good rumors that the Cubs originally offered a pool of guys they could pick, all of whom were 40-man guys. But that Baltimore has pushed to have some non-roster guys added to the pool. Perhaps for the reasons you state. Suppose: original: Gallagher/Marshall/Hart/Wuertz (they could choose any one but not two) + Patterson, Cedeno, Murton, and Fuld (they could choose any two). I could well imagine that Baltimore has lobbied unsuccessfully to add Pie. But I could also imagine that they have lobbied to add some non-roster names to the pool. (Veal and Colvin are the two names that I could imagine them wanting added, although I'm not sure Hendry would be good to add either one). It could well be that considering their 40-man situation, they'd prefer to get 2 roster and 1 non-roster guy rather than 3 roster people. It's also possible this could be a significant hangup. It may simply be that Hendry likes Colvin and Veal too much to add them to the pool; but the dropoff after them is so severe that Baltimore isn't interested in any of our other non-roster guys. (Ceda is highly-ranked but he's very distant; Samardz has no-trade; Vitters, Donaldson, Thomas can't be traded yet; Hernandez, Rhee, Castillo, Huseby may end up good but won't help anybody for years.)

If it ended up Colvin and Veal for Roberts, I would support that. With Gallagher besides, I'd probably prefer not. But I disagree with some of the substance of your post. Agree: I agree that colvin's value could easily go down. If he has a poor year, and shows no progress on the problems that are currently sometimes excused on basis of inexperience or youth, his stock could drop. Disagree: I disagree that it would be difficult for colvin's stock to rise. IMO there are four common questions/concerns about Colvin. 1. Is he really a CF, or not? 2. A common view seems to be that he's not a power guy. 3. A common concern is his K's, problems with breaking stuff, and problems with LHP. 4. The monster concern is the complete absence of walks last year, leading to all kinds of negative concerns for his future. 5. A fifth is that he hasn't done much at high level. I think he has a chance to dispel or moderate some of those concerns. 1. If he can establish that he really is a legit high-level CF, that boosts his value a lot for people who are currently unconvinced. 2. He hit 16 HR's at age 21 in his first full season, in two pitcher's leagues. If he shows up more muscled this season, hits a few long ones, and boosts his HR output some more, that might alleviate concerns over whether he's "just a gap hitter" and persuade more observers that he's got serious HR potential. 3. Often guys are able to cut back on their K's somewhat and look better versus breaking stuff their second year. K'ing >20%, what kind of a "contact hitter" is he really? But if he was to drop his K's from 101 to 81, scouts who like his stroke in the first place might be more unreserved in touting him as a pure contact hitter. 4. His walk-output was horrible, and the 101K/15walk ratio rightfully scares a lot of people. As I said, if he replicates that, most will be even more skeptical than they are now, and his value will drop. But if he were to boost his walks to, say, 35, and post an 80K/35walk output, skeptics could see real progress. This Adam Jones cat, he walked only 36 times last year, and 28 the year before; that doesn't seem to be stopping him from being viewed as a premium-value prospect. So I think that if Colvin could move in the right direction, from incredibly awful to merely poor in the walk/plate-discipline department, I think that could increase his value by a lot. The other thing i disagree on is that he's "blocked". When you're behind guys with Sori/Aram/Lee/Fukudome contracts, then you are blocked. If 2B is your only real position and we acquire Roberts, then you are blocked. But I don't think being behind Felix Pie who had a .271 OBP in 177 AB last year with no power constitutes a "block". Pie might end up being quite good, a keeper. Great. But Pie has a ways to go before he's established himself as a locked-in-for-years guy. Both Pie and colvin have some serious questions about their hitting. (Many of them are somewhat similar. Too little plate discipline, too many K's, will they hit many HR's?) I think there is good logic in keeping both and hoping that between the two of them, one of them works out to be solid. It's possible that both will excel, in which case you can keep one (Pie, probably) and trade the other. Great. It's possible that both will have such lousy plate discipline and pitch recognition that both will bust, and we'll wish we'd traded them both while they still had real value. But it's also possible that one will be good and the other bust, and it's hard to know now which will be the good one. I'd like to just keep them both just to make sure that if one of them does prove to be good, that we keep the right one.

Usually this is true. Duh, that's why pitchers routinely sign contracts prior to free agency. Most pre-free-agent pitchers do find it in their best interest to sign deals that will be below market price in a year, because they understand that there is risk that they will get hurt; in which case the deal could end up well above market price in a year. So he wants $150/5, and next year he might well get that. But he may well decide that it is in his best interest to go for $125/5 now, just in case his arm goes bad.

Cubs are currently at $115.8 for 24 guys (short one outfielder) if I include: a) Trachsel's $0.1 buyout, b) Jones at $1.33, and c) full $12 of Fukudome deal. [Cots has no Fukudome details. His deal could perhaps be frontloaded by a signing bonus, or backloaded as was done with Marquis and Lilly. Backloading is somewhat more likely.] So it looks at worst like they are committed to paying out about $114-116. To use your quote, 'Depending on payroll (either $120M as reported by Mr. Miles or $125M as reported by Mr. Levine), the Cubs should have..." a fair bit of space. Fitting in Roberts does not appear to be a problem. "With extra pitchers like Marshall, Lahey and Pignatiello still in the running for a role, it seems apparent the Cubs will pull out all stops to move an arm or two (Marshall, Marquis and Cotts seem like the top 2 to go)...." Hoops In my view the Cubs have no budgetary need to move Marquis or any other salaried pitcher. They may move pitching, salaried or not, for baseball reasons. But I don't see any budget pressure for that. If anything, they seem to have so much budget leeway that they can likely afford to not only pick up Roberts (without including a salaried guy in return) as well as a salaried RH CF/OF (a Byrd-type salary would not blow the budget even if we did add Roberts). Were they to do both of those things plus acquire a bigger ticket like Burnett, then I think they'd need to move some salary or else exceed $130. My analysis again assumes that Cubs usually talk about expenditures in real time, rather than prorating signing bonus expenditures that were paid out before last season began.

After Fleita's talk and related stories at AA this week, and his comments in Down-on-the-Farm at the convention on Sunday, it's interesting to see how those impact opening day stuff. Here are some that I remember, surprises and not. Obviously all are default thoughts as of now, and injuries or unanticipated performance/shape in camp (good or bad) can change that. But anyway: 1. Castillo at AA, much Fleita buzz for his defense (Yavier Molina). That opens things up for Donaldson and Clevenger (and others) in A-ball. Donaldson and Clevenger could share Daytona, or Clevenger could be primary guy at Daytona and Donaldson start at Peoria (with changes later as performance permits). One layout would be to have Donaldson start at Peoria, possibly with Perez as partner if Perez looks strong in camp, and with Blake Lalli in the mix as a 2nd or 3rd catcher behind Clevenger at Daytona. Fleita mentioned Perez in DOF (Down-on-the-Farm), and Wilkin also mentioned Lalli in discussion of the catching depth, and in the context of the position-switch guys. I hadn't realized before that he was a convert to catching, I think from pitching previously. 2. Fleita was pretty explicit that Papelbon will start, not relieve, and will open at Daytona. I think many of us had thought he'd likely relieve. 3. 3B a lot of unknown. He talked about Lansford in AA, which would leave Daytona clear for Marques Smith and then Peoria between either Vitters or Jovan Rosa. Default appears to be Rosa for Peoria and Vitters for Boise. If Lansford is at AA, they also like Reynolds a lot; might mean he'd be rushed up to Iowa already. If you'd asked me a week ago, I'd have assumed Reynolds would start at AA, Lansford Daytona. In a sense this clears things up and gives a clear spot for each guy (unless Vitters demands Peoria, in which case Rosa gets squeezed.) 4. Fleita talked pretty favorably about Rhee's delivery and how balanced/advanced/consistent his delivery was. Camp may change that, but I got the impression that were today April 1, that Fleita was leaning/hoping that Rhee would open with Peoria. I also got the impression Fleita was leaning toward Acosta at Peoria, he talked in DOF about Acosta and Sandberg having a connection, Ryne and Oscar Acosta having been friends from Philly farm days. So if both Acosta and Rhee along with Huseby all opened at Peoria, that would be the core of a potentially very talented Peoria rotation. (Even if being so inexperienced they might not be that unusually effective next year.) 5. Fleita's stuff with Smokies made it pretty clear that Veal is intended to start, unless he really stinks in camp. But that Berg is for the pen. That surprised me. he talked pretty confidently that AA pen would include Ceda and Roquet as well as Berg. In DOF, he projected Casey Lambert to open with AA, rather a surprise. Suggested that his curveball is major-league caliber, that he's relieved all along, and seemed to have him as a fast-track LOOGY. 6. When Grant Johnson was mentioned, to Smokie crowd, he didn't expect Johnson to be there, more a non-preferred possibility of camp went bad. In DOF he discussed Johnson, and projected him for Iowa. That also surprised me. 7. Interestingly, he didn't mentioned Maestri in the AA pen discussion. He did discuss him very glowingly in DOF. I don't know what to make of that. AA would have seemed an obvious place to skip him up to. He just slipped his mind when talking to Smokie crowd? Or do they have some other unexpected thoughts in mind for him? Give him some rotation work at Daytona to work on his breaking ball and changes of speed? Flash him all the way up to Iowa? Start him only at Daytona, still in relief? Explore him for rotation at AA? Interesting and curious.

How does this work for a Carp guy to get signed by the Cubs? Would the Cubs have signed him as a free agent, or bought him from the Carp, or what? I'm thinking that if a prospect can just jump out and sign with an American team, what would be the motive for the Carp to invest in Dominican prospects, is the best ones aren't going to stick with your organization but will just go to the U.S.? So I wonder what the commitment is by player to organization, and what it was the enabled the Cubs to get him away from the Carp.

Cal, I'm not sure if he's been discussed, but one interesting and unusual signing was this Caridad guy who's on the invited-to-camp list. Weird deal, 22-year-old Dominican pitcher (tall) who was with Japanese org last year, and actually pitched a few innings I believe in a Japanese League. (Was it their top major league? Not sure). I hadn't given it much thought. What kind of Dominican signs at 22, and weird situation, so not likely to actually be significant. But Fleita talked about him briefly in the Down-on-the-Farm segment on Sunday. He said they saw him and liked him, and compared his Dominican-in-Japan deal with when Soriano did that. He said that he probably isn't really ready for big-league camp invite, but that was one of the terms of being willing to sign with us. He also said something to the effect that they had very little opportunity to scout him before signing him (I'm not sure where they saw him.) So apparently not a guy that they'd been able to track and watch repeatedly and get the cross-checkers over or all of that kind of stuff. But somebody apparently saw him, was impressed enough, and they thought he was interesting enough to go after and even give a non-roster invite rather than let him get away.

Fleita talked about Vitters yesterday. I inferred that the default is Boise, unless he really rocks in camp. Talked about how you don't need to rush him; about how with Reynold, Marquis Smith, Lansford, that 3B is deep and packed; that Southern Cal boy isn't used to 20 degrees in Beloit April. So I'm guessing Vitters will need to "Wow" them to make Peoria. And if he does, you can assume he's had a rocking camp.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2008/01/08_convention2.php This site and links to Day 3 and Day 1 provide a lot of the audio. Very useful resource. I especially enjoyed the Down-on-the-Farm audio.

I think it's been somewhat fashionable to minimize hart as a prospect, to exclude him from top-10, to bash LouHendry for including him as a candidate for rotation or for the staff, and to view as simplistic people who think he might be a good prospect, since a smart analyst is too smart to get deceived by an 11-inning sample. I'm not suggesting this is your mindset at all, PriorPower; if it was you wouldn't have asked if his potential says otherwise. I'm guessing yours is a sincere question of whether there is more than meets the eye with him and his career numbers. So I'm going to try to give some reasons why I think yes, it's not simplistic to view Hart as a meaningful prospect, and perhaps a legit rotation candidate for 2008. Ping has already touched on this, but I'm going to expand a bit. Again, I want to emphasize that he's not a "great" prospect or a Cy Young possibility or a sure thing or a certain-to-be-better-than-marquis guy. But I think he's a real prospect, with a reasonable chance of emerging as a solid useful big-league pitcher, even if not a front-of-rotation likely or a likely closer. So, here's my best case for him. 1. There *were* signs in his minor-league number that suggest he's got some promise. It wasn't just the 11 innings with the Cubs that were good. His previous 3 months at AA/AAA were also very good. I can't get the last-10-game split, but my recall is that his last 10 games at AA were really impressive and sub-3 ERA. If you took his numbers from mid-May on, you'd get a much more impressive stats line than using the full-season numbers. (His 3.99 on the season doesn't look that great. But he was really bad in April.) So there is a "something happened" sample much larger than 11 innings. 2. Background: In junior college. In his one year at Maryland he was an ACC all-star .... as a 1B. In Junior college, he was the 2003 Rawlings NJCAA Big Stick Award Winner. He also pitched along the way, but relative to his competition it appears he was more memorable as a bat than as a pitcher. I'm theorizing that perhaps he was a good enough hitter that his commitment to pitching wasn't 100%? And thus that he isn't quite as advanced in his development as a pitcher as you'd expect for his age, and might have more untapped potential than you'd expect? 3. Scouting the fastball: his fastball looked like it had major-league velocity, and major-league movement. That wasn't an 11-inning fluke, it was real. It's not like his fastball is overpowering. But his velocity is definitely not a liability. Not like he's an 86-mph guy who finessed his way. His arm looked fine. 4. Walk control: He's never walked much more than 3 guys per 9, and he was quite a bit better than that during his last 3 months at AA. So he's not a walkaholic wildman, we're not talking about veal or pre-05 Rich Hill. A good arm and can throw strikes, why wouldn't he be a prospect? 5. Scouting the breaking ball: He doesn't have a very good curve or slider. When the curve was his breaking pitch, and it wasn't very good, the combo of a bad curve and a good-but-not-extraordinary fastball combined to give ho-hum results. (Maryland 2004, Baltimore pros 2005-06, this April. But as ping noted, the Cubs got him going with a cutter. Hart and the Cub coaches have agreed that his "something happened" breakthrough in AA coincided with figuring out the cutter and that becoming a really useful pitch for him. Several things all coincided with the discovery of the effective cutter: ERA down, hits down, HR's down, K's up, GB/FB up. The cutter worked for him in AA and it worked for him in majors in September. By the eye test, it looked very good. Note: That doesn't mean it will look as good, or be consistent, in the future. Perhaps after a winter off, he won't be able to find the release point and his cutter will be inconsistent and not nearly as effective. Maybe if he's in the league the scouts will case him, hitters will just sit on fastball/cutter, and he won't be able to sustain. Maybe if he's pitching rotation instead of short relief, his fastball will be 88 instead of 92, and less effective. But at present I think there are valid reasons to think that he did improve once he learned the cutter; that he learned and used the cutter over an extended period of time, so it may be sustainable; and that with the cutter and fastball combination that he's got two usable big-league pitches that he can throw at the strike zone and get hitters to swing at. There is a famous Rickey quote how some pitchers are like a rose. It's all green, then 3 days later it's in blossom. When the time comes something that had shown nothing rather abruptly becomes something to see. Perhaps that's hyperbole and mockable scout talk. But I think there's at least a chance that Hart really has learned the cutter, and that the numbers on Hart-before-cutter have little predictive value for Hart-with-cutter.

Ah. Depending on how much he'd take, I'd go for that. I prefer him in the rotation over Dempster. I'd be interested in Lieber as a non-roster player, and perhaps if we trade away a couple of our other staff candidates. But barring a trade, I'm not sure I'd be interested in giving him a guaranteed contract that locked him onto the staff regardless of performance. Barring a trade, we've got 10 roster locks at present: Dempster and Marquis (unknown roles), Z, Hill, Lilly, (3 certain starters), Wood, Howry, Marmol, Wuertz, Eyre (5 certain relievers.) Ten roster locks leaves two open pitching spots. Current 8 candidates: Marshall, Hart, Gallagher (rotation candidates), Cotts, Pignatiello (lefty relief options), Lahey, Ascanio, and Petrick (righty relief options). (Am I missing somebody else?) Unless the staff gets thinned via trade, I'd be hesitant to sign Lieber and reduce the number of open spots to only one. I think there's a good chance that at least two of those 8 candidates will be more preferable on the staff than Lieber. Also, Lieber has made only two relief appearances since the Cubs acquired him in 1998. Not sure how interested he'd be or how well suited he'd be for a relief role, in the event that two out of Marshall/Gallagher/Hart/Marquis/Dempster outpitch him for a rotation spot. I have the same kind of concern with any of these lightning in a bottle suggestions (Colon, etc..) I don't want to guarantee any of them a spot on the roster, in case they aren't any good and some of our own guys step up nicely.

There are 6 Type B's left, but the worst the Cubs can drop is 3 spots. The guys who'd drop us: 1. Pedro Feliz, Giants 2. Trever Miller, Astros 3. If either Shannon Steward or Mike Piazza of the A's get signed. (If both get signed by other teams, Oakland would get only one, not both, ahead of our Kendall pick). If some of these don't get signed by teams other than their original team, we won't slip as far as 42. Regardless, picking 42 or as high as 39 for jason Kendall, that's really unexpectedly nice.