craig

Got to disagree on "no breaking ball." It's extremely inconsistent, maybe your friend saw him on the days he had nothing with the secondary pitches? The curve is good when it is on, but that was about half the time last season. Correct. My friend said he saw him throw a couple of curveballs each game that were awful, so then it was just high fastball, high fastball, high fastball, with a couple of equally wild and bad-looking changeups thrown once in a while. Given how few excellent games he threw, I wonder how many games he had when the curve really was on, for more than a couple of innings at a time? Heh, my friend said that Samardzija's breaking ball looked way, way superior to Veal's when he saw them both during the same week. As you say, maybe just a couple of fluke bad games. (Not that hard to find, since Veal had plenty of them.) But I guess given how little enthusiasm we've rightfully heard regarding Sam's breaking ball, I thought it was perhaps telling about where Veal's stands that my friend thought Veal's was much worse. I may be jaded by a rotten season and a few bad games my friend saw. But I do have some concerns that Veal is going to end up no better than Felix Sanchez did. But, hopefully he'll turn it around.

Cal, in what way is that a "fits with BA" choice? And why are you so disinterested? Obviously he doens't have a long history of success, but which prospect pitchers do? After mid-May, he was really good for AA, clearly head-and-shoulders better than Veal or Holliman. And I thought he was better at Iowa than anybody, Gallagher included. And obviously he was effective in his brief show with the Cubs. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Kevin%20Hart&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453954 Not sure if these stats are completely correct, the last date seems weird. But I recall he was really a machine in a bunch of his late AA games, and in a couple of his Iowa games. But if this game-log is accurate, it shows him as not allowing any earned runs in 4 of his last 5 AA starts. What's wrong with that? In my view, his stuff looked big-league caliber in September. He threw it hard enough, comfortably in the 90's, and the cutter looked like a pitch that could carry him a long way. I'm not putting it all on his 11 big-league innings, although I don't think we should ignore them. But it's not just an 11-inning fluke. He was mostly quite a good picher, albeit still with a couple of bad games mixed in, over September-August-July-June. That's four months. Why dismiss that? This may sound silly. But I also think his kind of stuff is stuff that translates well to the majors. The movement on his cutter seems like it might not give him K's, but that it's a pitch he can throw to the strike zone even in the majors without being scared. Not sure he'd need to change his approach as much as some guys need to do.

Sorry, long. 1. Soto: he’s already shown he can hit, with both power and walks. And he can catch and throw. Given how hard it is to find catchers who can both defend and hit, no other player has a better chance to be an asset relative to league average at his position as does Soto. He may not have the MVP/HOF ceiling we’d like for #1. But no reason why he shouldn’t be an asset regular for a long time. To get a solid-fielding catcher who might prove to be a very solid #6 hitter, that’s good enough for #1 on my list. 2. Colvin: He’s very young, but he can hit, hit with power, and defend. I project him with good power, I think I project his power higher than many of you do. We all know the big red flag: too many K’s, way too few walks. 3. Ceda: Hard to rank a future reliever who’s so wild this high. But his stuff is the best the Cub system has had since Cruz and Prior, maybe since Wood. Excellent chance to become a really useful reliever. Red flag: walks, walks, and more walks. 4. Samardzija: Sorry, it’s just my list. And it’s based on who’d I’d least want to trade. He may have no past success, but I’m looking future. He throws hard enough and with sink, I think he’s got a chance to be an innings-eating big-league starter. Obviously no ace potential without any K-stuff. But I think he can get better, and he’s got a fair shot to become a perfectly satisfactory middle-of-rotation pitcher. Those guys are valuable. Perhaps even better. The critics will say this is lame, but I think when some scouts are really plus on a guy, there are some reasons. And, I also think that opportunity counts. There are lots of good relievers who could be good starters had they had enough opportunity, but that didn’t happen. Sam’s fastball and bonus and the scouting support will be to his advantage in getting the opportunity required to become a big-league starter. Red flag: Breaking ball and control (hence the low K’s.) 5. Vitters: With Vitters, as with Samardz, I rate him as high as I do in part because the scouts do. I’m humble enough to defer, to some extent, and know I don’t know enough to say they are all wrong. Big hitters are invaluable, and they say he could be a big hitter for power, contact, and average. But I admit I don’t have a good feeling. He already seems to profile as probably-not for 3B, and he didn’t hit in HS, rookie, or fall ball this year. Red flag: poor 3B defense and concerns whether he can actually hit. 6. Kevin Hart: He should still be eligible, right? He looked very good in September. I know it was small sample, but nothing wrong with his stuff, that cutter looked very good. He had the velocity and the cutter to be an effective big-league pitcher, didn’t need to nibble, had a pitch he could attack with, consistent groundball guy. And while the big-league sample was small, the success sample wasn’t really that small. He was good for Iowa (3.45 in August in AAA is solid), and he was 6-1, 2.70 with strong splits over his last ten AA starts. He’s already gotten over the big-league hurdle, too. I think he’s got a chance to be a solid rotation pitcher (non-ace, but solid), or the kind of effective reliever he already showed himself to be. Red Flag: Stuff looked good when his control was on. But can he sustain the control needed? And will his stuff get whacked if his control slips even a little bit? 7. Gallagher: He’s had success at every level short of the majors. To my eye, neither his fastball nor his curve had ace electricity in his Cub appearances. But he’s smart, resourceful, and has shown enough fastball velocity and location to think that his fastball could be an effective pitch even without more movement. How good he can be will depend on the consistency and command of his breaking stuff. Has a good chance to be a good rotation pitcher. Red flag: None, really. Just hasn’t clearly shown an individual pitch which is knockout good, a putaway pitch. I think that may be why he tends to run high pitch counts. 8. Donaldson: He can hit, walk, and hit with power. If he can do it defensively, he has a chance to be a huge asset player relative to his catcher position. Could be really good, and could bypass everybody on this list. Red flag: Teams expect a lot defensively from a big-league catcher. Will he really be able to make it at catcher? 2nd, will he be able to hit the breaking ball, often enough? 9. Huseby: has a chance to be a good 3-pitch control pitcher. Phil’s AFL reports were very positive about how smooth he looked. Obviously very young, lots of projection possible. But projection needed for his fastball to be asset fast. Red flag: Not fast, young, and lots of injury opportunities between now and success. 10. Rhee: May be premature. But he got paid like a serious prospect, and I’m a believer that first impressions mean something. Phil said he has a good fastball right now, with age-based projection, looks smooth, and had a dandy breaking ball. Red flag: Not exceptionally fast, and lots of injury opportunities between now and actual success. 11. Robert Hernandez: His results per age perhaps look better than his stuff. Throws well, with reasonable control and some good results for age. Red flag: hasn’t shown an especially good or consistent breaking pitch yet, and flyball oriented. As hitters get stronger than A-, that’s a question mark. 12. Veal: I assume BA will have him higher, as do most of you. Has a good arm. But so, so wild, with no sign of progress. My limited interest is perhaps colored by my friend, who saw him several times and views him as nothing but a thrower, no breaking ball that he could throw for strikes on the days he saw him. I have major trouble envisioning him as more than a lefty reliever. He could be a good one if he can get some control, but his clock is ticking. Will he come up with enough control to ever be better than a will Ohman type? Red flags: No breaking ball, no control, and nothing that he can get any groundouts with. HR’s could be a problem. 13. Fuld: Hard to know where to place a guy like this. No star potential, probably a utility outfielder. But he’s always made contact, has been a steady .370+ OBP guy, and has typically been a .400 slugger even before his big AFL. No power, but may not have any hitting holes for superior pitchers to expose; production may not drop as much in majors as is true for most players. Good fielder, smart. Sometimes teams without good starters need to turn to utility players. A chance that Pie will flop, and Fuld will get an extended opportunity sooner rather than later. If he does well, I don’t want to look back and say “I knew he had a good shot to be a solid if unspectacular player, but I didn’t think being a competent non-superstar was good enough for my list.” Red flags: No power, so opportunity beyond utility won’t come easily, unless it comes soon. 14. Roquet: Maybe deserves higher. Good arm, good slider. I think his stuff may be already be ready to be a good reliever. Red Flag: Control? Health? 15. Patterson: Got a chance to develop into a functional utility guy, if he can make himself into defensive CFer. I thought his key was proving he could play big-league 2B, and most people don’t believe that’s in the cards anymore. Now the same question applies to how good he’ll be defensively in CF. 16. Billy Petrick: His stuff looked really good last summer. Looked like he could be a straightforward effective reliever. Those are invaluable. Red Flag: I’m out of the loop. Is his arm shot again? Or is there a chance that his arm will be just fine with some additional rest? 17. Thomas: Cubs saw enough for 3rd round money, and he was pretty good for Boise. But I’m not that high on him. Don’t expect his basestealing to carry up. Currently and seemingly according to projection, doesn’t have the power to justify all the K’s or supposedly mediocre defense. Red Flag: Defense, K’s, and power. 18. Maestri: Kept getting people out, throws a good fastball, good control. Results guy. 19. Wellington Castillo: Some good defense talent, hit alright for a guy with little experience. Red flags: Scouts don’t seem to rave, so apparently his hitting doesn’t project that well. 20. Clevenger: Catchers who can hit are valuable. No power, but a guy who always makes contact, that’s an unusual attribute and can take a guy a long way. 21. Acosta: He sounds like he could be pretty good. As young as he is, if they liked him enough to pay him 4th round money, and if he’s started as favorably as people say, there’s something good there. 22. Russell: They liked enough to give 3rd round money, and in brief sample he did well. Control pitcher with a good change, may not need overwhelming stuff. But still young enough and with enough mixed scouting reports, maybe his stuff is or will be better than we expected?

Disappointed to see Gonzalez doing so badly, and with the 9/1 K/BB. So, do you know anything about this Hector Mayora? I don't recall any such guy playing in our system and I couldn't find his name, at least with that spelling, in bbcube or minorleague baseball or baseball reference. Those are some jazzy stats, makes me curious.

Cal, do you know what kind of usage Pie gets on that team? I know he's one of their worst hitters, and I'm assuming that's why he doesn't have stats every day. Is he their regular CF, or did he start that way but hit his way into a utility role? Does he play all center, or some RF as well? Does he hit in a respectable batting spot, like you might expect for an elite prospect who's maybe going to be a big-league starter in April? Or is he basically used as a #8 or #9 hitter, as befits his auto-out-with-no-power winterball performance?

Burke sustaining a slick .548 BABIP. At some point, he's going to need to chill on the K's if he's going to sustain big offense.

Theriot was a .634-OPS vs RHP this year, Matsui is a career .728 vs RHP. Not sure what you'd lose defensively with Kaz or if you moved DeRosa over. But whatever Matsui can't do, I think it's fair to say that even he hits RHP significantly better than does Theriot. Theriot does very well vs LHP. I agree, a platoon could be better than what we've got now.

Kendall made B, missed A by surprisingly little. That's a good thing, nobody loses any draft picks for signing a B, so there is no disincentive to doing so, no reason to stall. Kendall will get signed this winter, no question about that. The issue is when. Before the recent contract, teams would rarely/never sign a guy like Kendall before the Cubs had a chance to decline arbitration. By waiting, they wouldn't lose anything. That's why to some degree FA kind of stalled until after the December arb day. I think the new contract has changed the landscape and the timeline for free agency. Now you can go to work as soon as you want. If a team likes Kendall as a veteran share-time catcher, they can sign him as soon as they like. Perhaps even before arb day. Obviusly I don't think that's likely. Kendall is really competitive, and likes to play. He's used to being the #1 every-day starter, and he's used to getting tons of millions. Yes, he'll sign. But he's not going to be guaranteed #1 status, he's not going to get paid a lot, and he's not going to be one of the top-5 winter targets for any teams. Focus on the important stuff first, fiddle around with low-impact guys like Kendall after the big stuff is settled. So I think it will take him a while to get the attention required to make a decision, and I think it will take him a while to realize and accept how little interest there will be in his services. But, you never know, maybe we'll get lucky somehow. While somebody is waiting on the big stuff, they have some time for little stuff and work out a Kendall deal. Or, maybe his wife wants things decided well before Christmas season, and tells him to decide early rather than dragging. Or, maybe there's some personal connection that causes him to sign bck with Pittsburgh, or near his wife's home area, or whatever. It would sure be cool if he did sign before the cubs had to non-arb him, and we got a pick there. The sandwich is probably going to be as big or bigger than a full round these days. So to go with no comp pick will be like losing a round.

Yeah, the reports I've read have been 89-91 type. I watched one inning on a youtube or something, and on that game his fastball seemed to be mostly 88-89, maybe one in the 90's? I'd guess that every pitcher who can consistently work at 89 has touched 95 on occassion. So my impression is that he's a control guy more than a power guy. But, I don't know much. Just to belabor the point. I remember one of his early spring trainings, Wuertz hit 95. Last winter I recall reading how Rocky Cherry was throwing 96-97 late in 06. I recall Z hitting 98 this season, but that wasn't anywhere close to where he pitched regularly. Mr. Gallagher reported that Sean hit 96 last week. I recall Sean marshall having a 93 mph this season. I like Kuroda, and I sincerely hope we sign him. But if we do and he's successful, my guess is that his velocity will be no more exceptional than Lilly or Lieber or guys like that. If he's good, I expect it will be as a guy who can locate his fastball. Have a fastball that has enough zip/life combined with enough control so that he's not scared to throw it for strikes. Enough control so that with whatever velocity it has or doesn't have, he can put it where it will get outs rather than HR's.

I'm interested in Kuroda. As noted, he's had some very good years on a bad team in a small park. He's been pretty regularly an all-star, right? And he was selected for the Olympic Team even before he had the fabulous 06 season? His stuff doesn't scout as anything great, so maybe that means no better than a back-of-rotation guy or maybe a disaster. But his history is as a strike-thrower who's not HR-fodder despite pitching in a small park. His stuff doesn't translate as ace-like, granted. But if he can throw his stuff here without giving up a lot of HR's, then a guy with average stuff and an average HR-rate can be an above-average starter if his control and walks are noticably above average. And, a guy who can throw strikes consistently is often a guy who can fairly consistently give you a decent cmpetitive game, and eat some innings. I do always wonder whether a Japanese pitcher used to 6-days might not have the same stuff going in an American rotation. If he's 90-91 over there, but 87-89 over here, is he still as competitive?

Maybe, but I wouldn't hold out much hope, especially since he has multiple superior options keeping him from that role in our system, in Pie and Patterson. Fuld isn't going to be a first-choice starter. But, I don't see Patterson being a factor here. He hasn't played hardly any CF yet. I think it's premature to count on him as even an adequate defensive CF, much less an excellent one. And his offense isn't that great that he'll be a primo CF if his defense isn't good. To some degree Fuld's situation is perhaps somewhat like Theriot. Theriot has no power. and isn't very toolsy. Cedeno has more defensive tools and has more hitting power, and has had much superior AAA OPS thanks to that power. But when it's come to actual games, Cedeno makes more mistakes, and whatever power superiority cedeno has, ithasn't manifested itself often enough at the bigs to make that an overriding decision maker. EPatt could be like that, a guy with a Cedeno-like power advantage, but might HR's so infrequently early in his career that he won't be given a job based on HR's. I suppose that it's also possible that Fuld could be to Pie what Theriot was to cedeno. Much less scouting love, many fewer tools. But if the not-so-polished talent comes up, gets flustered, goes into a slump, hacks somewhat indiscriminately, and looks auto-out, the manager sometimes turns to somebody less toolsy but more able to give consistently competitive AB's. It's not beyond possible that if Pie is struggling to reach the .280 OBP line, that a Fuld who was hitting .285 with a .335 OBP and playing a spirited CF might end up playing. I'm not saying it's probable. But it's not beyond plausible.

Cal, do you know if McGehee has played only 3B this winter? I'd really hoped he be working on his catching. As a catcher, his hitting looks pretty interesting. A guy who can hit .270 with a .750-type OPS, a lot of big-league starting catchers don't do that, and most backups don't. (As we saw for Koyie and Bowen this summer). I have a contact who said that he thought McGehee looked pretty comfortable at catcher his summer. Casey has normally been reported to be an intense, baseball-smart kind of guy, perhaps the guy who isn't the best talent but who might be a smart game-caller and good handler of pitchers. Don't know how his defense is. I assume it's lousy, even if my contact thought it looked pretty good. Maybe it's worse than Barrett, perhaps even worse than Fox. Beats me. But if it could be big-league fine, I'd much prefer him catching than playing 3B. And if he could get there, but only with more practice, I'd rather he was practicing that than his 3B. I think he's somewhat interesting especially considering the cub catching scene. With Soto in, I assume Kendall will go elsewhere. If that assumption is correct, we're left with Soto, Blanco, and little else. Ritchie, McGehee, and whatever we snag as a minor-league free agent. (Possibly Koyie Hill again?) Given how often catchers get hurt, and how often they rest, I think the next option after Blanco has a good likelihood to play a number of games for us next year. Blanco is old, and his injury has been serious. I guess his winter-ball play reassures that he can physically go behind the plate, even if his .172 slugging average thus far is less than inspiring. But I wonder if he's going to be healthy all year. Soto, I doubt he's ever caught much more than 110 games in a season thus far, if that. I don't think it's a good idea to try to put him out there for 130. So the sub catcher(s) are likely going to need to play a fair bit. If it turned out that McGehee was acceptable defensively for that role, I wouldn't be surprised if his hitting wasn't as/more desirable than Ritchie or Blanco or Koyie types. If he could evolve into a satisfactory long-term backup catcher, who could also do a little 3B or 1B if necessary, and might possibly even hit well enough to pinch hit occassionally, that could be a useful thing. If you could count on a backup catcher hitting in the .700's, it makes it lots easier to give the starter the rest that's really best.

Berg is somewhat interesting. I suspect he's a guy whose arm/stuff is better than his results. And could be a candidate to surprise at some point? I'm sure he doesn't throw super hard, normally. But I thought I'd read a note during the season where he was clocked (legitimately, I believe) at 95 or 97 or something like that. So if he can be working at 90-92 on a semi-regular basis, that's not bad for arm. Especially when that fastball is a groundball anti-HR pitch. This year he gave up 4 HR in 140 innings, last year 4 HR in 115 innings. That's really exceptional, and appears to be no fluke. He's consistently had strong GB/FB ratios too; I assume his fastball must have some action on it that makes it hard to elevate for HR's. It may be especially surprising since my understanding is that his control is lousy and his breaking ball isn't too hot either. There are lots of sinker-ball types who give up HR's when the pitch isn't located and gets up a bit in the zone. And a lot of GB types who don't have a great or consistent breaking ball (Berg certainly doesn't), who give up HR's on hanging curves or sliders. So I think the combo of a good arm, seemingly good fastball movement, and anti-HR profile are three components of a potentially good pitcher. Obviously he hasn't been good to date. He had a 4.95 ERA in the pitcher-oriented SL this season, with a 1.61 WHIP. Awful. In 06 he was 4.38 with a 1.56 WHIP. Nothing to get excited about there. And he's got no K's, 69 K's in 140 innings is pretty bad. 69K/69walks, yikes. Still, at 23 he's not exactly a fossil, and he'll be 23 for a good hunk of next year. So if he has the capacity to learn an improved breaking ball or better control (both doubtful, but not impossible...), it's not like his clock has expired. Not sure where he played his baseball, but I know he was born in small-town Wisconsin, not much high-level baseball going on there. And he's only had two full-season seasons. An interesting thing is that the Cubs have pushed him. After getting him from the Yankees late 2005 in short-season ball, he pitched only 6 innings at Peoria, yet they jumped him up to Daytona to open 2006. That seems the kind of thing they'd do with somebody they think has a big-league arm. Then after his blah Daytona, I figured he'd repeat. But no, they pushed him up again. So my guess is they see him as a big-league arm, if he can only put things together. Probable? No. But if he does start to string together some actual success, I'd think we can take him seriously. Not just view him as a no-stuff guy. I don't have his season splits, but my impression was that during the last two months that he was pitching somewhat better, a little more consistent. Maybe that's a reflection of some progress? My hope is that they repeat him in AA this year. He'll be 23, so hardly too old for the league. I sometimes like to see repeats; that way you can be sure whether a guy is progressing or not. If he goes to AAA and has a 5.1 ERA, we might say that league considered, that he's progressing. But if he repeats at AA and we see him at 3.4 in June, we'll know that he's improved. He's at 351 career innings now; sometimes when a raw guy is hitting the 300-400 range, sometimes that's a time when some things start to settle in. Maybe a breaking ball starts to be semi-consistent. Maybe they reach the point where they quit experimenting with a pitch that just isn't going to work, and settle on the 2 or 3 that they're going to live or die with. That they sent him to AFL, after 140 innings already, is also unusual. That may also jive with a guy they want to get as much coaching as possible. Or perhaps get an additional chance to scout themselves. I'm thinking he'll be Rule 5 eligible, is that right? If they knew they weren't going to roster him, probably dumb to send him to AFL, where if he does impress lots of scouts will see it. So I think that if Berg is Rule 5 eligible, there is a reasonable chance that despite his lousy stats, that he's a guy who might show up on the 40-man. In some ways he may have some Samardz analogy, groundball no-K poor-stats guy who the scouts like anyway. Obviously the draft and $$$ are totally opposite, extremes.

I don't imagine Eric will have enough trade value to make a trade likely. If you trade Pie, you might get somebody back who might make a difference. Eric, I don't think so. But I suppose he might be included as a fillin to try to level an otherwise imbalanced trade.

badnews, I think your point is well taken. There are always a crop of guys who haven't failed yet, or might project to get faster later, or whatever. Mostly they don't, and down the road we look back at them as nothign. I agree, there were times when Phelps looked very intersting, etc. I don't think this is a great pool. I don't think this compares to the glory era when we had Justin Jones/Petrick/Felix Sanchez all at mesa, with Sisco at Boise. Or when Boise (or was it Eugene?) had Guzman-Dontrelle-Krawiec-Wellemeyer-Leicester, all of whom seemed to have pretty high ceiling. But in Rhee-Suarez-Hernandez-Huseby-Acosta-Cabrera-Ceda I think that's a better collection of teenagers than we've had since Jones-Petrick-Sanchez-Sisco. And after years of following DSL, other than last year (Cabrera-Acosta-Tolentino-Martinez looked very intriguing), I think this is the most interesting DLS crop I've ever seen the Cubs flash. (Based only on age,size, and numbers, and results). I think the Maestri-Ruhlman-Russell-Redmond-etc. types, they are more like the usual warm bodies that you always have. What's different since the Guzman-Ryu-Sanchez era is a return to having some meaningful contribution of internationals. Most teams have that, but the Cubs have really been weak there since Ryu and Pie. We now konw that Suarez and Rhee got some money. And indications are that the Latin action has gotten a bit better lately, for whatever reason. I don't think the position talent is looking good at all. I hope that the scouts are right and vitters works out. But early returns suggest he can't field, can't run, and can't hit. Thomas and Donaldson types, they are college guys, and both seem to have some real question marks. Other than Vitters and Castillo, not really much for teenage players to get excited about. [/code]

That is what it was for but w/ Fuld being on the cusp already and EPatt showing up late, I think the Cubs went ahead and made the decision now itself. Fuld *could* be a big league leadoff hitter and starting CF but I think he's more of a fourth OF and I think the Cubs view him as such. I'd be concerned about his lengthy injury history too. I think a full year of training in CF would help EPatt supplant Fuld but I also don't think EPatt will be in the system next year. Cal, you mention you "don't think EPatt will be in the system next year." Why is that? I'd certainly be open to trading him. Unless he can play 2B or a premium CF, I don't think his bat looks too hot in LF or as a not-great CF. So if trading him got something valuable, fine. But I'm also thinking that if other teams see him as an outfielder without great CF defense, I'm not sure why anybody would give much of anything for him. My hope would be that he'd do a Soto/Pie with a return to Iowa. Both Soto and Pie were pretty mediocre at Iowa in 2006. But repeating last year both hit much better. If Eric bumped to .330 with fewer K's and more HR's, he might build some value. Fuld is a good outfielder. As a hitter, he's kind of a Theriot. Gets a lot of singles, never K's, decent OBP guy. But with so little power, it's kind of hard.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071014alcsbits,1,5793899.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines Kuroda. http://www.japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=986 wasn't nearly as good this year as last, ERA-wise. HR's were up.

I read a note somewhere that said one of the pitchers the Cubs discussed last winter will be an unrestricted free agent this year, and that the Cubs and Seattle were listed as the teams most interested. The 31 or 32-year old guy who had the great control but didn't have the big arm.

I'm somewhat encouraged about some of the developments in the low minors. It seems we are now sitting with some stock of pitchers. None are remarkable prospects, at least not yet. But there seems to be some volume of guys who may be interesting. The favorable news on Huseby is great. I'd like great stuff, but control is the name of the game. And he's got some stuff projection. If he can pitch with balance and control three pitches, a guy with good movement/sink on a low 90's fastball can win a lot of games. Acosta sounds pretty interesting. If he can throw in the 90-93 range, and has the makings of good balance and good promise on three pitches, again that's a very nice package. Obviously not a strapping 6'5" first rounder type, but he sounds pretty interesting. Rhee and Hernandez both seem pretty interesting. Again, neither projects to throw 98 like Ceda or like when Wood/Cruz/Farnsworth/Z were rising prospects. But both Rhee and hernandez sound like they've got a chance to be pretty good. We'll see, of course. Lots of teens get hurt, and lots get slower rather than faster (Pawelek, apparently). But sometimes the scouts are pretty sharp at anticipating that a guy like Guzman will throw harder in time. (Even if his arm hasn't been able to sustain that...). I'm not sure that any of these guys have the "WOW" factor that high-90's guys like Kerry/Kyle/Cruz/Z had in low minors. But the early impression is that they can all find the strike zone. I like that, a lot. Obviously Ceda is the other extreme, his velocity is exceptional and his breaking ball seems really knockout. He's the "Wow" stuff guy. Obviously there are a batch of other guys, with varying levels of interest. James Russell: Again doesn't appear to have Wow stuff, and the scouting reports on his arm strength are variable. But his Texas results were pretty good, and his brief debut this summer in the pros was also impressive. I'm hopeful that he's going to be pretty good. Maybe Sean Marshall without all the injuries is what I'm hoping. Maestri, Ruhlman, Lambert, Siegfried, each of these showed some good stuff. Maybe one or two of them will turn out to be real relief prospects? I found AzPhil's comment that Siegfried might be tried as a starter both surprising and rather interesting. It's seemed that when Siegfried is on, he's on. By report he throws reasonably hard and has a breaking ball that can K people. But what was most remarkable was an extreme G/F ratio. Might seem like a guy who, if he could be consistent with his delivery and command, that he'd have the stuff and the sinker to be an ideal starter. But, both his college and his early pro results have suggested that he's pretty inconsistent, and can be a wildman sometimes. I guess we'll see. Pawelek, Redmond, Hatley, Hempy, Chen, Ashwood, seems there are some other guys with a chance to be pretty interesting, too. And then there is the harder-to-guess Latin prospects. Cabrera, Tolentino, who knows if they'll be healthy or have control. But prior to injuries, Cabrera sounded very interesting. And then there is a large pool of DSL pitchers. The Cubs DSL team almost never has any hitting, although this year it wasn't as below-average as usual. But after a slow start, that team really won a lot of games during the last 2/3 of the season, and had a lot of pitchers putting up interesting games. With almost no scouting information, hard to know who's who in terms of prospect-hood. But my guess is that this may be as good a crop of Latin pitchers since back in the 90's when they were signing Cruz and Z and Beltran and Felix Sanchez and Pinto within a few years of each other. Would really help if we could come up with a Rhee as a good pitcher form Asia, have Hernandez be a good pitcher from Venez, and have a couple of the Dominican kids prove to be serious besides. Anyway, I'm hopeful that we may be in the process of rebuilding a strong pool of pitchers from the bottom up.

It's interesting to see what Oneri is actually quoted as saying. it's not much. It isn't Oneri who says Pawelek is relatively likely to turn the corner, it's the author of the article. It's the author who says Fleita's optimism is off the charts, but that's just Oneri. What did Fleita really say? 1) Pawelek is smiling 2) Pawelek is lefty 3) We think he has a delivery he can repeat. 4) Something about dots. There are lots of 86 mph wild lefties who don't turn out much. And there are lots of guys with smiles that don't work out. That Fleita doesn't know how dots get connected probably means that pawelek hasn't put anything together yet, but still could. Really the only thing of substance that Fleita said that the author chose to quote was that Fleita thinks Mark is perhaps starting to repeat his delivery. Hopefully it's true and it will pay off. Often a prospect isn't going to make the majors doing what worked in high school. In those cases, I think it's entirely appropriate to make corrections so that eventually a guy can succeed in the majors and stay healthy besided. If so, having a struggle period during adaptation is neither surprising nor something to mock. But, whether Fleita and the staff know what's best, of course, that is not so clear. The "starting to repeat his delivery" gush is also somewhat too reminiscent of what Fleita gushed about Veal shortly before he got off to his horrible start this season.

Astonishing that a guy would jump his slugging by .286 points, and his IsoD by .196 points. Almost doubled his slugging (.366 to .652). Almost tripled the IsoP (.103 to .299). Normally that kind of change causes skeptics to almost automatically speculate HGH. Remarkable that in Soto's case, the freakish improvement correlates a loss rather than gain in weight. Still, such an abrupt jump naturally sets off anomoly/fluke warnings, and suggests some regression toward the career norm id likely. Nevertheless, his numbers were so good that assuming regression, he still profiles very favorably as a hitting catcher. And he sure looked like a hitter in September.

Thanks, Cal. Great to hear that Rhee is 18 rather than 21. Interesting that Phil again mentioned Martinez and Antigua. I wonder what he sees in Martinez, if Martinez is hurt (I assumed so after he dropped out of summer league), and why he likes Antigua. Just logical interest, since Antigua is very young (turned 17 in June), is lefty, and started all summer with good results for DSL? The same things that would interest you or me from the DSL stats? Or whether he has actually heard some scouting talk about Antigua that is favorable? anyway, thanks a ton for providing these links, they are really fun to read.

Thanks for posting this one, Ping. This is interesting, because my understanding was that Castillo was our one real position prospect. Obviously Conger was a high-list catcher based on his bat. This answer tells us something on Castillo's status. Ramos was close but didn't make the cut; that tells us Castillo missed by more. Not sure why, actually. Castillo and Ramos are about the same age, and about the same size. They're saying they maybe prefer Castillo defensively, that obviously means they don't like him as well offensively. Actually I'm not sure why. Castillo actually had more HR's than Ramos, and his 2nd-half numbers were pretty good.

There are 14 teams sharing the top-20. So aveage team has only one guy on top-20 there. Peoria wasn't all that talented this year, so having one is not very surprising. The next two that I like who didn't make it are Welington Castillo and Robert Hernandez, in that order. Perhaps Nathan might chime in on this, too. Without injury, I think Rafael Dolis might have been a guy. Lansford has some talent, but obviously with his injury and with no power or walks, his hitting stats were pretty weak. A 23-year-old corner guy with a .650's OPS isn't going to get a lot of zing. the strength of that team was probably the bullpen, with not only Ceda but Maestri, Ruhlman, and Papelbon. But relievers don't make top-20's unless, like Ceda, they can throw near 100 mph, which obviously does not apply for Maestri and the lefties.

BA Transactions reports that Cubs have signed an OF named Hae-Seong Kook. I don't know anything about him, where, how old, etc. He didn't show up in BBCube, so I'm assuming he's a new guy. Anybody know? This is stuff that Cal posted in the Instructional League thread, but it confirmed that they did sign the Korean pitcher, Rhee. He had supposedly been an $0.8 signing. Cal via AZ Phil also reports that Cubs signed three Mexican pitchers from the Tijuana team.