craig

Not sure. But I don't think this has many implications. Whether it's Soto or Hill or neither (if Hil is moved and doesn't end up in iowa...), I don't think Soto-Richie-Robinson would be too much. May also be that Robinson will go back down, too; if Hill needs to clear waivers, doesn't that sometimes take a couple of days and don't the cubs often let the guy have a couple days off to deal with the disappointment and get their head back ready for minor-league action? I think the move comes primarily from the bottom end. Not enough AB's for donaldson, Mercedes, and Clevenger. Both Clev and donaldson are meaningful prospects and need catching practice. But, Castillo (?) at Peoria is also a meaningful prospect and needs all the practice he can get. So, Daytona is the place for Clevenger to go He can get plenty of action there. If he keeps hitting there, and shows anything defensively, you've got yourself a prospect. But, Rick is a dutiful organization guy, so he needed to clear out, and up. that would clutter AA too much, so Robinson bumps up. Soto does a lot of DH and 1B anyway and doesn't need thta much catching practice. Could work out pretty well. Or, maybe it's as somebody suggested, Soto will stay up, and Hlll will wind up in Louisville or Nashville or something.

Thanks for the D report, cal. Doesn't sound prohibitively bad, yet.

Wow, interesting! Question for anybody who has listened or watched Boise or has any inside dope: any indications how Clevenger is doing defensively at Boise? The way he's been hitting the ball, I'd love to see him able to catch well.

On Donaldson, anybody who's watched or listened or closely followed the box scores have any perspective on how he's doing defensively? On the spectrum of Pudge to Koyie Hill to Barrett to Jake Fox, where would donaldson seem to fit currently, and project to fit once optimized? Even worse than Fox? At least better than Fox, but no Michael Barrett? Just fine, actually rather good, better than Barrett and at east as good as Koyie? I'm hoping that he'll end up better than Barrett, hopefully as good or better than Koyie. I'm somewhat worried that he may be even worse than Barrett, and may end up down somewhere in the forget-it area of Jake Fox.

I think he's kinda figured it out. He's 24 and has a strong outfield arm, so I don't think he's a guy who's lack of arm, lack of defense, and lack of speed is going to prevent any big-league action. I think that if his bat can get him to the majors, his other stuff won't kill him. And I'm hopeful that he really has figured something out with his bat. Over the last couple of seasons when he's gotten whipped by AAA pitching, he's been a high-K guy, 23% K-rate. And last year with an awful walk-rate besides (104K/23 walks in 441 AB). This year his K/BB is 48/38, incredible improvement, the K-rate is <16%, and it hasn't gotten any worse in AAA. Dropping a K-rate is one thing; lots of Corey/Dopirak types do that by swinging early, so they can less often even get to a 2-strike K count. But that solution reduces walks and often reduces power. soemthing different has happened with kroeger, because everything has happened simultaneous for good: auto-out K's are way down, OBP-building walks are way up, and HR's and power are up too. He's doing about as well in AAA as in AA, so obviously whatever happened, it's not just a matter of succeeding in low leaue. I have no idea what's changed, or how long it will stay corrected. But for the moment, I don't see anything in his defense or his age that belies the positive story the hitting is telling. I think he's going to appear in the major leagues at some point.

wow thats quite a jump! any one have a report on him, and how he projects down the road? Rea was 18th rounder, and is 23, little guy at 5'8". No power, decent eye. Lacks SS ability. He projects as a minor league 2B/CF utility guy, may try to add LF and 3B to his utility bag. Best case would be to end up as a Theriot/Fuld type, no power, no HR's, but walks a lot and rarely K's, so that he can be a decent OBP guy based on BABIP and walks. Often a low-tools performance guy gets promoted like this, to a place where they need somebody. If he can't handle it, fine, nothing lost. If he can, and can sustain his anti-walk good-OBP ways against better pitching (which isn't always unusual for small contact guys). If so, who knows.

Thanks for Wood outing, nice to see him actually healthy enough to pitch to hitters. And thanks for the Boise/Fleita article. I found three parts interesting: *The view that they don't want to promote a guy who might react negatively to failure. That may perhaps speak to how they feel about Colvin? *The preference to keep guys where they are. *The concept that skipping a level is not a problem. I really agree with that. Wright is probably a guy you'd want at Daytona next year. Does it matter whether he plays August in Boise or in Peoria? Probably not. He'll likely be equally able or equally challenged by Daytona next spring. Several of the Boise boys have a shot to skip to Daytona next spring, I'd think. But barring challenges in getting people game action, I doubt it matters whether they finish in Peoria or Boise.

I don't know if or when it will happen. I was ready to move Harvey to the mound a year ago. But I'd kind of like to give Harvey and Johnston a crack at pitching. Strong guys with strong arms. It's easier to pitch a fast baseball when you can think about which pitch you're going to throw and decide the action yourself. Rather than to throw a fast moving baseball and need to decide in a matter of microseconds whether or not to swing, where it's going to be by the time it reaches the plate, and how to lay the swing out so as to hit a moving ball. Johnston still has plenty of time to develop as a pitcher. I know Fleita prefers more patience, but I don't expect that Johnston is going to make it as a player. Leon Johnson, what a start that guy has had. Wyatt has a zillion walks and K's very rarely, just as was true in college. A theory: K-prone power hitters have more problems adjusting to better pitching or to wooden bats. Contact hitters with good eye, good walk rates, low K rates, but short on power, I think those guys are much less likely to flop against improved pitching. Fuld, Wyatt, Barney, no-power low-K guys like that never hit HR's anyway. So going pro doesn't cost them aluminum-bat HR's anyway. If you're living off of BABIP and walks for your OBP, you can often promote with limited change in your HR's or K's.

Thanks for the super news, guys! If he's getting into the 91-95 range, at his age, that's very encouraging. Cal, you mentioned Antigua, the DSL lefty. What have you heard about him, and if I may ask, where do you get info about DSL guys? I follow the stats, check the age/size info, and check the games fairly often. But it would be fun to know which if any guys the Cubs paid money for, or think have good potential, versus the guys that don't have anything now but who knows, maybe they'll add 8 mph over the next five years. One name that I've been interested in is Junior Lake. He turned 17 only in March, so like Antigua he's very young. He lists at 6'3", pretty tall for a SS and probably won't stick there, but 6'3" is tall enough to perhaps project some power. In fact, he's already hit 3 HR's, hardly a ton, but it's been years since I recall a DSL Cub getting even 6 HR's. His HR/XBH ratio has been pretty good. His K/walk ratio is weak but not awful. I don't actually recall any actual 17-year-olds in DSL who have hit with any authority there. Would be cool if Lake would actually be a prospect.

Cal, I can't find it right off, but a few weeks a go I read a linked article about huseby, perhaps from that Boise paper. Had some stuff info from Huseby himself. Often to here guys tell it, they throw harder than they often do, of course. They cite the one pitch that clocked 6 mph above their normal velocity and all that, so from hering guys tell you'd think they were all power pitcher possibilities. So, if anything maybe huseby was inflating his stuff, that's the norm. But, his personal report was much less than 91-95. He claimed that he was back to his sophomore velocity. Said he was happy to be back up working in the upper 80's. And said that he'd touched 90-91 a couple of times. So, for now it would appear that Huseby is something of a soft-tosser. He'll need to have special location, special breaking stuff, special movement. But for now, it would appear that 91-95 is projection hope, not current reality. Kind of like when Sisco was supposedly 91-94, but projected to perhaps throw 100 someday and perhaps project into Randy Johnson type. Huseby's only 19, of course, and like any 19-year-old who's tall, there's the chance that he'll throw significantly harder down the road. But for now, it appears that he's gotten slower, not faster, compared to last spring. Which might also help to explain why he's been pretty hittable in XST and Boise. I'm not trying to rip on the kid. Hope he works out well. But for now, it would appear that both special control, special stuff, and special velocity are all projected possibilities rather than present realities, even relative to his level. Hopefully all those projection hopes will become reality in due time, even if they aren't yet. Often that happens.

Thanks for the link, even if those two kids and Simon Lee aren't much in the way of prospects, it's nice to see the Cubs starting to get involved in Taiwan and South Korea. Best part of your link is the link to the story saying the Cubs signed Dae-Eun Lee to an $800,000 bonus. Thanks a ton for the reseach and link, 1954. Cal, not sure if you tracked way down in that link, but it has some info on Chen and Wen. If I'm reading it right, Wen is just a flyer, $2,500 plus some college money. Says Wen was a pitcher in HS. But, I believe it claimed that Chen was $200K. Barney was $220, I think, so $200 would be 4th round cash equiv. It may be that in Asia, you'll always need to overpay a bit, thanks to free market, so maybe paying 4th round money is what it takes to get a 6th round talent or whatever. But, 4th round money means the guy should be viewed as a genuine possibility. Interesting. And, $800K for Lee, that's more than Donaldson, that's sandwich money. Did you guys dig deep enough to figure if Lee was a pitcher or a hitter? I assume a pitcher, but I didn't get that far. Anyway, great to see Wilson working and signing people. Lee never signed more than one per year, Wilson's already signed at least 5. Kind of fun. Hope one of these guys turns into somebody real. I think after some of the talk about the college draft picks and the cost-savings there, I've been worried that perhaps a lot of budget areas might be frozen, and that perhaps international spending might be frozen till the Trib sells or whatever. But if Wilson has spent a million on Chen and Lee, hopefully the Latin guys are still allowed to spend too, and hopefully the international talent pipe will have a good year.

Oops! Thanks, Jeff. Wake up, me! Bowen's pre-Cub splits actually were much better versus RHP, I think?

We'll see what happens, if Soto is really up. I'm with I think the majority view: Soto up would not be tied to Izturis being moved. Not much point in having three catchers. If you did bring Soto up, and replace one of the existing catchers, the prevailing view has been that Hill would go. I wonder. Lou has been a humungous lefty-right guy. Hill hits lefty. Soto for now, and Blanco if/when he comes back, also hit righty. I could see Lou preferring to keep the LH-hitting Hill. (It may be a factor in why Hill was called up rather than Soto in the first place, I don't know.) Also, IMO Hill has looked better defensively than Bowen. Hard to see Hendry having the nerve to dump Bowen weeks after getting him. But that might almost make more sense. A related question, assuming soto really was called up, woulc be whether they intended to use him extensively. Or whether he'd be a #2 catcher, and would be optioned as soon as Blanco came back, if in fact that does happen. In other words, if Blanco returns shortly, a month from now will we be looking at Blanco and Soto, with neither Bowen nor Hill around? Or will whoever gets dropped for Soto be just getting a jump on dropping that same guy anyway if Blanco returns. And the guy who might survive now would still survive when Blanco was activated, with Soto just going back? Heh, I suppose performance might factor in on that. If Soto hits like Fontenot, he might stay in the mix. If Soto hits like Pie or Bowen, his out-of-career-character Iowa hot streak might be forgotten quickly enough.

Cal, could you expand a bit on your interest in Al Alb? Entering today's game, he had a 6.38 ERA on the year with a WHIP near 2, split over Peoria and Boise. He's a short little guy, RH at that, and my recall was that Nate described his velocity as average if that, high-80's to 90 or something was the impression I got. He's had years of arm trouble. So I'd figured that a small guy, kinda old, doesn't throw hard, doesn't have good control, has had arm trouble, and isn't getting anybody out, that he's yesterday's news. Out with the old, let's take a look at somebody else. But, you seem to be very interested in him and think he's got some potential. Is this still based on the super season he had 3-5 years ago in the DSL, before surgery? Or have you gotten some post-surgery reports to suggest that he's got something to work with that makes him a prospect? Personally, I'd have thought Hempy is much more interesting. He's been an effective pitcher for South Carolina, and he's done that not too long after TJ surgery. He's a really big guy. Were he to recover a lot more velocity than he had this spring, which is not uncommon for tall guys or post-TJ guys, you might have a major-league arm. So I'm more interested to see Hempy having a good start tonight than AlAlb doing well in relief. But, I do appreciate that AlAlb does have quite a few K's. So maybe he's got more to work with than I appreciated or recalled from Nate's writeup on him?

I don't have BA subscription, so can't do careful comparison. Cal, would it be fair to say that thus far the first day picks seem like straight slot, and if anything hardman and Johnson are mild superslots? But that 6-8 are extreme sub-slot senior signs? Will be interesting to see what Thomas got, whether he was straight slot, or perhaps even mild superslot. I'll be surprised if he's very seriously sub-slot, given that it took him a while to sign. I'm actually somewhat encouraged that other than the 2nd-day senior signs, that the rest seem slot. Would suggest that other than 6-8, the Cubs weren't drafting for signability, but were drafting on their perception of merit relative to the large pool of slot-avaiilable guys at any given point in the draft. I'm still curious about the impact budget had on their selections, and by whom or why the budget limit was imposed. No idea how the draft budget gets assigned, how flexible it is, or what the beginning/end of it is. For example: a) Is it possible that Samardz, signed this calendar year, might count against the 2007 draft budget? Could it be a January-December budget? b) Is it possible that all the draft-and-follow signings (weren't there like 6 of them?) might perhaps come out of the 2007 draft budget? For example, might Wilken have to either not sign Hatley or Jovan or Latham or Redmond or whomever, or else perhaps have to squeeze some of those dollars away from his budget for otherwise signing 2007 draftees? I have no idea, pure speculation. But perhaps if he'd spent $200 or more on D+F, he knew he'd need to go $200 subslot in the draft, and that's where Lambert-Wright-Smith came in? c) Maybe once it's all said and done, we'll find that the 6-7-8 will all get spent on 2007 superslots, a little extra for Leon Johnson here, an extra pinch to somebody else there... Lambert, by the way, is off to a fast start. 19K/4BB/12or13 innings. Maybe someday Lambert will be the LH equivalent of Wuertz, a breaking ball artist reliever.

If minorleaguebaseball.com is to be believed (their box scores aren't always the most reliable) both Barney and Tony Thomas made their debuts today for Mesa. If that's correct, Thomas as well as Barney has signed http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=g_box&gid=2007_07_11_rngrok_cubrok_1

I think Murton played a significant amount of RF in the minors. I don't think it was totally new. I do understand that given his weak arm, even in the minors people used him mostly in left. Floyd is poor defensively in right. I don't think they are "perfectly content with Floyd's defense in right", that's why they pull him in the 6th or 7th inning every time they have a lead. And I don't think they'be very content to plan to have somebody as bad as Floyd in right long-term. But for now, and Floyd's offense has been enough to make him the preferred overall package. For the moment. I agree that Murton's defense, now that he's gotten refreshed in right field with Iowa, is unlikely to be appreciably worse than Floyd's. I think it's a different question whether long term you'd want to plan on somebody with Murton's RF limitations being the long-term guy. For now, Murton could provide a RH pinch-hitter, a RH bat bench, and he could provide an alternative to Fontenot or Floyd in the lineup. DeRosa plays RF vs LHP, but that means Fonty starts vs LHP. Not sure how he splits Perhaps Murton could do much better. I could see a deal where vs LHP, Murton plays right, DeRosa 2nd, Theriot SS, and we don't need to either start Izzy or a LH player at any of those three spots. That might help. Long-term, I'd still at least think about trying to move Soriano to rightnext year. He's got the speed and the arm, and I'd be much more comfortable planning in guys like Murton into LF than RF. Even if Murton was to work his way to the top of the current RF pile, I think with his wea arm and outfielding limitations, GM's would be perpetually wanting to move him and get somebody better defensivley out there. But in left, if he could get back to the place where he was a professional .800+ OPS guy in left, then he might be able to settle in for a long time and be a solid contributor.

Thanks, splinter. That sounds encouraging. That sounds like enough to have a chance, if he can really throw that fast, and if he can locate the other stuff.

thanks for your scouting reports, vance. Hart was an obscure roster filler at the time, and didn't have much for results in your game. I can see why you wouldn't be analyzing him as carefully as Holliman, who'd had such a hot start. If you'd gone to a Hart game after being pitcher-of-the-month, and after more board talk about how hot he'd been recently, you'd more likely watch him more optimistically and carefully. My guess is that both of these dudes depend on location and command. Neither sounds like they have exceptional stuff. They need to use what they've got. And my guess is that neither one will impress much on a day when they aren't throwing strikes or aren't getting guys out. Hill, Lilly, and Marshall, none are overly fast. On any given day when they don't have much, any can look pretty bad. And on any given day when they are locating what they've got, any of them can look pretty good. If you see them each once, it probably depends on the particular day which will look better and which will look worse.

soapy, I'm not sure I follow. My understanding is that Hendry was so eager to get Jones off the roster that he was planning to pay $6 of Jones salary for Florida to get him off our roster before Tribune bosses nixed the deal. Your numbers show how Murton and Jones were comparably good last year and comparably good this year, except that Jones can play some center. One might well argue that the Cubs are treating Murton much more favorably, by sending him to Iowa, giving him a chance to rediscover his stroke, letting him practice his RF defense, and declining trade inquiries from San Diego. Compared to totally humiliating Jones and trying to pay $6.5 million to Florida to take Jones off our hands. I'd think that the actions suggest they are much more down on Jones than on Murton. But, major league guaranteed contracts and Tribune bosses make a difference. Not everything is based on merit in mlb.

Hart has been much more effective over the last 10 starts, dating back to may 18. Hart: 5-1, 2.90, Holliman, 2-6, 3.94 Hart, 55K/16BB/59IP, Holliman 30K/26BB/59IP. Holliman was much better in April, but since mid-May Hart has been better. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Kevin%2520Hart&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453954 http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Mark%2520Holliman&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=460089 They are similar in age, Holliman 10 months younger. My understanding is that Holliman is pretty much a soft-tossing finesse guy. Not sure on Hart, one guy saw him on a terrible day and he was also a soft-tosser. I thought a different report suggested that while his fastball was not exceptionally fast, that it wasn't bad either. vance, having seen them both, how would you compare the two in terms of fastball velocity and fastball stuff? If Hart is bigger and if in fact he does throw harder (not sure if that's true, but if it is...), has better K-stuff (55K to 30K over equal recent innings), and has better control (16 walks to 26 walks), ane has been pitching better especially recently, it looks like Hart may be more deserving for the moment. And may (possibly, not sure if it's true at all) have better stuff and better long-term potential besides.

I agree with most of that. Mine was "loaded", obvious hyperbole. I think it's silly to say that a guy can't hit if he's only playing half-time, that he needs to play full time. I think it's silly to blame the GM and the manager and everybody else but the player if he's playing half-time and he can't produce. Either blame nobody (these things happen, it can happen to anybody), or else blame the player. But I think all the Murton-victim-blame-it-all-on-management is kind of silly and unrealistic. Murton had the total opportunity in first half April, he stumbled it away. he had the total opportunity in second-half April, he stumbled it away. he had the total opportunity in first half May, he stumbled it away. he had the opportunity 2nd half May, he stumbled it away. it's too bad, for him and for us fans. My basic argument is againt the idea that he was mistreated and that management obviously is to blame and bungled it all. Opportunity knocked for two months, and he couldn't answer. He's a younger guy with options, Jones has a guaranteed contract, that's the way the business works. O well, go down and play and get your stroke fixed, Matt. Opportunity will knock again if you can fix it. It just won't be as wide a window of opportunity next time. Given the narrower window, if posters want to argue that half-time isn't enough AB for him to produce, then he's not likely to come back with a better window than he had the first time. If management made the window too small for success in April and May, I doubt that window will be any wider when he comes back, unless he pushes it wider by producing when he gets the chance to play. If nobody is arguing that he can't hit with half-time opportunity, then don't fix all the blame on management that he didn't hit for the two months of half-time opportunity that he got. If others are arguing that he never hits till July, then it's smart to send him down till such time when he will produce. Maybe we should do that every year as long as he's got options left? (I don't think that's true, but if that's the argument...) Is management smart? No. But I'm not sure the Murton case is the prover. Finally, as to loaded statements: I said that his half-time play was a fair-bit of opportunity. You reason that my statement is extreme, loaded. But then you say that he was "barely playing at all"! Half-time action is barely playing at all? That is loaded and extreme. And I assume is an intentional exaggeration. So we appear to be using the same kind of hyperbole in our argumentation, no?

Well, whatever, it's semantics. Obviously 350 isn't 500, 350 isn't full-time and isn't really even "regular". But in my opinion 300+ is "quite a bit". The proration shows that relative to the games in April and May, he was playing at least half of the time. There are several angles on this. 1) No man can produce at all as a hitter unless he is playing full-time, or "regular", or "a lot", and half-time isn't enough. 2) A guy can be playing half the time and maintain a good hitting stroke. I'm obviously suggesting the latter perspective, and you guys the former. I'm concerned about your perspective, if it's true. Because I don't think Murton is likely to be brought back up to the Cubs and instantly be given full-time regular every-day-starter status. He's going to have to prove himself again, just like he did in 2005. If he can't hit until he's gettng 90% of the starts, if that's true than he'll likely never hit for the Cubs. Which I'd find very disappointing. But if I'm right, and he can hit in less than every-day mode when he's got his stroke in shape, then he's got a chance to hit for the Cubs. He can get his stroke fixed in Iowa, get called up, and get the frequency of AB's that he got in April and June. I think that if he's sharp when he comes in, that those will be enough AB's to stay sharp, and to stay productive. If he's productive in the window of opportunity that is provided for him, then his opportunities will increase and that window will expand. I think that's entirely possible. But only if the guy has the ability to sustain productivity even if he doesn't have the luxury of starting every day, at least at the beginning. If he produces in the chances that he gets, he may in due time earn his way back to regular status. But barring an injury to Soriano or Floyd, that isn't going to happen instantly. He's going to have to do something when he gets the chance. You guys are more pessimistic, so maybe you're right and Murton can't do anything but stink if he can't start every day or almost. But I'm hoping that he can produce even if he isn't starting every day. And that someday he might work his way back into a position where he is an every-day starter, or somewhat close, and we'll be happy about it. But, even if that never happens, I still think that he could become a valuable Cub if he can show up and become a .300-hitting, .360-OBP, .800-OPS 300-AB platoon guy and 4th outfielder. One other note: Murton hasn't really kicked it in and sustained excellence at Iowa for an extended period. Over his last ten games, he's hitting .256, despite 4 of them being at hitter-friendly Albuquerque. So it's not like the regular Iowa AB have instantly given him the regularity that he needs to hit like vintage Brian Giles. He's had some good games, but then not been able to sustain excellent there. But, I'm hoping that may be changing. After going 2-19 (both singles) with 1 walk and 6 K's over the previous 5 games, over his last five games he's gone 8-20 with only 1 K and with 5 XBH. I think this 5-game streak is his longest hitting streak since going down, and I think maybe the first time he's had multi-hit games back-to-back. Of his 13 XBH, 5 have come in the last five games. May just be an on-again-off-again fluke, and he'll hit nothing but groundouts for the rest of the week. But there's a chance that maybe he's rediscovering his stroke, and being able to drive the ball again, on line instead of so many groundballs. Will be interesting to watch over the next few games if he can keep his recent little run going. If so, I'd be more interested in calling him back up than I've been at any time since he got sent down.

I think you're crazy if you actually believe that. Apparently. In April and May, Murton had over 100 AB's. So if he'd kept getting the April/May playing time he did receive, he'd have ended up with well over 300 at-bats on the season. A guy who's getting 300-360 AB, in my book that's quite a bit of playing time. And that's plenty to maintain a good stroke, if you've got a good stroke going. If you think it's crazy to consider a 300-350 AB pace to be "quite a bit" of playing time", how many AB's would you think a guy needs before it's not crazy to consider it "quite a bit of playing time"?

Good question, and I can't really answer it. I do think that trading him would probably be a mistake. For two reasons. 1st, I doubt that Cedeno is going to nab us the part that puts us over the top this year. 2nd, after this year comes next year. This year, Cedeno is blocked by Izturis, for contractual reasons. After this season Izturis's contract expires. That will unblock Cedeno and provide room for him. If you trade Cedeno now, then this winter we'll be sitting with Theriot and nobody else. Theriot has looked surprisingly acceptable as a share-time SS, but I don't want to count on him being a 160-start guy, either offensively or defensively. So if you trade Cedeno, then the GM will need to go outside to acquire a SS this winter. Good SS's are expensive and hard to find. That will be expensive, very possibly frustrating/disappointing, and we may end up with a Neifi-type being the best we can get. If you keep Cedeno, I think a GM could figure that Theriot/Cedeno together might cover SS. Can save his time/money/prospects to spend on other needs. (Catcher, CF, RF, relief, rotation...) It's also possible that Cedeno won't need to wait till Iz's contract expires for the Cubs to make a change.