craig

A followup question on Fox. He turns 25 in a couple months. He's had a bashing spring, this weekend, off Wuertz and Prior and dudes like that with nothing fastballs in BP. Questions: 1. Does he have defensive upside as a 2nd-string catcher, or only as a 3rd-string catcher? 2. If he basically a fastball hitter, so his success in spring and against Howry/Prior type slowballs is consistent with his known strenghts? 3. Or is it possible that his hitting this spring reflects continued improvement as a hitter, and that he's just continued to get stronger and better? 4. In terms of utility positions for him, Obviously he's too slow and old and unathletic to pick up 3rd. How slow is he, and would he be as below-average defensively in LF and RF as he is at catcher, even if he did practice there a lot? I guess I'm asking, is there a chance that down the road, he might be a utility LF/RF/PH/DH/3rd catcher/3rd 1B? (I assume he's too short and too unathletic to be a very appealing defensive 1B). 5. For him to make it as a utility man, presumably he'd be kind of Todd Walker-like: a defensive liability at an position you'd consider playing him (probably much worse liability than Walker...). Is there any chance that his hitting will become *THAT* good that he could make it anyway? Is there a chance that he'll blossom into a guy who'd be the best DH option on the Cubs someday? Or such a good hitter that you'd *want* him backing up LF, defense and all? 6. Obviously his arm from outfield should be fine. How slow is he, really? Or is he not all that totally slow, and he might well be able to blossom into a merely poor but not horrible LF/RFer in time?

On one of the televised games last week, a friend said he saw Anderson Mejia and that he threw *very* hard. Didn't have gun numbers, but his read was that he looked to be throwing as hard or harder than Kerry Wood. His take was that while he threw very hard, his fastball was also *very* straight. But that he did K a guy on a sharp little slider. These observations are not inconsistent with what little I know, but that's not much. But I'd like any info that some of you might have, scouting or impressions or otherwise. What I know: He's already 25, pitched almost all of last year at Daytona, had really good numbers but in small reliever sample (2.03 ERA, 71 IP, 78/21 K/BB, 4 HR, 1.06 WHIP). He only first began pitching in 2003, at age 21, and has less than 250 total innings. I can't recall, but I believe he was a position switch guy, and may have played a year in outfield or catcher or something before switching to pitching. Earlier, it seemed the Cubs were rushing him along, and repeatedly trying him in closer-type role, with limited success. (He had a 4.6 career ERA entering last season). I do seem to recall reading a comment at Peoria that he threw pretty hard, and at Daytona back in 2005 (I think, when he had a 6.7 ERA there) that he'd gunned at 98 or something. So, I'm hoping that he's a guy who, despite his age, has a big arm. My friend's observation was straight, straight, straight, so that's not too promising. But I'm hoping that his improvement last year is a step on the road to quality, that the slider is a pitch coming into it's own for him, that his control has improved a lot, and that having allowed 4 HR/71 IP, that the fastball maybe isn't quite so straight or at least isn't total HR-fodder. Anyway, if anybody can fill in some info on him, I'd love to hear it. Hopefully he'll be next year's Cherry.

Another guy was at yesterday's game, and said that Cherry was throwing very hard. Another friend is friends with a Baltimore scout, who has actually spent about ten days at the Cub camp. They had lunch on Saturday, and my friend passed along a lot of interesting comments that the scout had to say. But he said that Cherry has been consistently throwing in the 90's (92-93, I think), and he'd seen him top at 95. He said he'd been told that he's topped at 97, although I'm not sure whether that was this spring or based on last summer. Cherry has always had pretty reasonable walk-control. I believe Baseball America and Vineline both said that the Cubs people had ID'd Cherry's slider as the best in their system. So it would seem to me that if he's combining a fastball that is consistently in the 90's and is topping up at 95 or even more, with a slider that's very good, and he has reasonable control, then it looks like we've got a guy with a big-league arm and big-league stuff. Not a case of a fringe-stuff guy who'll necessarily be exposed once he faces real big-leaguers.

I fully support and endorse this nomination! I'd take him over Cedeno at this point. If we go to an 11-man pitching staff, I can see Coats and Pagan getting those last two spots. I think Cedeno would be the lead candidate if they go with only 11 pitchers. A lot of posters may act like defense doesn't count, but Piniella is pretty big on defense. And he apparently is unhappy with both Theriot and DeRosa at SS. If they carry an extra bench guy, it will likely be a SS, probably Cedeno or else Perez.

I agree with this. Prior is a name guy with a history and a non-trivial contract. Keeping his at Iowa for four months is not quite like keeping Mateo at Iowa for the summer. There are pressures and expectations to have him up. Certainly the Cubs would prefer that Prior would elevate his game to Guzman's level by spring, or be no a trajectory to be serious. As you say, a lot easier to keep Guzman on reserve at Iowa, on the grounds that he's young, he's unproven, and he's waiting for an opportunity. Than to keep Prior down there, as if he's just an AAAA guy waiting for a break. But, I also think that there's a time to try to win. Obviously all ties go to Prior. But, that Prior will be even close to equal with Guzman by April 1 seems improbable to me. At some point, his name and status and contract has to lose out to performance. It will be interesting to see how things develop, and how those factors balance.

delete

Pie's "improvement" as a base-stealer seems to involve giving up the practice. He doesn't try to steal much anymore. Picking your spots and stealing only against really bad catchers or really obvious, bad-delivery pitchers is smarter than trying to run and getting gunned a lot. But his improvement seems to simply be being really selective, and only stealing a little bit when he's got a good shot

I don't agree, actually. If you give up nothing but groundballs and don't walk anybody, you'll be very good even if you don't K anybody. To me, I see three simple variables: walks, K's, and HR's. If you're below average for K's, but above average for walks and HR's, you can still be an average or better pitcher. And even if you're high for K's, if that's correlated with high walks and HR's (which often seems to happen), you can easily be a below average pitcher. Obviously Sam's tiny sample size last summer didn't establish himself as a K guy, not as an anti-walk guy (3.6/9), or as an anti-HR guy (2 HR/30 IP), or as an extreme groundball guy (I believe 1.3 G/F?). But I am suggesting that the subjective scouting reports on the type of stuff he apparently has at present or projects to have down the road, to me it projects as a guy who's more likely to profile as a groundball/anti-K/anti-walk guy than as a K-specialist. Yes, that's projection, not based on Notre Dame or his 30 innings at Boise/Peoria. I also understand the concept that if a guy's stuff is so lame or so predictable that he can never make guys swing and miss, then if they are always hitting his stuff, probably a fair share of that contact will end up over the wall. So it's perhaps less than probable that a guy with no swing-and-miss stuff will actually end up with an anti-HR profile. But I think that the ability to record K's is not the end-all. It needs to be considered in the context of HR's allowed and walks allowed. And also the groundball factor. There may be as high or higher a BABIP on groundballs, but most groundball hits are singles. (Obviously the error rate is also higher for groundballs, which is not in their favor, even though the ERA doesn't reflect this.) (Just a cheesy stats speculation: Suppose a pitcher pitched to contact and got nothing but groundballs. No K's, not walks, no HR's. And, he got contact so fast that he was a 9-inning complete-game type guy. Suppose he gave up a .308 BABIP, somewhat higher than league norm overall, but perhaps not above average for grounders. On an average day, he'd get 27 groundouts and allow 12 ground hits. Probably on average, 10 or those 12 would be ground singles, perhaps two down the lines for doubles. So, using that average, pitcher would have a 1.33 WHIP, allow a .308 BA, allow a .308 OBP, allow a .359 slugging, and allow a .667 OPS. That hypothetical nothing-but-groundballs hyperbole pitcher would not "suck"; he'd basically reduce the opposition to Neifi/Izturis/Macias-level of production....) K's are primarily a function of: a) strategy (do I nibble for the K or am I willing to throw a strike that result in anything worse than a groundball?) b) breaking stuff (2-seam sinkers rarely score K's, most K's come on breaking pitches or high fastballs), c) fastball (you can't get a K without getting to 2 strikes. Frequent arrival at 2-strike count requires that you have a pitch you can routinely throw for strikes and aren't afraid to throw for strikes early in count) Control of both the breaking stuff and the fastball is incorporated in "b" and "c". At present, I'd judge that Sam doesn't currently profile as a K-guy on the basis of both "a" and "b". I think he profiles favorably and projects favorably in terms of "c". His hard stuff seems to have the speed and movement so that he'll often be able to attack the strike zone, and could often end up with 2-strike counts. I think "a" is easily adjustable. In A-ball Guzman and Z threw sinkers for groundouts. Later on they elected to pitch for K's, work longer counts, use more breaking pitches, nibble around more. I think it's very easy to adjust the strategy like that. It's just a matter of deciding or being told to do that. And of course it's interwoven with factor "b". No point in pitching for K's if you don't have a punchout pitch. If Sam's breaking pitch and change improve, he'll have more "b". Wilken thinks he'll end up with a plus slider. We'll see. I imagine part of the question will be how good his breaking pitch and change will need to get in order to have at least a passable K-rate. He may not need to have a Veal-esque K-rate. But I agree that he'll either need to raise it from 5/9 or else he'll need to become really anti-walk/anti-HR to be really good.

I'd consider that to be negative. K's are a huge asset. But K's need to be factored relative to HR's and walks. You don't need many K's if you pitch sinking/sliding stuff to contact, the contact doesn't go over the wall, and you don't walk a lot of guys. Sam seems to profile in that direction, as a groundball guy. And, what a guy is now and what he will be, that can change. Z didn't K people when he was in A-ball, but he increased his K's in time. Ditto for Guzman, who was a no-K guy for a while. Obviously it's too soon to know. But I'm curious what Samardz is really throwing. It's very tough for many observers to distinguish 4-seam from 2-seam from hard slider. So one observer might say he threw nothing but fastballs. But it may be that actually he's mixing 2-seam sinkers with 4-seamers, or that he's actually throwing groundball sliders. We'll see. But certainly in my view, I'd clearly value Sam ahead of any of the less-than-Gallagher/Veal guys. I certainly don't perceive him as a guy who has no breaking ball and has nothing more than a straight no-control 92-93 fastball.

I just thought I'd revisit this thread. When the Cubs signed Samardzija, there was a ton of skepticism. Peoria thought expecting more than 92-93 was frothing. Mephtisopheles didn't think he should rank higher than Pawelek, Huseby, or I believe Ryu. There was much comment about his low-K Notre Dame stats, his rawness, his flawed delivery, his age that didn't allow as much development time as an equally raw HSer, etc.. etc.. Just another Novoa. A lot of negativity, as I recall. The assumption seemed to be that it was another dumb move by the Cubs, don't get too interested. I think at this point in spring, after only a couple of spring appearances and just subjective buzz, it appears that the Cubs maybe weren't all that dumb. It does appear that he can throw harder than 92-93, and whatever mechanics flaws he may have had when he was throwing 89-92, those seem to have already diminished. His shoulder might bust next week, obviously. But at this point, I don't have any doubt but that if I had to lose somebody, I'd rather lose Pawelek or Huseby or Ryu (already gone) or Rapada than Samardzija. At this point, I think Guzman, Gallagher, and Veal are the only prospect pitchers I'd value as much or more than Samardz. Maybe the Cubs weren't that dumb after all.

Yeah, he had a relief appearance. How did he throw 1.1 IP, 1 ER, 1 H, 0 K/0 BB. Not sure how he sounded though. I didn't get the impression Guzman was very impressive. Just gave up the one triple. But had a couple of batters where he got up 0-2 or 1-2, and still ended up with long 8-pitch type AB's, couldn't do something that would either force an easy groundout or a K.

Thanks for the link. Hopefully some of the gaga works. A lot of guys have a hot stretch but don't sustain or repeat. To expect Veal to not only do almost as well as he did last year, but do so while getting promoted, that seems somewhat improbable. Let's hope he can handle a promotion and still relaly dominate at AA. The talk about throwing more strikes and getting batters out faster sure sounds good in theory. Hmm, so he's going to throw 75 pitches and get 30 groundouts? I guess a little hyperbole never hurt him. I'm not sure Veal got 30 groundouts in any month last year, much less in a game. But, lets hope that there's a lot of progress in that area. He's certainly getting a lot of hype. Would be awesome if he could live up to it.

Heh heh, oops. Man, I sure wish I didn't have to scroll through pages and pages and pages of repeat quotes quoted over and over and over and over, though. If people made a few quote-trimming editorial errors now and then but saved me the agony, I would be very willing to pay that small price!

My understanding is that he's hit at least 94 on a number of occassions. My understanding is that his fastball is pretty fast, and that he had a number of games in which he was throwing 90-94 quite regularly. I think there may be many others where he throws more in the 88-91 range. But, as always it depends on what you're trying to do. An 88-91 2-seam sinker that's located well is a really good fastball. A lot more useful than a 93-96 four-seamer that's straight and wild. Which relates to one of my beliefs about Gallagher. I think he's a smart pitcher who pitches for wins and for outs. I imagine he does a lot of pitching in the 88-92 range to get outs. I imagine he could let it fly and throw for the radar records, but that it wouldn't necessarily help him get outs. I think a lot of pitchers are routinely choosing between throwing as fast as they can, versus throwing for outs. Give up a mph or two for command. Every 2-seam fastballer in baseball knows he could throw faster with 4-seam.

I don't think Gallagher seems much like Glavine or Maddux at all to me. The one similarity seems to be that they are all smart and none had overpowering velocity. But Glavine and Maddux were both great control pitchers. And both had super good movement on their fastballs. With their control and movement, they really lived off their fastballs. Last year Gallagher was certainly faster than the velocity at which Maddux and Glavine worked during their best years. But 55 walks in 86 innings in AA is not exactly Glavine/Maddux-like in terms of control. Those guys lived off their fastballs, even if it wasn't velocity that made those fastballs extraordinary. Gallagher does not. His fastball is fine, but it's his breaking stuff that's really special on a given day. And as with most young breaking-ball pitchers, the breaking stuff is harder to control and isn't equally good every inning of every start. Hard to consistently locate the breaking ball the way that Maddux and Glavine could locate their fastballs. I'm really interested in Gallagher. I think brains and a diverse array of pitches can carry him a long way.

Brackman's good start is very encouraging. I wanted to believe the draft would be at least 3 deep in college studs, so that the Cubs couldn't lose with any of them and they could go college besides. Given his limited history and limited success last year, i'd feared Brackman might struggle again and be exposed as havng some problem. That said, I still find it questionable whether the Cubs would be interested in Wieters. He doesn't seem their type. And a big slow catcher who's maybe destined for DH or 1B/LF doesn't necessarily seem the type of dude an NL-team or the Cubs in particular would go after. Unless they are really, really sure he's got Aram-caliber hitting.

I've noted this before. But if Pie, Sam and Veal are top 50-ish, and Gallagher/Colvin are near the top-100 level, and Guzman and Marmol are good-talent prospects even if they aren't list-eligible, the farm system isn't in all that bad a shape. And that's without mentioning the guy Pecota seems to think is better than Zambrano (Eric).

You made the point that had immediatley popped into my head earlier in the thread. CERA's are only potentially interesting if the catchers are catching the same pitchers. [/i]

Obviously this is an extremely unlikely scenario. But, my guess is that they would wait, that five starts and 27 innings of 2.0-ERA pitching by Guzman would not be enough to necessitate that he be brought into the rotation. My guess is that if the big-league team is still swimming along reasonably, that they would not make a switch that quickly. (If Marquis was 6.5, maybe, but not at 5.10). In my view a key date is June 15 (IIRC), the date I believe when Marquis can first be traded. I think that even if they do realize that Guzman is safer and superior as well as much cheaper, I'd think they may wish to stay the course until Marquis becomes movable. If you pull him on May 1 and torpedo any chance of being able to trade him, that might be a problem. But if he can get through June 10 with a .500-ish record and an ERA in the 4.3-5.3 range, perhaps you can unload all of his contract, and perhaps even get some value in return, who knows. One other key is the health not only of the rotation but also the bullpen. As Time alluded to, it might be that Guzman would come up first as a reliever, and get a chance to settle in and prove himself there. It might also be that if a RH reliever gets hurt (Kerry? Dempster? Howry?), that it might provide an excuse for moving Marquis there. (He's got big-league experience in relief, Guzman doesn't. We're not down on Jason, we just think he can help us more in relief than in rotation...). I'm thinking way back to when Kerry broke in. Terry Mullholland was in the rotation, and Kerry pitched well in Iowa. But it was the injury to forgettable reliever Bob Patterson that really triggered Kerry's recall, because that provided a good reason to move Mulholland from rotation to relief. I could envision that kind of thing happening with Marquis. And that sort of scenario would not necessitate that Marquis be stinking, or that you're trashing him or his trade value. If he's doing fine in relief, somebody else might view him as a guy who could help their rotation and be willing to take on his contract. Hendry has claimed other teams were interested in paying him comparably to what the Cubs paid him. That may be false. And if Marquis is again as pathetic as last year and as most board-posters seem to expect this year, the interest in him come June may be way less than it was in December. But if he's pitching at a competent if unexceptional level, his market interest may be as high or higher than it was in December. The key is getting him to June with reasonable trade value.

Well said, Vance. Soriano isn't going to get rested much, and whatever defensive problems he might have, you don't bench your $136-guy for defensive purposes. If Theriot can play even a passable CF, yo don't have to have Pagan on the roster. If Soriano gets hurt on Monday, Theriot can fill in for a few innings and you can have Pie or Pagan called up by Tuesday. I still think that Pagan is the best bet to make the team. But I'd see the options being Pagan, Cedeno, Perez, and perhaps Kinkade, if in fact the latter is viewed as being capable of playing major-league 3B. (I assume not).

I love patience and plate discipline, and I love walks for their own sake. But it's also always worth remembering that over the last 10 years in the NL, the average player gets on base 4 times as often by hit as he does by walk/HBP. That 20% contribution from the walks is a really important factor. But the 80% contributed by the hitting is important, too! Aram, Lee, Barrett, Murton, the Cubs have some good hitters. They could have an above-average OBP without needing to walk at more than an average rate.

Notes: 1. Aram. Perry already had him, in Pittsburgh. Maybe perry will help him. Maybe Aram is at a point in his career where Perry will help him. Maybe Perry is a more experienced and more persuasive coach at this stage. But the two guys have worked together before, and Aram did not walk much then. Whatever Perry tells him now, it won't be a radically new voice or a radically new message from what Aram has already heard before. 2. Part of the team is the bench, and in recent years bench guys have played a lot of AB for the Cubs. Theriot is not Neifi. Floyd is not Macias. Ward is not Cedeno. The team could get a non-trivial boost in walks and OBP from the bench. 3. On cracking the top 10 versus sneaking into top 6-8: For many statistical categories, a lot of teams tend to bunch around the middle. The OBP difference between 5th place and 11th place may not actually be very substantial. But, even to get up near average would be a major step, given how horrifically far below average we were last year. 4. I think it's well feasible that the team could be average or perhaps a shade above. Relative to positions: C: Barrett is likely asset. 1B: Lee is likely asset, and a likely huge asset relative to 06 Cubs 1B. 2B: DeRosa isn't likely an OBP liability (alhtough he could be), and is a possible asset. Neifi and Cedeno played some really low-OBP 2B last year, while Walker was fine and Theriot ws excllent. May not be hard to hold steady or perhaps improve. SS: Izturis is likely liability. But Neifi/Cedeno/Iz were awful, so won't be hard to hold steady, and even Iz could improve substantially relative to Cubs 06 at SS. And, I think there's a chance that Iz will end up being a modest liability, not necessarily a monster one. (Cedeno was .271 last year, that's huge. Izturis's 3-year average is .315. He may not reach that, and it's still OBP liability even if he does. But not nearly the killer that Cedeno, Neifi, and Corey have been in recent years.) 3B: Aram may not walk as much as we might prefer, but his OBP is still an asset. LF: Murton/Floyd looks like an OBP asset. CF: Soriano last year was .351, and career leadoff is .340+, I believe. May not be the OBP asset you'd expect for a $136 man, but it's not likely that he'll be much of an OBP drag, either. RF: Jones is likely to be a liability. But again, a .328-type guy (his career norm, and he was higher than that last year) won't drag you too badly. Bench: Floyd, Theriot, and Ward project to be pretty solid, an asset relative to what most bench's give. (Around the league, the bench norm is much lower than the overall league average). If Kinkada makes the team he might help, too. It's the Cubs, so we know things will probably go all wrong. But past history and normal Cub anxiety aside, I think the Cubs project to be pretty average, perhaps even better, in OBP.

I know these are just ranking things, and don't mean all that much. But I found that oddly encouraging. Actually, I've found all the gloom about the system to be a bit extreme lately. Things change fast. BA can have the system below-average, and posters can view it as horrible or whatever. But one or two guys who work out, or develop this year, and the perception could be very different a year from now. Each of these ratings depends in part on their qualifiers. Most listings (BA, etc.) use rookie-eligibility as a qualifier. By so doing they exclude Guzman and Marmol. Hardball is including them. Hill is obviuosly absent from any BA-style lists. But he racked up quite a few Iowa innings last year, with great effect. I imagine those count favorably in Hardball's scoring. Hardball is also including Ryu, who's gone. And hardball is not including any scouting stuff. A guy like Ryu had good stats-per-age, even if his stuff doesn't scout that well. Hardball doesn't care, BA does.

Hill is probably a good example of how hard it is for a one-tool guy to make it, when the one "tool" is the ability to walk. He has no power; isn't good defensively at any position; doesn't run all that well (no big-league steals and only 6 minor-league steals since leaving Cubs in 2003); not much of a contact guy (he strikes out a lot, like a slugger but without the power); not much for big-league average and not much average relative to the Pacific Coast League. But, he does take some walks, and he's also pretty good at getting beaned. (In 309 minor-league AB's last year, not only did he take 48 walks but he also got beaned 12 times. So that's 60 times he reached base without a formal AB.) I wouldn't have a big problem with Hill being on the team at some point, injuries requiring. Power is nice, but for a back-of-roster sub, I'd be happy just to have somebody who isn't an auto-out. So Hill would be OK for that. Still, I don't honestly see him as anything more than Iowa filler. I assume they will want to carry a true outfielder, presumably Pagan, as a reserve CF. To expect dudes like Hill or Theriot who have rarely if ever played CF to be your primary CF reserve doesn't make sense to me. Floyd and another outfielder (rather than Hill) will both make it. Theriot, Ward, and Blanco will make it. No room for Hill, Cedeno, or Perez unless: you carry only 11 pitchers or in case of DL. I fully expect to carry 12 pitchers. Given the quality of our pitchers, I don't see why the candidates for 12th pitcher (Miller? Novoa? Wood?) might not be more useful than keeping Hill.

This is by memory. Baez: Said he's got the arm, range, actions to play a quality SS. Said that if he gets stronger and learns to hit, that he could be good. He's 6'3", so you'd think he might have potential to hit with more power than he did these past two years. It mentioned what an unusually old signing he was for a Dominican (was at least 20 when signed). Did not acknowledge his horrible anti-walk profile thus far. Roquet: Said he throws 91-97, and that both fastball and slider have chance to be plus pitches. Said he has a solid, durable pitcher's body. Suggested that he could throw strikes. Much of short blurb was about his background, originally signed Florida State as an outfielder, switched to pitcher his redshirt spring, then popped to a couple of JC's, before his two years at Cal Poly or whatever it was he and Lansford were at, then signed as a 5th year senior. Said he tripped on a ball and missed several weeks this past year to injury. And since he's so old, said they'd probably try to fast-track him, maybe start him right off at Daytona this year. FWIW, I checked his college numbers. At Cal Poly (?), he pitched in relief, not many innings. He was lousy his first year there, so went undrafted, not many K's. Then last spring his numbers totally changed, tons of K's, ERA in low 2's when team ERA was around 5. Taylor and Atkins: They got basically the same reviews, more or less. Chunky builds, in taylor's case he's athletic but he may need to watch the weight. Taylor best control in the system, 90-92 boring sinker. Pitched a 9-inning complete game in only 99 pitches. Control pitcher, not power, at present doesn't have any notable offspeed stuff. Atkins, similar cunky build, similar fastball, 91-92 boring sinker type. Suggested that the 3/4 arm slot which is good for his sinker is not well suited to his slider, which often hangs. Had good stats, yada yada. Callis wasn't real buzzed about Taylor or Atkins, not about their breaking pitches at all, and not really that fired up about their fastballs. I admit I was somewhat disappointed that they were so little buzzed that they came in behind all these backup catcher wannabe's (Reed, Soto, Robinson, Fox). Personally, I'm somewhat hopeful about Taylor and Atkins. People sometimes think only tall lanky guys get faster, but sometimes solid chunky guys get faster at 20-21-22-23, too. And, it's not like 91-92 sinker is exactly worthless. Add another 2-3 mph and suddenly they look like they have real asset fastballs. Come up with a slider, and suddenly maybe Taylor is a control good-stuff serious prospect. Who knows.