craig

On Murton: 1. I think he got quite a bit of playing time this year. Buthe didn't get many hits, so his playing time decreased. 2. there are some indications that he may be starting to get rolling again in Iowa. Most of the team at Iowa has hit .300, so compared to the team his numbers are pretty average. But he may be heating up. 3. There was a reference in one of the papers that Lou thought that Murton isn't swinging the way he did in the past, when he'd been successful. Murton said he wasn't doing anything different. One of the posters seems to suggest that Lou was wrong and that now he's taking it out on Murton. I find that somewhat doubtful. I have no idea whether Lou saw something specific different and Murton wasn't willing to try to make a change. But I find it a bit hard to take Murton's side on that. The previous two years, he got hits regularly, and hit the ball hard regularly. This year he hasn't gotten very many hits, and IMO his outs were a lot weaker as well. His stats show an extreme groundball orientation this year. That has been true before, especially when he wasn't going good. But, bottom line to me is that he hasn't been producing. Does he think he's been hitting the ball with the same authority and success as he did late last year and in 2005? The results haven't been the same, that's for sure; so perhaps there is something mechanical that hasn't been the same either? 4. Murton didn't play every day when he came up with Dusty, but he hit, and earned more time. It's not like when he's going good, that he can't hit as a platoon guy. So I think his problems this year to me indicate that for whatever reason, he wasn't hitting well this year, not that he's inherently incapable of hitting in a platoon role. Or that putting him in a platoon role made him incapable of hitting. He was able to hit in a platoon role in 2005, so the fact that he couldn't hit in a platoon role this spring suggests there was something more wrong with his swing than with the platoon role itself. Hopefully he'll get his stroke fixed, and become a good platoon player again. Maybe so good that he'll earn his way back into an effective larger-than-platoon role.

Yeah, same question from me. I'd noticed that Hart was putting together some good games, and scoring more K's this month than he had earlier. Is this a no-talent who happened to stitch together a good month in a strong pitcher's league? Or does he somehow have stuff that makes him an actual prospect? So, what do we know about his actual stuff? Is he a strong arm guy? A finesse guy? None of the above?

Thanks for the research, Cal. I didn't realize you could get the bonus list for rounds that late. Interesting. 6th round money, that's not bad. Certainly any time you take a HS kid in the 6th round, you'd assume you're getting a prospect, not just a guy whose ceiling tops as an organizational guy. Hopefully as Nate suggested, Samson will fill out and get stronger in due time, and hopefully he'll end up having enough physical talent to be a useful major leaguer. And hopefully his interest and desire to learn will help him get the most out of the talent that he has.

Eric has had a nice year. He's hit some HR's, which are very helpful for batting average. He's cut down on his K's, which is very helpful for batting average. Still, he tends to get discussion because he is viewed as a talented prospect. But it's also worth keeping his Iowa performance in context. Batting average-wise, where does he sit relative to the Iowa roster? he's behind: Pie (when there), Cedeno, Koyie Hill, Geo Soto, Micah Hoffpauir, Buck Coats, Fontenot (when there). The only guys hitting for worse average are Murton (I think), Moore (who's had a really tough year), and roster-fillers like Chris Walker and the like. Maybe the Iowa Cubs have the best lineup in baseball history. But it's also possible that if everybody else is hitting .320-.380, maybe hitting .295-.300 isn't as good as we normally think? Maybe being the 7th or 8th best hitter at Iowa combined with problem defense isn't good enough to command a regular spot in the majors?

Just a note on Samson's "hefty" bonus. According to the draft threat, it was $155. That's comparable to a typical 8th-10th round HS pick, I'm guessing? Seems to me that guys like Atkins and Willis etc. got $200 or more. Whatever. No HS guy who cracks the first 10 rounds is a nobody; any HS prospect who goes in the top ten rounds and then produces gets written off, that's for sure, and any such player would merit some interest. So Samson should get some. But, neither should we be looking at his bonus as if the Cubs were paying him like a 3rd or 4th round type talent. Not that much.

Guys with options tend to go down, that's life. Hendry gave Jones and eyre their contracts. Apparently the Trib has told them he has to keep them. So Lou and Hendry may need to go forward with 23 roster spots to work with, plus Jones and Eyre. That won't be easy. That's life. Whenever you have guys with guaranteed contracts, it's never really about equal competition. That's life.

I'm guessing Pie. He's really in a monster slump, and it's painful to have him in the lineup. Right now the team is trying to win games, and Pagan is contributing to some degree but at least offensively, Pie is not. At this point, I'm guessing Hendry and Lou are more interested in winning than in developing. So Pie's development is probably secondary to trying to win. And since he's auto-outed himself to the bench, his development is probably better served playing regularly in Iowa than sitting on the bench with the cubs. Obvoiusly right now we've won 7 straight, and it's natural to think about winning and getting into contention for division and/or wildcard. If next month we're back to 7 games under .500 and neither division nor wildcard still seem plausible, then the issue of winning versus development might reverse. Then maybe you bring back Pie and stick with him no matter how badly he hits, if winning and losing don't matter anymore.

Would it be fair to say that Jake Fox might makes Barrett look like a gold-glove defensive catcher?

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/89348.html Pawelek is hurt after all. He broke his arm and is out for the season. Rotation is Albuquerque, Andrew McCormick, Alberto Cabrera, Chris Huseby and left-hander Dustin Sasser. So, looks like three non-prospect roster fillers in Albuquerque, McCormick, and Sasser. If there is going to be any jazz in that rotation as currently constituted, it will have to come from Cabrera and Huseby. The Peoria reports didn't have Albuquerque throwing very hard, basically just average, he's had no K-stuff so nothing noteworthy for breaking stuff, and his results at Peoria were dismal. May do better at Boise, but looks to be a relatively low-ceiling roster filler.

Cal, thanks for the notes. In a recent Az Phil note, he mentioned Tolentino hitting 96. Guzman and Felix as Aram/Harvey types is interesting. Hopefully Guzman will have the extraordinary hitting talent that Aram does. (Aram's body with Dopirak hitting skills wouldn't get him far, obviously; nor Harvey's tools with harvey's hitting skills.) Hopefully they'll be the freak Cub Latin position signs who can hit. Iknow that no-hit catcher Reyes got to AA. But if I'm not forgetting anybody, I think Pie and Cedeno are the only Latin position prospects during Fleita's 10-years running the Latin operation that have shown any hitting skills above A-ball. Would be cool to come up with a Latin position prospect, but obviously our Latin talent evaluators don't have a real proven track record in projecting hitters. Many of Fleita's favorites have been weeded out by low-A.

Curious with the Pawelek stuff. I wonder about his health. You'd think that if the Cubs or the Boise club told the Idaho Statesman about the team, and the story mentions Pawelek, it would seem likely that they listed him or mentioned him to the newspaper. So maybe he is there. Or maybe he's sort of going to be there when he's ready, but he's disabled or something? Beats me. Thanks for your notes about spring training observations. What was Huseby's injury issues this spring? More arm problems, or what? Glad to hear he was looking somewhat better down the stretch. In terms of draft picks and roster stuff, Guyer (?), the 1st day outfielder from Virginia, I think Wilken said that he's injured and won't play this summer. But that Wilken doesn't think the injury is anything serious long-term. So I don't expect him. According to CubReporter, or whatever that's called, I believe Ty Wright has already signed. Could go straight to Peoria, I suppose, but my play for Boise.

Cal, I agree, I wasn't expecting Tolentino or Cabrera at Boise. Have you heard something favorable about Garcia? I haven't heard anything to suggest he's any prospect at all, much less a high-ceiling one. They used him as a reliever last year in DSL, even though he was 18 for much of the year, and he was wild in relief. He's actually back in DSL again this year, and again has only been used as a spot reliever. (I think the guys who either have the better arms or who project better tend to get more of the starts down there, as we saw last year with Cabrera and Acosta. You mention Guzman and Perez looking intriguing. What do you know about them and what is intriguing? Were these guys who, like Suarez and Pie and Alfredo and Zambrano, even if not necessarily to the same price tag, got signing bonuses that were more substantial and mark them as prospects? If so, do you know how much they got? Or did you get something favorable about them from seeing them or some other source? (Az Phil?) Do you know how old or big they are or whatever? Neither Guzman nor Perez has played for the DSL team thus far, nor has Suarez. So I think it's safe to say that they'll all start out at mesa. DSL is already a couple weeks into it, so anybody healthy who's gotten sent there should have been there by now. So the fact that Guzman and Perez are starting straight out in the states is consistent with them being viewed by the Cubs as more promising than the average Latin guy they sign.

Thanks, Cal. These initial Boise rosters are obviously always very fluid. Lambert is the only draftee from the first ten rounds on that roster. that could change soon enough. Some of the guys who hadn't signed until this week could show up in a week or two. Will be interesting to see whether Pawelek is or isn't there, if so whether he's in the rotation or not, and then of course whether he can actually get anybody out or actually has stuff to sustain interest. There were three names that surprised me on that roster: Huseby, Cabrera, and Tolentino. I have tended to view Cabrera and Acosta as being comparable guys (about the same list size, similarities in stats last year), and Phil had comments suggesting that Tolentino was not in their class. So if two were going to make it, I'd assumed Acosta would beat Tolentino. Second, I thought they might have enough senior signs and late-round college leftover guys so that none of these 18-year-old dominicans would need to skip straight to Boise. Hopefully it suggests that Cabrera and Tolentino have made some progress. But, it might also be that they are temps until some of the college pitchers sign and are ready, and Cabrera and/or Tolentino will be back at Mesa by the time they open. A friend who saw Huseby in spring training said he looked really wild. I recall Az Phil reporting a game and Huseby was awful. So I'd anticipated that he was not doing so well and would be likely to repopen in Mesa. So I'm surprised to see him with Boise. Hopefully he's gotten things under control a bit, and he'll be up to it. We shall see.

Perfect Game also had a scouting report on Vitters. Rawnsley didn't write vitters report, he wrote the Thomas report. But the guy who wrote the Vitters report referred to his power as "prodigious". Again, I would infer the possibiity of hitting more than 20-25 HR's per year. In that scout's opinion, of course.

Splinter, thanks much for the updates on the signings. Much appreciated. Keep em coming as you can. Certainly Barney, Wright, Hardman, and Smith have done well in the college playoffs.

Hernandez is a significant prospect. He was effective last summer, and he's effective now. It isn't common for the Cubs to put a 17-year-old in the US, most stay in the DSL or VSL. That Hernandez was here last summer meant they had hopes. The 165 weight, that's the same listing they had last year. Often it takes a while before those get updated. I think the last time I can recall the Cubs having a prospect younger than Hernandez at full-A was Carlos Zambrano, who listed at 17. Hope Hernandez works out. And that he stays healthy. At the rate he's going, he'll have a lot of innings under his belt by the time he turns 21. Whatever kind of curve and fastball Hernandez has, neither appears to have much groundball movement. Like Veal and Atkins before him, he hasn't gotten a lot of groundouts. And it's almost seemed that on his more effective outings, he's gotten even fewer. That will be interesting to watch. I'm not real sure what I think about groundball orientation. Normally you'd prefer it. And there's nothing better than a heavy groundball fastball. But, there are a lot of groundball oriented guys who give up plenty of HR's, too. The good pitches get grounders; the mistakes sometimes have nothing and get creamed. And, sometimes having a lot of air outs makes you think a guy is giving up a lot of solid fly balls, whereas he may actually be getting a good dose of easy popouts. And while groundballs are less likely to go for doubls and triples and never go over the wall, it's also true that air balls that don't go over the wall are a lot easier to defend. Lot's more errors on groundballs than flies, and it's not uncommon for groundball guys to give up a lot more unearned runs. Doesn't show on their ERA, but they are still real runs that cost games. But, it's something to watch for. Groundball stuff can also vary. Gallagher is kind of a weird case. At Peoria, he seemd a fairly flat, or fly-ball oriented guy. At Daytona and last year he was strongly groundball oriented. I was real happy about that, and at first hoped it meant he had a good slider going (early last year there was talk of reintegrating a slider into his mix) or that his fastball had some sink to it. This year, not much groundball oriented.

Atkins has been pretty strongly fly-ball oriented this year, and has been HR-prone throughout his career. So, I'm suspecting that just as BA's report may be not very accurate on it's negatives, I wonder if it isn't also baloney on the positive, the sinker. Not many sinkerballers who get as few groundouts as Mitch, at least not if their sinker is at all good. The other thing is that Atkins had shoulder trouble earlier this season, I think. Not sure how that may have affected him, how that might be affecting him now, or how that might affect him future.

Vitters is likely to spend a few weeks, minimum, after he signs. I believe the Cubs have their guys go through some orientation stuff for a while, especially HS kids. He's a very high draft choice. Agents don't so often sign them off two days after the draft. So he may well take till August to even sign. And he's only 17, so it's no big rush with him. If he signs in time to play some, I'd fully expect him to spend his main time this summer with Mesa. Often they jump a prospect to a higher league during the last two weeks of the season, just to experience it. Or, especially if the team above is going to have extra playoff games. That seems well possible for Boise, not so much for Peoria. Given how many college players they've drafted, they ought to be able to stock Boise pretty well. Especially if Rundle or Anderson contribute anything there. Of course, not sure that Boise will have much for pitching....

Potential hitting ability is hard to quantify. And certainly there have been enough Keltons and Brant Browns who were said to have beautiful strokes and be "pure hitters" who were weren't. But, I think "pure hitter" is a very desirable thing. Which if any scout can say who is or isn't, I don't trust that so well or trust how they do so. But, there are obvious components of hitting. a) How long is the stroke? (Getting harvey and Dopirak, with long strokes, and then thinking you'll be able to shorten them, I'm sure it sometimes works but not too super often. It's one of the reasons that I tend to be skeptical about tall hitters, especially HS ones.) b) Plate balance? c) Bat speed, to handle hard stuff, particularly inside. Can you get around on it like Sandberg could, and jerk the inside fastballs? Or, like Kieschnick, do you have to almost guess ahead of time, and if you're guessing outside but pitch comes inside half, you look silly? d) Stroke/quiet bat. This touches with balance, bat speed, and stroke length. But good hitters can often stay put long enough to actually see what's happening with the pitch, but still pull the trigger in intelligent response. Pure hitters have that ability. How do you quantify that or project it from facing HS pitchers to facing big-league velocity and movement? I don't know. It's not just coincidence that some guys can hit way, way better than others. If "pure hitter" is a cliche for those who have all the components, then there's nothing I want more than a "pure hitter". If "pure hitter" is covering only one or two aspects (pretty stroke versus batting practice pitchers, but lacks the mental/physical processing to really see, diagnose, and respond effectively to the speed and movement of big-league pitches, that's not the real thing). If Vitters really is a "pure hitter", and the scouts have that right, I'm very interested. I'd much prefer a "pure hitter" to a massive-power with great RF arm prospect like Harvey, who in retrospect clearly lacks the "pure hitter" tag. Pure hitting is very desirable. You can have all the Dopirak power in the world, but if you aren't a pure enough hitter to ever apply it against pro pitching, who cares? The ability to make good contact is essential to power. Given the reports on Vitter's size, bat speed, and power, if in fact he is a pure hitter who can make good contact high unusual regularity, I'd assume he'll not lack for slugging percentage or HR's. But, the problem is it's so difficult to correctly diagnose "pure hitter". I'd love to get one. But are the Cub scouts any better able to recognize it than when they thought Corey, Kelton, and Montanez were pure hitters? If Cubs do end up with Vitters, and he does prove to be a "pure hitter", I think he'll turn out very well. But, if they take him under the judgment that he's a "pure hitter", but that proves as ill-founded a judgment as with Kelton, Corey, and Montanez, he'll disappoint.

Price has thrown a heavy workload this spring and, obviously, is a pitcher. Were the Cubs to end up with him, how likely is it that he'd still have the arm that is so attractive now by the time he won his 10th game with the Cubs? And how likely is it that his arm/stuff would still be special four years after he made his big-league Cub debut? I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be the Cubs first choice, or Tampa's or KC's, for that matter. Just that pitchers are, well, pitchers. There's a pretty good shot that no matter how nice he looks now, once the Cubs would get their hands on him he might be good for a couple of good years before his arm is shot and he needs surgery or else needs to work with elite control because his arm will have degenerated to relatively average. We got zero effective, healthy years out of Brownlie, Blasko, hagerty, Grant Johnson, or Pawelek. We got two healthy, really effective years out of Prior in 02-03, then another couple of somewhat productive but not elite years in 04-05. We got several productive years out of Wood, but none in which he was healthy all year and super-great all year. Zambrano we got most of 5 pretty good years, in which he was pretty healthy and pretty effective (02-06). There are some pitchers whose stuff is still special 4-5 years after their big-league debut. But, there are probably more whose arm falls apart before they ever make their big-league debut. Price is a nice target. But, there is a reasonable chance even with him that he won't be that great for a little while, that he won't be great ever, and that if he does become great for a while, that he won't stay great for a very long while. But, it may also be well worth it to draft him, in hopes that you get a couple of premium years out of him and that would be well worth it.

http://cubs.scout.com/2/644343.html Confirms the Latham and Rosa signings, with some scouting comments by Wilken. On mlb's draft listing last year, Rosa listed at 6'2" 180, but Wilken says he's 6'4" 210 now. Profiles as a possible power prospect. I got the sense Wilken hopes he might be able to stick at 3B, but may not have enough arm and may likely end up in left. He profiled Latham as a guy who sometimes touches 88 and as high as 93, with an erratic slider on a good day. Sounds like for him to make it, the slider would need to become his out pitch and hopefully his fastball would be able to become consistently average.

Vinestal, I honestly don't remember the colored ball stuff. My info was probably largely BA based, and Meph's little BA report probably capsulizes it well. My recall of the reports were that he was allegedly a great athlete ("he can pitch as well as hit!"), the monster power potential, the notion that at least for a while Tampa had considered him for #1, the great throwing arm, the injury, the formerly good speed, the defensive potential. I guess my recall was that "pure hitter" or "pure contact hitter" or "safe pick" were not among the first things usually said. Meph copied the BA note. The best thing they could say about his pure hitting is that a scout preferred him to a HS teammate who was a nice Juco prospect. And who we subsequently know hasn't been a very pure hitter either. There are hundreds of prospects for this draft where a scout can say he's the purest hitter on his HS or college team. Every team has to have one of those. I think that's a lesser claim than for a scout to say that he's the best hitter he's ever seen. Especially a Cal scout, in an area where good prospects are common. That said, every scout has his own opinion. And a kid's team coach is obviously going to pass along the most favorable ones to a hype-em-up article about the kid. Maybe this is a 1st year scout. Maybe the HS coach is hyperbolizing what the scout actually said. Maybe this is one of those dumb scouts who can't recognize a real hitter if he saw one. Maybe if you asked 50 other scouts, none would share that view. And, certainly regardless of what the scouts say now, the guy could still be a bad-pitch-recognition hacker 3 years from now. I'm just saying that IMO, the Harvey stuff was more about the unmatched power and outfield/arm potential, not about the ability to put the bat on moving pitches. The vitters stuff seems to be relatively more focused on his pure hitting ability. Given that it's a much stronger draft pool and it's 3 picks higher, I'd think the odds of Vitters going Harvey are a lot lower than with the original Harvey. But certainly there is that chance. I just don't think that it's as high. Immediately after taking Harvey, the Cubs said that he'd need a lot of time and would be a slow-tracker. I think that was as obvious a statement that he wasn't a refined pure hitter or a good contact hitter as could be possible. His HS batting average wasn't very high. Low .300's, I think, his abbreviated senior season. Red Flags. Of course, that same applies to Vitters. The stats I saw had him only in the low .400's. Not sure that's all that exceptional or once-in-a-lifetime. I also clearly recall a scouting report on Harvey that spring in which a scout spoke favorably about his long-term potential, but also said that he looked pretty sick in a recent game, and alluded to long swing and breaking-ball vulnerability and fishing for junk problems that have never resolved themselves. So i guess to me there were a lot of strong red lights on harvey from the start. That it didn't work out, was disappointing but not exactly astonishing. Patterson, different story. There, the uniformity of scouting enthusiasm and confidence was on a way different level from harvey.

Doetsch, who turns 24 this calendar year, has hit .260 with .665 OPS over the previous two years in A-ball. Would one scout comparing Vitters favorably to every hitter he's ever seen, be equivalent to another scout comparing Harvey favorably to Deutsch?

I remember hearing basicly the same things about Harvey when he was drafted. I never heard anything remotely like that regarding Harvey. I heard people say they'd never seen anybody hit the ball as hard or far as Harvey, in terms of power. But every report I recall noted that he was not close to being a polished hitter, and would need to make a lot of adjustments to his stroke. Cubs hoped he'd figure that out; oops. The "hand-eye coordination and uncanny ability to make adjustments", nobody said that about Harvey.

I agree that they'll stick with things as is for this weekend, and not decide until they have to. Marshall hasn't pitched much, but 5 innings is deeper than Guzman has been able to go thus far. So in terms of innings-eating potential, it's not clear he's at any disadvantage there. Nice to see him doing OK. And 5 K's isn't bad.