craig

Callis thinks the Cubs top 2 prospects are Pie and Veal - the Cubs themseles believe it's Samardzija. They obviously don't think so highly of Samardzija if they don't think he'll remain a starter. I think there's some over-reading stuff going on. 1. They are only listing 6 pitchers, so they routinely put in rotation prospects in the "closer" spot on their list. And inevitably that's the guy who throws real hard. 2. Callis made that list before Sam had signed. I got my prospect book a couple of weeks ago. Not sure I received mine before he signed. But the book went to press at least weeks if not a month or more before he signed. I'm surprised they included him at all. I think that they did speaks to how interesting they think he is, rather than that the fact that they didn't project him into rotation speaks to how bad he and the system is. 3. That Callis didn't even give that projection enough thought to include Hill speaks to how little thought went into it. Drawing too many conclusions from such a thoughtless exercise is silly. 4. Callis likes Veal a lot. He had him among his top 15 pitching prospects, ahead of Sam, by a little. He still has him ahead of Sam. So it's not that surprising that if he's going to choose Veal or Sam to list in his rotation, that he chose Veal for rotation and Sam for closer. 5. Also not surprising that if he was going to include both Gallagher and Sam (by mistake, since he forgot Hill), that Gallagher's wide array of pitches and supposedly non-dominant fastball does not profile him for closer. No surprise that well-rounded Gallagher would get slipped into the rotation slot and power Sam into the closer spot.

Cal, thanks for mentioning that. BA's spin basically is that his arm was back to what it was before surgery. When I got my book and read that, I was surprised by that, and the lack of any further comment. Because my recall was that he came up, did fine at Boise (despite low K's and high hits), got bumped to Daytona, got hammered (24 hits/9K/16 innings) and then got returned to the DL for the last several weeks of the season. So when the season ended, I wasn't that optimistic about a post-op who ended up right back on the DL after only a couple of weeks. So I was surprised that Callis spun it like he's back with a heavy 90's sinker again, as if his arm was fine. Without addressing the fact that he'd gone right back to the DL in short order. Any thoughts about this? Possibilities I see: 1) Optimistic. Guy was coming back from surgery, rehab summer. He showed he had the arm at Boise. By the time he hit Daytona his arm had gone through a lot, maybe was tired. Nothing wrong with his arm, they just thought it made sense to shut him down a little early. Perhaps he was back in Instrux, and they again saw his arm being fine and his heavy fastball in the 90's. 2) Pessimistic. I'm not sure how much discussion Callis has, or how good of notes he takes, on guys towards the 2nd half of his list. We know that if he ever gets enthused about a guy, he has a hard time letting go (see Kelton, Brownlie, Dopirak, Harvey...), and Petrick was a guy Callis liked a lot at one time. So, he got a report during Boise that Petrick was back and throwing 90's, he knows he's still 22 so age isn't a problem. So he popped him into top-20 without even realizing that he'd ended up DL with perhaps more problems? Anybody hear anything about Petrick, other than via Callis? I'm thinking that possibility 1 seems much more reasonable than possibility 2. I'd be surprised if Callis really didn't know that Petrick ended on DL, or without talking to some Cub people. So I tend to trust that the positivity about Petrick and his arm recovery and the lack of mention of his ending back on DL is informed, and reflects that whatever put him back on DL didn't seem like anything substantial to the Cubs. It would certainly be cool if Petrick could re-emerge as a prospect of some interest. Not sure how far you go with a 91-92 sinker that's actually often 88-90, and with no good slider or change to match it. But, you never know.

Beast, i'm not sure I fully agree. Obviously a guy's actual ceiling, if there is any such thing, doesn't change. Whatever Pawelek's optimal potential is is what it was. Questions about whether he's maybe too dumb or too fat or too lazy or too irresponsible to ever approach his ceiling doesn't change what the physical max ceiling might be. So from that perspective, I agree that "Pawalek's ceiling didn't take a hit". But, I don't think that tells the whole story. "Ceiling" is not something exact and quantifiable. Scouts can say "Player X has Ceiling Y". But that is always a matter of perception. And perceptions can change. Rightfully. For either of at least two reasons. 1. The guy's physical capacity changes. Kelton has shoulder problems, so his throwing potential isn't as high as it was once perceived. 2. The physical capacity doesn't change. But the original ceiling perception may have been grossly exaggerated, and with further info you realize better. Examples: Mike Mallory seemed to have MVP Dave-Winfield ceiling when drafted. He's been a very dedicated, hard worker. In retrospect, it's evident that there were some vital capacities for hitting that Mallory never had. Grant Johnson seemed to have a high ceiling when signed. That doesn't seem true anymore. Perhaps injuries have diminished his phyiscal capacity. Perhaps he's just an underachiever, and he's a tinkering-of-delivery away from having the same high ceiling that we once perceived. But it may be that Stockstill simply perceived/projected a ceiling for him that post-surgery was never really there. BA's perception on Paw has changed. Assume that his ceiling is really the same now as it was before, if everything is optimized. It may well be that the updated perception of that ceiling is more accurate now. Perhaps the perception of his ceiling has changed for very good reason? I hope not, of course.

Any rumored return from last summe were unfounded. (Although I didn't hear any during the actual season.) There was a rumor this winter that he'd hit 95 in fall instructional league, and perhaps cleaned up his delivery or sharpened his slider. That's the rumor I'm hoping has some substance to it. Of course, last winter they said he'd cleaned things up in instrux to, but it wasn't evident once the season started. He's a long shot, but what happens with pitchers is sometimes pretty hard to predict.

NY, seems to me it's obvious that there's a real risk that he won't be any good. He's no sure thing, not even close. And where there are differing scouting evals, it's certainly possible that the favorable ones will not end up vindicated. But it almost seems like you're going to the far extreme. You've seemed to take the view that favorable scouting evals are "hype" (which implies not substantive), and he doesn't have much more than a decent fastball. If he's just a decent-fastball guy with nothing else, it raises a conundrum about why Callis and Manuel rate him top 50; about why the Cubs paid him $10 (even after having had him for some games in which they could see him for the fraud he may be); and about why apparently at least a dozen teams viewed him as at least a solid middle-upper first-round talent pre-draft. There are two easy ways to resolve the conundrum. One is to take the view that Callis, Manuel, the Cubs, and perhaps also teams that viewed his talent (if not his lack of commitment) as clear first round are all dopes. Why waste even a 1st round pick on a dude with nothing more than a decent fastball, much less a $10 bonus or a top-50 ranking? A second possible resolution is that perhaps the premise is wrong. Perhaps he does have more than just a "decent" fastball. If so, then maybe it's not so puzzling why he's being hyped beyond the norm for guys with nothing more than decent fastballs.

Time will tell, but I think it's exciting to see a variety of sources who are really excited about Samardz's potential. Wilken obviously. Callis, now Manuel. Top 50 for a guy like that, Manuel clearly isn't looking at him as a back-of-first-round talent. It's perhaps not surprising, given his lack of experience and the rather weird timing of his brief summer pro experience. But it's been interesting to see what a range of scouting perspectives there have been about him. King scouts him as a 91-92 mph guy mostly, nice but hardly extraordinary. Manuel refers to the 95-97, and Wilken seemed to believe that mid-90's could be semi-routine, rather than resting at 91-92 and hitting 95 once ever other start. King scouts him with no secondary pitches. Wilken scouts his slideer as being very promising. In the BA report about the Northwest League, I believe a scout was quoted as saying that Samardz' fastball was fast but really straight. But in the milb interview with Fleita, he referred to Sam's fastball as having a lot of sink to it. A dude with a straight 91-92 fastball and no secondary pitches, that's not much of a prospect. The same dude with a 93-97 mph sinker and a plus slider, that kind of guy is a really good prospect. We'll see in time which scouts are most accurate.

LeftCoast, I apologize if you took offense at my post. I was not trying to pick a fight, or to be disagreeable. General points, not directed at or against you: Signing bonuses and their proration or lack thereof can significantly alter one's perspective on payroll. I have seen a range of payroll estimates, ranging from $109 (somebody who considers all signing bonuses prorated) to $115 (yours, for example, which considers signing bonuses prorated unless there has been report to the contrary, ala Aram and Lilly), to $119 (mine, for example, which has assumed signing bonuses were *not* prorated unless reported to the contrary.) I'm pretty sure the USAToday database and whatever sources they derive it from, as well as other national media outlets, will go by the $109 listing, in which everything is counted as prorated. (Regardless of whether payments are actually over the years.) But which is closest to what the Cubs mean? Often we get some indication about what the Cubs perhaps have had to spend, and it's fun to speculate on who they could afford with that, or whether they are spent out and major acqusitions are over. If we knew how the Cubs counted and where they were at, I could make more informed winter speculations! Anyway, a couple of comments/questions or thoughts to which I'd appreciate your thoughts. 1. USATODAY's numbers and the sources from which they were derived do *not* accurately reflect when bonuses are actually paid. Sammy and Prior are cases in point. Sammy was paid a $6 bonus in 2001, but USATOday listings still prorated that over the guaranteed years of his deal. Likewise when the Cubs signed Prior, his bonus was paid that year according to reports, but USAToday listings still prorated it. I conclude that USAToday's listings do not bother to discriminate whether a bonus is paid over years or not; it prorates them all over the guaranteed years of contract. This means that neither USAToday nor the sources from which they borrow their info really are informing us about whether or not bonuses are normally paid over years or not. Prediction: It's been reported that Aram and Lilly have bonuses that are *not* paid over years. I predict that USAToday listings will still have them prorated, and will list Aram at $9 rather than $13. A related point is that Hendry and macP often made reference to their payroll, and routinely gave numbers that were not consistent with USAToday/ESPN listings. Which again supports my theory that assuming the Cubs are talking about actual payouts, that the USATOday listings are not. 2. I have always assumed that most bonuses were paid upon signing. So my default is to count a bonus against the upcoming season unless reported to contrary. Your budget is contrary; you assume it's paid over years unless there is report to the contrary. Thus you still have bonus payouts to Dempster and Eyre, I don't. And I have a big payout to Soriano, while you have that spread over the years. You say that most bonuses are paid over years. This is a sincere and curious question, not intended to be an obnoxious one. How do you know that, and if you are at liberty to do so, can you provide any support or explanation for how you come to that conclusion? For all I know you may be an agent or work for Hendry or have access to union files that include player contracts, I have no idea. Are you sure? Or, for all I know, perhaps you have logically deduced that payouts are over years because that's how they always appear in USAToday-type listings, and your premise has been that those listings are usually accurate to when payments are actually made? I'm sincerely asking. Having long assumed that most bonuses were made when the contract was signed, it will require a shift in thinking to assume exactly the reverse. So I want to be reassured that your view is truer than my old one before abandoning my old view! Note: I have thought that Soriano's payments actually suggest that he is paid much or all of bonus originally. His contract, like Aram's, has a way extremely low first year salary, then a huge jump, and both have large signing bonuses. If Alf's is paid over years, and equally as your budget assumes (I think), then he's going to spiral a ton from year one to year two. But, if like Aram's the bonus was right away, then the combo of salary plus bonus isn't that anomolous with the subsequent year payouts. Finally, this is a comment. I noted that if in fact Soriano got all of his bonus money this winter, then by actual payouts Soriano and Aram would sum to $30 this year, only $2 less than their combined $32 contracts in 2009 (assuming Soriano isn't getting paid any of the bonus money in 2009). I suggested that a $2 increase over a two-year span, relative to $30, was sub-inflation. You joked in response, "Sub-inflation? If you already know what the inflation rate will be the next 3 years or so let me know. I’ll make a fortune." Heh, suffice it to say that projecting **baseball** inflation to exceed 3% per year is not exactly requiring prophetic powers. In the last twenty years,has there been a single season other than the post-strike year in which baseball inflation as not been 3% or higher? I don't really think that it's in the least bit mockable to assume a baseball inflation rate of >3% per year over the next two. Nor do I think it's the least bit blameworthy for a GM to do the same. If backloading to the extent of 6% over two years on your two biggest contracts is considered to be a big problem, I don't agree. Now, backloading on Lilly and Marquis, that I don't much like! But I still think my point (if Soriano's bonus is in fact paid out this winter, a point on which we may not agree about and on which I for one am not at all certain at this point that I am either right or wrong, but I am willing to be persuaded...) holds, that if those guys aren't problematically backloaded, the the budget as a whole isn't problematically backloaded. The Marquis/Lilly jumps are obnoxious and IMO undesirable, but I don't see them as crippling. Obviously if the team sells to somebody who wants to drop from the $109-or-$115-or-$119 payroll to a $100 payroll, then the long-term commitments will allow very, very little future freedom. I also understand that given the large number of substantial long-term contracts, combined with contracts that I hope have reason to be renewed and inflated (Z, Barrett, hopefully Prior will earn raises, and Wood too....), internal contract inflation could easily outpace any budget inflation. The days of using extra money every year to buy outside players (Barrett, Lee, Aram were all money-based pickups in addition to the outside free agents) may be ending. We may well need to depend on guys we already have or that we develop internally in the farm to augment our talent base. We may not be in budget position to buy any Sorianos or Lillys or Nomars or Lees in 2009. If what we've got internally isn't enough, we might be stuck. But hopefully the guys on the long-term commitments will produce and make a nice stable core to a winning future.

Note on accounting, budget, and signing bonuses. 1. Official mlb records, like NFL, account for all signing bonuses as prorated. That's how luxury tax stuff gets counted, for example. 2. Many other media sources get their team-contract information from the common mlb source. USAToday, for example, gets their info from mlb. 3. In NFL, when a player gets a big signing bonus, he gets a big signing bonus, right away. The team pays it right away (normally). But it gets prorated for salary cap accounting purposes. I believe the analogous situation applies for Cubs. Most of the signing bonuses are, well, signing bonuses! That get paid to the player when he signs or shortly thereafter. He can spend it, he can buy his wife or mom a new mansion, he can invest it, it's his money to use. And it's money spent out of the Cub coffers. mlb may prorate it, but there are indications that the Cubs do not, and budget in teh simple cookie jar way, they count it when they pay it. 4. As Hoops mentioned way early in thread, there are some signing bonuses that are *not* paid right away. Some have been paid out in January installments, and there have been media reports to that effect. (Derrek Lee previous deal, Jacque Jones...) While it's possible that this is common and it's only occassionally that the media ever finds out or bothers to report, my view is to assume that a signing bonus is a signing bonus paid immediately, unless told otherwise. 5. Point: By my count, I have the Cubs at a shade under $120,000, by counting offseason signing bonuses against this year's budget, unless reported otherwise. That includes the $3 due to Rusch, and uses a $12 estimate for Z and $3.7 for Prior. I'm sure there are imperfections, but ballpark it seems around $120. If you remove Rusch's contract, then it's not too far off from $115. Hmm: $115-120, that seems to be right in the ballpark that all of the papers were suggesting back before any of the winter blitz began. That's a strong budget. But it's not exactly as if the Cubs are blitzing baseball with this extraordinary budget. If you use the mlb prorating policy, I don't think it will count above $109. Certainly not an extraordinary budget relative to the industry or the market. 6) On backloading: It seems strongly backloaded toward 2009, if you are prorating. Marquis and Lilly jump either way. But if you're going from accounting Aram and Soriano as $8 and $9 this year (plus prorated bonus) and $16 and $16 in 09 (plus prorated bonus), it seems really steep. But, if you're accounting by actual payouts, then Soriano and Aram sum to $30 this year and $32 in 2009, that's sub-inflation.

So does that mean Ohman or Cotts will start in Iowa? It seems like one is the odd man out, as I can't imagine the team breaking camp with 3 lefties in the pen They may well have 3 lefties. A 7-man pen with 3 lefties and 4 righties (Dempster, Wood, Wuertz, and Howry) seems entirely plausible. It's also noteworthy that Eyre has been pretty effective and was often used as a full-inning guy, so it's not like he's strictly a LOOGY. Cotts' stats also don't split much, so he may not need to be used as a LOOGY either, he might be a servicable multi-inning longman. The default is for all the rookies (Marshall, Guzman, etc.) to go to Iowa. If everybody is healthy, Cotts and Miller profile as 12th/13th men.

Not to be a huge homer. But I think how the Cubs rank in lists like this and BA's depends on who is included. All the lists use basically the same cutoff: guys who would be rookie eligible. Guzman, Marshall, and Marmol will not be rookie eligible, so of course are not included. But all three are intended for Iowa, health permitting, and should have been at Iowa or below last year, health/performance permitting. I'm not sure an Iowa with Guzman, Marshall, Marmol, Mateo, Ryu, Cherry, Rapada, and Novoa is exactly lacking in pitchers who are "close" to the majors. Pie and Patterson are also reasonably close. And I suppose Moore, too, if you like him. I'm just thinking that an Iowa with Guzman, Marshall, Marmol, Pie, and Patterson isn't exactly 19th in terms of close-to-majors-ready minor leaguers. And it's not like Guzman, Marmol, and Pie are real low-ceiling prospects, either.

On whether low-K guys can succeed, the Cubs have a couple of unusual cases with which they are very familiar. Angel Guzman barely nudged over 7K/9IP until his injury year. Boise, Lansing, and Daytona, Guzman was a low 7's guy for K/9. Zambrano was 5.7 in A, 6.4 in AA. So I think there are some low-K guys who can progress later. Hopefully Sam will be one of them. Most K's come on breaking balls. A-ball versions of Guzman and Z didn't have much for breaking pitch. College Samardz obviously didn't either. His curve was so lousy that they decided to scrap it, and he just picked up the slider last year. If he never comes up with anything better than his dud curve, or his novice slider, he's not likely to K many Cardinals, either. Hopefully he will.

CubsWin, I don't know if I'd use the word "shocking", but I think it's more improbable than probable that Sam would be in Iowa, other than perhaps as a token end-of-season callup, in 2008. Sam has raw talent, has a lot of potential, is said to be a committed worker, and is said to be a coordinated athlete. All of those combine to say that he could become really good eventually, if he can make all the adjustments and pull everything together and get consistent. Wilken mentioned some ideas about adjustments that he saw as necessary, and suggested that Sam had incorporated adjustments rather quickly and efficiently last summer. So, it's possible that he'll continue to make some needed adjustments, he'll lock in, and he'll quickly have the consistency and command to sustain his high velocity (which was not consistent in past, thanks in part to inconsistent and often non-optimal mechanics) and to command the slider that he just started last year. If he makes those adjustments really fast, he could move very fast. But, he really doesn't have that much experience. 30 Boise/Peoria innings, and a not-very-effective NOtre Dame season last year. Anything is possible. It's possible that despite his inexperience, he'll start right off at Daytona, immediately dominate, and be promoted to AA this summer as you suggested. But I think it's at least as likely that he'll end up either starting at Peoria, or if he does start at Daytona that he'll be somewhat over his head. Enough so that he won't be so dominant that he's leaving the league behind by July. Hope I'm wrong, and the improbable high-speed advancement is what he's capable of. Sometimes with special pitchers, it can work like that.

I think there is truth to this. But there are about 13 ways in which we could have room in the bullpen for Marquis. *1 Guzman isn't so dazzling that he needs to be in the rotation. Then there is space for Marquis in rotation (or relief). I hope/expect Guzman to look impressive. But to look so knockout good that he can't spend some Iowa time showing he can sustain the curveball consistently, less than likely. *2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12: If any of Prior, Wood, Guzman, Z, Lilly, Hill, Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Ohman Wuertz, Cotts, or Marquis is injured, there is room for both Marquis and Guzman. Pitchers are pitchers. The odds that somebody isn't healthy is, well, pretty high! *13: Cotts has options (I think), is 3rd lefty, has career/06 4.57/5.17 ERA's and 1.44/1.63 WHIP's. If everything goes so great that Prior and Guzman push Marquis to pen, it's not great travesty for Marquis to push Cotts either to Iowa or into a trade. Note: I'm assuming that Miller won't be so great that he's a must keep. I think he can make the team, if he looks good and they need a 12th man. But if there is roster crunch, I assume that Miller won't look too good to be disposed of, hopefully in a productive trade, but perhaps just via release or a rehab assignment.

Is the point that Price has a bad delivery? Or at least an "unclean" delivery?

Thanks for added details, Vance. Very helpful. Eric Patterson sounds like a sharp kid. Heh, every draft has a chance to be a franchise-changer. Prior-Sisco-Nolasco, sure had that chance. Brownlie-Blasko-Hagerty-Clanton-Dopirak-Jones-Petrick-Hill sure seemed to have that chance. Hopefully Samardzija-Colvin-Huseby-Rundle-Lansford will end up being one of those that works out for multiple guys and chances the face of the franchise for a decade or more. And hopefully bouncing back with the #3 and #31 picks in a deep draft will also produce a couple of big winners.

In the event that Prior, Miller, Guzman, and the 4 intended starters are all healthy, the initial solution is simple. Marquis and Prior start; Miller goes pen or gets traded or released; and Guzman goes to Iowa (or pen). By June 15, Marquis is eligible for trade (under old union contract, at least.) If Guzman has proven things at Iowa by then, and everybody is still healthy, then I might explore trading Marquis or moving him to relief. He has had extensive experience in relief with Braves.

I'm surprised that BA has Veal and Samardzija so high. That's encouraging. Last year at draft I thought they supposedly only had Sam as like #20 in terms of talent for a weak draft. Obviously they think more highly of him now, for whatever reason. Vance mentioned some optimism re Guzman's curve. He's lost rookie status, so isn't included on this BA list. (And probably wouldn't be anyway.) But I think his potential is quite high. If we have Guzman, Veal, and Samardzija all as high-end talents, and Gallagher as a really promising pitcher, and the likelihood that we'll add another really high-end pitcher in the draft, that gives us a strong pool of real high-end guys. Add in Pawelek and Suarez and Marshall and Huseby etc., and there's a pretty good pool of guys who could also emerge as value pitchers.

I think ceiling eval is pretty different for pitchers than players. For a player, if you lack certain tools there are obvious limits on your ceiling. Steve Clevenger will not be a big HR hitter, does not have a SS arm, and does not have SS quickness. Hitting for power or playing big-league SS, those things are beyond his ceiling. Geo Soto does not have running speed or bat speed. His ceiling is constrained by those physical realities. For pitchers, if a guy throws really fast, it's obvious that he has a high ceiling, even if he's wild or inconsistent. Often a scout will see a guy who throws 50 fastballs in the 88-89 range but throws three at 96, and can say for now he can't throw hard consistently. But the fast ones show what he could do, perhaps consistently, if we could only smooth out his delivery. His results may be mediocre because he's normally not throwing hard or with location, but scout may see the occassional glimpse of dominant fastball and see that as the ceiling. However, there are tons of pre-draft players who don't throw as hard as they will when they hit the majors. Guys add velocity quite often. Result of improved mechanics, or result of filling out, physical maturation. Other guys lose velocity when they mature physically. There are some patterns to this projection. Tall slender guys who obviously are going to fill out physically are more likely to add velocity than short thick guys. But, that's not always the way it goes. Nolasco and Gallagher didn't profile as projection guys, but both did add significantly to their consistent mph. Jon Garland was supposed to project more, but he never really added any from when he was drafted. Farnsworth was in the 80's when drafted. His first BA report was after a statistically unexciting season in low-A. They said he threw in the 89-91 range, with a heavy fastball, but projected for more. That he'd add 10 more, who could guess? As HS senior, Clemens was kind of a chunky, heavy guy with a low-mid-80's fastball. A classmate was drafted, he was either drafted pretty late or not at all. Who was to guess how much untapped fastball, or control, was ahead for him?

Also, thanks much for the Guzman note. We know he's had a really good run this winter. Last summer, he really struggled with his curve, and I recall at one point them saying he was bagging the curve and going with slider instead. If he's back in with the curve, that's a big-deal difference. Curves aren't easy to control, though. A friend of mine is friends with a Baltimore scout, who told him that Guzman this winter is looking like pre-injury Guzman, and that he'd given the Orioles a really strong report for Guzman. So, we'll see.

Thanks much for the report, vance. Any other info, details, comments from that session, I'd love to get anything at all, no matter how trivial. By the way, what was your impression of Wilken? A friend last year who has attended for years thought he was a way inferior communicator than Stockstill, Fleita, or Hendry had been. And also thought he was less gushy, so that you maybe needed a little different filter for evaluating his comments. (I've thought this might apply to Colvin; if Hendry or Fleita had said what Wilken did, that Colvin wasn't a power hitter, it would raise lots of red flags that he has no power. But with Wilken saying it, I'm not sure it precludes the possibility that he could be a 30-35 HR guy someday.) The positivity about Rundle and Lansford is encouraging. That would explain why BA had them at 15 and 20 on their Cub list. They always talk to Cub people before compiling the list, so their list particularly for guys in 2nd and 3rd tens is heavily influenced by Cub views. And of course they liked Rundle before his senior season, so he's a guy they might well tend to support. I know it's super esoteric, but did Fleita mention any specific Latin names other than Suarez? I'm really hoping that last summer would mark the end of an extended Latin slump. And often guys that Fleita mentions do end up being the guys who emerge in due time.

I don't see the problem with including guys in these lists who don't have proven pro track records. You are making judgements on future, using the info available at the time. That varies widely, from HS prospects to college prospects to short season guys to high minors guys. You take the guys where they are and make your best judgment. Obviously with wide lack of precision. I recall people fussing when BA I believe ranked Prior pretty high, and perhaps even ahead of Cruz. They were right.

I read it very differently. Ceiling allows where a player "could" end up, not where he "should" end up. Very rare for a prospect to reach his perceived ceiling. This bears on scouting rankings. Often guys with higher perceived ceilings are rated above guys with better performance. But there are a lot of minor-leaguers whose ceilings are sub-major-league. There are lots of these guys like JR Mathes or Jesus Valdez or Alberto Garcia. They may be better than Grant Johnson or Justin Berg or Dylan Johnston now. But it may be that they are viewed as having sub-major-league ceilings. Even if they work hard and come close to their max potential, you still don't have anything. If Johston or Johnson do approach their potential, perhaps they will be useful. This is even more true in HS or college. Often there are big-arm guys who aren't as good as blah college arms. But the big arms with the higher ceilings, if they learn control have a shot at majors. The blah-arm guys, often not so. The point is, do you have a chance? If you judge all scouts as dopes because most of the guys with ceilings never reach them, then of course they all look dumb. But it makes more sense to take a chance on somebody who could be big-league useful than somebody who won't even if they do approach their max potential.

That is correct, Will Carroll claimed that. I believe I remember finding that extremely puzzling, since Prior said at the end of the season and again repeated the following spring that he'd basically rested the arm all winter. It never made sense to me then.

Heh heh. True indeed. I can easily understand having an opinion strongly contrary to the Cubs' opinion when there is some information available. There is considerable info available on Gallagher; I can easily understand why somebody might think the Cubs or BA or whomever don't value him as highly as they should. There is considerable info available on Harvey; I can well understand why somebody might have an opinion on harvey that is much less enthusiastic than what Cubs or BA might hold. There is lots of history on Soriano and Lilly and one might have watched them quite a bit yourself, since they play on TV. So if a person has an opinion strongly contrary to the Cubs regarding known and viewable guys like that, it makes a lot of sense. I guess I don't see that for Sam and Huseby and Pawelek, though. There is negligible meaingful performance data on any of these three. I think it's fine to strongly disagree with the Cubs when we have reason for it. I just don't see this as one of those cases. Basically we're going on scouting gossip on all three. I don't see the logic in assuming that the Cubs are wrong. Other than on general principle that whatever the Cubs think must necessarily be stupid.

My impression is that in recent years, that Prior has done relatively little throwing/pitching during the winters. 2003: he'd pitched a *ton* of innings, and with high pitcher-per-inning, going through the playoffs. He'd been worked really hard. He was young. Plus subsequent account said that he'd really been suffering with this Achiles problem for much of 2003. I believe the game plan after Florida knocked them out was to rest that arm, that he'd done plenty of throwing. And to rest that Achiles. Not sure which offseason it was, but I believe that may also have been the offseason in which Prior got married. So my guess is that he did *not* do much throwing that winter. 2004/5: not sure how much he did then. He had spring problems, with the elbow ulnar stress syndrom reaction stuff, but he still made the opening week, pitched pretty well, and had a reasonable season around the elbow smash. 2005/6: I believe that after rushing back from the elbow smash, the intention was again for him to really rest the arm. Then he was in the hospital come December, and supposedly took a long time to bounce back from that. The impression I got was that he really hadn't done any or hardly any winter throwing until he came to camp. And we all know what happened after that. So, I think it's entirely possible that this winter has been the most aggressive throwing program he's had since joining the Cubs. If he's feeling good, that's excellent news, and I hope it plays out. That said, he did a number of sessions from the mound last spring; but the shoulder gave when he threw seriously hard. He had lots of mound sessions during his summer rehab, but the shoulder didn't hold up. There's a big difference in strain between towel-tossing, tossing, throwing from a mound, and really throwing with full force in an effort to get Pujols out with the bases loaded. Huge difference between throwing bullpens and throwing with full intensity in real games. Also, Prior is Prior. He's a very guarded interview. The fact that he says it's "good", well, he might say that regardless. He's rarely been very forthcoming when he has had problems. Still, I think the very fact that he was at the convention and exposing himself to the questions, I took that as very, very favorable indeed. If he knew he wasn't likely to be ready for spring, I think it would have been easy enough to decline the event. Time will tell. But for now I'm pretty optimistic. And the fact that he's been throwing since November and pitching bullpens this month, that's really good news IMO. I thin it's *not* just like the other winters. Hopefully he'll be better able to keep pace with the regular pitchers, and appear in some exhibition games like normal pitchers do.