craig

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.

Not sure using the CF average as a reference is that helpful. It's not like there are a bunch of average CFers hanging around waiting for the Cubs to invite them in, at no trade cost and at no budget cost and with no long-term commitment. The Cubs have a shot to be awful in center. If they can end up being even close to average, I think that will be a big relief to me. I think Theriot learning to play some center has merit. He's supposed to be a utility guy. Whether it's Jones or Pie, both are LH. Jones has a record of LHP problems, and Pie will have enough trouble handling RHP much less lefties. RH alternatives in center are very desirable. Pagan provides one, but his OPS was sub-.600 versus LHP last year, too. If Theriot provides another candidate, I think it's worth at least considering.

I would disagree on this. I agree on putting him behind Gallagher, who has shown that he has a major league fastball (speed/movement/command factored), has a shot at some good breaking pitch(es), and has already had success in AA. But I think a $10 guarantee and Wilken saying that he ranked Sam as the #1 guy tells you something about how the Cub scouts rank Sam for talent. Very high. They may be wrong, of course. But since we're basically projecting Sam, Huseby, and Pawelek on scouting opinions rather than on demonstrated results (Huseby has hardly any, and Pawelek showed neither exceptional velocity or command this past summer), I don't see why the default wouldn't be to go with the guy Wilken seems to strongly prefer. I think the Cubs have invested quite a bit of scouting time on Sam. It's at least possible that their high opinion of his potential is reasonably informed. [/i]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070119cubsdeal,1,2250341.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines Maybe posted on other board. But if this thread is correct, the money in the deal is unbelievable. Claims he got a $10/5 guarantee, with Cubs having two more option years that could make it $16.5. That's some serious money. For right or wrong, I think the Cubs might like this cat more than we'd understand why based on the BA-published scouting reports.

I also think the value of average players is sometimes undervalued. A black hole can neutralize the advantage that a plus player provides. In Lee, Aram, Z, I believe Soriano, I believe Barrett (at least offensively), I hope Hill, the Cubs have a number of players with a chance to be significantly above-average relative to the league. If the rest of the team was average accross the board, you'd be in the playoffs pretty regularly. There can be value in a prospect even if he doesn't end up being more than an average player. Iimagine how much it would have helped had Corey and Mitre and Cruz proved to be at least average, even if not stars?

Players have deviant results in small sample sizes all the time. But hitters do make adjustments, and sometimes they matter. It's at least possible that a young hitter like Cedeno has done that, for the good? Who knows what that might be. Perhaps something to get back toward the comfort level and plate coverage that he had in 2005. Probably just a meaningless small-sample fluke, but it's at least possible that it bodes well for future. Cedeno showed enough good in 05 to think he had a chance to be good. He showed enough bad in 06 to think he might be worthless. (His defense, hustle, and game awareness also seemed often unsatisfactory.) Given the Izturis contract and situation, I would certainly like to see Cedeno get the year at Iowa and see if he can reestablish himself as a plausible, acceptable low-cost SS down the road. One other hopeful thought. Some adjustments take a while to pay off. Cedeno got himself out on a lot of bad balls in 2006, and walked little. His winter and playoff walk rate has been fine, nothing special but 10% or so. But that hasn't been continuous. Over his first 50 AB he had only one walk. So his next 100 AB involved a lot of walks to catch up, and he's sustained decent rate in playoffs. It's possible that he made a change, resulting in the somewhat abrupt increase in walks received, that it didn't pay off in terms of improved hitting right away, but that now he's reaping some benefits in his hitting? One can always hope.

No, I didn't say he doesn't have enough power to play left. I think it's entirely possible that he will. It's possible that he won't, but it's too soon to know either way. He would have Jones like numbers at the corner at best according to what you wrote, correct? No. I think having Jones-like numbers is quite possible for him. More probable than that he ends up with D Lee or Aram numbers. I posted a hypothetical using basically Jones-like numbers. To illustrate how that would be definite value combined with Kotsay-like CF defense, but would not be much above average in left. And yes, I think it's well below probable that he out-OPS's Jacque 06. But "at best " I think Colvin has at least a chance to be much better than Jacque. At best he could hit 35 HR's. At best he could walk 10% rather than 6.5%. At best he could K 15% rather than 22%. At best he could be a .900+ OPS who runs the bases much better than Jacque 06 and plays much better outfield than Jacque 06 (at best a much better arm). Most short-season prospects never reach their "at bests". It's certainly less than likely that either Pie or Colvin will ever consistently out-OPS the .833 OPS we got from Jacque 06. But both certainly have the "at best" potential to do so.

No, I didn't say he doesn't have enough power to play left. I think it's entirely possible that he will. It's possible that he won't, but it's too soon to know either way. I'm kind of thinking that if he doesn't hit enough HR's, it likely won't be for lack of strength, but rather because he just doesn't hit the ball on the nose often enough.

Some Colvin thoughts: 1) he was 20 years old, away from home for the first time, rich for the first time, and stronger than when younger. Playing every day for the first time, doing baseball from January till September for the first time. Things could change. 2) On power: some have posted that he lacks LF power, somebody made Grace analogy, etc.. That may be true. But Colvin hit 11 HR's in 200-some AB for Boise, at age 20. Qualitative scouting reports suggest that he's got good bat speed (which is good for power), and that he's got a lot of room to get bigger and stronger. Lots of strong guys never hit a lot of HR's, and plenty of guys who aren't all that super strong hit quite a few. Hitting the ball solid is more important than being a physical hulk. Also, Wilken is a different personality than Fleita/Hendry, not nearly the gusher. So when he says that Colvin isn't really a power guy, that may mean nothing more than that he doesn't profile as a super hulk like Dopirak or Ryan Howard or Jim Thome, or have the distance mongo power of Ryan Harvey. But it doesn't necessarily mean thathe doesn't have the chance to perhaps hit 20-35 HR's a year. Who knows? I think it's very important that he does develop as a dude with at least reasonable HR output. 3) The HR's are big deal. If you K 20% of your AB, you can still hit .280 if you're getting a HR every 20 AB. But if you're K'ing 20% of your AB but you average 50 AB/HR, then hitting for a useful average becomes very difficult. 4) The two offensive profile things that seem established at this point is that he doesn't walk much, and he does K pretty much. We'll see how that goes. Some guys improve some in both areas, and in Tyler's case neither were so far off in his first season that modest incremental improvement might make these satisfactory. I also think there is justification for hope in these areas because he was quite streaky. (I know, that goes with hitting, but his seemed more so than usual.) Sometimes when guys improve, they learn to better sustain the good times and better minimize the pits. But my qualitative recall is that Colvin was very, very hot for a while, but that there were periods where he racked up tons of K's in modest time periods. 5) On bunting and "middle of order". Well duh, if he ends up being Barry Bonds, you won't want him bunting much. But we have no idea what he'll become, really. Yes, if his pitch selection improves, his power builds, and he's able to lock into the good colvin, he's got a chance to be a quality middle-of-order hitter. But it's also well possible that he'll never be a #2 or #7 hitter, or a utility player, or whatever. If he makes it at all, we can't assume that he won't be in a position where doing an occassional bunt might not be expected. (By bunt-loving big-league managers, even if you assume every manager who ever calls for a bunt is an idiot.) 6) CF vs LF. My expectation is LF. But I hope he plays mostly CF this season. Suppose, for example, that he ends up as a guy who K's 20%, 1HR/20AB, BABIP's at .300, and averages a below-average but not Neifi-esque 7 walks/100 AB. That would probably get you a guy with a .275 batting average, a .330-type OBP, and an OPS around .800. For a LF that's not bad, but not special. But for a CF, that would be very strong. If it turns out he could play a Mark Kotsay-caliber CF, that could be a high-value player. I doubt that. But I'd like to see.

We do? How do we know this. Well, I guess I was wrong, or may be wrong. Depends on how accurate or not BA may be. But BA has now published that Sam and the Cubs did indeed agree to this $7.25 contract. The following is the opening paragraph from an article dated Jan 11. ======= By Jim Callis January 11, 2007 CHICAGO--In an effort to steer righthander Jeff Samardzija away from the NFL, the Cubs gave their 2006 fifth-round pick a draft-record $7.25 million bonus. He'll be paid in full if he stays with baseball through 2010. ======== Given the mixed opinions on BA's reliability, I suppose it's possible that they, too, have gotten it wrong. But it now appears fairly widely reported.

This is totally unrelated, but is a Q for Tim or somebody who knows. I got an email telling me that I got a private message from NSBB on my NSBB account, but unfortunately I am too poor to actually pay for NSBB premium privileges. (Sorry, Tim.) How is it that I have some private account without being a premium paying customer? I've gotten these on occassion before. And wondered if I was missing out on some really interesting messages or questions or information. Is there any way to access such messages without paying? Or if not, to close the account so that nobody thinks they are actually commincating with me but I can't actually read it? (I'm just imagining somebody sending me a message asking me to correct something I said wrong, or to apologize for something I said wrong, and then I look like a creep because I never even respond or something...)