craig

Has Eric made a batch of errors in front of the AFL scouts? That's probably not a great thing for boosting trade value. I see Moore and Eric as similar type players. Decent prospects, have a chance to be decent major league players if they improve. But both will need to improve more than is typical for guys their age for that to happen. I'd definitely not like for Moore to be on the big-league bench. He's got a chance to be a useful player, but he's not going to have a chance to improve as needed while sitting on the bench. He needs to see lots of AAA brreaking balls. Plus, not only would a big-league season stifle his possible development, but it would also stifle his possible trade value. If he goes to Iowa, hits .290 with 28 HR's and a .375 OBP and a .915 OPS and solid defense, you've got a guy who might make a very substantial trade chip. But if he gets 60 spotty big-league AB's, and probably struggles in them besides, I don't think a GM could convince himself, his ownership, his manager, or his fans that trading for Moore was a serious pickup for his team. Plus, if Moore goes to Iowa and fails, we'll know he's not good. If he goes to Iowa and excells, we'll know he's got value. But if he goes to Cubs and fails, we won't know much of anything. A year at Iowa would have more diagnostic value as well as developmental value.

I think it's a mistake to blame Hendry's mistakes on Baker. I think any decent GM at least "consults" with his manager, and allows his manager to have some input or at least to express whatever input he may have. Then it's the GM's job to decide whether that input is helpful or should change a direction. If anything, I think Dusty might have had more influence in terms of fringe guys. "Ramon Martinez was a nice bench player for me. I think he'd do fine." "Eyre, I think he's got the stuff, he'd help us." I'm certain that Dusty has no impact on Asian involvement. The early Asian stuff was scouting minor-leaguers. Dusty is no more likely to call shots on an amateur scout in Korea than he is to call shots on an amateur scout in Idaho. The alleged new involvement in Asia is totally different, that's going after mature players, not prospects, and is obviously the result of the problematic market for big-league pitchers in the US and in the depleted Cub farm system.

goony, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with Marshall. He's a good prospect. Absolutely we aren't "giving up" on him. But there's no reason to "lock" him into the rotation, or to assume that he'll be an excellent and reliable pitcher this year. He might be. He might not be. If he is, great, and lets take advantage of it. If he isn't, don't have the season go down the sink because you were depending on Marshall. I guess I think Marshall, Marmol, Mateo, Aardsma, Guzman, Prior, Miller, Wood, Dempster, I see things in common with many of them. Any of them might be pretty useful. Any of them might be very ineffective. Prior might get healthy and be pretty good. Wood might show up surprisingly healthy and able to contribute to the bullpen. Aardsma might be throwing well and have improved control and be an excellent reliever. Marshall might show up healthy, his curve might be more consistent, and he might be very solid. Guzman might rediscover his sinker, improve the command of his breaking ball, and have overall improved command accross the board, and might be a pretty useful guy. Dempster might pitch like 2005 again and be a very satisfactory closer. Marmol might improve his consistency and command, decrease his walks and his HR-allowed, and be quite a useable starter or reliever. Mateo can throw his fastball for strikes. Perhaps he'll jazz up his slider and be a pretty decent pitcher. Maybe with a little more time Miller will have a stronger arm, be hitting low 90's without effort, and with more time behind and a more comfortable arm he'll be able to throw strikes more easily, and be a pretty decent pitcher. Any of those are possible. I'm not writing off any of those guys. But none are locks, and none should be assumed. Sure, let Dempster have first crack at closing. But be ready to pull the plug, and fast, if his control is as problematic. I sure wouldn't expect or count on any of Prior, Wood, Miller, Guzman, Marshall, Marmol, or Mateo to be both healthy and good next year. But a couple of them might be. I hope so.

I like Marshall as a pitching prospect. I think he's got a shot to be pretty good. But, he's got lots of options left. And he's been injured for each of the last three seasons. He was bad, very bad, post-DL. Maybe he was rushed back before he was physically ready. Or, maybe not. He was also quite poor for a while prior to his DL. I think it's possible that he'll be 100% healthy. And that being a year older and wiser, that he'll be better then he was, and will be a very sturdy starter. But, it's also possible that he won't be healthy. Or that his problems pre-injury and post-injury were not flukes caused by health problems, but were just where an unimproved Marshall is at. We don't know. So, IMO, we shouldn't assume anything. If he's healthier and better and worthy, great. If he isn't healthy or isn't any better even if he is healthy, not so great. I think the default should be that he needs to prove himself again, rather than assuming that everything will be fine. If it works out that he has to prove himself at Iowa for a while, that's fine. One other factor for him: Goony mentioned a "horrible WHIP". But one of the other problems he had was giving up so many HR''s, which I don't think is going to work for him. I think he'll kind of need to profile as an anti-HR guy if he's going to have a big career. I think it's well possible that if healthy, and given time, that he'll be able to be more consistent as a groundball, anti-HR guy. And with health and experience that his curverball will get somewhat more consistent, and his control/walks will improve. He might be a good one. But it's not for sure, it may not be the case next spring even if it might be eventually, and it's not likely to happen if he isn't pretty healthy.

Thanks super much, raisin. Lots of positivity. Helpful to remember that it's Fleita, the Hypemaster supreme. 1. What do we know about Roquet? What position did he play? He pitched two college seasons, and is already 24. Ihadn't realized that he was a position convert, or that he has a "big arm". I'll pay more attention to him now. 2. Some familiar stories. Last winter, we were also hearing that Grant Johnson had made progress, updated his slider, yada yada. Did we get any "stuff" reports on him this past year? He was drafted for his velocity, of course; but my understanding was that he's been pretty much a soft-tosser. Is that right? And, I know he missed some time this year. Was this arm trouble, or a different injury? And if arm, was it related to his other miscellaneous health problems of the past? 3. The Harvey talk is also very familiar, right out of Fleita's standard script for Luis Montanez. 4. The talk about swinging at strikes, that is not that familiar. Hopefully they are trying. 5. I'm very pleased that they've moved Camp to 2nd. For a little batting-average/OBP/no-power dude, 2B is a place where an OBP can make a big-league job. But CF is usually reserved for super-athletes. Camp and Clevenger could provide a couple of guys who for 2B who don't strike out at all and have pretty good plate discipline, but no power. 6. I also liked the positive note about Lansford. I think he's a pretty interesting prospect. Hopefully one of the things he showed with the bat that he hadn't before was some power. 7. Positivity about Colvin is always good to here.

I agree, it would seem Holdzkom is pitching his way onto the 40-man. Nice.

I don't see any of the Pierre comments as suggesting that Pierre dislikes Cubs or that Hendry doesn't want him back. I clearly don't see a commitment from Hendry to resign him. To me it looks like a conditional interest. Hendry is interested in Pierre, but it depends on the price. Pierre would consider coming back. But he needs to explore free agency first. If the price Hendry is willing to pay is as good as the market will offer, he may well take it later. But no point in signing a deal, when there's a chance that there will be a lot more money available in free agency. I'm not sure either side knows what free agency will offer Pierre. So until Pierre scopes the market, it doesn't make sense for him to sign what might be well-below-market offer. Nor for Hendry to assume anything. Often players (and agents) have inflated expectations, and the market teaches them otherwise. (I recall Gutierrez and Dunston both declining Cub offers, only to end up settlng for offers that were barely half as large on the market.) It is possible, of course, that Hendry does have a better feel for the market, and he's pretty sure what he'd be willing to pay Pierre, in either length or per-year dollars, is unlikely to be competitive. That's entirely possible. I do think it may be length as much or more than per-year dollars that's at issue. Pierre may be able to get a long-term deal, at least 3 and perhaps even 4 years guaranteed. But if Hendry is committed to keeping Pie and believes he's going to be good, it's possible that it's length more than anything that Hendry doesn't want to do with Pierre.

The concept of Soriano in center is really intriguing. Offensively, it would do a lot. Would boost the CF OPS by 200-300 points. Would add an extra 40 HR's. Guess what: HR's are a really efficient way to score rune! He also compares favorably to Pierre OBP-wise. Soriano was .355 this year with 67 walks, thats a lot. And his career IsoD is around 45. So I think he's safer to OBP >.325 than is true for Pierre. Soriano also has a very strong arm. After Pierre, Murton, and Jones, none of whom could throw at all, putting Soriano in between Murton and Jones would force baserunners to at least pay attention before deciding they can freely take the extra base. Soriano may be fast, but I don't think he was very good in left, based on friends who saw him play. Experience may help, and CF is perhaps the easiest. But if you signed him for center and he was poor there, you could have a really, really bad defensive outfield. So be it, those are the chances you gotta take! I think Soriano in center might also work well with Pie coming along. If Pie continues to progress well, he could spend this year improving at Iowa; next year s a 4th outfielder, and 3 years from now Jones' contract will be up and Pie could replace him. Perhaps by taking center and Soriano moving to right. Or, perhaps in 2008 one could imagine Pie taking center, Soriano moving to right, and either Jones being traded or Jones being a 4th OF or semi-platoon with Murton. One of the other factors with Soriano is where you'd hit him. He's mostly led off and he likes leading off. It would be kind of exciting to have a leadoff hitter with a .350-OBP and a .900-OPS leading off. Given that Izturis/Theriot/Cedeno don't have much power, retaining Pierre in center would put us really at a power disadvantage. I think they kind of need to get some HR's either in center or at 2nd. But if you got Soriano for center, and a Jones platoon for right, you could put together some pretty interesting lineups. Soriano-Theriot-Lee-Aram-Murton-Barrett-Jones-Izturis-pitcher? Were Soriano to replicate (or come close) to his .367 OBP, you could have a very strong OBP-lineup 1-6. And you could have a lot of HR's 1, 3-7. Makes too much sense to actually happen.

That's pretty encouraging. If he can sustain that, it would appear that his past surgery and arm trouble is no longer bothering him. INcluding whatever it was that DL'd him early this year. He had no problem with the adjustment to AA. ERA below 2 there. To me the big surprise for Holdzkom this year has been that he's kept his walks down to a reasonable number. Eaerly in his career he was a big-time walkaholic. 94 + good slider + decent control could equal a major-league career in 7th inning relief? Or, could also equal a 40-man roster spot.

Well, maybe his defense problem are overplayed. He may not be the worst outfielder in the last 50 years. But he's certainly one of the poorest ones right now, and his defense needs to be factored. If he defense is worth, say, 40 OPS points against, then 855 - 40 makes him an 815 OPS value. Jones (if platooned) is around that. Murton is already an .800-type OPS guy, and I think may still get better. We've already got two left fielders. I don't see adding Dunn as a 3rd leftfielder makes great sense. I'm not sure that the cost difference between Murton and Dunn is worth the performance advangtage, if any, that you'd get by upgrading from Murton to Dunn. I've liked Dunn in past. But at present, I don't think he makes sense for us. I also think he'd fit better in the AL, where he could DH. And where if he was batting 6th or 7th, his OBP value wouldn't be partially wasted by having a pitcher batting a coupe of spots behind him.

I think that's pretty reasonable thinking. With injuries you never know who's out and who might get big-league. And obviously trades are likely to impact the population at AAA/AA. Even without, I don't see Iowa as being excessive logjam. To me, I see Guzman and Ryu as the two obvious starters. After that, it's hard to guess. Seems to be several guys who have a chance to be big-league contributors, but who are much more likely to make it in relief than to have enough of everything to be big-league starters. *Marmol has a lot of talent and the good arm, but Hendry has several times indicated that they've viewed his long-term future more likely and better suited for relief than rotation. So, do they figure his development is best served by starting at IOwa? Innings, etc., and maybe if his control upgraded big-time he'll look like a starter after all? Or, do they figure he's gonna be a reliever, and that he deserves some time in Iowa practicing that role so it's not an adjustment when he reaches the big-leagues with that job? *Shaver, kind of the same. He had a nice season and all that, but it's hard to see him with the stuff to be a quality big-league starter. Much easier to get a shot (and to stick) as a lefty reliever than as a big-league starter. So, maybe he'll be used for relief to get used to that. Or, maybe not, maybe after his little surgery his arm will feel better, he'll throw harder, and he'll look as rotation-competitive as somebody like Marshall? So, he'll be starting? *Mateo, throws strikes, a real asset for a starter. If he can upgrade his slider, maybe he's got a shot to be a decent starter. Personally, I don't see the diversity of stuff or the body fitness to be a 200-innings starter. More likely that if he does stick around, again it will be in relief. So, will they put him in rotation or relief? *Wells' stuff seems awfully shy for rotation. Same/more-so for O'Malley and Mathes. Obviously they'll need to have 5 starters, so they can't move everybody to relief. But I don't think it will be a problem. That looks pretty reasonable to me. Gallagher and Veal are the obvious. Holliman I think as well, although as you say and as with some of the Iowa dudes, when they decide to shift him to relief, who knows? I wouldn't be surprised to see Harben return to AA, in the rotation. He'll be only 23, and would be an innings-eater for them. Given that neither his stuff nor his 1.52 WHIP command promotion, plus being new to the org, repeating AA might make sense. Give AA a stable starter, give him some time to work with Cub pitching coaching. If he doesn't improve, then he doesn't belong in AAA anyway. And if he does, he might put up some more impressive stats in AA. For similar reasons, I think Berg might perhaps return to Daytona.

Are you sure that's "our" Jose Martinez? (There are at least 3 Jose Martinez pitchers in pro ball...) If so, that's rather surprising. Jose Martinez was supposedly a big-time signing... back in 2001, a few months before we signed Felix Pie! Supposedly this big, 6'5" Venezuelan lefty who had just turned 17 was already throwing in the low 90's. But 6 innings into his Mesa campaign in 2002, his arm was hurting. He's gone through surgery and years of rehabbing, seemingly without good effect. In 2005, he tried to come to camp, wasn't looking good enough to stay rookie league and got sent down to DSL, got hammered, and after a couple of games didn't pitch again. Then this year he was back again Stateside, opened with Boise, pitched 3 bad innings, got demoted, pitched a bad inning with Mesa, and disappeared again. (10 hits and 3 walks in 3+ innings between the two levels). He turned 22 this week. Seems surprising that a guy who's pitched a total of 11 innings in the US over his 5-year career would make a Venezuelan team, since those are pretty competitive. Is it possible that his arm is finally getting back in shape, and a VSL team thinks that perhaps he can give them a couple of innings this year, but down the road might be a real value in future years? That would be cool, almost miraculous, if after five years of arm problems he was able to throw hard again. Heh, not likely.

Thanks for that note. Are you certain? $3 matters substantially, I'd think. I recall in January of 2005, before Sammy was traded, that Hendry specifically said that Sammy's buyout (for 06) would be on the 05 payroll, not the 06 payroll. $6 for Wood buyout and Rusch contract. The difference between having all $6 on the books, versus perhaps having none of that on the books, versus perhaps something in between, that will have a large impact on what Hendry actually can do.

I think the KC rumor is too detailed and specific to seem realistic. To suggest Dempster/KC as a possibility, with perhaps interest in Sanders or Brown, and with some cash changing hands, that seems very reasonable. But the details about dollars, that seems beyond the pale when the season isn't even over yet. That said, the concept of trading Dempster, a chunk of money, and a good prospect for Brown makes good sense. I don't know much about Brown; can he throw the ball from RF? He's been a pretty good hitter these last couple of seasons, .280+ and .800+ OPS each time, good OBP. I think adding a cat like that as a 4th outfielder makes tons and tons of sense, so Jones can platoon. Don't know how good he is, but I know Brown used to play some center for Pittsburgh. Perhaps he might also back up Pierre, or serve as a bridge to Pie. If Pie looks great and wins the job quickly, Brown can platoon and be a fine 4th outfielder. If Pie spends another full year in minors, Brown might be quite a good bat for a CF. Just thinking. In presenting those two deals, they come across as kind of equal. But to me, Brown is tons more desirable than ancient Sanders. Obviously the money would factor in, but I'd think you'd need to be giving a much better prospect for Brown than Sanders. The rumor had "middle infielder", in Sanders case. We've got three: Cedeno, Theriot, and Patterson. Had "pitching prospect" for Brown. Given that Brown is a superior value to Sanders, if taken at face value, that "pitching prospect" would have to be a very good one, presumably more valuable than any of those three middle infielders. I suppose it would need to come somewhere from the pool of Guzman, Gallagher, Marshall, and Marmol. Mateo, Aardsma, Novoa not good enough. Interesting to think about, at any rate.

Back to the original point: It appears that Snider is the preferable prospect. I'd rather have Snider. Guys who can really hit, and who have plate discipline, are really valuable. But that does not make Colvin a big blunder or mistake. His ranking as top prospect in the smaller Northwest League suggests that BA at least views him at this point as a pretty good pick, too. Northwest or somebody early on referred to Snider as a high-risk pick because he's a HS guy. The implication being that all HS guys are high-risk. I'm not sure I agree with that. But even if he was then, I think even the 200-AB sample in Appy League puts to rest the notion that he's a high-risk might-be-total-bust notion now. there are plenty of guys who throw pretty fast and have breaking balls even in teh appy league. Guys who go bust routinely manifest red-flags even at very low levels. Harvey did, Mike Mallory did, etc.. Granted, sometimes you have a Luis Montanez who looks fine in rookie and who then gets blitzed in A-. But usually if a guy can't process breaking balls and never will, that will already show itself in even rookie league. Not so for Snider. I think he'll be a good one. As I recall for Snider, the question wasn't so much his hitting. (Many toolsy HSers bust because they just can't hit and never do.) I think his question was body and position. And I do think it's possible that given how big he already is, as a teenager, you wonder whether he'll move defensivley like David Ortiz by the time he's 25 or 32. If he ends up limited to DH or bad 1B defensively, that significantly elevates the bar for how good he'll have to hit in order to be an asset.

Could anybody share some scouting info on jesse Estrada? He won't turn 23 till next month. So after repeating low-A, he isn't real young, but neither is he too old to take seriously. I know he lists as a huge guy, 6'8" 260 is the list value. Often those lists are old. Does that seem accurate, and does he seem like a fit, intimidating presence? Or will weight be a challenge for him? He wasn't very good last year, gave up tons of hits and had very few K's. This year he started slow, but got better by the month, and was very effective by the end of the season. On the year, his walks were reasonable and his hits were now respectable, and his K's improved from microscopic to merely low. So, in terms of actual stuff and projection, what info can people give? As a 6'8" hulk, does he presently have or project to have a power fastball? My recall from last year was that he was mostly 86-92 kind of range. Does that seem about right, or did he perhaps improve some this year? Boost the high end and keep it at or over 90 more consistently than he did last year? I seem to recall reference to a curveball that looked OK, but wasn't very sharp and didn't have much control, i.e. wasn't a very effective pitch last year. I'm guessing that his breaking pitch was perhaps a little sharper and a little more consistent this year? Bottom line question: is this a guy who might have the physical talent, who has found out how to tap into some of that, and who might have enough further improvement ahead that he might be a serious prospect next year? Or is his stuff too fringey to take him very seriously?

I doubt they trade Cedeno. They can let things play out. If Cedeno shows progress next year, he might win 2B. (He's probably got more defensive tools than EPatt, a higher ceiling defensively.) Or, if Cedeno does lousy and Patterson improves, Patterson could win that. Perhaps more likely is that they go outside to acquire a 2B who's better than 2006 Cedeno, so that the job isn't open next year or the year following. The other thing is that we have no reason to assume Cedeno is long-term for 2B. Maybe he'll do well there, and he'll stick. But, Izturis is on a terminal contract next year. Assuming he isn't worth his salary, they may let him walk and move Cedeno back to SS. So there are lots of possibilities. Cedeno is only 2 months older than EPatt. So if we're expecting EPatt to improve with time, I don't see why the same might not apply to Cedeno. But, who's to know how much either of them will improve, if at all? Time will tell.

That's a great scouting report. Heh, kind of funny how the one report has slider and splitter, the other report has curve. I suppose between those three pitches, at least one of them must be right! Anyway, with the Cubs going 3rd, it's great to have super reports on both Price and Brackman. Both seem like exactly the types of guys the Cubs like. Pitchers, and pitchers with college experience. I like Wieters a ton too. So between Price, Brackman, and Wieters, would seem to have three elite prospects so that picking 3rd the Cubs should work out great. The problem is, Wieters seems a total anti-Cub pick,particularly given circumstances. To love him, you oughta believe in him as a catcher. If you don't believe in him as a catcher, probably 1B or LF are next options. But those are exactly three of the only four spots that the Cubs already have clogged, with Barrett, Lee, and Murton. I'm not sure how much that will influence there draft choice; they may well (and wisely) pick him anyway, and figure that if he works out (especially at catcher), that Barrett's catcher clock will be ticking pretty fast and may be nearing midnight by the time Wieters is ready anyway. But, it seems pretty likely that the Cubs would prefer one of the two pitchers. And would not be as excited about taking a non-sprinter catcher. If Price and Brackman go 1-2, I wouldn't be surprised to see Cubs pass on Wieters and look for whichever HS player they like best. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing. A lot of the best major leaguers were HS picks, and it sounds like there could be some pretty jazzy candidates next year. So if the worst-case is to "settle" for the best HS talent, it might turn out great. But, HS players often don't hit the curveball and often don't end up with any plate discipline. Or, they end up fielding like Ben Grieve. Or, if pitchers, by the time they work through the minors their arms have often deteriorated to the point where they are no longer exceptional arms. And even if the HS pick does work, it will still be a while before it pays off. So if there can be an elite, high-ceiling worthy college guy a #3, I'd prefer that.

Farms turn over very quickly. The reputation of a farm system depends in significant part on their supply of upper-level high-talent prospects. But those guys either graduate quickly or lose their luster quickly. So teams that are rated real high one year can often drop quickly. conversely a couple of good drafts in a row can jump a team up very quickly from middle or bottom third into top ten very quickly. So how long does it need to take for the Cub farm get back into BA's Top Ten? Not very long at all. With a top-3 pick next year, if they do well next year, and the draft thereafter, they could be back in the top tier. Obviously the outcome of this year's draft is also crucial. samardzija could go football, Colvin could be just a guy, Huseby could be a bust . But if Sam goes baseball and progresses; if Huseby proves healthy and good, and if Colvin progresses, this could go down as an excellent draft. But who knows, at this point? Huseby, Sam, and Pawelek are three pitchers the Cubs valued a lot. Two years from now, if all three are full-time baseball, all three are healthy, and all three are progressing, plus you pick up Price or Braxton or somebody like that next draft, it's possible that the Cub pitching will look terrific. Who knows? It needn't take long. Of course, the same is true for most all organizations. 2-3 back-to-back-to-back successful drafts and the last can become first. No great reason to think that the Cubs are especially likely to identify the right guys, or have the guys they choose stay healthy, or any of that. Other note: we talk about "system" and all that. But the number of top-level players that even the best system produces is pretty small. So the actual production that a farm will get in terms of big-league value is somewhat unpredictable. Quantity means quality, it's said. But one Pujols outweighs a dozen Farnsworth/Chaison/Kelton/Goldbach/Patterson/Christensen/Beltran/Brendan Harris/Cruz/Wellemeyer/Mitre/Leiecester/Prior types. So you never know. There are dozens of prospects who look much more exciting than Patterson or Moore, and dozens more who have as good a shot as they do of ever being quality players. But some B prospects do end up being solid, useful players. Maybe one of those two guys will be one of the few B's who does, and who ends up being better than most of the A prospects in the game? It may not be likely, but it's possible.

On Average AGe in AAA: I have numbers back from opening-day 2001. At that time, the average age in AAA was 27.0, with a standard deviation of 3.2 years. Not sure why things should be very much different now. That was pre-age-gate. So if anything, I'd guess there might have been some Latin guys who were listing at 21 who were really 24, so if anything the average might be higher now and with fewer really young deviants? Obviously the average age of actual prospects is well below 27! At 21, Pie really is exceptionally young for AAA.

kc, you've touched on Wieters often throughout the thread. And he sounds like the perfect hitting prospect: good power, good average, good patience, good eye, as polished as an amateur hitter can get. I'm not as settled on what the scouting view is on him as a position player, and how that would impact his suitability to the Cubs. My understanding is that he's sort of iffy at catcher; some think he can handle catcher defensively, others have doubts and think he'll need to switch. (Or that with his bat, you'll want him to switch to protect such a valuable hitter against the injuries and wear that grinds down catchers.) If he switches, obviously 1B is the obvious option. In terms of OF, he'd seem to have the arm, and being such a good athlete and good worker you'd think he could learn to catch the ball and throw the ball fine in a corner. Still, he's a catcher, not a runner; so my take is that it would be questionable whether he'd be able to play corner OF at even a reasonable level. Would he be as bad as Adam Dunn, or as broken-down Pat Burrell who has no range? Or would he be just fine? I'd love to get him for the Cubs. True-blue hitters who have already shown that breaking balls won't kill them, and who have already shown they have power and have the inborn pitch-recognition abilities and plate disciplne to excel, guys like that are exceedingly rare. And while there are some guys who end up with that package, it's even more rare to be able to draft guys where you know they've got the full package before you even pick them. Where you aren't drafting a guy ona gamble, hoping that he'll learn to handle breakers, hoping that he'll have the eye and will have the ability to be disciplined, hoping that the projected power actually does materialize. But, in other ways he seems like a very poor fit for the Cubs. *First, he's not the type of guy they usually like. As a guy without speed, who apparently does not project as a gold-glove catcher, that doesn't seem to be the Cubs kind of guy. *Second, as a guy who's all bat but iffy position, he'd seem to make more sense for an AL team. *Third, it seems that if he's going to be able to play a position, unfortunately his first three spots look to be three of the few spots where the Cubs already have some quality. Granted, Barrett at catcher won't last forever, but who knows how long he might last? Hopefully long enough that he'll still be an asset player when Wieters (if he's worth drafting) is also ready to be a lineup player. Lee is locked in for four years at 1st. No place for Wieters there. Murton seems like one of the most promising hitters the Cubs have come up with in some time, but with his rubber band and crummy fielding he's strictly a LF/DH type. So he's not moving anywhere. Thus, unless the Cubs thought Wieters could play right, he wouldn't seem to have any place to go, if in fact he turns out good and is ready after maybe only two summers or less in the minors. And the odds that they'd think he was a RF, well, that usually seems reserved for speedier guys. And that seems to be the place they've got Pie projected for. (Note: personally I think that RF is no larger than LF. So I don't understand why a guy with a powerful arm wouldn't be as or better suited for right as for left. Granted, right is normally viewed as actually more difficult than left. But, if a guy has a computer brain that's super good at processing balls and angles and situations, then even if he isn't a speed burner you'd think he'd be able to handle the more difficultr reads in RF and the more difficult sun etc. in right as well as somebody who's faster.) Personally, I hope Wieters scouts well enough so that catcher or right are both realistic positions for him. I'd love to get a middle-of-the-order patient power hitter like that, who could stay healthy (if in RF) and productive for a decade or more. But I'd be pretty surprised if the Cubs didn't prefer to take a pitcher whose arm will decline, or a faster HS middle-field position prospect ahead of Wieters.

Very true!

I think you have to be very careful with that line of thinking. While confidence can definitely help a hitter's approach at the plate, overconfidence can be a killer. If you go up to the plate every time with the mentality that you're getting a hit on the first seemingly good pitch you see, that will lead to plenty of swings at bad pitches resulting in strikes or outs. By the way, I'll probably have my rebuttal up in the EPatt thread in the next few days. :P While your point is true, it is exactly contrary to the point I was making. My point is simple: If I'm scared of 2 strike-counts, I might be swinging at the 1-strike pitch 4-inches off the plate, rather than put myself in that 2-strike hole where I know I so consistently fail (and often end up swining at stuff 10 inches off the plate...). If I'm confident, I'll take the one strike pitch 4 inches or 1 inch off the plate; I might even take the pitch that I know will be a strike but is not in the power zone I'm looking for. It takes confidence to let yourself get into a 2-strike count. But that's what patient hitters often do. If you look at big-league stats, there is a very severe drop in productivity (BA, slugging) from 0-strike to 1-strike to 2-strike counts. Big league hitters as a whole do much worse with 2-strikes on them than with fewer, for obvious reasons.

I think this is an excellent point. I think a lot of low-walk guys don't walk because they are afraid of 2-strike counts. They know they stink with 2-strike counts, and K a lot. Solution? Don't let the count get to 2 strikes, and expand your strikezone already on 1- and 0-strike counts. But sometimes, if something happens so that a dude's contact ability does increase, his confidence that he can live with some 2-strike counts increases. And when that happens, he may be more patient and disciplined earlier in the count. One side of the coin is the view that from good patience, you swing at good pitches and hit them better. Plate discipline is the chicken, better hitting is the egg. I'm suggesting that the reverse can also apply; when you're hitting better, you may be more willing to be more patient.

I don't believe that Gallagher will be up this year. But next year, who knows. 40-man considerations work against, but big-league needs trump. If Gallagher is pitching well and the big-league rotation continues to flounder, they'll try anybody. Maybe on winter paper Gallagher may look about 13th on their intended paper depth chart: (1 Z 2-outside pickup 3-outside pickup 4-Prior 5-Miller 6-Marshall 7-Hill 8-Marmol 9-Guzman 10-Mateo 11-Ryu, 12-Rusch 13-Gallagher). But the way things go with the Cubs, injury and ineffectiveness can knock those guys off the ladder pretty fast. My concern is the high walks. >6 walks/9 IP, and he's got the pitch counts and low innings totals to match. Hard to see much success with that degree of control trouble.