craig

Yeah, that's what the optimist side of me hopes. It's a stretch, but I could envision him being somewhat comparable to my memory of Henry Rodriguez. Rodriguez hung around for 11 seasons and made over $15 million as a low-OBP HR-hitter, and without Harvey's defensive virtue. That will be pretty tough, though. Henry OBP'd at .321, not as bad as I'd have expected.

There are a number of excellent hitters who can sustain higher BABIP's over a series of years or over an entire career. Certainly not many, very few above .330. The highest I'm aware of in the current majors is Derek jeter, who had a .360 BABIP over his 11 seasons entering this year. Kirby Puckett was a career .334. Rod Carew was .361. Ted Williams .329. Tony Gwynn .345. Nomar .323. Harvey on season is .304 BABIP. So he's been non-sustainably hot lately, but his composite numbers are pretty normal, he must have had some bad luck early? If you project Harvey's current numbers to a full, 160-game big-league season, you might project around 30 HR. The league might well have interest in a rocket-armed gold-glove RF who hit .250 with 30 HR's, even if his OBP was lousy. The pessimist says that his horrible IsoD and K-rates agree that he's got no clue, that he can't see or react to pitches, and that it's likely that even better pitchers will kill him. That he won't be able to sustain his BABIP or HR rate, that he'll K even more, that his average and HR's will *not* hold up in higher leagues. The optimist in me says that his walk and K-rates are so incredibly bad, tht with experience he can't help but get more selective, raise his IsoD, and become a smart and more selective hitter. He's still only 21. If so, his current output isn't that far short. A few extra walks, a few extra HR's, a few fewer K's, and suddenly a .718 OPS guy is a .788 OPS guy. Take his current numbers, add 8 walks, 4 HR's, and convert 6 of his K's into batted balls, and suddenly you've got a .264BA-.320 OBP-.480slugging-.800 OPS guy, with the RF rocket, and he's back in our top 5. Obviously adding 8 walks and 4 HR's, all while removing 6 K's, that isn't easy. I'm just trying to illustrate how it's not like he needs an immediate total makeover to get interesting. Just some small incremental adjustments. 8 more walks's and we'd still peg him as a horrific hackaway. 6 fewer K's and we'd still say his swing is full of holes. 4 more HR's, well, we've always said he was really strong. The same general profile; just some incremental small-step improvements in every area.

The other day we were discussing high-draft pitchers with franchise potential. Justin Verlander was one of the few who hadn't had his arm deteriote (yet), a poster boy for the value of going after pitchers. Now the word is that he's got "dead arm". Lots of pitchers do, and bounce back just fine. For others, of course, "dead arm" is not "normal" and is the precursor to deterioration of the stuff that made them look so attractive. We'll see with Verlander. But his deterioration may already have begun. Along with Verlander, the Twins' Liriano has been the other example of a kid pitcher who's absolutely unbelievable, and who has elevated his team into the playoff mix. A month ago, Verlander and Liriano might have been among the top 3-5 players in all of baseball that I'd want if I could start a team. But Liriano now has some elbow problems. I was listening to the Twins braodcasters talking yesterday, and they were commenting (who knows if they knew anything...) that Verlander's problem sounds worse than Liriano's. But it's a question if/when Liriano will be back in the rotation, if at all this year. May be a brief, tempporary setback, and once back he'll be as good as ever. But I wouldn't be surprised if the deterioration has begun, and we'll never see Liriano quite as unbelievable as he's been this summer.

Tirado is from Puerto Rico. 50 rounds of draft, and he didn't sneak in.

I'm surprised how low Hill has scored in the general valuations posted on this discussion. For me: Next year value: 1. Hill 2. Marshall 3. Marmol 4. Guzman Trade Value: 1. Hill 2,. Marshall (close) 3. Marmol 4. Guzman The first three seem pretty close to me, and could vary considerably from one org to another. One GM might love Marmol's ceiling; another might be a believer in Hill's curve and AAA numbers; another might just want to have a safe 4th/5th starter who will throw strikes, and will prefer Marshall. My Willingness to Trade: 1. Marmol 2. Marshall 3. Hill 4. Guzman. Guzman has too many question marks to have much trade value. I don't expect him to turn out special; but there's still a chance, and I don't want to lose that for the sake of what I expect would be a limited trade return. Of the other three, Hill's status seems most fluid. If he finishes the season strong, as in his last two starts and his minor-league numbers, I think he'll easily separate himself from marmol and Marshall. If he struggles, and has a bunch of disaster starts, he'll look worse than safer Marshall and big-stuff Marmol. In making a trade, I'd be most willing to sacrifice Marmol. He's enough ahead of Guzman that I think he might center a deal for a serious player. But his control issues raise questions about how useful he'll be, both next year and beyond. Ditto for marshall. Marshall seems much safer to me than any of the other three. He'll keep the ball down, get some groundouts, not a wildman. But Marshall seems to have the least star potential of the four. A solid 4th starter is nice, for a team that doesn't have one. But there will be other guys who come along who can be solid 3rd/4th starters. Marshall isn't likely to go Dontrelle on us. Hill I think maybe has a better chance than Marmol to be good next year and beyond, and a better chance than Marshall to become a real impact pitcher, whose loss you might regret for a long time.

Cubs have now moved into the #5 spot on the draft board, up into 26th place. One game down on Washington for 25th place, although the Cubs have the draft tiebreaker with Washington. 3 games out of 24th place and the 7th pick in the draft. But way different from last year, when protected pick was at stake. For a while, one game looked like the difference between picking maybe 13th, 14th, or 15th versus picking 113th. 3rd vs 5th vs 7th will matter, but it doesn't seem as dramatic.

The Cubs have four prospect pitchers in Hill, Marshall, Marmol and Guzman. It's strongly unlikely that the Cubs are going to leave three rotation spots open for them next summer. Hendry is certain to acquire at least one, and very possibly two, rotation pitchers over the winter, leaving two or perhaps only one rotation spot open for the prospects. (If Prior is healthy in April.) It seems to me that one avenue would be to acquire one outside pitcher. Maybe a real good one (jason schmidt, Zito...), more likely a not so good one. Another avenue wold be to acquire a second outside pitcher, very possibly via trade. These four prospect pitchers provide some trade leverage for Hendry, too. So, here are my 3 questions: 1. Rate the four prospects in terms of what you expect would be their 2007 effectiveness. (If you are trying to win next year, which one or two would you most want in the rotation?) 2. Rate them in terms of what you think their trade value is. (I'm Jim Hendry, I decide to sign jason Schmidt and then to acquire a youngish rotation pitcher one or two seasons from free agency. That pitcher is promising enough so that he'll cost somebody good. To get him, I'll need to trade one of the four prospects, plus additional but lesser prospect value. Which of those four guys will have the best trade value? (The same cold go for using one to trade for an outfielder). 3. Rate them in terms of how *YOU YOURSELF* value them, long term. Which would you be least willing to sacrifice in a trade for a talented young but somewhat estblished pitcher, or for a promising RFer? And which would you be most willing to sacrifice in a trade like that?

Tim, thanks! Somebody who agrees with me about something! I didn't think anybody ever agreed with me about anything anymore. Also, thanks for that note about IsoD. I've never actually realized that was true, or thought about why. Very helpful reminder.

On walks, and the question of whether a guy can be taught plate discipline. 1. I think for many guys, the answer is no. Whether it's the Cubs teachers, the Oakland teachers, whether it starts at age 25 or 35 or 15 or 8. I think some players don't have the inborn talent to be able to see, process, and respond to pitches in flight. I think it's a tool. Do I have the eyes and the mental computation speed to recognize a ball-in-flight, to quickly process how it's going to move and where it will be when it reaches the plate, and to be able to decide whether to swing or not. If I decide to swing, do I have the mental/physical processing speed to put the bat in the right place, and with enough force to drive the ball? It requires an extraordinary processing ability that few humans have. I thnk this was Corey's issue. It wasn't that his will was necessarily bad. But he just doesn't have the mental computer to see a pitch and tell whether it will be belt high or eye high; whether it's going to stay straight and be in the zone, or slide/break a foot out of the zone. It's the ability to distinguish fastball from slider, four-seamer from two-seamer, cutter from normal, etc. that largely determines a hitter's plate discipline. Ppitch recognition. I don't believe coaches can teach pitch recognition. For many players who have the computation aptitude, with experience their pitch recognition increases, to there benefit. But I think most playes with "bad plate discipline" suffer that not for lack of instruction, but from lack of the inborn tools required to recognize and process and respond to balls in flight. If you're guessing whether a pitch in flight will stay straight at belt, sail eye-high, sink below the knees, or slide a foot outside, how can you help it if you routinely guess wrong? Take the mashable straight belt-high, then swing at an untouchable slider and whiff at a head-high fastball? At the moment of decision, you just didn't have the ability to diagnose the pitch correctly. I think it's foremost a tool. Corey didn't have it. It appears that harvey doesn't have it. Dopirak doesn't seem to have it. Aram does. Barrett does. Brian Giles does. I believe that Fox and Fuld, clevenger and Colvin, I think they do. To some degree I think there are teachable factors. It may come and go. If your stance is poor so that your sightlines are bad, maybe. Or if your swing isn't smooth so that your eyes and computer are bouncing, that doesn't help. So I assume there are coaching factors that can help you avoid underperforming relative to the latent tool. 2. There is an obvious experience component for pitch recognition. A lot of guys will improve their pitch recognition based on experience alone. 3. I think "tools" scouts exaggerate the probability that experience will solve the pitch recognition problem. I think the cubs have tended to assume that experience would naturally cure the problems for Corey, harvey, pie, etc.. And I think that good hitting scouts have a knack for seeing which players have the innate ability to process pitches. Hopefull Wilken has that ability to recognize guys who have the talent to do this. 4. Beyond the unteachable "talent" component, though, there is a significant teachable component as well. If you don't have the innate talent, the pitch processing ability, it's hopeless. But there are a lot of other guys who's plate discipline is faulty and who have the talent to do a better job. They just don't have the will. I think this applies especially to contact hitters. Guys like Pierre and Izturis, Barrett and Aram, Nomar. All of these guys have excellent pitch recognition skills, enough so that they can put the bat on the ball almost any time they swing. If they didn't have the computing ability, they wouldn't have so few swings-and-misses. That they make contact with such a high percentage of their swings means, I think, that they are well capable of recognizing and tracking pitches. It's when these kind of talent-capable guys play the hackaway game that I think they are at fault. I don't really blame the teachers for Corey and Harvey. I don't think they have the talent to do it. But when Izturis is swinging at bad balls, when Pierre is choosing to swing at 3-1 pitches, that's where I have a problem. If they thought about things and were taught better, I think they could realize they should take pitches in a lot of situations where they are currently hacking. It's in this area where I think instruction matters. I have a pretty good ability to read pitches and hit them. What are situations when I should *not* elect to swing? What are the game situations? What are the count situations? Are their pitches that I probably can make contact on that I should take anyway? Is a walk appropriate as a goal in itself, or simply a byproduct of not swinging at bad balls? I think the Cubs are at fault for not emphasizing the value of walks as an end inthemselves. For not emphasizing the value of walks for players other than 1-2 hitters in the order. For not emphasizing the value of walks with no outs in an inning, or when down by several runs. For not emphasizing the value of taking pitches in certain counts. Or for at least laying off of borderline pitches in many situations. In terms of scouting, I think they are at fault for not valuing IsoD enough, and not realizing how many playes will *not* simply pick it up through experience. But I do think think that fans are often unfair to both players and farm instructors. There's a lot of guys who look bad because they don't have the talent to recognize pitches. If they don't, it's not their fault that they swing at a pitch in the eyes that they thought would cross at the plate. And it's not the coaches' fault that a player lacking the ability can't do it.

One add-on note: K's are outs, bad for BABNIP, and raise the requirements for one's BABIP. But you made a good point that obsessing over K's often makes things worse, not better. Reducing K's is desirable, if doing so doesn't compromise any of the good stuff you're already doing (taking walks, hitting the ball hard when you do hit it, hitting HR's...). But often guys compromise on the good stuff in the effort to reduce the K's. You walk less; you make more lousy contact so that your BABIP drops; you swing with less authority so that you get fewer HR's. Often adustments made with the goal of reducing K's does more harm than good. (We can see this with both Corey and Dopirak last year. Both knew they had K problems, and tried to solve by swinging early and often. Killed their walks, killed their HR output, killed their BABIP. The cure was worse than the disease.) I'm not saying that Eric should make a change; he may already have found the optimal compromise. And it may be that any steps taken to reduce his K's will make him worse, not better. But it appears to me that as he is now, he's not good enough. Something will need to change to make him better. If the only changes that he can make will make him worse, and he's already optimizd everything, then I don't think the future is very bright for him.

K's are outs. Outs are bad. Eric makes too many outs in the minors for a guy without plus power or gold-glove defense. That's why I don't think he's a plus prospect. He's a prospect; there's a chance something could change so that he's not such an outmaker. But unless something unusual does change, guys who are outmakers at age 23 in AA usually are outmakers in the major leagues. Eric does not project to be one of them. A guy who projects an 0.060-type IsoD, that's not going to make it. If his IsoD is .360, then he could live on walks alone. But with an IsoD of 0.060 (his current approximate and my projection for him at the big-league level), he'll still need to come up with another .280-.300 to be a solid/asset starter. Walks are not the only way to get on base. Hits also matter. Eric isn't getting enough of them. His BABIP is .320, which is relatively high; there is no reason to think it's been a matter of bad luck that he's gotten so few hits. To become a useful major leaguer, he'll need to reach base more often and make outs less consistently. Either he'll need to take more walks, or he'll need to get more hits. Status quo = limited future. IsoD is important, it's huge. But it's not the only factor for offense! The ability to get hits is important. And it's not pure random luck who gets more hits. Agree. Eric has a semblance of a clue at the plate. If he fails, it's not for lack of a clue. However, even with the clue he has, he's still an outmaker in AA. Again, IsoD is important. But IsoD isn't the only predictor of future success or of future improvement. If it was, Brandon Sing would have wonderfully replaced DL'd Lee. Jon Mark Sprowl would be a big-league all-star. Matt Mauch would have never failed and gone to college football. Nomar Garciapara would be a career minor-leaguer. Hinske would be more than a fringe guy. Bellhorn would be able to count his organizations on one hand. Having plate discipline is not sufficient; you need to be able to hit the strikes that you recognize. Nomar does, Sing and Mauck and Sprowl can't. I don't think batting average is all that unpredictable. For the reasons you detail following. It seems to me that different players show BABIP patterns. And that when they deviate from reasonable, I expect them in future to move back toward the normal. The year before the Cubs got Barrett, he had a BABIP of like .202. Duh, that's anomolous. So I expected that his average would rise once his BABIP did. Bingo! Early this year when Reed had a .480 BABIP, duh, that's anomolous. Guess what? It returned toward normal, and his composite batting average reflects that. Last year, Eric had an exceptionally high BABIP, so I anticipated that would drop a lot this year and it has. Right now his BABIP is like .320, which if pretty good, and is probably more or less what one should expect for a hitter like him. So I think his batting average is right about where it belongs. This is why I think it's problematic to project his outmaking to decrease a lot, if his peripherals don't change much. .320 BABIP is already quite high; you may find BA hard to predict. But I feel pretty comfortable predicting that Eric's BABIP next season will not exceed .350. And I certainly feel comfortable predicting that over the remainder of his professinal career, that Eric will not be able to sustain a .350 BABIP. You can probably count on two hands the guys in history of the game who have done that for over 500 AB's... This goes right to my point. You should not expect a guy to live on an extraordinary BABIP. If you are projecting Eric to be a success, but to do so will require a .350 BABIP, then you are almost certain to be disappointed. What we need to do is to assume a reasonable BABIP. Can a guy be a useful offensive contributor with a plausible BABIP? If Harvey needs to hit .400 BABIP to be useful, forget it. If Eric needs a .350 BABIP, you'll be disappointed. If a .280 BABIP is good enough, then feel very confident. In my mind, I figure that it's reasonable to project/hope that a good hitter will be able to BABIP in the .300-.330 range, depending on speed and power and line-drive aptitude, etc. And that's relatively optimistic, since the league norms, as youve noted, are in the .280's. A second note: their are career, characteristic BABIP levels for hitters. It's not true that all hitters come back to the same tight BABIP-against norm that pitchers do. If a pitcher has a season with a .260 BABIP-against, extremely low, there is no reason to expect his BABIP-against to remain exceptional in future years. But there are many hitters who repeatedly, predictably have low BABIP's, and many hitters who repeatedly, predictably have high BABIP's. The range in hitter BABIP's is way, way higher than for pitcher BABIP=against. I agree that his plate disciplne is fine. But a 0.060 OBP won't suffice. He'll need to get some hits besides to support a .330+ OBP. And in order to get enough hits for a 0.060 IsoD/.330+ OBP, he'll need to BABIP at .330+. That is an unrealistic expectation, even if does have good pich recognition and a good line-drive swing. Less than 0.5% of the hitters in baseball history have sustained a .330+ BABIP over their careers. It's unlikely that Eric will join them. Essentially, I see your argument being that since he hits line drives and has good pitch recognition, that you expect him to support a .330+ BABIP. I think that's unlikely. The above "expectation"/"requirement" is predicated on him sustaining his current K/HR BABNIP. If his K/HR profile improves, that relaxes the BABIP expectations. Which is why I'd like his HR/K numbers to improve, even a little bit. Such that a .320 or .315 BABIP (which would not require him to be a HOF-caliber hitter) could support a good career. That wouldn't necessarily need to be a large change. Add an extra 5 HR's (to the benefit of OBP), turn 10 K's into batted balls (3 of which might drop in for hits), and now you no longer need such an extraordinary BABIP to support a .330-.345 OBP. Summary: To project a guy, decide what a plausible BABIP might be for the player to figure how many hits and outs he'll likely make on balls in play. Consider how many non-batted outs he'll make via K. Consider how many non-catchable hits he'll get via HR. Sum the hits via HR + the reasonably likely hits on balls in play, divide by the total number of AB's, and you come up with a reasonable batting average projection. Add the reasonable IsoD and you have a reasonable OBP projection. IT'S EASY!!

I disagree, on several points. 1. Eric is 23 and short. How likely is it that he's going to "fill out" and become a power hitter? It's not like Rundle or Colvin or something. And I'm a believer that scouting helps to picture a guy. No scouts have talked up or projected much increase in power for Eric. 2. There are twenty 75%/40SB guys in AA for every one in the majors. Catchers are better. Guys do get a little heavier and slow down. (In fact, filling out for power and staying fast for SB are routinely contradictory.) Guys who batted leadoff in minors often bat 7th or 8th in majors where they don't run as much. 3. OK, the main point is the K's. K's are not meaningless. They are, as you stated, another out. Outs are bad for OBP and for batting average, which is the primary component of OBP. Lets assume that Eric is able to sustain a 0.060 IsoD, which is about in line with present. (Most guys IsoD's drop in majors versus AA, but lets assume he can hold that.) If he bats .300, he's an elite .360 OBP guy, a premium leadoff, might make Furcal money. If he bats .280, at .340 OBP with decent speed/defense/power he's a nice, solid starting 2B. Might bat 2nd, or 7th, maybe even leadoff on some teams. Good support player. If he hits .260, a .320 OBP makes him a sub, or an AAAA guy, or at best a liability starter. BA depends on BABIP (hits and outs in play) and BABNIP (batting average on balls not in play), which consists of K's and HR's. Eric's BABNIP is currently sub-.100, so his composite BA is much depressed from his BABIP. Supose he improves his BABNIP to .100, and it comprises 20% of his AB. With a very good BABIP of .310, he's still only a .260 hitter (this year's situation). If he htis a knockout .330 BABIP, then he'd hit .280, a decent starter. To be a premium .300/.360OBP guy, he'll need to hit a HOF-ish .350 BABIP. (A coupple of players in history have sustained that, but not many). So, seems to me having such a bad BABNIP is a real problem for him. There are two ways to solve the BABNIP problem. K less, or HR more, or both! A lot of good hitter have plenty of K's. That's not a problem... when the guy hits HR's. Take a dude like Harvey. If he K's 160 times, that's not necessarily a problem.... if he hits 40 HR's. Then his BABNIP would be .200. If his BABIP is .310, his composite average could be .273, which wouldn't be bad for a top-fielding 40-HR hitter. (Especially if he had a decent IsoD, which of course isn't going to happen). But if you K 160 times and HR only 10 times, then a .310 BABIP gets you only to .238. So, I think Eric's K-rate is not a problem, if either you can count on him BABIPing in the .330-.350 range (good luck) or if he can hit 15-25 HR's (not likely, IMO). .But if he can't BABIP that high or HR that often, he's either not a very good prospect, or else he should reduce his K-rate. A lousy BABNIP doesn't depress the composite average as much if you are BABNIP'ing 10% of your AB rather than 20%, for example. (That's why Pierre can sustain a decent average despite a lousy BABNIP; the BABNIP volume is just too small). One other personal view on K's: I don't mind K's at the big-league level, if the guy has already shown he has enoughproduction during his non-K AB's. If his average and power and OBP are fine with the K's included, then the guy is fine. But, more minor leaguers, I feel differently. I think K's routinely get worse in majors versus minors. And that high K-rates are a scouting red-flag, for holes in the swing (in the strike zone) or bad pitch recognition (swinging at bad balls). Those holes are worse exposed by big-league pitchers. I think you are looking at line-drive percentage to get a read on quality of swing; I think high K's is also an indicator of swing quality, and a negative one. So, I think Eric's K's in the absence of HR power are a serious BA/OBP-depresser, plus a scouting red flag for his ability to handle even better pitching.

*Harvey: Long shot. Very rare for a guy with such extreme K/BB problems to ever solve that. Usually is a manifestation of some fundamental, uncorrectable problem. Very unlikely that he ever turns the corner and becomes good. Still, recent hitting is refreshing, and very rare things sometimes happen. (Rich Hill, Sammy sosa, and Ronny Cedeno are all Cub cases of very rare career profiles.) Harvey has shown enough recently that I'll at least keep my eye on him for a while longer. He missed some games to injury (back, I think), that's why his AB aren't higher. I suppose it's also possible that they justtook hiim out for a while to try to clear his slump, or to make some changes in his swing, I don't know. *Patterson: Unlikely to see him before 2008, if ever. He wouldn't need Rule 5 protection until *after* next year, so bringing him up next year would start him early and would unnecessarily require a 40-man spot. I see Patterson as a prospect, but pretty much an average one. If he improves, he's got a chance to be a major-leaguer, perhaps even a low-level support starter. If he doesn't improve a lot, he can be a career minor leaguer or a fringe guy. Time will tell. Not much power, defense doesn't project much better than big-league average, so to make it he needs to make it as an OBP guy. That's going to be tough without a higher batting average, and for that to happen, either he'll need to hit a lot more HR's (doubtful) or cut back on his K's a lot (difficult to do without also compromising your walks), and elevate his BABIP. Possible, so he's a prospect; but improbable. He has made some progress in reducing the K's. His 19% is still rotten for a table-setter, but it's not as bad as it was. *Fox: His hitting looks great. But he's not much of a prospect because he's a DH masquerading as a catcher. Barrett is viewed as a lousy receiver, and he averges about 9 passed balls per *season*. Fox has gotten that many in 30 games at WTenn! (Or maybe less, if he's actually DH'd or pinch hit in some of his games...). Hard to take him very seriously without a big-league position.

heh heh, Hendry is actually a huge moneyball philosopher! If kc is correct, then by not pursuing overvalued OBP and by instead pursuing undervalued speed, defense, and young pitching, Hendry is being super smart! Whaddya think? Rather than being way behind the game, clever hendry is really way ahead of the game?

I am too poor to pay for any of the dollar stuff, so I'm not up on everything. But I found this statement surprising. I haven't tracked WARP, but I have tracked VORP for a while. And I see VORP giving a different picture. VORP consistently has the high end weighted by position players. of the top 20 or so VORP guys per year, typically a shade under 40% are pitchers.. I did a check for guys with VORP's over 60 in the 2000's (player:pitcher): 2005: 13:8 2004 17:8 2003 13:9 2002 18:9 2001 24:10 2000 26:8 For this year, VORP over 50: 11:3 For the real high-end VORP's: This millenium, Pedro (116.7, 2000) and Randy Johnson (90.8, 2001) are the only pitchers to VORP over 90. Over that same span, 17 hitter seasons have. Over the last four years, the average high for a pitcher has been 83; for a hitter 94. So, again, at the very top end, VORP favors hitters. In terms of winning during the season. Your point that a top pitcher is more useful during the playoffs than during the season is well taken. One other VORP observation in skimming these seasons. I observe much consistency in the players who are annual VORP studs han with pitchers. Pujols, Bonds, Giles, ARod, Manny Ramirez, during the early 2000's Sammy.... there is a lot of repetition. In the pitchers, there are also regulars. But there are a lot who pop in, than fall off the earth. Chan Park, Joe Mays, Esteban Loiza (he was the leader one year!), Mark Prior, Livan Hernandez. Again, it's the injury thing, I think. Again, this is why I think that if you draft a hitter who VORP's at 65 at age 24, he'll likely be a big VORP asset when he's 27, 31, and 33. Whereas if you draft a pitcher who flashes a 65 VORP at age 24, the odds that he's still a VORP ace at 27 is modest, and very small that he'll still be a VORP ace at 31 and 33. I think your point is also well taken that pitching is a flexible commodity. There is *always* market for pitching. The cost for pitching is always excessive. If you somewhat accumulate a surplus of pitching, you can always trade it. I'm not sure that premium players are traded anymore often than are premium pitchers, and on both sides it's mostly money. Marlins won 1st with all outside pitchers picked up. marlins won 2nd with Willis, Pavano, Redmon all outside guys, only Beckett drafted. Braves had Smoltz and maddux as outside pickups. Twins Viola and Blyleven, outside. Buehrle was the only system Sox guy, I think. If anything, I think that pitchers are so much more unpredictable that they are easier to pick up. Phillies picked up schiling on his 3rd or 4th org. Randy Johnson moved teams. Pedro got traded. Dontrelle got traded. Cris Carpenter comes off the scrap pile. etc.. But since everybody uses so many pitchers, if you have them to spare, you can find a buyer. If you have a surplus 1B, there may be only one or three teams with an appetite. How many teams need a 3B at any point in time? Since each team needs only one, the market is normally small. Pitchers, always a broad market. That said, MacP has often espoused your theory: go after pitchers, get surplus, trade for players. I would suggest that in the Cub case, it hasn't really functioned. Pierre is the only real player that they've acquired for value pitching. Aram, Bobby Hill was the key prospect. Lee, Choi. Only the pierre pickup has come at the price of young pitching. Sure, we've traded pitching (Dontrelle) for pitching (Clement, Alf), or Garland for Karchner. I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't work. Just that it hasn't. Because pitching prospects are so fragile! If Brownlie and Sisco and hagerty and Clanton and Petrick and Blasko and Johnson and Ryu and Krawiec and Jones had all stayed healthy, we'd have had enough surplus of pitching so that we could trade for guys who profiled better than Burnitz or Hollandsworth or Hairston or Jones. But we didn't. Instead we've still been pitching short, and have chosen to go outside for Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Maddux, Estes, hawkins, and Remlinger. I'm not saying the Cubs won't or shouldn't take Price. Only that if they do, the odds that he'll probably deteriorate sooner or later, and probably not all that many years later. But, it's a matter of what alternatives there are. A HS hitter brings tons of concerns, too, especially in the Cub system. Obviously if Price or some other fragile pitcher looks great, the only way they'll choose a player is if he too looks great. If the premise is that a hitter will bust (cubs wills crew him up or mis-scout him) while the pitcher will be an immediate stud, well, OK! Not much to discuss there. But if there is a top-flight player, who you scout smart and who ends up being a top-flight player, that would pay huge dividends for the Cubs. Probably longer than a smart-scouted top-flight pitcher. But it may be that it just isn't possible to have the same scouting confidence about a hitter that you do for the pitcher. In which case I can well understand the logic in taking the can't-miss pitcher, and ride him for however long his stuff stays exceptional. I'm just saying that if undesirably you are unable to draft Price, and instead are forced to take a super talented but not-quite-so-certain player, and ***IF**** he turns out to be a top-flight guy, then in the long run you probably won't regret it.

By the way, I'm not saying it's just luck, or that it's not worth getting excited about certain players or getting one's heart set on one or another. It's fun. And there is a lot of good analysis that can and must enter in. I do admit (despite my denials that I was arguing against drafting a premium pitcher) that normally, the odds of hitting on a good player with a top-five pick are better than the odds of hitting on a good pitcher who stays good for very long. And that the odds of getting a good guy who is still good 5+ years out is definitely higher with player than pitcher. I also admit that I hope that, when it comes down to cases, the best player available is a position player. I'd prefer that, because if a player scouts well enough to be viewed as BPA at #3 or #4 in a strong, deep draft, that player will be a big talent. If it's a pick that works, he could pay off for 10+ years. Heh, it would also be my preference that the BPA player would have already proved himself in college, with not a flaw in sight. But I also realize full well that every year is different. The best player may not be nearly as attractive as the best pitcher. And if the pitcher is good enough, I'll be plenty excited and hopeful. [/img]

I knew it would sound like that, but that isn't what I meant to say. My argument is that pitchers' stuff usually deteriorates. Whether that's reason to not draft them is a separate question. It's a consideration that impacts risk; hitters have their own considerations that impact their risks. What I *am* saying is that the majority of high-pick pitchers have their stuff deteriorate, substantially, within a limited number of years. Many before they ever achieve any big-league success, many more within a few years in the majors. When you draft a pitcher with exceptional stuff really high, the odds are small that he'll be able to sustain the exceptional stuff over an extended number of years. That's just the way it is with pitchers. If you get it right with both a hitter and a pitcher, I think it's much more common for the player to be able to sustain success over an extended period than for the pitcher. You may scout smart and strike gold with your pitcher, as the Cubs did with Wood and Prior. But even the golden pitcher's stuff is likely to deteriorate. You may scout dumb and not recognize fatal flaws with a player (Corey, harvey, Montanez), plenty of risk. But if you do scout smart and draft a player who's golden, it's much more likely that he'll be able to sustain success over a long period of years. (Heh, no Cub examples, because the Cubs haven't scouted smart with a 1st-round hitter since Palmeiro.... It isn't easy.) I'm not arguing that it may not be worth it to spend a high pick on a pitcher who gives you 3-4 years of excellence. If Wood, Prior, or Mulder never post another winning or sub-4 season, it might be argued that they should be retroviewed as success picks, not disappointment picks. 3-4 years of outstanding service is more than you get out of most picks, even top-5 picks. If you knew you'd get 4 years of excellence from Price, and after that he'd deteriorate to a #3-4 starter or worse, would that mean you'd pass? Not necessarily. Even if the odds are large that a guy's stuff will deteriorate, as I'm claiming, sometimes you hit on a Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson whose stuff doesn't. Perhaps it's worth spending your pick on the outside chance that Price or whomever is the guy whose stuff holds up for years? (Just don't blame luck or curses or scouting director or pitching coaches if the guy's stuff does deteriorate, as was probable from the beginning...) Drafting players has high risks, too. They are just different sorts of risks. Hitters are much harder to scout/project. In a single scouting session you can see that 95 mph is 95 mph; a curve can be seen as sharp in one HS game or one bullpen demo, you dont need to face a big-league hitter to show that. But it's much harder to project how a hitter will handle bigleague sliders and moving fastballs and strike/ball recognition based on how he does against a coach in batting practice, or against HS pitching, or in a small sample of AB's. Recognizing/projecting exceptional hitters is much harder than recognizing/projecting pitchers with exceptional stuff. Projecting a player's future defense is also much tougher than scouting a pitcher. A player's speed and defensive range and flexibility will routinely deteriorate in time. Five or eight years out, will Wieters still be a catcher, or will he have deteriorated to a LF? 3B? 1B? Or DH? Rundle is playing CF right now for Mesa, and at present (6'4", 180) he's got good range. But at present, he doesn't have much power either. By age 25, will he put on muscle so that he's 220 instead of 180? Perhaps so, and perhaps by then he'll be a plus power hitter. But what will that building up do to his legs and to his arm? Will he still be a CF? Will his arm get stronger and he'll be fine for RF? Or by then will be strictly a LF/DH/1B? Who knows.

Sure, but the end is not in how a guy looks at draft time. It's how he looks three, five, seven years later. A lot of hitters look as good or better. Most pitcher look a lot worse. You get drafted on your arm. Pretty unusual for a top-five pitcher to have an arm that does not deteriorate substantially over the five-seven years following his draft summer. It's fun to hope Price still looks good next draft, that we get him, and that he's the freak who never loses the arm. But make no mistake, if we draft him with average velocity of 94 or something, we should expect that once he's established in the league, he probably won't be throwing that hard, or his breaking pitch won't be as sharp as it is now.

I'm not faulting the Browlie selection. It was an excellent risk at the place he was taken. It's just an example where a guy looked great the summer before the draft, but never looked as exciting again. And injury is routinely the reason. (If anything, it almost seems as if guys who pitch long college season, then pitch for summer national teams maybe get fried more than normal. Especially if their coach uses them on short rest during the summer, as happened with Brownlie...) Here are the first pitchers taken in the drafts since 1990 (guys taken in first 5 picks): Alex Fernandez and Kurt Miller; Fernandez was good for a while, then got hurt. 91: Brien Talor, James Hendrson. Great prospect, till injuries... 92: Paul Shuey, Billy Wallace 93: Darren Dreifort, Brian Anderson, Wayne Gomes, Jeff Granger. Dreifort could have been great, minus injuries... 94: Paul Wilson, Dustin Hermandson. Wilson could have been great, minus injuries.... He was written up like the greatest thing ever... 95: Kerry Wood, Ariel Prieto. Wood could have been great, minus injuries.... 96: Kris Benson, Braden Looper, Billy Koch, John Patterson. Benson was written up like the greatest thing ever, and mght have been great, minus the injuries.... 97: Matt Anderson, Jason Grilli. Anderson had arm problems, I think, and never got control... 98: mark Mulder, Jeff Austen. Mulder had a good run. But after the first four years and 800 innings, he no longer had the arm he had as a draft prospect. Just an average talent trying to get by on smart now. 99: Josh Beckett. He's been pretty special at times. But he's battled a list of injuries. 00: Adam Johnson, Mike Stolka, Justin Wayne. By his second pro year, Johnson had a 15th rounder's arm, not the arm that made him the #2 pick. 01: Prior, Brazelton, Floyd. Prior projected as the greatest pitching prospect in history. But a series of injuries and his arm doesn't look that special anymore, and he's compiled only one really elite season. 02: Bryan Bullington, Gruler, Loewen, Evets. Bullington has had arm problems. 03: Sleeth, Stauffer. Both had arm problems 04: Verlander, Humber, Niemann, Rogers. Verlander is incredible. He's the exception to the had-arm-problems, not what he was. Of course, this is his first year. Who knows how long he'll hold up. 05: No pitchers taken in top 5, Romero first pitcher taken at #6. Let me be very clear: I am *not* arguing that the Cubs shouldn't take Price, or a pitcher. That's beyond my scope. I am arguing that it's the rule, rather than the exception, that no matter how good a pitcher's arm looks when it's the summer before his draft year, that it's very, very unlikely that his arm still looks really special when he's 25 or 27. The attrition rate is really incredible. And even for many who do come up as successes (Wood, Prior, Mulder), the odds that they are still front-line pitchers beyond their arbitration years doesn't look that great. All I'm saying is, if we're set on Price but we end up forced to settle on some really good position prospect instead, we might not mind as much in 2012 or 2014 as we do in 2007. But, if we get a top pitcher and he turns in Verlander or Prior or Wood or Mulder or Beckett, and mysteriously dodges the injury bullets, who hoo.

Promotions are often impacted by playoff situations. The Cubs like to have their farm teams get into the playoffs, and if possible have their better prospects participate in minor league playoffs. If Daytona is in anyways, that would raise Veal's shot at staying and trying to win playoffs with the guys he's been playiing with. But if Daytona is out, and Wtenn is likely to be in, that owuld increase the likelihood that he'd get promoted. IMO.

Things are often pretty fluid. I wouldn't get too obsessed over needing to get Price and being disappoined if not. Brownlie looked awfully special the summer before his draft, too, and how good has he looked since? Prior was priority; would we mind exchanging him for Mauer or Teix now? The good thing is that there promises to be a lot of good talent, and whether we hold at 3rd, slip to 4th, or fall to 5th or perhaps even 6th, it still looks like the pool will be way stronger than the harvey/Montanez drafts. And while I'd love a great pitcher, I admit that given the injury risk (and the "not enough control to be true ace" risk) that goes with pitchers, I don't think I'd mind too much if it just happens to turn out that the best player available happens to be a position player. Seems pretty exceptional for a guy who is supposed to be the top pitcher actually has both the health and the control to get to the majors and remain effective there for an extended period, much less function as an ace. Despite his injuries Beckett has been very good. After that, who are the best successes?

I don't think he's viewed as serious. Serious guys they tend to avoid rushing, and they intend to get plenty of action. Roster-fill guys they put on rosters where there is a need. When the season opened, Johnston was perceived as the more serious prospect. But Mota was also placed on Peoria's roster, and played very little early on when the starters were healthy and Johnston looked exciting. We know they were serious about Johnston; if they were also serios about Mota they'd have likely kept one of them back, or used the other at 2B. When a roster hole at Daytona came open, up went Mota. To fill the roster. Given how bad Daytona's infield has been, and how decent Mota has done, he's ended up getting a lot of action. Sometimes young players improve a lot, especially when they have the latent talent. So if we knew that Mota was a scout's favorite, the club liked him and saw a lot of projection there, his respectable results/age would have me very hopeful. But since I'm pretty sure that he isn't a scout's favorite, and that the club doesn't really see a lot of latent untapped potential, or see a lot of projection there, I think he's just a roster filler.

Dusty's Cubs have, for the moment, scrapped their way into a tie with Tampa for 27th place. They are two wins up on Cleveland, 4 on Washington, and 5 on Baltimore. I believe the draft rules is that in case of tie, the the team that was worse the previous year gets first choice? If so, the Cubs would lose tiebreakers to KC, Pittsburgh, Tampa, and Baltimore, and as it stands would draft 4th. It would probably nice if they could hold somewhere in the 3-5 range. Heh, I associate that with guys like Corey, Wood, and Mike Harkey, serious talents in their day. In the 6-10 range I associate that with Harvey, Garland, Earl Cunningham, Ty Griffin, Derrick May, not on the same plane. Nice to know that it's going to be a deep draft. Both the Montanez and Harvey drafts were not viewed as very good at the time, and I don't think retrospect has changed that. I'd expect to lose our 2nd and/or 3rd round picks, although you never know. The Cubs are obviously very talent-deficient from the big-league club down through the greatly thinned farm system. Hendry obviously will have substantial moneys to spend this winter, and obvious priorities will be an outfielder and a rotation pitcher. While it's possible one or both will be acquired via trade, you can't trade for talent without giving talent, and Hendry has no surplus of that. So if he could address both spots via FA, that would have advantages. I'd be surprised if he addressed both via trade, we just don't have enough prospects for that. This year they largely made up for lost picks by creative spending. Assuming they pick somewhere between 3 and 8 next summer, though, that will be a big-ticket sign. So not clear that they will feel any priority to do some creative spending later. On the other hand, if they wanted to a deep draft might be just the time to do that. If a guy is worth and knows he's worth 2nd round money and won't sign for less, in a thin year a 2nd round talent will likely to in the 2nd round and be unavailable in the 5th or 9th or 11th. But in a deep year, some guys with first round talent will depress, some 2nd round talents will get knocked out. That may result in a much larger pool of signability guys following the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

Yeah, Veal should score pretty well in both leagues. I don't think he'll score as high as Cruz did, though. Cruz threw harder, with regular reports of hitting 97-98, and doing so late in the sesaon and late in games. Veal is fast, but I don't think that exceptional. Cruz's fastball movement was also exceptional (as we've since found out, since he could never control it.) I believe he was viewed as having at least 3 and possibly four pitches that were projected as possible plus pitches. I'm not sure if he threw both slider and curve, or whether one observer might call it a slider one day and somebody else call it a curve the next, plus BA was pretty gaga about the potential of his change. Veal obviously looks nice, but I don't think he's quite in the "Potential to be Next Pedro" class that Cruz had back then. Plus, Cruz was 19 then, Veal is 21 and turns 22 before the big-league season is over. Well, obviously Cruz wasn't really 19 then, since his age was bogus; but when the scouts saw him as supposedly 19, it seemed that he had lots of time to improve his control, and that he was young enough so that his skinny frame might fill out. In retrospect, we know that Cruz was several years older, that he never filled out or got any stronger, that he never mastered control of any pitch much less 3 or 4 of them, that he never became the next Pedro. But back then, he really looked like one of the most exciting prospects in baseball. Veal is good and very promising, no doubt about that. And he will score well on the league rankings, no doubt about that either. But I don't think he's really close to being in the same class of perceived prospect that Cruz was perceived to be back then.

Click me Fleita likes the swing of 17 y/o Marwin Gonzalez. He's hitting .190/.264/.266. Also Robert Hernandez is 17 and should develop into a hard thrower. He's got a sub 2 ERA, but lack of Ks. Thanks a ton, kc. That's the kind of info I was hoping to get, and likewise the content I was hoping to hear. That site seems like it would be great, but awfully expensive. Did Fleita mention any of the other Latin or undrafted prospects? I'd guessed that Dolis, Hernandez, and Gonzalez were the three best Latin prospects, based on age, usage, and Dolis's K's. The other two Latins at Mesa of most interest to me were Carrillo, given his control and low ERA, and Bernard, given his alleged velocity. Carrillo is 19, so perhaps no projection. I'm guessing since you did'nt' mention him, Fleita had nothing to say or at least no enthusiastic scouting projections for Carrillo? Anything on Bernard, or Castillo, or any of the others? Again, thanks much.