craig

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.

Rafael Dolis is 18, 1/10/88, RHP, 6'3". He played infield last season for DSL, hitting .259, 4th on the team with 1 HR, 20 errors, and by Cub DSL standards a respectable .322 OBP. He had a couple of frightenngly bad appearances earlier, but as Cal said his last two games have had dominant K/BB's. Even so, he had like 11 K/8 IP even before the good ones. He's really turned it around these last two game, and at 6'3" and only 18, I've gotta figure he's got something going. They could easily have kept him at infield (they have plenty of horrible infielders on the DSL squad, and his numbers for a 17-year-old weren't too bad, actually), or kept him in DSL for his first year pitching. So I agree, he's interesting. And Tim, I agree completely, this is the first year in a while that the Rookie Team has had some interesting stuff, and particularly Latin kids. Does anybody have a height-weight on Marco Carrillo? He's Mexican and 19, but he was good in DSL last year and while he doesn't have the knockout K's, his control and results have been excellent. Robert Hernandez (?) at 17 has also been very interesting.

Sorry to start a separate thread, but I didn't want to get this specific topic buried in the 55-going-on-90-page Maddux trade thread. Has anybody heard what gives with the cash? I've seen reference to Cubs picking up most of Maddux's remaining salary this year, plus others referring to the Cubs giving the Dodgers $1 (some accounts) or $2 (other). I'm guessing the Cubs picking up part of Maddux's contract and the $2 payoff are the same thing? The Cubs are sending over $2, because that is the salary differential for the rest of this year? And then Hendry is fully responsible for Izzy's contract next year and beyond?

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker. His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good. And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me. Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight? Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him? Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance. Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

Yeah, it will be really interesting to see what happens. Unfortunately I fear some of the questions may circle in Hill's head too. (Will I fail again? What happens if I do? Can my Iowa stuff work up there, or do I need to change my fastballs somehow?) I thought Quade's comments were kind of discouraging, awfully lukewarm. I expected the Iowa manager who's seen him thrive to say: "I know he's got the stuff, if he can just relax and throw his Iowa stuff at the NL, he'll do just fine." But pretty tepid.

Thanks. I checked the game log. Kid Hernandez had perfect innings in 3 of his 5 inning, had a strong 10/3 GB/FB ratio, his only hit allowed was an infield job, and he didn't strike out a soul until the last two outs of his day.

I agree with that logic. But the "if" depends on the premise, that there was nothing wrong other than big-league adjustment, so that nothing could be gained in the minors. Wasted time. The other hypothesis is that there was some other "whatever was wrong". Which manifested itself in 20HR/123 IP last year, and which manifested itself in less consistent work in his first five starts. (He's been 1.30 ERA in his last ten; he was 2.93 ERA during the five starts surrounding his big-league callup). It may be that he's solved something during his last ten starts. If so, not wasted time. To me, the playoffs have been out of reach for some time. So what's best for Hill's development, whether that was in minors or majors, is the more important issue. It's not obvious that the last ten starts have been developmentally worthless. Indeed, to large degree it may be that ten starts with Alan Dunn is a lot more developmentally beneficial than ten starts with Baker and Rothschild! Just to add another sunny side, in the dream world. Suppose I dream that Hill emerges as a big-time value starter, a guy who next year and beyond is a 16-8, 3.20-ERA workhorse. If so, this time at Iowa rather than under Dusty's guidance will have move free agency back a year and may perhaps even defer arbitraton by a year! That might end up being good news. Add-on: I think it's imperitive that Hill get starts from here on out. If he looks solid, that will greatly impact the winter planning. If Hill, Marshall, and Marmol have all established themselves as competitive major league starters, then Hendry doesn't necessarily need to spend $24/3 on some 4.25-ERA rotation guy. Or, he'll have three valuable young pitchers to show in trade. Hill's trade value could be way higher with two solid months in the majors than all the WHIP's in PCL. Or, if Hill looks good, Hendry could afford to trade marshall, or Marmol, and use them as centerpieces for getting a good 2B or OF or 3rd starter. As a Cub fan, of coursre I can imagine worst case: With Marshall now hurt, Hendry decides not to trade Maddux. (If you trade Maddux and Marshall does *not* come back, Dusty is stuck with not only Hill but also Rusch or Ryu/Guzman in rotation. Dusty would prefer to hold Maddux...) Then, Hill gets two or three starts, does not dominate, and in two weeks marshall returns. Oops! No room for Hill anymore, send him back to Iowa, or park him deep in long relief. That kind of scenario would again put Hill on the temporary pressure seat: you've got one 15-day DL to prove yourself, you better put up a 14K/1walk game or you're back at Iowa again. I'm not sure that kind of mindset is ideal!

Two things I've liked about Colvin: *After his HR binge last week, he didn't go into a K-hole over the weekend. So often a guy gets some HR's, it's like a drug, he starts swinging for the fences and immediately goes into a slump and starting whiffing a lot. Didn't happen for Colvin, that's great. *In general he's really clamped down on the K's. He's at like 95 AB now, with 17 K's. I can't find the exact breakdown, but I know he was at 14K after 52 AB. So it's been 3 K in 42 AB since. That is quite a turnaround. Obviously he's not going to stay as hot as his last 42 AB forever, but if he can basically equilibrate as a low-K guy, that would be really nice. Over his hot 43 AB or whatever, Colvin has basically had about as many HR as K! Guys who hit some HR's without a lot of K's tend to dominate the batting average leaders.

Rich Hill has gotten four big-league starts this year, and four last year. I don't think it's really fair to say the Cubs haven't given him a good opportunity. 8 big-league starts is basically a quarter of what a healthy rotation guy gets in a full year. It's a good window of opportunity, really. So I think those of us who are still pro-Hill need to maybe back off on faulting fans (and management) who have their doubts. 8 starts is not an insignificant sample size, IMO. At the same time, 8 starts is not a huge sample either. To write the dude off based on the observations of 8 starts is premature. So I think those who are anti-Hill need to maybe back off on faulting the pro-Hill supporters. One mistake I do perceive as sometimes coming from the pro-Hill is the view that Hill has been nothing but great for two years now in the minors. That he's been a steady-state success, that the Cubs are idiots for having him spend time in the minors, that he's had nothing to learn, etc.. I think that's wrong for 2 reasons: 1) Not a persuasive argument to the anti-Hill's. If nothing has changed, why should we believe the NL outcome will change? 2) Contrary to fact. a) His WHIP is 20% lower. That's not a teensy difference. I believe the same magnitude of difference between his last two months and early this season. b) His ERA is way lower; last year 3.5, this year 1.8, and over recent 10 starts or whatever 1.1 or something? That's not a small improvement. c) Scouting suggests that his change is now a useful pitch. It wasn't last year, early this year, nor in any of his three Cub audutions (last year, camp this year, 4-start window this year). d) I don't have numbers, but it's my impression and I believe some scouting supports that he's gotten a lot more groundouts since going back to Iowa. e) Many of these items suggest that his stuff and his location has improved, considerably, since last year, and since earlier in his high-minors sample. f) After he flopped earlier with the Cubs, he got pasted his first start back with Iowa. One view is that he pitches the same all the time, but the same stuff that works in Iowa doesn't in NL and he'll never succeed. A flip argument based on this one-game bombout is that when he pitches like he did for Cubs, that stuff gets pasted in PCL just as it did in NL. But that he doesn't pitch the same all the time; and it's a change in his pitching, not just a change in venue, that has resulted in his subsequent turnaround. g) The biggest change in comparing his minor-league work this year from last is that his HR's are way, way, way down. Last year in 123 IP,he allowed 20 HR; this year in 100 he's allowed 3! It's the removal of those extra HR's that almost completely explains the reduction in WHIP and the reduction in ERA. So, is the reduction in HR's just a fluke, small sample size? Or does it reflect a significant improvement in Hill as a pitcher? That something in his stuff/command has improved..... A LOT?? Again, I think that kind of reduction jives with the scouting: integration of the change, better location of fastball, more consistency with curve (fewer hangers), perhaps better mixing of cutter with regular fastball? This speaks perhaps against some arguments I've seen from both sides. *Against the anti-Hill: he has gotten better, lots. So he still does have a chance to be pretty good. And although he may be 26, it's not like his level has been flat and he's had no space for improvement. Even at 26, he had room to grow, and has done so. *Against the pro-Hill-Cubs-are-idiots: Maybe the Cubs haven't been so idiotic after all? Perhaps having him spend time at Iowa has not been idiotic, not been time wasted? Perhaps it's been just the venue he needed, to work on the change, to better blend his cutter/regular fastball, to improve his fastball location? Obviously the Cubs-are-always-idiots view will say all of those same improvements would have happened as fast in the bigs. But it is possible that if in fact he's really improved a ton, in terms of command and consistency and repertoire, perhaps we might say that perhaps it hasn't been totally idiotic and a waste of time after all?

Agreed. He can play all three OF positions, atleast moderately well. Has some pop, and that also seems to help. I mean if Terrance Long can keep a job at the major league level, then I'm sure Nic Jackson will find a job soon, too. I don't see that at all. he was always fringey for CF and arm so-so for right. After having shoulder problems, I'd think his ability to play either of those positions has gotten perhaps much worse. And while his CF seemed to be feasible for minors, it was always questionable for majors. He's got 6 HR's this year. Minor leaguer left fielders in their late 20's with 6-HR power, not that much demand. Terrence Long was hitting 18 HR's in the majors at age 24, and over a 4-year stretch his 12-18 every year, and could play CF. Nic seems to have little chance of that kind of production.

The Mesa game box score has apparently been corrected from what you guys were discussing earlier. 5 innings for Carillo, with 2 K's, rather than 9 innings and 10 K's! Makes a lot more sense. Carillo has actually pitched pretty competitively in his innings thus far, and he was actually pretty respectable in the DSL last year too (2.81 ERA in 58 innings). The guy who scored the K's was Rafael Dolis, 8 K's in 3 innings, along with a couple of hits (one a HR), a walk, and a HBP. That performance dropped his ERA into the 11's! He entered the game with a WHIP of 3.2 in 8+ innings. Wildman supreme, now with 11.1 innings, he's got 12 walks..... and 19 K's. Whatever he throws he's obviously got no control, but whatever it is the batters can't always hit it. (Although he's given up 18 hits in 11 innings, so they can hit it at least sometimes!) Dolis is an interesting story. *RHP, 6'3", born 1/10/88. *Played last year in DSL ... as an infielder. (His .259 average at age 17 with .322 OBP and 1 HR actually looked fairly good relative to a team that batted .233 and had a grand total of 12 HR in 68 games! So unlike some guys who have switched because they were awful hitters, perhaps he switched because he's got an obviously good arm? *Dolis played last year under the name Rafael Jose. Whether he had a fraudulent name or it was just recorded incorrectly, who knows. Anyway, he might have interesting stuff, and if he's got a big arm but just switched to pitching, perhaps some of his wildness is more understandable? We can hope. The other nice thing in the Mesa game was that Rundle had 5 AB... and didn't K a single time. Got two hits. Probably feels good for him. And the last nice thing in the game was that Marwin Gonzalez got 3 hits and a walk. Gonzalez lists as a switch-hitting 3b, 6'1 187. And he turned 17 only this March. He's gotten around 60 AB already, so they've played him quite a bit even though he was hitting .127 entering today's game. They don't bring many kids over at 17. Gonzalez and Robert hernandez are the only ones. I usually assume there is some possible talent in the kid's toolbox.

1. Colvin was cold, now he's hot. He won't stay this hot, that's for sure. Small sampe size, so his walk rate and K rates, for example, may be pretty deceptive thus far. As may be his HR rate, etc.. Time will tell. Whenever a guy gets hot, of course I always hope he's figured something out and will stay hot forever. (Hardly ever happens). But hopefully his recent success is more representative and his early troubles were more flukey and adjustment-oriented. 2. Joseph lists at 5'11", but I didn't think he ran much faster than average. Doesn't walk much, but puts the bat on the ball. Sounds interesting. As a corner guy I'd like to see some power eventually, and maybe at 5'11 that isn't in the cards. Still, there are plenty of 5'11" types (or shorter) who have hit a lot of HR's. Willie Mays, Brian Giles, Kirby Puckett, Jimmy Wynn were all under 6, Aaron and Sosa both list at 6'0", and Bonds and Banks at 6'1". So it's not as if height and long-levers are really essential to hit big-league HR's. I'd also like to see Joseph take more walks, but guys who K as little as he does, while getting hits, I think are promising. 3. Gallagher and Veal, to me it's kind of a tossup. Both are good ones, but they seem very contrasting. Lefty righty. Bad body/scouts-don't-like verus Veal who scouts viewed as athletic/projectible/toolsy. Groundball extreme versus flyball extreme. Good control (perception, at least) vs wildman (perception, at least). Wide arsenal (fastball/cutter/two curves/change/slider) vs small arsenal (fastball/curve/change, supposedly without real control of any of them...). While Gallagher seems younger, he seems way more advanced in terms of control, knowing what he can and can't do, and being able to self-manage himself within his wide variety of pitches that he tries and tinkers with. But Veal seems to have superior stuff, or else how would he be getting so many hitters out and racking up so many K's? The age thing is used as an indicator for who's got more improvement ahead, either physical or skills-wise. While Gallagher is younger, I'm not sure that in terms of physical talent that he's got as much untapped potential as might Veal? I think (without much reason, perhaps) that Gallagher probably has little chance to gain any further velocity; that is Veal can get more consistent and optimum with his delivery, that he may still get a little faster more consistently? Gallagher seems superior control-wise; maybe that means he's tapped his ceiling and can't get much better. Whereas wildman Veal perhaps has lots of space for improvement. On the other hand, sometimes it seems the rich get richer in terms of control. Guys who already have control seem better able to further improve their secondary pitches, while guys who are wild just stay wild? So, one view is that Gallagher is advanced, but won't improve too much. But perhaps with all the pitches he's tinkered with, and with his aptitude for figuring out how to make them work, perhaps he's got tons of improvement left ahead of him? Who knows. Both seem like very interesting prospects, that's for sure.

As of today, July 21, things are looking much, much better for the college draftees than they did at first. Colvin had a horrible start, good fodder for all the "Colvin was a terrible pick" fans. Now that he's been really hot lately, and as a 20-year old has climbed up over .800 OPS (hopefully and rising, although he's been so hot that he's probably due for a sag...), he looks a lot better. Sam hasn't been dominant at Boise, but a 2.38 ERA looks promising if he stuck to it. Lansford has a horrible start in terms of average, but is now hitting .300, and appears to have the plate discipline/OBP that the board is constantly complaining that the Cubs lack. Clevenger had a horrible start in terms of average, but is now on a hot streak also, and has boosted his OBP into upper .300's. His choice wasn't real popular; who wants a SS without speed who can't play SS, when BA or whomever suggests he might need to move to 3rd but has no 3B power? But playing 2B, his bat looks fine, again a guy who profiles as a strong plate discipline/contact/high OBP hitter that we're always complaining that the Cubs undervalue. The past 1-2 weeks has seen all three of Colvin, Lansford, and Clevenger jump from the .100's (or worse) into good batting average ranges. Obviously the news has not been good after that. Clifford Anderson has been K'ing like there's no tomorrow, at an almost unheard of pace. Except, not at a pace that's even close to Rundle! Rundle has been K'ing like 70% of his AB! Making Harvey look like contact hitter supreme. Billy Muldowney has disappeared; injured? Who knows.

Yes, please no Type A middle relievers this year. I'm not sure it's so much of a big deal, really. In the year they lost their #1 for Hawkins, they spent 1st round on Johnson (granted, a bust), 2nd round money on Reed, and 3rd round money on Patterson. So they basically spent on signability guys just about as if they hadn't lost a pick anyway. This year they lost 2,3,4, but in addition to spending 1st on Colvin, spent 1st on Huseby, spent 3rd on Rundle, and hope to spend 1st on Samardizja once it all shakes out with him. If the BA report is true that the league vetoed a could-be-$7.5 deal for Sam (obviously participation dependent), they basically think they got 3 1st round talents and a 3rd round talent according totheir spending. Granted, we can assume they'll always screw up whomever they pick. And it may be that whe you're doing signability guys all the time, that you are overpaying.... Perhaps the guy who actually goes in the 3rd round and gets slot money that Rundle got would actually be a much superior prospect. Maybe the $1.3 spent on Huseby would get you a much better talent if you were actually drafting in the 2nd round. But it seems to me that if the team is willing to spend the money on creative signiabiilty guys, losing a 2nd or 3rd round pick isn't really that horrible. To some degree, I wonder if it almost gives you license to do whatever you want? If they had all their regular picks, and then still offered Huseby $1.3 or Samardizja $7.5, maybe the league would really go ballistic. But if you say, "Well, we didn't have picks, so we need to do something creative, you can't stop us from at least trying to get some talent given that we lost our high picks...", maybe that makes it almost easier to superslot guys later on?

I'd been thinking the opposite, that his power has been a pleasant surprise. He's got 3 HR's already in what 80 AB? Project that to an everyday big-leaguer and your around 20. He's hit lots of doubles, like you say, especially lately. Of 24 hits, 9 have been for XBH, that's very good. His slugging is now over .500, his IsoP over .200. So I think his power has been very encouraging. If he's hitting XBH and HR's like this at age 20, who knows what he'll be able to do at age 26 and 29. He's really been on a tear, though, that's for sure. As have both Clevenger and Lansford, neither of whom has shown power but both have excellent BB/K profiles. Clevenger didn't seem to get much appreciation at draft; the view I inferred was, why take a SS who lacks the D for SS but lacks the power for 3rd? But if his D can handle 2nd, heh looks very interesting as a contact hitting plate-discipline OBP 2B.

That's some interesting scouting info there, Jon. Thanks.

Very interesting. I like the move from curve to slider. Guzman has struggled with his control, with a lack of movement on his fastball, and on scary FB/GB ratios earlier. I think slider is easier to throw for strikes, easier to throw for contact (other night notwithstanding), easier to get groundouts on, easier to avoid hangers. I hope it works for him.

Thanks much for that link, kc. The article was unclear on some details, but was quite helpful and specified several finesse rules I hadn't appreciated. 1) that <20 days down doesn't count (crucial because if Novoa survives the season, then I think this season won't count), 2) the 5-full-years bit that takes Aardsma off the hook, and Guzman. Questions for you: 1. You state that Guzman will get an extra year. That link did not explicitly say so, it only speculated that perhaps it might. I'm trusting that you used the principles in that article, looked at Guzman's actual career, and figured it out yourself? 2. If so, could you detail your analysis on Guzman? He's obviously been on options for three years, 2004, 2005, and 2006. If he's got more, will it be one more, or perhaps even two? And if so, on what grounds? a) the authors suggested this "five full season" bit, in which a season requires 60 days on a roster. I'd think Guzman will probably have completed his 5 full seasons this year? 2001 Boise, 77 innings. year one 2002 Lansing/Daytona, 156 innings. Year two. 2003 WTenn/surgery: 15 starts, 90 innings. year three. That must have included at least 60 days on roster, so unambiguous. 2006 Cubs/Iowa, no brainer, Year four. 2005: 18 innings, Mesa/Peoria. No way he got to 60 days. No brainer, that won't count against. 2004: Key year, if he spent 60 days on rosters, that would bump his years to 5 and the 5-year thing wouldn't apply. But did he? 11 starts, 48 innings between Daytona and WTenn. That might come pretty close to 60 days on those teams. However,I'm guessing that it probably doesn't count as a year? Probably the first 30 days at Daytona were registered as "injury rehab" games, and thus wouldn't as regular roster days? My guess: indeed, he's a year short of 5 "full" years, and qualifies for an extra options year on that basis. Is that your thinking? b) An alternative way in which he might have one or perhaps even more options years left. The article suggests that if a guy is not on option for 20 days in a given season, it doesn't count as an options year. If I'm understanding that correctly, which of Guzman's years *would* actually count against him? 2006: absolutely, obviously. One options year down. 2005: 4 Mesa starts, 2 Peoria starts. Combined, they sum to >20 days. But, if the Mesa starts were "rehab" starts rather than actual "on option" starts, then I think 2005 would *not* qualify as an options year. The team two choices with injured prospects. They can option them, then put them on DL. The time then does not count towards big-league service, and they aren't paid big-league salary. But it counts as option. Or, you keep the guy on big-league roster and DL; no options cost, but service time and salary are big-league. (I think.) Anyway, I'm certain that Guzman was on the big-league DL last year. I doubt he was on options for even 20 days. If I'm correct, 2005 wouldn't count against his options. 2004: 11 starts between Daytona and WTenn. On 5-day interval, that's gotta get to at least 55 days. Even if 30 were rehab days rather than option days, that would still leave at least 25 option days. So if I'm correct, 2004 would unambiguously count against him. Long summary: Guzman probably has one more year, no more no less, whether by the "five full seasons" clause or by the "3 seasons on at least 20-days of option..." clause. Agreed? Tangent question: a) Do you know when the statute of limiations on options kicks in? At some point, you can't farm a guy without exposing to waivers even if a guy does have option year left. This was true for Ohman in 2005. At what point does it become impossible to unilaterally send a guy to the minors, without giving other teams a shot to claim him? b) In that article, they say Ohman had one option as of 2006. But they don't list him for 2007. I assume if he has one now, he'll still have one next year. Even though it isn't relevant, and even though they couldn't exercise it even if they wanted to because somebody would absolutely enter a claim for him once he was exposed on revocable waivers.

Nope. He will be granted a fourth year of options due to the time missed to injuries. Thanks very much! That is excellent news. And that changes the scene considerably in affecting whether Hendry needs to assume him into the roster for next spring.

According to the announcers and the Iowa manager, Guzman's slider has been better the last two times out than it has been all year (those 8 Ks in 3.2 innings make it sound like it). Thanks, raisin. His GB ratios this year have been terrible, which fits both with a no-sink fastball but also with no breaking pitch. He needs to have a breaking pitch to mix in with his not-very-lively fastball and his could-be-good change. if the slider could do the trick, that could help him a ton. For years he's been hyped as a sinker/curveball artist, all he needs is to get healthy but if he's healthy he'll be special. Would be ironic if he does turn out healthy, but instead of the much discussed sinker/curveball guy, turns out to really be a slider/no-sink guy instead.

According to the announcers and the Iowa manager, Guzman's slider has been better the last two times out than it has been all year (those 8 Ks in 3.2 innings make it sound like it). Thanks, raisin. His GB ratios this year have been terrible, which fits both with a no-sink fastball but also with no breaking pitch. He needs to have a breaking pitch to mix in with his not-very-lively fastball and his could-be-good change. if the slider could do the trick, that could help him a ton.

Zambrano has had forearm cramping and come out, as I recall. Usually with no next-start harm. Guzman had forearm stuff last year that basically cost him the entire season. Who knows this time. Hopefully it's the no-real-problem Z-type thing. I would think that given his history, the Iowa management would be on orders to be very, very careful with him. If in doubt, I'd assume they'd pull him. I certainly hope so. I think he has shown some hints that he may be figuring some things out as the season has progressed. I'd sure like to see him continue that over the remaining few weeks of the farm year. But at this point it wouldn't take too much of a DL to effectively end his farm season. (If he comes back on August 20, for example, he wouldn't exactly be throwing 6-inning starts right off the bat...) Guzman is out of options after this season. So the Cubs will need to either keep him on their active roster (or DL) next spring, or trade him, or expose him to waivers. If he ends this year on the DL, I can't imagine his trade value will be much. And if he ends this year on the DL, I also can't imagine the Cubs being able to plan on him for anything more than the 12th pitcher for next spring, the guy who Dusty would use about as much a Dusty used him when he was 12th pitcher last month.