craig

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.

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.