craig

Clemson, thanks for your input. I think you make a good point that Colvin seems a tweener. Greene turned 23 four months after the draft. Colvin will still be 20 till this August. He's the age where many draftees are coming out of junior college, and where many college prospects are sophomores rather than juniors and seniors. Physically your comments ring with Wilken's, that Colvin still has perhaps significant physical projection ahead, which we routinely assume for HS drafts but not for college drafts. And obviously it's not only his physique that hs room for maturing, clearly his game is nowhere close to optimized yet and has lots of room for projecting maturation and improvement. When you draft a college hitter, I sometimes figure that what you see is what you get. But Colvin would seem a tweener where Wilken is still projecting a lot more than what's been seen thus far. As with all projection picks, we'll see whether much of that projected improvement ever occurs or not. And how much, and how fast.

I'm no scout, so I have no idea where he should really have been picked. He seems like a reach for me, given that: a) I doubt he'll end up with the speed/arm to play center, b) he shows signs that he might be a low-walk hacker, and c) he doesn't seem to project a lot of power. But if he ends up being a pure hitter, he sounds strong enough and projectible enough to hit 20-25 Hr's down the road. So if he hits .285 and 20-25 HR's while playing a good left field, that will be a draft steal, even if not a HOF MVP type. But I have no idea where he should have gone. I think the 140th pick stuff is based on a dated BA evaluation, and that after his red-hot May the Cubs weren't the only club to rate him much, much higher than that. BA talks to a few scouts, and scouts have their own opinions. Once a guy is on BA's list as a super-buzz prospect, I think they talk to a wider pool of sources and get more opinions. My guess is that for a guy like Colvin who didn't enter the year as a super-buzz guy, that BA probably had a hundred other guys that they were much more interested in asking sources about. And if none of the couple of guys they talked to early on were talking 1st/2nd round, then probably they didn't pursue asking other people their opinion, they perhaps assumed there was consensus that he wasn't a real high-round guy. Some of the post-draft BA comments have been interesting: "We were a little slow to react on him in our lists unfortunately." John Manual, night after day one. Seemed to admit that their ranking was in error. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/261494.html Callis draft stuff, including a lengthy response regarding Colvin to a friend of mine's question. Callis continues to personally believe that Colvin was a questionable and unwise choice, assuming that he was not sub-slot driven and taken so as to save cash for Sam. But he does say that another scouting source just told him he thought it was "an astute pick", tht several teams had Colvin as the highest college outfielder on their boards at the time that the Cubs picked (once their top guy Drew Stubbs was already taken); and that several other teams were considering him for selection late in the first round. Seemed pretty obvious that while he may or may not have gone in the 1st, that he certainly wasn't going to get through the 2nd. Which would make him no worse than top 70. Again, I'm not saying he was a good pick. Seems to have a limited ceiling while still having apretty low floor. Lots lot of bust-potential: he could easily end up being a guy who is LF/1B only, with no walks, no HR's, and no SB. He doesn't project to steal 50 bases or be Ricky Henderson leadoff, or Gold Glove CF, or Barry Bonds power, or a Brian Giles OBP machine, or any of that stuff. All I'm saying is that I don't know enough to accurately judge whether or not he was a reasonable pick, and I doubt you do either, or Jim Callis for that matter. But BA's recent stuff makes it pretty clear that there were a number of other clubs that saw him at least in the top-70 pool and a number in the top 40-range.

I am always interested in splits for LHP especially. Any LHP who fails to impress enough to get or keep a rotation spot automatically drops down to candidacy as lefty reliever. But any manager who has been or will be hired by Hendry is going to use a lefty reliever especially versus LH hitters. If a guy isn't very good against lefties, then he's going to fail as a lefty reliever. That means he either better be great enough to be valuable as a rotation starter, or else he's not going to be valuable at all.

Odds/Ends: *Thanks for the link to the Notre Dame/Sam inerviews. The coach also makes the claim that he hit 99 and was regularly at 93-94. That's a good arm. Interesting that they discuss this curve/splitter switch to slider/change, in such positive terms. Even though his season stats were worse. Obviously a long-term investment. The comment that he's comparable/better than Lidge and Heilman, that's very strong. Of course, this guy is obviously a gusher supreme, makes Hendry and Fleita look like understaters. *I got the impression from Sam's comments that while his college life has been football first (he was signed and recruited as a football player), I almost got the impression that he saw his pro career as more baseball first. He insisted on finishing the NOtre Dame career, but there were comments from everybody about being focusedn baseball,the advantage of not running off to spring football, etc. etc.. It may be that he will be a premier NFL draft choice, and that's he and coach are totally clueless about how much summer time NFL might demand. Or that he perhaps didn't intend to do football first next summer. That's the spin the coach had; go to combines, see what NFL draft did, but really go baseball from March on. I got a much better feeling about his seriousness about baseball and his likelihood of choosing baseball after reading that. *Sounds like he definitely intends to sign. The issue is not whether he will sign, I don't think; it's whether he'll ever focus and whether the Cubs will ever get any value out of him. *He talks about big games etc.. There are no big games in Boise, or Peoria, or Daytona, or WTenn. It may well be that after spending some time riding Boise buses, playing to small crowds, having another 15-hour busride, etc., that baseball will seem way too low-thrill to keep his attention? *Thanks for some of the input on what his NFL status is. His baseball commitments may not help his football draft either, by the way. If he's head and shoulder BPA, somebody will take him. But if he ends up in the bigger pool where teams see comparable prospects, any time they are choosing between Sam and some other comparable prospect, Sam's baseball distraction might cause them to choose the other guy. This could happen over and over and over, especially if he isn't viewed as elite. But time will tell how elite he looks once the fall season is in. *Jon, I don't see the link between Sam and Colvin. I predict that Colvin will sign for close to slot money. I don't recall a lot of big-talent-big-ticket bonus demand guys there. Maybe Drabek or somebody was, but I was under the impression that most of the guys BA was discussing would have been happy to go that high and sign for slot money. And even if there were a few that would have demanded superslot, I think there was a plenty big pool of guys who would have signed for slot, guys who BA had ranked higher and who would not have drawn all the aghast that Colvin has. Bottom line, I think Wilken probably picked Colvin over the other slot-signables because he thought he was the best prospect. He may be crazy, and as I said there may have been a couple of guys who removed themselves from consideration with outrageous superslot demands; but I think Wilken mostly made the pick based on his baseball/scouting judgement. Like I say, there is good reason to question that, but time will tell. I just don't see that selection being premised on drafting Sam in the 5th. For all he knew the Sox or Tigers or Yankees might draft Sam in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th, and he'd never even get the chance. I don't see Sam comanding all that much guaranteed or up-front money that they couldn't also pay at least full slot or more at #13. In 02, that they intended to pay 1st-round for Blasko and Hagerty and full slot to Clanton, Jones, Dopirak, Craig, Petrick, and Hill didn't cause them to overdraft rather than pay slot or superslot on Brownlie.... I think they had plenty of resouces to draft what they viewed as the BPA at #13 plus draft and sign Sam. Again, Cub judgments routinely prove faulty and time may well show that Wilken will be very wrong on Colvin. But I think it was a scouting decision, not a Sam-induced financial decision.

Well, I don't know.... Two of the first four pitchers taken were 6'6" or taller. (Sam. and Huseby...)

I like Wilken's policy. From somewhere in the 20's on, it's been pure D/F. I know a couple of the HS guys around the 20th round were already JC commits. A bunch of the picks since have been JC/CC players, so it's pretty safe that they'll return for another year and be eligible next spring. And of those, as noted by somebody, tons have been RHP. If you want a guy to blossom into a worthy D/F sign that your scouts will recognize, have it be a pitcher. If he's throwing 85-89 now, and suddenly next spring he's pounding 93-94 time after time, scout can find out easily enough, check him out, and pursue next spring. If a hitter improves some, harder to tell against the so-so level of JC competition. So I think it makes good sense to pack the second half of the draft with projectible D/F pitchers. Draft 20 of those guys, and hope a couple of them do develop and are worth high-round money next spring.

This two-sport thing is obviously short-term. Ifhe signs this summer to a back-loaded deal, he can pitch for a few weeks for Cubs, then do fall football. After that, different story. NFL is pretty summer consumptive. With mini-camps and regular camp etc, there isn't that much time away from football for a guy who is making football camps a higher priority. Plus, if he's doing all the combines and trying to get drafted as high as possible, he probably won't have much baseball attention even in the spring. So sure, he can pitch for the Cubs for a few weeks, then go on his merry way with a football career, maybe ala Elway. Or, the reverse, he can enter the NFL draft, see how things shake out, and decide he didn't get drafted high enough. Presumably they could structure a back-loaded contract so that if he stays baseball, he ends up getting 1st-round money. And if he quits next spring, or not too long thereafter, the Cubs aren't out very much and it's just a wasted pick rather than wasted millions. If we're lucky, some girlfriend will tell him she'd rather have him play baseball, without the injury risk.

Rowell sounds interesting and all that. But I'm pretty leary of guys who want to be hitters who stand 6'5". Tall guys with big-time batting-practice power are common. But tall guys who can actually shorten their swing enough to get around on 95-mph inside fastballs and handle the movement and breaking balls of big-league pitchers are really rare. Just pretty tough to keep 6'5" arms from giving you a long swing. Draft a 6'5" guy and odds are a lot higher that he has the contact/K-problems of harvey, Sing, Kieschick, roberson, and mongo-BP-power-but-useless-in-games-power than that you end up with McGwire or Strawberry or Galus. And as much success as those tall dudes have had, they still all whiffed a ton with their long arms, they just hit enough HR's so that 150 K's/year was acceptable. If we draft a hitter, I kinda hope he's 6'3" or less. Obviously the scouting directors know this stuff too. So my point is probably kinda dumb, if the scouting directors think a guy is worth a top-15 pick despite the height that will make contact problematic, they probably think the reward is potentially high enough to justify it.

I think his ceiling defensively at 3B is below average. If he doesn't reach his ceiling, he'll remain bad. So I think if he stays at 3rd, he'll end up somewhere between bad and below average. But I think average is beyond reach. Sometimes a guy can improve his footwork and his throwing accuracy, and sometimes with better footwork hands that don't look very good now can improve towards average. But if your range is below average, hard to expect that to ever improve.

Dusty has tried every one of the unready prospects that were available. He had two shots with Wuertz, and he didn't produce. He had Guzman, he wasn't ready. Hill had his shots. Ryu's had a couple. Williams, of course. The choice was one of those guys who have already failed or give Marmol a fresh shot. Not sure he's any more likely to have the control needed to be effective, but whatever. And being scheduled tonight, he's ready to give them innings if they need them tomorrow.

Cubs have signed Luther Murphy and Cody Gilbert.

So, what is the scouting report on Wells, anyway? What's his second pitch, slider or curve? I'm think slider, but I'm not so sure... How fast is he? Is he still your standard 88-93 guy? He was something of a flyball guy last year; still true? For having his own diary thing and whatnot, and despite how good has stats have been, I've gotten very little scouting info on him. I was pretty interested in him back at Peoria (or was it Lansing?) two years ago. I recall two game reports, one said he was mostly 88-90 for velocity and didn't show anything very attention-getting; the other said he threw some 90-92. I seem to have some idea from Daytona getting a report of 89-93 for velocity, but other than a couple of references to what nice mechanics he had and how aggressive he was, I didn't get much else.

Actually, I'm not sure I follow. I think the Cubs have made some judgments on Craig: 1. That he's not a major-league prospect. He's an organizational player. 2. That he's not defensively qualified to play 3B, or anyplace other than 1B/DH 3. That he wasn't qualified to play much for Iowa. Brandon Sing made more sense to play for Iowa than did Craig. With Sing as the starter, Craig would have been just a bench/DH type at Iowa. 4. That Craig wasn't qualified to play much for WTenn either. Dopirak made more sense to play 1B there, because he is still viewed as a possible major-league prospect. So again, Craig would be a DH/bench guy there. Basically, if the premise is that Craig couldn't play anywhere other than 1B/DH, and that Sing and Dopirak were better prospects to get the AAA/AA 1B jobs, Craig was left out with Daytona being a place where he could play.

A friend who subscribes to BA said that DePoy was listes by BA as like the 86th best prospect in Texas, or something like that. Ware scored as the 73rd best in Florida. Outshined, here is a list of the D+F candidates and comments that I posted several weeks ago on April 17. The stats are oviously pretty old, so while Ware's season was about done already, obviously some dudes from other schools, their seasons may have just begun. The one D+F I know we signed was 1B Luther Ware, a really, really raw dude who had like three XBH this spring or something. Draft and Follow Candidates: 20. Leonardo Ware, OF, 3/18/1987, 5’10”, 185, Atlanta --Okaloosa-Walton (FL) CC http://owcc-r-06.owcc.net/raider/baseball/statistics.htm Doing great, hitting .352, starting every game, 20/21 in SB/CS, tops in SB, 2nd in HR, 2nd in slugging. 31 Brad DePoy rhp 9/14/1984 6-1, 205 San Jacinto (Texas) JC TX no link 32 Colby Wark RHP 8/12/1986 6-3, 215 Lower Columbia (Wash.) JC WA http://www.lcc.ctc.edu/athletics/baseball/mens/ Wark doesn’t appear to be on the team. 33. Ben Ferguson, RHP, 10/10/1986, 6’7”, 210, Salt Lake (UT) CC. http://www.slcc.edu/athletics/athletics/BSBOverall.htm Having a dominant spring. 7-2, 0.70 ERA, average ERA is 3.3. 34 Cody Gilbert 3B 8/21/1985 6-3, 185 Lincoln Trail (Ill.) JC IL http://www.njcaa.org/schmain.cfm?sid=7&divid=0&gender=m&slid=3&menu=11&cid=1580&seasonselect=321&schmenu=4&teamid=47654 not doing anything much. Some power. .208 after about 9 games or so. 35 Drew O'Connell rhp 5/11/1986 6-3, 195 John A. Logan (Ill.) JC IL http://www.njcaa.org/schmain.cfm?sid=7&divid=0&gender=m&slid=3&menu=11&cid=1574&seasonselect=321&schmenu=4&teamid=47650 Pitching very little, only 10 innings or so. Other guys pushing 50, so he’s definitely not one of the starters. 41. Chris Rollins, RHP, P 9/16/1986, 6’4”, 190, New Jersey, Potomac State (W.VA) JC. no link 42. Josh Garza, RHP, 10/9/1986, 6’0”, 190, Burleson Texas North Central (TX) CC. no link 46. Luther Murphy, 1B, 3/15/1986, 6’4”, 225, Florida, Palm Beach (FL) CC. no link 47. Mario Williams, C, 7/4/1987, 6’2, 220, Tampa Fl, Lake City (FL) CC. http://www.lakecitycc.edu/departments/athletics/baseball/stats.htm Having a strong spring. >42% CS/SB rate, hitting .319, 3rd highest OPS (.860) on team. Very low walks,though.

Thanks. That doesn't sound career ending!

Juan Mateo is having a nice year, with a 2.18 ERA and a 1.01 WHIP at age 23. Got taken out in the 2nd or 3rd inning of his start 2-3 rotations ago. Does anybody know what is wrong with him, and how serious it is? Enquiring minds want to know!

Many similarities. Size (both list at 180, G 5'9", Fuld 5'10"). Both hit lefthanded. similar draft spots (G 9th round, Fuld 10th). Similiar ages, Fuld one year younger, so comparable to what Greenberg was a year ago. Both take some pitches and walks. Both seem to play a good CF, although neither has the great speed or great arm to compare with top-level starting CFers in the majors. Both run well, but not blazers. Both come from big-time college conferences (G ACC, Fuld Pac10). But some differences are significant, and might justify hoping that Fuld ends up being significantly better than Greenberg. 1. Fuld is a good hitter and getting better. He hit .300 last year, .350's thus far this year, and I believe he hit in the .330's or better for last 2-3 months last year also. Greenberg has never posted a .300 season in the minors. .280 and .315 may both look like pretty good averages, but that's a pretty significant difference. 2. This may be in a sense a restatement of point 1, but Greenberg has always been a big whiffer. His career strikeout rate was 21% entering this season, the K-rate you associate with a a power-hitter, almost Corey scale, not what I associate with an ideal OBP-leadoff type. To strike out that often and that consistently, there must obviously be some holes in his swing. Fuld, by contrast, has been a very low-K guy. His K-rate was a shade under 10% last year, and while it's mid-teens this year it's been dropping steadily during May. So it's not obvious that he has any holes, yet. With comparable BABIP, the difference in K-rate might well fit a 30-point difference in batting average. And in terms of projection, guys with K-holes are more likely to get blitzed by promotions than true low-K contact hitters who don't really have any holes. 3. Fuld is hot, Greenberg is not. Greenberg may at one time have looked almost as interesting as Fuld does now, but that's no longer true. Fuld hasn't failed yet. Until he fails or it becomes evident that he's got some holes or is overmatched, I'm interested.

Alan Rick catches half the games, more or less. I think basically Fox alternates between catching and DH, wth Alan Rick catching the days Fox DH's. Craig is 25. If the Cubs were serious about him catching, I think he'd be doing some. If an Alan Rick roster-filler blocks Craig from catching, I think we can pretty much take it for granted that the Cubs are not the least bit serious about converting Craig into a catcher. O well.

I'd like to see Fuld promoted, and let him play. But, I'm not watching, and don't know what the cubs talent evals think. It may well be that Fuld is just a minor-leaguer non-prospect, and his numbers regardless, he's got no big-league potential. If so, then I don't think it matters much. But if he is actually a major-league prospect, I'd like to see him promoted. Walker will turn 26 in a few weeks, and while his numbers are decent, he K's too much and walks too little to be more than a fringe prospect. A guy with a .678-OPS in AA who's almost 26, I don't think he's ever going to be more than a 24th/25th man on a winning big-leaguer roster, if that. I don't know if the cubs think Fuld has any big-league potential, but I think they must or should. He's hit over .300 since being drafted, his BB/K is great, and he's currently got a .900+ OPS, 14/3 SB/CS, and is hitting .340 or whatever. If he's performing so well, but they still don't think that's enough to be a prospect, then they shouldn't have drafted him in the 10th round. You shouldn't spend even a 10th round pick on a guy you don't think has the tools to be a major league starter if he develops well. Fuld has done as well or better than they could have hoped for when they drafted him. So again, if they thought he was worth a 10th round pick, then given how well he's produced since then, they ought to think he qualifies as a big-league prospect. As such, his progress should be given preference over that of roster-filler non-prospect walker. Pierre does not appear to be the long-term solution at leadoff. There is reason to think that while Pie might do a decent job there, that he might be better utilized further down in the order. So I'd like to see how Fuld handled AA, and get him into view as a possible solution to the leadoff hole down the road. It's also my view that development-wise, getting promoted is a much smaller problem for contact hitters with plate discipline and a good eye, which Fuld seems to be, than is true for hackaway Harveys. When a guy with swing and eye full of holes like Dopirak gets promoted, I expect promotion to give him lots of trouble. But when a good eye/contact guy like Fuld gets promoted, I don't think it provides nearly as large a challenge. Plus, at age 24, and having faced a lot of high-level pitchers in the Pac-10, where a lot of pitchers throw a lot of breaking balls rather than relying on fastball-fastball-fastball to aluminum bat hitters, I think that Fuld has a pretty good experience fctor for handling breaking pitches. So, I don't think it's that likely that he'll get buried by AA-caliber pitching. In either case, I'd like to see him try. We know that Chris Walker is never going to be a lineup-changing leadoff man who is an asset starter for a championship-caliber cub team. Fuld probably not either, but at least it's possible. I'd like to get some AA info one way or the other.

Not to be negative, I'm pretty interested. But just a couple of cautions. Obviously it's a very, very small sample size, since he only catches half of the games. You knew that, of course. Second, he's K'ing a ton. When a guy is K'ing over 25% of his AB, after having a high K-rate last year as well, it does raise some red flags. Third, when a dude is hitting .466 on balls in play, I don't think that's sustainable. Still, other than the K's he's hitting very well, and I hope it continues. Given how high the batting average is, he can have his BABIP settle into reality and still have a pretty good average.

On Blackford, I know the report is out there that he throws low 90's. A friend of mine watched one of his games several weeks ago, one in which he allowed only one run in 6 innings so was fairly effective. My friend, who has watched hundreds of minor league games so has a pretty good judgment, said there wasn't a gun at the game but that Blackford didn't throw very hard, and pitched behind most of the hitters.

What kind of defense reports have you guys gotten? I've gotten a couple suggesting that he's looked really bad this year, that he's got no range defensively, plus has the errors problems even on the balls he does hande. His K problem is obviously horrible. Still, despite all that, he's hitting near .300 and posting a .900+ OPS at the moment, at age 22. That's pretty favorable. Still, his BABIP was in the .380's last time I checked, so that looks suspicious. His walk rate isn't too hot this year either. Maybe he's figuring something out, but poor-D K-aholic prospects don't have a good track record in my experience.

Both of those guys have good overall hitting numbers. Both are way down in walks, relative to last year. Last year both were strong plus walkers/Iso-D guys, this year both have regressed to mediocre/sub-average in terms of patience. However, both are K'ing a ton, so they probably can't afford to be patient enough to allow even more 2-strike counts. Hopefully they'll make progress in their hitting, and that will enable them to be a little more patient again down the line? I've gotten a couple of reports on hiim, one from a former college pitcher who scouted him in spring, and another from a fan who saw his WTenn debut and then saw him pitch again a couple starts ago. The pitcher who saw him in spring was very impresses with his stuff, said he kept the ball down in the brief sample that he saw, but had tons of movement on his fastball. Said his breaking pitch look pretty good too. Said he threw with a relatively low arm-slot, which made him project very nicely as a situational lefty reliever who might be tough on lefty hitters. Said he looked to have a nice, balanced, repeatable delivery. The guy who saw two of his games was unimpressed in the first, but said he looked a lot better the second time he pitched. What's common from all three of those scoutings was that he does *not* throw very hard. The spring training scout said he didn't think he hit 90, upper 80's instead. The game scout said he didn't touch 90 all night the first time he saw him; the 2nd time he threw a little harder, a maxed at 90 a couple of pitches during the game. But it seems a given that we're looking at a guy who's going to pitch in the 80's, and will depend on movement and keeping the ball down rather than on velocity. Still, as we've seen so clearly with marshall versus Guzman, an 88 mph fastball with movement at the knees is a lot more useful than a 95-mph fastball without much movement that's up in the zone. Shaver does not have a record of much success, or of notable control. So I think it remains to be seen whether the ability to throw the ball with enough movement to induce lots of groundouts, but at the same time throw it with enough command to keep it down in the zone and still keep it in the zone, we'll see whether that's something that he'll be able to sustain. So far he's been fantastic this season, that's for sure. As I think you already know he's not at all young, will turn 25 this August. His pro numbers entering the year are overall very humdrum (1.36 WHIP, 3.8 ERA, 6K/9, 4walks/9), and his college record was even worse, where he was kind of a swing-man, with a 5.4 ERA as a college senior who was nearing 23 years old. If Shaver is good now, at 24-almost-25, it's because he's good now, not because of any historic record of excellence! If he turns out good, it will be a chalk-it-up to the scouting side. I don't think there's anything from his Saber history that would have suggested anything good entering this season.

Scott Taylor would seem to be getting skipped. And Mike Billek getting a start instead. Is Taylor injured, or what?

Veal has scattered 6 walks over 4+ inning before getting lifted. In keeping with his profile as an extreme fly-ball pitcher, he got 1 groundout in 4.2 innings. I can't ever recall any Cub prospect, or any other pitcher for that matter, who gets so few outs on the ground. While the utter lack of groundball stuff and the characteristic wildman stuff is negative, not all the Veal news is bad. He allowed just one single and zero runs in 4.2, and notched 9 strikeouts. Not often a guy will rack up 15 K+BB in 4.2 innings! No score after 5. Pie is down to .275.