craig

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.

Guzman pulled in a shutout in the middle of the 4th after K'ing the first two hitters (8 K's through 3.2). If anybody finds out any news on his latest injury, let us know.

The Cubs media guide appears to have the error on Elvis Lara. Rather than being 6'5", 230, minorleaguebaseball has him at 5"11 and will turn 20 this November. Non-prospect. I actually went through the DSL roster versus minorleaguebaseball to see the heights and ages of the DSL players. It's kind of interesting, and perhaps reveals the Cubs normal Latin approach. It doesn't have birthdate or height for everybody. But for the pitchers,the top three innings guys are each 6'4", and each will turn 18 this fall. The vast majority of the pitchers who are doing the pitching are 17, and are 6'3-6'5 in height, although there are a couple of 18-year-olds too. One exception is Audy Santana, who has the best ERA and stats and who will turn 20 this November but doesn't have his height listed. (I think he's not so tall.) But I believe he was an infielder-to-pitcher convert, thus not as young. It's very different for the position players. Most are about 20, and there are only two 17-year-old position players, neither of which are hitting .200. I suspect that the focus is on younger tall guys who might project into pitchers. With age, they might get power arms; with development they might get control or a breaking ball. I'd guess that they aren't signing many guys who have existent skills.

As far as you could tell, did Taylor throw many breaking balls or changeups? Did he throw curveball (easier to recognize)? If not, maybe he's a fastball/slider guy? How did Avery look? Hard to tell, and they are probably both somewhere around 90, so probably can't really tell. But if you had to guess, between Taylor and Avery, which would you guess threw harder? Does Carter look like an ordinary guy? Or does he obviously look stronger than other guys? Thanks. too bad no radar.

Ron, how does Campusano look? And how does Fox look defensively?

Great. Have there actually been any scouting reports posted on him by people who have seen him this year? You can post one tomorrow! I really don't have a feel for what he is. Is he a big-time arm that doesn't have much breaking ball yet, but if he comes up with one he could be a big-time prospect? Or is this a guy with a decent but nothing-special fastball at present and very little breaking ball? A guy who'll need to come up with a breaking pitch and add 5 mph to become a #2 big-leaguer starter?

Robert Hernandez who pitched for Mesa today is only 17, doesn't turn 18 till October. It's rather rare for the Cubs to put guys on their Mesa team who are in their debut season and who will not turn 18 until after the season. I wonder if he might not ahead of the norm because he looks more promising than most of the Latin pitchers they've signed in recent years? Would be awesome if he's a real prospect.

I like Mark Reed as a prospect. But in terms of hack's question, Reed does not exactly profile as an impact hitter. The current Reed is hitting in the .290's, which seems nice, but that's boosted by a flukishly high .376 BABIP. His 23% K-rate befits a guy with Harvey-like power, not a guy with only 2 HR's and only 11 XBH in 233 AB. His .075 IsoP this year is less than Juan Pierre. I hope he develops well, that in time he looks like a good defensive catcher even relative to big-leaguers. And that his power boosts in time and his K's reduce. Given the very low hitting standards for big-league catchers, it's possible that he'll become an asset starter someday. But if so, that will be as a #7 or #8 hitter, maybe a #2 hitter, not a middle-of-the-order type impact bat. There just aren't that many impact hitters with K/HR ratios of 53/2. And who are low-walk hackers besides. It probably speaks to how poverty-stricken the Cubs are that a guy with a .708-OPS is the "impact hitting prospect" of our low-A. Again, I'm not saying he's not a good prospect. No team has 25 impact players, and good teams benefit a lot from having solid players Of the Peoria guys, Carter seems the guy who could become an impact hitter. He seems to have genuine power, and he has a chance to be patient. His 6HR/26K ratio is six times better than Reed's, and if his BABIP equalled Reed's, he'd be hitting .319. Obviusly his average is low. But his career and season has been so short that the sample size doesn't prove much.

A few of those guys might end up being potential DFEs. Wilken collected a lot of them along the way. Correct. Of the unsigned picks through pick 34, all but one are firm JC/CC commits who will be available for draft-and-follow screening next spring. The only exception through the first 34 picks is Keoni "Babe" Ruth at #17, a college 2B. I think the Cubs have signed him too, actually. There was a story where he is injured, and he was quoted as having the cubs telling him this and that about the rehab process. I got the impression it fit with him having been signed and going into their rehab program, although it's perhaps also possible that they said do this and that and we'll sign you later if you're doing well. I suppose also possible that he failed physical or something like that. But basically through at least the first 34 selections, Wilken didn't take *anybody* who didn't seem signable, either this summer or next spring. Hopefully we'll hit on a good DFE for a change. It's been a while since the Cubs have gotten anybody significant that way.

I'd also like a report, velocity included if possible, on Pina. We know that Pawelek is a wild lefty, we know that Muldowny is efficient but doesn't throw very hard. But Pna has been getting promoted, and has shown improvement early. Does he look like he's got big-league arm, and project to get better? Or just a guy with an ordinary fastball that NWL-hitters just tend to ground out on? Of the hitters, Joseph, Baez, Lansford, and Colvin are the four I'd be interested in hearing about. Joseph has done pretty well; does he look like he's got any promise? Colvin has been awful thus far; does he look that bad at the plate when you see him? Getting killed by breaking balls? Or what? Enjoy the games, and thanks in advance.

I would say the answer is basically no, we don't have any significant position prospects. Pie is likely to have a major league career, very possibly a pretty good one. But he's always been a high-K guy, and other than his brief AA season he's never projected a lot of power, and his base-stealing has struggled enough that it's wishful thinking to project him as a base-stealing difference maker. He's a good fielder, his hitting perhaps projects into a Jacque Jones someday if things go well for him? Fox is a bad fielding catcher, and those aren't too popular in the majors. Had 3 passed balls the other day! Barrett is considered a weak receiver, andhe averages what, about 8-10 passed balls a year? And following his promotion, Fox hasn't hit much either. Chance, yes. Probability to ever be an asset starting catcher, not more than 20% IMO. Eric Patterson is a high-K guy with little power. He's got a chance to play in the majors in some capacity, but again his probability of become an every-day 2B who's better than average is probably small, I'd guess 20% at best. I'd probably give Moore maybe a 5% chance of becoming an asset starter? Dopirak was horrendous at Daytona last year, with a .670 OPS (without factoring in the impact of his 20+ DP's-hit-into, plus his bad defense and baserunning). He's been even worse this year, with an empty .567 OPS, although of course he'll get a pass because he had an injury. But I think it's very, very unlikely that he'll ever translate his BP power into big-league game AB's. Daytona doesn't have any players. Probably the best probability for any of Daytona's players to become a decent big-league starter is Ryan Harvey.... as a pitcher. And given that he's never pitched a professional strike, that probably speaks to what an empty scene Daytona is for position players. Peoria, the players there are young enough so that it's harder to write them off. Reed and Yusuf Carter appear to be the two best prospects there. Boise doesn't really have anybody except Colvin, who's off to a horrible start. Mesa has no position prospects at all, yet. Obviously they are prospects, and things can change. Perhaps some long-shot will emerge as a real player. But it looks to me like this may be the worst collection of position prospects that the Cub farms have ever had during my 25 years of closely following the Cub farms. Hopefully Pie will figure something out in time and become a good player.

That would be great if he's good and the Cubs signed him. I always liked Tony Pena himself, I lived in Pittsburgh for a while when Pena was good. Catchers are a rare commodity. Given the Fox seems to be pretty bad defensively, Reed would appear to be the only guy in the system with a chance. And his arm/defense has had it's own questions, plus no power and an awful lot of K's for a no-power dude, it would be great if he turned into a good-fielding jason Kendall, but the odds that he'll ever be an asset starting catcher aren't real great. Go get Pena.

He's got talent but he's still also rather raw. I think that he's at Boise because any changes in his swing will be easier to implement there against lower talent than at say Peoria or Daytona. He'll probably have good production while there but I don't think we'll see any sort of vast improvement until the offseason where he can start working more seriously on changing his swing mechanics. This all may be true and good. Still, it seems rather odd to spend a high pick on a guy who lacks RF arm, CF speed, HR power, and plate patience, but who is drafted because he has a nice swing. If in fact his nice swing isn't actually very nice and needs to be reconstructed. If a guy's swing needs to be reconstructed anyway, then what was it that you draft him that high for? Hopefully you'll be right, they'll tune up his swing and he'll be a genuine hitter next year, or perhaps later this very summer. Still, not a very encouraging way to get going.

I believe I read somewhere, (no clue where), that Latin kids are not allowed in states for first year, have to spend their first season in one of the Latin summer leagues. I'd like to have the Cubs spend more on some Latin guys. The Latin pipeline has been totally try in recent years, really since Pie. It's a major reason why the cub farm system has been in freefall relative to the competition.

I don't think they have any intention of getting back into the Venezuelan league. I think they've said they like having all their Latin guys working together at one complex. And given that even by combining both their Dominican and Venezuelan guys, they still finish last in their Dominican league every year, if they don't have enough to compete with one team, splitting over two teams would just make them lose even more, I'd assume. Question: how did you get that Elvis Lara is a 2B? I haven't found out how to figure who's playing where. IN the Cubs Media Guide, they list him merely as an infielder. But since he lists at 6'5", 230 pounds, I'd assumed he was a 1B, with at best an outside shot to play 3rd. I can't really imagine a 6'5", 230-pound 19-year-old second baseman.... Still, a 6'5" 230-pounder with only 4 K's in 80 AB, there's a chance you might have a guy with the size for power but the contact skills for game-time power.