craig

The stock of prospects rises and falls rapidly. Look who fast Dopirak shot up, and how quickly he fell off the table. Bobby Hill seemed golden for a while, then not. Kelton (although a lot of fans seemed to stick with him forever). Felix Sanchez. Obviously Corey. It isn't easy to tell which prospects are going to maintain a high level, or continue to improve to even higher level, and which will regress or stall. Should we trade Pie because there's a good chance that he'll never get any better? He may never be much more than he is now, a high-K anti-walk guy who might be a .270BA-.310OBP-14HR-8SB type player. If he doesn't maintain his excellence from last year, or improve in some ways beyond it, should we look back next year or three years from now and say, "Man, those stupid Cubs, why didn't they know to trade Pie after the 2005 season when his value was maxed?" Should we quick trade Cedeno while he's coming off a .300 season, before he possibly settles in as a low-power-low-walk .260 hitter who makes too many errors? I don't know. I'm just saying, it's awfully tough to know when a guy will keep improving, when he's basically going to plateau, and when he might regress. I think the general policy should be that barring some really big-time offer, that you hold onto the guys who might end up becoming impact players. Understanding that in most cases something will happen so that they don't reach that. Maybe they are due to stall or regress. Maybe they'll never get past whatever is currently limiting them (as proved true with Corey). But I think it's probably good policy to hold the guys you think have at least some kind of decent chance to end up being really good players. To me, that includes Cedeno and Murton and Pie. That includes Guzman and Marshall. That still includes Hill, although I admit I fear that last year was a career year and that his control regressed with cubs and thus far in camp. That includes Pawelek. Personally I don't see Harvey or Dopirak in that group, the contact/vision problem seems too extreme for there to be much realistic chance that they'll get past it. Or patterson, who K's too much to seem very likely to me. I think the comment on Hill/Marshall should be taken less as a slam on Hill then as what it was probably intended to be; a huge compliment to Marshall. I think to some degree the two stand as great contrast players. Many stats people get super fired up about K's, and Hill had them galore. Marshall has gotten his share too, I think, but hardly exceptional like Hill's consistently extraordinary K-rates. The eye-popping K-guy versus the normal K-guy. The control guy versus the wildman. Marshall has always thrown strikes; Hill never has, with the exception of his minor league 2005. We are always hoping that wildmen master control, and sometimes they do. But I suspect that for most wildmen, even when they do have control for a while, it's always a battle and they are always at risk of going wild again. The bombs-away guy versus the keep-it-in-the-park guy. Hill has always given up high HR's; but his K's and WHIP's looked awesome last year. Marshall has neveer given up many HR's, but his WHIPs haven't looked as eye-catching. The fly-ball versus the groundball guy. Hill is a relatively extreme flyball pitcher, Marshall the opposite. Probably which largely relates to the other factors (the HR's, the K's, the control issues...). What's perhaps a little surprising is that often the high-K wildman is the harder thrower; it seems Marshall's fastball is a little bit faster than Hill's. But the difference is more in terms of sink than speed. Seems to me that the Cubs have liked Marshall a lot for a while, but he's not pitched much due to injuries since he made an impact. For me as a prospect watcher, his original scouting was as an 83-88 mph guy; I knew he projected faster, but always wondered if he'd end up with a plus fastball or just a lefty finesse fastball like so many others. One of the positives on him seems to be that his fastball really does now seem to have grown into a big-league asset. Seems to me that an 88-92 mph sinker is pretty good pitch. Combined with control and a plus curveball, and you've got the keys to big-league success. There have also been some positives about his changeup too. Extraordinary stuff? No. But seems to me that the combination of several average-to-above-average pitches with above-average control sums to a above-average big league pitcher, since most guys are below average in something, be that their fastball or breaking ball or control.

You don't think it might be possible to notice in spring training whether the guy's knee is seriously compromising his defensive range? Or whether or not his knee is compromising his already limited ability to turn the double play? I think you are logical in suggesting that until his offense slips below the .800+ OPS level it would be silly to assume it will. But I think it's entirely reasonable to look at his knee and defense in spring training and see whether what was a weakness to start with is now even worse. And if it's bad enough, I don't see the illogic in considering a change. Other thing, there are in betweens between all Hairston and all Walker. Walker had a good year versus LHP last year, but his career is pretty weak. If walker's the main guy, do you start him versus LHP, or platoon? If Walker's defense is looking worse than ever, you might also consider starting him when Wood/Prior/Rusch (non-GB guys) start, but resting him when GBers Z/madddux/Williams pitch? Or, maybe his knee is good for two days in a row but you don't want to start him three days straight? Another variable is the team offense/lineup as a whole; if the lineup is scoring consistently, Walker's bat may seem less essential than if Aram is hurt and Neifi is starting at 3B, for example.... There are plenty of mix-and-match ways to go. I don't see the illogic in trying to consider everything. It's not like it matters for the roster, both will be on it barring trade anyway. If Walker's knee is fine and he doesn't get traded, I'd be surprised if he wasn't the primary starter early on.

Thanks much for link. A number of interesting tidbits: *Brownlie claiming the shoulder is healthy and stronger. We'll see. And we'll see what that does for his pitching, if anything. (My shoulder is healthy too, but that doesn't mean I can throw 90 mph...) He may have a healthy shoulder but still carry only 87 mph fastball into the 6th innings. Sure would be cool if he got back into the 88-92 range, though. Also possible that with a healthier shoulder, perhaps his curve might sharpen up, also. *Note about Jody Davis saying Yusuf Carter has the tools to stick at catcher. His chance of hitting enough to reach the majors are a ton better as a catcher than a corner outfielder, that's a given... *Muskat's again speculation of Pawelek Peoria (to be expected), Holliman at Daytona (certainly understandable, although not necessarily obvious), and Veal at Daytona (not to be expected, although since she's posted this before it's less surprising than the first time she wrote that...) *Details that minor league camp opened last Tuesday, and that Fleita claims everybody is looking fit and great. Fleita hypes everthing and everybody, so doubtful that is means a thing. But certainly there have been plenty of other springs where pitchers showed up and were *not* allowed to participate normally (Justin Jones, Petrick, Sisco, Ryu, Marshall last year, and many surgery rehabs who thought they might be ready in spring but then were not ready for much participation...) *Fleita supposedly being excited about top 6 drafts (I'm sure that's also true every year...)... but then Muskat including Kyle Reynolds (not a board favorite) but not including 3rd round Billek. Very possibly just an error by Muskat (or perhaps Fleita). But Fleita may like Reynolds more than we realize.

Baker has talked frequently about concerns with Walker's knee. I hadn't expect that; his injury was early last year, and he played the majority of the season with that. I assumed it couldn't have been too bad or he wouldn't have been playing then, and that given an offseason of rest it should be a non-issue. But that appears to not be the case. I know it's the norm on this board to figure that whatever the Cubs are doing, it must be idiotic. But it seems to me that there are several reasons for the Cubs to remain unsettled re 2B: *Is walker's knee and leg going to be good? It's hard enough for him to play a good defensive 2B on a good leg. On a bad one, even harder. *Walker has had a couple of really good offensive seasons with the Cubs, and I expect him to hit well again. But at the same time, I think there is reason to be careful in assuming too much. He's been an .800+ OPS with the Cubs. But the previous two seasons, he was a .760/.780-OPS type guy (despite playing in great hitter's parks.) If Walker was to revert to a .775-OPS guy (or worse, which can sometimes happen to hitters who aren't healthy), suddenly his offense might not be stellar enough to justif his defense/baserunning. To guarantee Walker the faithful time, regardless of his health and actual performance, could be a mistake. *With WrigleyinEngland, I'm interested in Hairston. I was very disappointed with the season he had last year, in almost every way (defense, brains, batting, base-stealing...). But I still think he has a chance to be a good option as a regular 2B. He supposedly wasn't that healthy last year, and the NL pitchers were new. I think there's a chance that being healthier and more familiar, that he might perhaps hit .280+ this year, in the .350-.380 OBP range that he showed the previous two seasons and during the first half last year, and be in the .740+ OPS range. I expect his defense to be a lot better than Walker, perhaps very good. If Hairston could hit .280+ and post a .740+ OPS, which I think is possible if not probable, I think he might be overall a better value at 2B than Walker if Walker isn't hitting in the .800+ OPS range. I also think Hairston would have advantages in that he splits pretty evenly, you wouldn't really have much reason to platoon or do situational pinch-hitting. And he has the potential to field very well, so there'd be no need to consider making late-inning defensive switches or that sort of thing. I think there is defensive advantage in keeping the same middle-infield combo, and not having Cedeno need to process how Hairston likes the ball on Tuesday versus how Walker likes it on Wednesday and Thursday and how Neifi likes it in the 8th/9th innings of the Wednesday/Thursday games. I also think that defense can be underrated. Suppose the primary 2B has about 500 AB's. If walker's limited range is costing you 10 hits over his season (relative to a rangier Hairston), and if Walker's turning-DP skills cost you 10 DP's (relative to Hairston), that's costing you 20 outs and allowing an extra 20 baserunners. In other words, comparable to 40 points in OBP! And at least 60-80 points in OPS. I'm not sure how great the effective defensive difference is, but I'm not sure that 10 balls and 10 DP's is exaggerating? I don't know how to get the fancier defensive stats. I know range factor is not well respected, but that's the easy one to access. And over their careers Hairston's 2B range factor is 4.97 to Walker's 4.37. That's a huge difference, and Walker who's now aging and may have a bad knee is as likely to get worse as to get better. I like Walker's bat. All I'm saying is that the Cubs aren't necessarily total idiots to consider the possibilty that Hairston might be a better regular. He might not hit enough to justify either. But if at this stage in his career he's able to settle in as a .280+ hitter, you might have a guy who could be a competent fixture for a number of years. A superstud, no. But I'd be pretty happy with a guy who might play plus defense, be a plus baserunner, hit .270-.300 ever year with a plus .350+ OBP, bat 2nd, and not have to ask each day or each winter who's going to play 2B tomorrow or in the 8th inning, or who's going to play 2B next season.

Would be nice to see Hill put up a "Wow" start where he looks really impressive. Obviously Rusch never looks that good, and Williams hasn't, and Wuertz and Williamson have had some bad outings this week. (Williamson had a shutout inning yesterday, but 4 of 6 batters reached...) Would be nice if Hill could have a sharp game and get me enthused about a pitcher.

Derwood, lots of good prospects appear in SS. As Tim noted: a) the majority of college players drafted in the 2006 draft will play there. Almost every college player drafted in the first 20 rounds will pitch in SS. A first or second rounder might jump straight to full season, but most begin in SS. A few years ago Hagerty was a 1st round college draft; he pitched at Boise. Sean Marshall is currently a high prospect for the Cubs; he pitched at Boise. Most of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round college picks have spendt their draft summer at Boise. b) Most teenage prospects spend their second American summer at Boise. Ryan Harvey was the 6th pick in the draft; his second year was at Boise. Brian Dopirak was a 2nd-round pick, second year at Boise. Juan Cruz spent his second American summer at Boise. 4th round Nolasco spent his second summer at Boise, 4th round Petrick, 2nd round Sisco, etc. Last summer the Cubs 4th and 5th rounders were HS guys; both will likely play at Boise. Limitation: Many 1st rounders do *not* play at that level. Many college type first rounders don't actually sign in time to play at all their draft summers, and if/when they do they often go straight to full-season. And many HS 1st rounders begin in rookie ball (like Pawelek last year, Montanez a few years back, Garland and Wood back in the late 90's...) but then skip straight to full-season for their first full season.

I believe he pitched two innings, gave up one single, one walk, hit one batter, had one other reach on a catcher's interference, and had one strikeout. He loaded the bases in the second with one out, then K'd the next guy on a good curve and got the 3rd out to bail out. And I believe the walk was on a fairly long AB, not just a ball 1-2-3-4 type AB. Dusty has talked about wanting Guzman to face some adversity, some bases-loaded situations, and show that he could withstand. Did that fine today. Nobody reported any details on his mph.

Was that still Koronka, or somebody else?

I think much of the success is spring training, though. It's a lot easier to do the small-ball advance-the-baserunners sort of thing when you're facing mostly fastballs. Some of the better pitchers aren't throwing their full dose of breaking balls, and those they do throw aren't as effective as they'll be later. And in spring, you're mostly facing minor-league pitchers and mediocre pitchers. A little more difficult when you're hitting against Oswalt, Clemens, and Lidge. To date, though, it certainly looks like the Cubs could be a much more fundamentally sound team, a faster team, and a more patient team at the plate. And the early returns suggest that the cub farmhands compare pretty favorably, both the pitchers (Marshall, Hill, Ryu...) and the hitters (Sing, Dopirak, Pie, McGehee, Theriot...).

I think the Cubs have been reasonable on Prior. It's been almost a year since he had his problems last spring, and Rothschild said that he had special issues that would in future require special precautions. That future is now, this spring. Is Prior 100% and 100% like everybody else? He says no. He says that after the past two springs and all the doctor exams, that they know what gives, and he called it Ulnar Splint Stress Reaction or something like that. Is a guy with "USSR" 100% and 100% like other big-league pitchers? I would guess not. Does a guy with "USSR" have a chance to be an effective big-league pitcher? Absolutely. Does a guy with USSR have a chance to be as great as was once expected for Prior, back when he had a big-time fastball, was considered to be one of the best control artists in the game, and was considered to be the perfect physical specimen with the strong legs and the perfect mechanics, etc? Well, he might have a chance. But perhaps the odds don't look nearly as good as they used to. Is this USSR stuff a fraud? Possible, I suppose, although I don't see the logic in making it up if Prior hasn't been told that and doesn't believe it. Is this USSR stuff just a small factor, and his shoulder is ready to fall off is a larger issue? Well, decide for yourself. I don't see much problem with how the Cubs have done things, other than that Prior started into his regimen so late. If his special USSR requires such a special, unique, and gradual buildup, I don't see why he didn't start easing into things a little earlier. But as Tim said, we fuss if the Cubs are careless with their irreplacable pitching assets. But then if they do take special precautions and care, then we fuss because they aren't doing the same thing everybody else does. We fuss if they suggest a date that isn't exactly realized. But then we fuss if they don't set a firm date. Seems to me that the "day at a time" is reasonable, if each next step depends on the response to the previous one. In Prior's case, they have set "dates". They've said all along they thought he'd be ready for opening rotation. And they said earlier on that they expected him to be ready by the second week of exhibition games, now that's maybe been moved back a week. Seems to me that Prior's spin in all of his interviews has been very confident, much more so than seemed true in either of the last two seasons. I don't get the feeling that he's had any big problems thus far. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much that proves. Roth said last year that Prior's curveball delivery places a lot of stress on his arm, and that was primarily the source of his problem. But while Roth and Prior have been talking favorably about how fine his arm has felt, in the stories this morning it was said that he has been throwing almost exclusively fastballs. That he only just starting spinning a few curveballs in recent session, IIRC. We'll see how it holds up once he's throwing his normal dose of curveballs. If it's a curveball-induced pain, not sure what it proves to be feeling fine when he hasn't been throwing any/many.

For those who watched, I know some of this has been maybe in the thread, but could you review what some of the pitchers looked like fastball wise? I'll guess, correct if possible. *Hill: 89'ish fastball, maybe one 94 mph wildman no control pitch. *Marshall: several 91-92 type fastballs? *Ryu? A couple of 89-90'ish, maybe one 92? Or a couple in the 90-92 range? *Eyre: what was he like? *Wuertz? *Howry?

Is it middle of the 6th? Who's pitching the 6th for the Cubs, and who pitched the 5th?

Murton went 0-4 in three token games with the big team. He was just a minor leaguer then, neither on 40-man nor a non-roster invitee.

In recent VineLine, they polled all of the Cub minor league people. Sing was first choice as having most power. So while Dopirak's first virtue is big power, it seems the Cubs think Sing has even more, or at least no less. All reports suggest that Sing runs better, throws better, and fields 1B better. Unlike Dopirak, Sing can play some mediocre outfield. Seems like Sing comes out equal or ahead on all of the tools. But Dopirak is still regarded as or more highly by some. I guess because he's younger, or because there's something about his stroke that looks better. somebody asked about Sing at 3rd. That's where he played originally in the minors. But he's not that agile defensively, and made errors over there. So just as the Athletics did with a young Mark McGwire, the Cubs moved Sing off of 3B to a less demanding position. I think it's nice if Sing is worthy, that he be available at Iowa. Somebody is going to get injured. It would be nice if you could bring up a competent guy who's also a prospect if/when a need arises.

Dempster's slider is really, really good, and his fastball isn't exactly slow. He's no Lidge or wagner, but his stuff compares favorably to the majority of closers. It's all a question of control with him. Obviusly he won't do so well as last year. But I think there's a good chance that he'll be pretty decent and perform at or above league average for a closer.

Jake, thanks for notes on Boehringer's health history with Pittsburgh. To me, how effective a pitcher is is totally dependent on the health of his arm. Dempster had a bad arm for some time pre-surgery; post-surgery his arm is better and of course so is he. When Boehringer's arm was healthy, he was a competent reliever. Is it healthy now? Who knows, and not likely, he didn't have any corrective surgery and he's 36, so not probable. But for $0.050, I don't see any problem with adding him. If his arm is healthy, he may be a useful alternative for a situation that looks thinner after Wellemeyer or Williamson are traded.

From the SunTimes: "I live now like 'What's today going to give me?' I can't say I'm going to be on the team at the end of spring. I have been pretty consistent, though, coming in at the live batting practices with my fastball, changeup, curve and cutter. Now I have the confidence to throw the changeup down and away and the fastball in.'' Time will tell, but here we see Hill self-perceiving as a 4-pitch guy! Given how good his curve is or can be, if the other three are servicable, he could excel. We'll see when the games play, of course. As for the 2-pitch charicature, I think the difference between the 2-pitch view and the 4-pitch he's currently claiming is not the addition of two pitches. I think he had three all along, with the cutter being functionally a significantly different pitch from the fastball. Maybe on TV neither we (nor many announcers) recognize the difference. But I believe that Hill was working with curve, fastball, and cutter for most of last season, at least he was during his minor league games. And depending on the quality of the fastball, I think he could accomplish a lot even without adding the change. But if he change can work in addition to the cutter, and if he mixes in a few true 4-seam fastballs now and then as change-of-pace, to keep hitters off the inside edge, to get the up-the-ladder strikeouts, and to keep the radar police satisfied, I think he could be very effective.

Time will tell, but I'd guess the 2004 draft will largely depend on Johnson, Patterson, and Gallagher. Those would seem to be the three with still a shot to become starting players. I'd think Shaver and Layden have a shot to become fringe lefties, and Reed perhaps to make it as a fringe catcher. Atkins, still too early to know. I probably wouldn't see the odds at better than 50/50 that the 2004 draft provides even one average starter, though. 2005 draft, early results are very favorable, to answer your original question, Quaker. All the early feedback on Pawelek and Veal is extremely favorable, Phelps looks like a possible steal, and Billek, Holliman, Johnston, and Taylor all look interesting at this point. Yes, it's early. But nobody has come up with a bad arm, and none of the pitchers have shown oh-my-goodness-I-never-guessed-he'd-be-so-wild kind of thing. Dylan Johnston's horrible K-problem in Mesa is the only guy who looked bad in early results, but Cubs were pretty positive about him after fall instrux. Of course, the good early feeling from the 2005 draft should be kind of expected. It was a very pitching heavy draft (Johnston was the only high-round player taken; not surprisingly he's the only guy who looked overmatched). Unless pitchers show up with bad arms (as often happens, see Clanton and Brownlie...), I usually trust their arms and they usually start out pretty fast (See Blasko, Hagerty, Jones, Petrick...). Usually it takes longer to evaluate a pitcher-rich draft, simply because it takes time to find out how many will get weeded out by injury. Also, 2005 draft looks good because we had all of our picks plus one extra 3rd rounder for Clement. In the three surrounding years, we've always been short. (Johnson, no 1st rounder.) Harvey draft, no 2nd rounder. Upcoming draft, no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rounder. Given that the Cubs are normally drafting short-handed, it's tougheer for them to keep up with other organizatons that have full drafts or have extra picks. But until some of the 2005 pitchers start requiring surgery, I'm very, very optimisitc about the 2005 draft.

Regarding original post, I agree with cubswin, Hendry may have the pitching to be in very good shape as a summer trader. And budget space. I don't see the position players having a lot of trade bait. He's not going to trade Jones right after signing him, or Pierre right after working so hard to get a leadoff. If he's going to trade position players, the bait is basically surplus 2B's and youngsters, be that Murton, Cedeno, Pie, or some other minor leaguer. I don't see any great likelihood of anything big involving our young players. But the pitching stock, that's definitely an area that could be depth and strength. And as you say, not everything needs to break right for that to become true. Still, it sure would be nice to not need to make a significant trade. Not to have a rotation with somebody as bad as Don Wengert (following Geremis Gonzalez injury) in 1998. Not to have Patterson destroy his knee in 2003 so that a CF was totally urgent. Not to have Alex Gonzalez get hurt and be so awful, as was a 2004 problem. Not to have such an emergency that you desperately need to acquire an Alf, as in 2002. Not to have such a 3B disaster as was Bellhorn/Lenny/Hernandez in 2003 so that Aram was needed. Not to have LF and CF be such a total void as was true last year with Hollandsworth and Dubois and Corey. Not to have a rotation disaster like Estes in 2003. HOpefully the good guys will stay healthy enough so that you don't need to replace them. The young guys will produce enough so that they don't go Bobby Hill. And the more questionable guys will be satisfactory enough support players that they don't go bellhorn/Corey/Hollandsworth/Gonzo on us. I'd sure love to see the team hold up well enough so that we win big this year. And still have all three of Guzman, Williams, and Hill, plus hopefully a good-news Miller, as post-Maddux options to fill the 2007 rotation behind Wood-Z-Prior. And still have control of Marshall and Marmol besides. Pitching can go from depth to thin pretty quickly. I'd love to have Hill, Guzman, and Novoa all pitching like big-leaguers at Iowa this year, but all having the luxury of staying there because the big-leaguers are healthy and pitching like big-leaguers too.

I agree with your view. When it comes to young pitchers, I think the Cubs have a strong record in terms of scouting for pitching talent and teaching/developing their pitchers as pitchers. (Scouting and managing for health, different story...) If they think Veal is ready for Daytona, I'd trust their judgment on it. If hitters are rushed, I think that's a problem; they are responders to pitching. But pitchers are the initiators, and the plate is the same distance and size in any league. Most pitchers develop at their own pace. I think the league makes a developmental difference primarily if it causes them to *not* practice the pitches that need work. That can be too easy a league (I can win with my fastball; why throw my mediocre curve which doesn't do as well?) or too hard a league (they pound my inconsistent curve and chanegup; I can be much more competitive in this league if I throw more fastballs...). Depends on the guy. But if a guy is improving his mechanics, is gaining more consistency on his fastball location and on his breaking ball and changeup, those mechanics and control improvements can really take place in any league. Veal isn't the only pitcher in the system. Veal, Holliman, Billek, Grant Johnson, Gallagher, Pawelek, Justin Berg, Phelps, Todd Blackford, Atkins, Chris Shaver, Matt Weber, Jesse Estrada, Scott Taylor, old Taylor, Avery, Downs, Yepez, there are 18 names who might pitch rotation at one of the A clubs, and I'm probably missing some others. You'd like to get the ten best guys starting. Perhaps a couple will be held back (Scott Taylor, maybe Pawelek?), or jumped on up (Gallagher? Shaver?) Perhaps a couple will show up with bad arms this spring (normally at least one or more out of 18 guys will have arm problem...). Perhaps a number will be well placed in relief (Phelps? Downs? Shaver? Blackford?) Perhaps others just aren't that good and it's no problem to bump them to relief (Downs? Avery? Shaver? Old Taylor? Weber? Estrada? Yepez?...) My point is that clearly the decisions on where to place Veal, Holliman, Billek, and Phelps impacts other guys. By pushing a couple of them up to Daytona may open opportunities for some kids who are pretty interesting prosepcts in their own right.

Probably heresy, but I think it's an interesting move. Costs nothing. Iowa may need a decent reliever. And the Cubs may too. I assume the Wellemeyer should get traded, and may return an interesting prospect. (Perhaps better than what Cleveland was able to get for a Bartosh...). Once Wellemeyer is gone, then Novoa is about the only non-Guzman righty on options that you have on reserve at iowa. (Unless you want to bring up ryu or Marmol already to be the 12th pitcher who doesn't get any work, doesn't develop, and just gets rusty). And Boehringer was a competent pitcher for some time. From 1997 through 2002, he missed one year to injury (2000, had a 5.74 ERA in 15 innings). But the other five years over that span, he had ERA's of 2.62, 4.36, 3.24, 3.65, and 3.39. If Wellemeyer or Novoa were able to do that as our 12th pitcher, we'd be thrilled. Since that time Boehringer wasn't as good in 2003 and 2004, and skipped 2005. So, not too likely that at age 36 he's going to recover the stuff he had at his peak. But we know that relievers gets used and abused, often their arms get fried, and they often deteriorate as a result. So it's entirely plausible that 03 and 04 his arm was fried, that he took off 2005 for family reasons or whatever but in the process his arm recuperated and is healthy again. If so, you might luck out and have a perfectly acceptable 12th pitcher for nothing. Likely? not at all. But not so unreasonable that spending a $50K minor league deal on it is a dumb idea.

I still think he's maybe a stretch, unless his infield defense is improving and/or diversifying. Seems to me that all I know at this point is that he's a good outfielder but a bad SS. A big-league utility player needs to have multiple positions at which he's good enough defensively that a big-league manager will actually play him there. Not sure having played some bad minor-league SS qualifies. I don't think his current SS would allow him to function as anything more than a 3rd string emergency SS in the majors, perhaps comparable to Mark Bellhorn in 2002. Has he played enough 2B or 3B to be even close to good enough defensively to be a 2nd string guy at one of those positions, in the majors? If he could polish his 3b defense enough to be considered as a respectable fielder there, that could help him.

I found these speculations by Carrie Muskat somewhat surprising. Brownlie and Guzman are in the big-league camp, so she has probably seen them throwing. Or at least had the oppportunity to talk to peple who have. Who knows what it means for Brownlie to be looking good. May not mean anything more than that his mechanics are good, he fields bunts well, and he looks sharp in the cover-1st-base drills. But who knows whether there is any reason to think he can hit 90 mph more regularly this year than in the past. But minor league camp hasn't started yet. I strongly doubt that Carrie has seen Veal or Holliman in camp, or that any source has seen any of those guys throwing since fall league. I wouldn't assume there is any *new* information, that anybody is going crazy in spring camp or anything. Whatever feedback she's getting placement for Veal/Holliiman/Pawelek is probably Fleita-hype, and no more current than what could have been available last Thanksgiving after fall INstrux were completed. Blasko/Connolly/Cherry, maybe the same situation, she's just talking from fleita-hype that may be based on 4-month old info. Or, maybe those rehab guys have been working in Mesa complex for some time, and either Carrie herself or some Cub official that she's talked to has seen them pretty recently and is happy with their progress. Agree that Veal to Daytona would be a surprise. Last year was his only experience post HS. <40 short-season innings and some JC work and he's high-A ready? That would be relatively unusual. Holliman, the day after the draft I'd have figured a guy with 3-years experience as a weekend starter in the powerful SEC should be way ahead of Veal, or 1+ season of Division II Phelps, or smaller conference Billek who hadn't been a full-time starter (or a successful one) for many of his college seasons. So I'd like to see Holliman start out at Daytona. And Pawelek at Peoria. If Veal was able to start at Daytona and excel, that would be pretty impressive and get attention and buzz and trade value riled up.

Jehrico, I'm in your camp on this one. Cedeno's a guy who has a wide-open opportunity to be a starting player, who's defensive tools are excellent, who's young enough to have improvement ahead, and who's handled himself well in a limited but not totally small 81-AB debut. His hitting in PCL and winter league suggest his Cub thing isn't total fluke. There are only a few good-hitting SS's. Cedeno's got a clear shot to start, and has all the tools to be an above-average SS, potentially well above average. Are there 90 guys who are more likely to be above-average, asset big-league starters than Cedeno? I don't think so. I think it's a ceiling thing. Cedeno has a good chance to be a very solid, above-average big-league SS. But his power and speed don't give him any chance to win an MVP. Pawelek may have a much lesser chance of ever being a solid, above-average big-league starter. But he has a teensy but not zero chance (maybe 0.5% or something?) of becoming a Cy Young caliber pitcher. I think that's why he gets more value. Personally I'd trade a Pawelek for a guy with a good chance to be a solid starter immediately, and a reasonable chance to become an above-average asset starter. So I'd definitely value guys like Cedeno and Murton ahead of Pawalek. Is that just giving more value to AA/AAA guys? Well, sure... if they are good ones. If a guy has gotten to AA/AAA and shown that he's got the goods to be a solid, no-deadly-flaw starter, and a solid chance to be a quality asset starter, well of course I'm going to rank them ahead of a kid with 20 pro innings who, by the time he may be ready for the bigs, may not have either above average control (who knows?) or an above-aerage arm. (More bonus babies lose arm greatness than increase it as they go through the system..) All that said, it's neat that BA thinks highly enough of Pawelek's stuff to figure he's worth that high a listing. It's exciting to think of having a player who maybe might not only stay healthy but add additional velocity, as projected. Or a guy whose life and personality might make him special. There may be a hundred guys like that, but there weren't a hundred that BA ranked as high as they did Pawelek. Maybe we're due to get lucky and have a high-ceiling guy pan out. That would be really cool.

I'd thought Rich Hill might make it in. Whatever.