craig

I agree. But in terms of the "clutchness" thing, if there are 10% of players who would fail for mental reasons, it would be interesting to know in advance. And in terms of the theory, it would be interesting to ascertain whether in fact there is some pool (perhaps small) of players who do underperform in clutch. This gets exactly to the point. If there is no such thing as anti-clutchness, then a guy who can post 3.3 ERA in the 7th ought to be able to post 3.3 ERA in the 9th. A guy may be nothing more than a 3.6 ERA guy in the 8th, but then he ought to be able to perform comparable in the 9th, if in fact there is no anti-clutchness involved. If a team considers pitching 3.2-ball in the 7th to be good, but considers the same guy pitching the same 3.2-ball in the 9th to be a failure, that could happen I imagine. Then the team is stupid. Obviously they shouldn't expect any more. But if no anti-clutchness exists, neither should the pitcher perform any worse. This argument is that Hawkins is anti-clutch, and that clutchness (or it's lack) does exist. Why does he need any different peripherals or any different offspeed stuff in the 9th than in the 8th or 7th, if clutchness does not exist? The suggestion is that he's more relaxed in 7th/8th and thus has a better breaking ball is arguing that he's anti-clutch and being unrelaxed in the 9th compromises his effectiveness. He didn't need to be magically clutch, or overachieve; if he'd simply been able to pitch at the same level, with the same kind of K rate and GB/FB rates that were good enough to give him 2.13/1.86 ERA's in setup, if he'd simply pitched that same way in closing he'd have been fine. I'm not concluding that Hawkins was anti-clutch, by the way. It's possible that his demise was simply coincidental. His arm was sore, or his mechanics changed, or whatever.

James may believe there might be some clutch hitting thing that no Saber guy has been able to come up with a way to measure, relative to the noise of data scatter. Clearly the majority of perceived "clutch" hitters it's a results of data noise. It still seems to me that if I were a saber guy, I'd think it might be easier to come up with some way to measure somebody who's anti-clutch. Hard to find guys who persistently overachieve in clutch, if any such exist. But it seems much more qualitatively plausible to me that there are other guys who underchieve in the clutch. I'm just wondering whether any study to that effect has ever been done? It's a lot easier to perform below one's capabilities than beyond one's capabilities! With MPrior, I think this seems consistent with some closer guys, including Hawkins. Certainly it's well possible that Hawkins non-success as closer was coincidental, random, noise, etc.. But the long-standing view that any pitcher can do as well in the 9th as he does in any other situation, I'm just not convinced yet that it's true. Some guys can, I'm sure that's true. But others, I find it very plausible that guys who are used to pitching 7th inning and do it decently, that if suddenly switched into 9th inning duties, knowing their team is on the line, their reputation is on the line, their future career and future earnings and future fame and glory is on the line, it seems entirely plausible to imagine that for some guys, they might not perform interchangeably. I have no saber evidence that the hypothesis that some guys tend to underperform under special pressure is true. Obviously tons of baseball players believe it. They may all be idiots. But how many times haven't we heard pitchers talk about needing to just relax and throw their game? And how many times haven't we seen rookie pitchers *not* pitching relaxed, and pitching with much poorer control than they did in the minors? I never expect a debut pitcher to have the same kind of control that I think he had in Iowa, or that I think he might have once he settles in. Maybe those pitchers are all idiots who think they need to "relax" and that they pitch worse when they don't. But maybe they aren't, and saber guys just haven't taken the time to study or figured a way to study the performance of nervous pitchers versus relaxed one? And how many times haven't we heard hitters talking about being in a team slump, that everybody is pressing, that too many guys are trying to win it all by themselves (swinging for HR, swinging at pitches outside of the strike zone?) Maybe these idiot athletes are cracked, and are totally mistaken that they perhaps produce worse when they are pressing or swinging too hard or too aggressively at bad balls. But it doesn't seem impossible that perhaps they are right? I think saber guys when they've looked have always tried to look for "clutch" guys, overachievers. I think identifying underachievers, anti-clutch guys, might be a lot more possible because it seems so much more possible to underperform than to overperform. [/i]

Notes: 1. I don't have them, but I think numbers throughout the league differ in "clutch" situations, or late-situations, etc., from normal. Pitchers work more carefully, nibble mroe, walk more (OBP rises), but allow fewer hits. It's common to consider rotation pitchers superior to relievers, but year after year relievers allow lower batting averages but higher WHIPs. For the hitter, the situation is *not* the same as normal, because pitchers don't pitch the same as normal. 2. My understanding is that in baseball, studies indicate little evidence for such thing as a super-clutch hitter, guys who can significantly or consistently **outperform** their norm in clutch situations. Notable stuff is typically a result of small sample size, and tends to flatten out. (As suggested by reggie Jackson in WS versus playoffs...) 3. However, it's my understanding that many players are able to perform about as well in "clutch" situations as they do under normal circmstances. That's my idea of a clutch guy. He doesn't choke when the pressure is on. Doesn't overthrow, doesn't overswing, doesn't expand his strike zone, etc.. 4. My hypothesis is that while few if any players can consistently "overachieve", that there may be some who "underachieve" in the clutch. Guys who are "anti-clutch". When the pressure is really on, the pitcher starts to overthrow, or his delivery starts to erode a little. When the pressure is really on, a hitter maybe swings too hard, or begins to expands his strike zone. Vance, I think there have been saber stuff on supposedly "clutch" performers. Have there been saber studies on "anti-clutch" performers? If my hypothesis was true, then a "clutch" guy is simply somebody who performs as well as normal in crisis, whereas an "anti-clutch" guy is somebody who doesn't. The other thing is, if a guy is responding to stress or pressure or crisis or whatever, what constitutes a pressure situation for one guy might be quite different for somebody else.

I don't know exactly what evidence it provides. Yes, that he's not a highly valued player, for whatever reason. The simplest reason would seem to me that Walker is viewed a poor defensive 2B, and nobody wants to acquire a poor-fielding 2B to be a starter. Or pay much for the privilege. (No different from Hendry's view). The view around here is that Walker's hitting is so good that it more than makes up for whatever defense he lacks. Most GM's don't seem to agree. If Walker doesn't start, then $2.5 for a non-starter is no longer bargain money. And he's problematic as a bench guy, since 2B is the only position he plays and he doesn't even play that well. Maybe a little bit of 1B. But he's got no multi-position flexibility. It's evident that he isn't valued very highly around GM-dom. But I don't know that indicates any problem with his attitude. Just with his defense.

I like the concept of acquiring Craig Wilson, and I think it makes some sense. As we've all noticed, Jones has extreme splits. If you limited Jones to facing RHP and RHP only, Jones would look a lot more promising. I think the prospect of a Jones/Wilson platoon could end up with a remarkable number of K's, and obviously with poor defense on Wilson days. But offensively that kind of platoon could be pretty productive, and likely get the best out of both players. Hoops' source may have it right that all of baseball hates walker because of attitude stuff. But I think it's also reasonable to attribute his situation to baseball factors only. He's not a good fielder, we've all seen that. Nor a good baserunner or situational fundamentals type guy. What he's good at doing is what he does in the batter's box, if his skills in the box were like his skills outside the box, he'd be in AA, not the majors. Offering Walker for Wilson does not suggest a dump-Walker-at-all-costs approach. Nor does considering Walker for Orlando Hudson, or Walker for Aaron Heilman, or Walker for Adam Kennedy, or Walker for Milton Bradley, or Walker for Affeld or MacDougal type rumors. All of those kind of rumored names involve guys with significant value, not "dump at any cost" discussions. Wilson's salary, combined with his incredible K-rate and poor defense, might make Pittsburgh relatively open to dealing him. He'd almost certainly frustrate Cub fans; runner on 3rd, one out, and Wilson K's again! But I think he'd be a lot less frustrating than Jones facing LHP, and his OBP/slugging/OPS are all pretty solid. He's got a remarkable batting profile. Unlike most Cubs, he crowds the plate, so that he can use his pull power on almost any fastball strike, even those on the outside half. But because he crowds the plate, he gets beaned all the time. He got beaned 30 times in 2004, and has gotten hit 81 times in less than 1600 AB's! Hhis career Iso-D is almost .100, which is amazing, and of course he does walk a lot. A cat like Corey has a career Iso-D of 0.039. Wilson's got 0.032 in beanballs alone, and another 0.064 in walks, really amazing. I'd be happy if Walker stays. I think his bat could help the offense so much. But I think Walker for Wilson could also help the team, certainly more so than a Walker-functioning-as-3rd-string. And I certainly think that a bad-fielding 2B does a lot more damage than a low-range RF. I admt it would also be kind of a relief to have Walker's situation resolved one way or another. And finally, while their are good reasons to appreciate walker, I think replacing his defense and fundamentals dumbness would be of some value.

Craig, the only word I ever got on Albuquerque was "RHP Alberto Albuquerque is a guy who should skip through the system quickly; I expect he'll start above Mesa in the system" from Oneri Fleita on here about a year ago. When you say he’s a control pitcher is that based on his fastball, numbers or a different “scouting” type opinion? Does that imply not so much FB or just few BB? Thanks, Scotti Mostly based on numbers, not on any scouting dope that I've heard but you haven't. Numbers combined with speculation based on peripherals. His numbers in the DSL in 2004, when he turned 18 during the year, had an excellent K/BB ratio. A 43/9 K/BB ratio in 46 innings is good, and his hits allowed were also good (33 hits in 46 innings). So the numbers suggest that his control was good relative to his level. For DSL level kids, of course you don't know if they throw anything except a fastball. But often fastball pitchers give up hits. So I wondered whether the low hits allowed might corrrelate to having something that he may be able to throw besides the fastball? And do it with reasonable control or else the walks would have been higher? That he had good control, and perhaps the makings of some kind of breaking ball, also seemed consistent with Fleita's comment that he could advance quickly, and might even skip beyond Mesa. My experience with Fleita suggests he wouldn't probably say that if he thought the guy was a wildman, or didn't have a reasonably balanced, consistent delivery, or at least the makings of some kind of breaking ball. If a guy is just a fastball and they hope to eventually teach him a breaking pitch, they figure the guy will take time, not advance quickly or skip levels. So his numbers combined with Fleita's comment seemed consistent with a guy with control. My comment that he's a control pitcher does not necessarily imply that he doesn't have a fastball. Prior was drafted as a control pitcher, but he had a fastball. Guzman has been consistently supported as a control pitcher, but that doesn't mean he lacks a fastball. If Alburquerque post-injury is able to have good control, and have a good fastball, that might make him a meaningful prospect. However, the fact that he lists at 6'0", 150 is not particularly encouraging if we're looking for a velocity guy. The physics and levers aren't conducive. Obviously there are some special short guys who throw plenty hard, Billy Wagner, Tom Gordon, Roy Oswalt, maybe Alburquerque will show up as a freak like that, we could use the luck. But the probability of him ever throwing 97mph would seem a lot better if he listed at 6'4" 205 rather than 6'0".

Wow, that's really interesting. For Jody Davis, that's cool for nostalgic reasons. Probably having Garcia go down to oversee the Latin complex is perhaps even more important, though. Having been in pro minors for a while he should have a better comparison for young Latin prospects down there. And certainly that's an important role, I think both for teaching but also for scouting. I think a lot of players go to the Dominican complex to try out, and I assume it isn't only Serra who looks at them. INteresting. Hope it works for the best.

Bobby Hill was considered a prime prospect then. Rather than parking him as a reserve 3B where he'd never played before, it made sense to return him to Iowa and let him work things out. Hill/Harris would be analogous to Grissom/Pie. So, if Murton breaks his leg this spring, do you want to force Pie onto the big-league team, when he may be totally unready and do nothing but get one or two K's per week? Or would you rather send him to minors where he belongs and where he can develop his game, and tolerate Grissom for a while? I can just imagine, if Murton gets disabled and they decide to send Pie down, for years we'll get posts about how Cubs/Baker/Hendry preferred vet Grissom over kid Pie.... My Grissom question is whether he's just non-roster depth/injury insurance, who will only make the team if one of the intended roster outfielders gets hurt. Or whether they intend for him to make the team, and perhaps he's simply non-roster for convenience. The roster is full for now, but will open later. (Wellemeyer is out of options; assuming he doesn't make the April roster, he'll be removed from the roster just as happened with Kelton last spring. Or, some pitcher will turn up on the 60-day DL come spring and open a roster spot; or perhaps Hendry will still make a quantity for quality trade that opens a roster spot; or Corey will be traded for a young prospect who isn't a roster prospect yet; or if none of those things happen to open a spot, but Aardsma comes back throwing 88 again, they can always deroster him in March if they want to make room for Grissom...). At present Murton is the only RH outfielder on the roster. Do they want to go with an outfield in which everybody else is LH? (so that even if Jones is platooned, it would have to be with another LH hitter!!!) Or do they feel they have to have a RH outfielder/PH? (At present, the RH pinch hitters would be Blanco, and whichever among Neifi/Hairston don't start.) If they feel they have to have or might end up wanting another RH outfielder besides Murton, is Grissom that guy? Or are they still hoping/prioritizing acquiring another RH outfielder? With Grissom just an option in case somebody's injured in camp? Or just in case the teams with RH reserve outfielders available won't trade them for less than Pie or Hill? My guess is they still want to acquire a RH outfielder who will be a no-doubt-about-it-on-the-roster guy. And Grissom is just injury protection. But it could be that Grissom might also be viewed as a genuine RH 5th outfielder option, just in case they can find somebody who will give a pretty good prospect for Corey.

Heh, memories not so clear! *Felin wasn't young, wasn't good, and I believe is gone. He did not participate in Fall Instructional camp, for example. *Albuquerque is not a position convert. He's a short RHP control pitcher who did well in DSL in 2004, but got injured and missed all of last season. He was in Fall Instrux. He's 19. *Wilson Inoa is a speed CF who missed all of last season due to injury. He may be interesting, but as a player not a pitcher he is clearly not on Hendry's mind when he made the Latin pitcher comments. He'll turn 19 this spring. Fleita liked him last winter, although Fleita notices one-tool guys; whether Inoa can do anything other than run, who knows. And both times that Fleita discussed Inoa, he got his first and last names mixed up. *Carlos Morla missed last year at Mesa to arm trouble. He was not at Fall Instrux. *I believe Dicio, Santana and Sayago have been released. Note: Deducing anything from roster names can be pretty difficult. Published rosters for Mesa are routinely obsolete. Often Latin names remain there long after they are released or demoted to DSL. Also, I believe that even the DSL team has some kind of roster cap. Given how many Latin players they try to sift through, it's hard to make much sense. Sometimes it seems a Latin player is on the Mesa roster because maybe he's better than his DSL peers. Sometimes it's because the Cubs think he might be a serious prospect. But sometimes it may be because a guy signed recently and the DSL roster is packed, so they need to list him somewhere. Note: The DSL team has finished in last place the last couple of summers. A friend got a list of the Fall Instrux players. No position players from the DSL team were invited. But there were seven Latin pitchers involved who have never pitched in an American minor-league game. And a couple who never even pitched in DSL. With luck, maybe one or two of those guys will turn out to be genuine prospects.

Hoops, I come out around $98+. Differences: 1. Prior is eligible for arbitration, so will opt out of your $2.5-list value. Bruce Miles and Paul Sullivan have both stated in print that Prior *is* eligible to opt out this year, it being his first in arbitration. I estiimate him at $4.5. He's been good, and his service time is beyond just 3 years, he's well on his way toward 4 years. 2. Will Ohman is also eligible for arbitration. So I'd push him up near $1. 3. Jerome Williams has been a reasonably effective rotation pitcher. In past, when the Cubs have had rotation pitchers, they've paid them more than minimum wage. Wood and Prior both got more than $0.35 during their pre-arb years. So I anticipate that Williams may also get more than $0.35. 4. Given the way salaries of run this winter, which the arbitration process will consider, I have Pierre at $6 rather than $5.5. We'll see, of course. $95, $98.8, I don't think it matters a great deal. Qualititatively the picture seems the same: they're under $100, they have cash to afford a good player if they can find one (Tejada or somebody else), and they certainly have cash to afford a reserve outfielder at better than minimum wage. The only difference is that if you calculate low enough ($95), you might almost conclude that they have **so** much budget left that they will almost certainly do something. That they wouldn't possible consider coming in $5-10 million under budget. At $98.8, you can reason that they may do nothing more than make a bench move or three, perhaps sign the Dempster/Williamson of the year, and call it quits without changing any starters. But I certainly agree that the budget seems low enough that you can't rule out the Tejada rumors on budget basis alone.

I think Prior always tries to nibble for the corners. He's a guy who relies so heavily on his curveball, and that leads to most of his K's. But his curveball isn't sharp in terms of both movement and location every game. It seemed less effective more frequently after the elbow thing. I think Prior has struggled with the high pitch-count thing and what to do about it. On occassion he's decided to be more aggressive with the fastball. Both throw more of them, and perhaps be willing to let them get in a little further off the corners. Vintage Prior has great location with his fastball. Aim for the corners with the fastball, and hit the corners with the fastball. It doesn't look like nibbling when you painting the corners but getting strikes. But the same approach looks more "nibbly" when you aren't hitting the corners. A higher percent misses off the plate for balls and long counts; and a higher percentage miss into the plate for more mashable fatter strikes. But it's seemed to me that on the occassion when Prior decides to be more aggressive and throw more fastballs in the first inning, he's tended to get hit very hard. He hasn't been able to throw the fastball with enough life and enough control to make it work. Perhaps that will always be true? Or perhaps that's only true when his arm is a little tired or his elbow hurts. Perhaps with a new year, his arm in better shape, his pain reduced, he'll be able to throw both the fastball and the curve with less pain, better control, and more life. Another thought: it's easy to break up the season between pre- and post-line drive. It's entirely possible, perhaps likely, that there were aftereffects of the line drive that impacted him. But it's also almost normal for pitchers to be stronger and healthier early in the season. As the innings pile up and the weather is hot and the elbow hurts more and the shoulder takes longer to settle down and the lower back is hurting more and it's harder to get a good night's sleep and there's less of an adrenalin rush, I think it's relatively common for pitchers to be less effective in August than in April/May. It may be that Prior wouldn't have been as dominant late even without the line drive.

Cedeno now has 10 errors, .371 batting average. He's always made quite a few errors. It may be that the fields or lighting or whatever in Venez are conducive, but it's always been part of his profile. I just hope he doesn't go an error binge early, so that Dusty replaces him with Neifi for defensive reasons. If he's keeping his errors to a reasonable number for a few months and then makes a few more in July, that might be less of a problem.

I don't agree with this. If I read you correctly, you are assuming that Hill will make it, and one or the other between Williams and guzman will, the other won't. And that the Cubs should make that decision now. Seems to me that it's pretty touch to decide at present which guys out of williams, Guzman, and Hill will end up being useful rotation starters for the Cubs. If you decide now which two will and move the 3rd, there's a pretty good chance that one or both of the guys you decided were the future will not work out. It might make better sense to keep all three, and hope that out of the three of them you can end up with 2 effective rotation pitchers. Other factor is that Williams and Guz/Hill balance differently in terms of Nowacrat/Buildican. Long term I'm rather let Williams go and keep the other two. Short term, I believe Williams is more useful than either of the others. Not an easy balance, for me.

A's traded a quality prospect to get Bradley. (Contrary to the Michael Barrett deal). If they weren't ready to pay Bradley at the arbitration level, they wouldn't have deal a good prospect to get him.

It's a basic matter of supply and demand. There is a limited supply of good players. So teams offer extra value in order to get those players. extra value in terms of overpaying (dollars) or overpaying in terms of years. Risk is involved in doing so. You take the risk, and if it doesn't pay off, team is stuck with it for a while. An alternative is to not take the risk. That has been the cub preference. It has kept them from getting entangled in awful contracts (other than the Sammy situation), but has perhaps also kept them from getting some good players. Boston did the Manny thing, and he helped them win a WS. May regret some of the contract, but if it helped them win a WS, perhaps worth it? Also worth noting that baseball salaries tend to inflate. What seems like an excessive deal when signed, sometimes two years later it looks like a bargain. When Tejada signed, it looked like an extravagant deal. Now he looks like excellent value-per-dollar. Colon looked like he was kind of pricey. Now he looks like good value. Guerrero. The Cubs have always been averse to contract length. It's kept them from getting entangled. But it's also ensured that they are pretty much always paying close to market price on people. And it's also helped to prevent them from signing highly-sought free agents. The most guaranteed dollars Hendry has ever committed to a free agent contract was when he signed Dusty Baker, I believe tied by Greg Maddux ($15 guaranteed). After that has been the four relievers, all around $12 (Remlinger, Hawkins, Eyre, and Howry). Not wanting to sign real long contracts is, in general, a desirable practice. But if you won't, don't expect to attract any premium free agents who are in their late 20's to sign with you. You better have a really dynamite farm system so that you can fill most of your needs through your own system, either directly (Murton, Cedeno, Zambrano....) or indirectly (trade farm parts for Pierre, Lee, Ramirez).

Just to belabor a bit more, I think part of this is his own choice, and partly the result of having some prospects too good to surrender easily. It may be that Hendry is *not* offering Murton, or Cedeno, or Pie, or Guzman. Perhaps not even Hill. For Tejada or Dunn, sure. But I don't think he's shopping many of those kinds of prospects for Aubrey Huff or earlier for Brad Wilkerson. I think he's seeing most of those guys (perhaps not all...) as A prospects who he won't trade except for a very good major leaguer. If a couple of those guys weren't quite so good, and were more in the B+ class like Nolasco or Brendan Harris or Beltran or Bobby Hill when they were traded, Hendry might have alittle more to work with. But he's kind of asking a lot from his farm. He wants it to fill LF (Murton) and SS (Cedeno), the Maddux rotation spot (Guzman or Hill), he's already spent farm parts to get Pierre, and he still wants the farm to have enough left over to get a good RF and a good middle infielder. All this while having two recent farm graduates integral guys in the pen (Ohman and Wuertz), plus having another youngster (Williams) already in the rotatin. Not a lot of farm systems have that kind of blend of quality and quantity and depth.

Hoops, come in off the ledge! I don't see Hendry functioning all that differently from his past. Last year, he was allegedly very hot for Dan Kolb, but when the price got too high he stopped. Two years ago he wanted AJ Pierzynski, but when Twins demanded too much, he pulled back and settled for Barrett. We know he tried to trade for a RF last winter too, but when the prospect cost got too hot he stopped and settled for Burnitz. He wanted Kotsay this summer, but when the cost got too high, he stopped. Seems to me he always decides about how far he's willing to go for a guy, and then if that's not enough he stops. That's to his credit, seems to me. Whether his choice of which guys to target and how much is too much, that's a matter for debate. But seems to me that when he's looking at guys now, he's doing the usual this-far-but-no-further as he always does, whether considering cost-in-trade or cost-for-FA. And since the supply-demand is so unfavorable this year, sellers are setting a very stiff price, be that FA's for money or teams in trade. As Jeff notes, Hendry is already around $92 or so, with RF wide open. Add in the expected $9.5 he anticipated spending on Furcal and he'd be over $100, with RF still wide open and intent to fill that too. I don't think he's been choked by lack of funds. I think to a greater degree he's getting choked by a dwindling pool of trade-value minor leaguers.

If the AAA roster is 38, then the org can protect 78 guys against the minor-league draft. (40 on the big league roster, 38 more on AAA). To be exposed to minor league phase, you can rank no higher than 79th on the orgs valuation list. And that's at best 79th of the players with enough experience to be draft eligible. Obviously a huge fraction of minor leaguers have signed too recently to even be eligible. So normally anybody exposed to the minor league draft does not rank in the top 120 of their system. It's just an exchange of roster fill guys.

60 million things get discussed, but few happen. If Tejada is such a fusspot that they need to trade him for peanuts, it's one thing. If he's willing to be traded, but they figure to discuss it only so long as they can imagine getting tons and tons of talent (see Zambrano plus Pie plus Cedeno plus Hill type rumors...), then they probably won't discuss it very long. We hear about all kinds of discussions. -Hendry discussed Walker for Aaron Heilman. Short discussion. -Hendry discussed Corey for Kyle Lohse. Short discussion. -Hendry discussed Corey for Wilkeron. Short Discussion. -Hendry discussed Corey for Pierre. Discussion on those terms, at least, was very short. -Hendry disccused Corey for Sean Green. Short Discussion. -Phillies discussed Abreu for Zambrano, or maybe settle for Prior. Short discussion. -Hendry disccused signing Brian Giles, at short years and limited cost. Short discussion. -Hendry calls Baltimore and says he's interested in Tejada. Probably a short discussion, if Baltimore said they'd need Zambrano or Prior. Of if Hendry said he's willing to offer Williams and Corey and one good prospect. Lots of "discussions" are attempted. But many are grossly one-sided and very, very short. I'd guess Tejada is one of those. Maybe many of these aren't even "discussions". A discussion implies some back and forth, some degree of seriousness. If Baltimore calls up Hendry and says, "Hey, how about Tejada for Zambrano?" I'm not sure sure it really constitutes "discussion" for Hendry to say, "No way, how about jerome wiliams instead?" and for Baltimore to say, "No way, seeya later."

Given that Hill had the bulk of his success in the minor leagues, I took that to mean that he left it behind while still in the minor leagues. We'll have to speak to craig or abuck about this. Entering last season, Hill was a wildman who'd yet to crack AA, and hadn't been all that great in A. In BA's report last winter, they also talked about the change, but comments on how given how much he had to pull together, expecting him to master a change besides might be asking too much. And since, given what he hadn't mastered, becoming a lefty specialist was more realistic than becoming a rotation pitcher anyway, the change might be a "frosting" pitch, but not a first priority pitch. Early in the season when he first strung together a couple of good games for WTenn (after his first couple weren't that hot), there was one game where he was quoted as saying that his change had been working, and how good it felt to have three different pitches all working and each of which he could throw with confidence. This was clearly a relatively unprecedented experience for him. Several of us minor-league followers got all fired up about the change as well as fastball (which in spring was being reported in the 90-94 range) in addition to the signature curve. But that was one game. Once Hill got rolling, a number of farm fans tried to attend Hill games and provide reports, and many others would research the Jackson or Iowa newspaper accounts of Hill outings. I don't recall any first-hand observers or any newspaper quotes indicating that Hill ever used his change much, or that it was ever a major pitch. My guess is that the change was *not* a significant contributor to the minor league success he had last year. He had two fastballs (4-seam and cutter), and somebody has said he has two curveballs as well. I think he mixed those four pitches for his minor league success, without much use of the change as a 5th pitch.

Veal was a 2nd rounder, not like a round where BA tends to overlook you. They had no problem putting Grant Johnson into the top ten, or getting on the Justin Jones and Billy Petrick bandwagon pretty fast. I don't think Veal is being discriminated against because he's "just" a 2nd rounder. Nor because he hasn't hit full season. (Pawelek hasn't either, and BA didn't mind that much). Perhaps Veal's ceiling is as high as Pawelek's, beats me, but neither BA nor draft scouts like him as much. But I think the fact that Callis reads Veal as throwing 88-91 while Pawelek as throwing 92-95 is a major reason why Callis doesn't see Veal as highly. If Veal throws 91-95 consistently, his ranking will rise (and he'll do pretty well in full-season). The issue of probability certainly factors. A guy who throws 92-95 consistently may not have a higher ceiling than a guy who throws 88-91 consistently but hit 96 in one spring outing; maybe with a mechanical tuneup he'll be hitting 93-96 routinely down the road. But the probability of which guy is likely to throw hard consistently in future probably lies against the guy who rarely throws exceptionally hard now.

The chat helped to fill in some of the next section. Callis said he had Pinto 11. Sounded like Veal and Marmol were in the 11-15 range (I think he made reference to how one or both could move into top ten following trades, so with Nolasco and Pinto already gone, #12 becomes #10, and #13 moves up to #11... Sounded like Gallagher was also in the 11-15 range. Didn't really give away who the other guy would be in that range, perhaps one of Moore, Sing, or Ryu? On Veal, I don't think they saw his ceiling as high as some do here, based on the probably typically inflated BA draft velocity. In the draft report there was reference to hitting 95 or 96 this spring, something like that. Callis alluded to that in chat. But suggested that at Boise, he actually was pitching at 88-91, which is nothing spectacular. A friend watched Veal's last game, though, in which he was pretty dominant. IN that game he said he was at 91-93 in the 4th inning, and that his fastball looked effortless and on that night was unhittable (by those crummy hitters.) He said Veal's deliver was extremely simple and repeatable, no flailing arms and legs or any of the Dontrelle herky jerk or any of that. But he said at least in that game, that Veal's delivery appeared to be deceptive, maybe the motion seemed too simple and the delivery too compact so that hitters were suprised at how fast the ball got to the plate.

Marshall's a possibility. I'd guess he's start the year at Double A though. There's also Koronka. Hill and Ryu. Guzman might start at Iowa, might start at WTenn. Marmol I'd expect to start at WTenn, but could be wrong. Koronka at Iowa, but will he start or pitch relief? Brownlie, same question Pignatiello, same question. Valdes, same question. Most likely they'll sign a non-roster veteran, at least one or perhaps two. When it comes down to it, Iowa will probably have two good prospects, one or two FA veterans, and one or two fringey prospects from the Brownlie/Pigs/Koronka/Valdes type pool.

Good post craig but everytime I see a player is learning to throw a change I just see him having it hit 450 feet and saying the heck with that If I'm going to get beat it's going to be with my good stuff not this. True. There are very few pitchers who throw a good change, and it's not easy to learn or control or throw with the same motion as your fastball and curve. For every prospect that BA writes up as "needs to develop a changeup to act as a 3rd pitch...", there is only a tiny fraction that ever do. The odds that Hill is going to show up this spring or in August with a plus-plus change is pretty poor. Still, the reports on his change in spring were pretty favorable at the time. There were days when it was working pretty well. So I don't think it's a total reach for that to become a usable pitch. And I don't think he's all-or-nothing dependent on it. If he can throw his fastball for strikes without giving up a million HR's, I don't think he has to have a functional change to be an effective pitcher. He needs the change to be good, and for his normal fastball to be both faster and better controlled than his last two Cub starts before getting sent down, if he wants to become an all-star. Likely, no. But that's the kind of improbable thing that happens for guys who end up becoming all-stars. Seems to me the view is that if he's strictly a curveball/fastball guy, teams will just sit on fastball. Hard to throw three curveballs for strikes, so the hitter can sit and wait for fastball, then knock it. It's exactly in that sort of hitter strategy where a changeup might be pretty effective even if it isn't all that special. If hitter is thinking whack fastball, take curve, and he sees a pitch coming from hand that doesn't look like curveball, he may go into hit-fastball mode. But if it's a change, he may not be able to hold up. So I'm hoping that with Hill's particular repertoire, it won't take an especially high-quality change to have a useful effect.

I strongly hope the Cubs can put the team together without trading Hill. Maddux will leave, I hope Rusch doesn't start forever. There will be at least one and possibly more than one rotation opening between now and April 2007. With Nolasco and Pinto gone, Guzman and Hill are head and shoulders ahead. Ryu/Marmol/Marshall are not even close, and who knows if they'll ever be good enough much less as soon as April 2005 to be quality starters on a championship team. If Hill goes, that's too many eggs in the Guzman basket for my tastes. As we see, rotation pitchers are overpriced like nobody's business. I do *not* want to be going outside to replace Maddux, when guys like Loiaza get $20+/3, or Matt Clement gets what he got. Keep Hill and Guzman, so that you can hope at least one of the two is ready. On pitches: 1. Hill has fastball/curve, but there was talk of having cutter as well as 4-seamer. Mixing in the cutter with the 4-seamer could give him 3 pitches? 2. Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind. If that becomes a useful pitch for him, that could help a lot. 3. Hill pitched 154 innings, after previously only once reaching as much as 109. I'm not sure that his fastball had as much life late, when we saw him with Cubs, as it did early. In Cub games, his fastball seemed pretty ordinary upper 80's. Seemed the spring reports from wTenn often talked about low-90's. I'm hoping when he comes to camp with a fresh arm, he'll be a little faster than we remember? And having gone through a full season now, that he'll be able to hold his velocity a little better? abuck what do you think about that? Did he seem slower at the end than when you saw him earlier? Also, Hendry is very cautious about planning prosepcts into the Cubs. Contenders don't take risks with kids, etc.. But he likes Hill a lot. If a kid is going to get a shot, it should be one of Hendry's favorites. Some guys won't get a shot, even if board advocates think they should. But if Hendry takes a shine and believes in a kid, he might actually. May as well hold on to guys like that who do have a real shot to get a chance. I don't want to trade Hill now for an outfielder, only to reach next winter and then need to trade the world and spend the world for some mediocre Esteban Loiaza type cat.