craig

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.

Nate, I have a Phelps-related question. In the report BA wrote up about Phelps for the draft, it suggested that his changeup might be his best pitch. In the recent VineLine magazine, it says about Phelps that this past summer the Cubs had him *not* use his changeup, but that he would utilize that again if they decide to use him as a rotation pitcher this summer. Do you know anything about this changeup business? Or anybody else do you know anything about this? In the past, it seems BA has sometimes claimed some pitch was good or promising or somebody's best pitch (Sisco and his splitter), but the Cubs have supposedly told them not to use it. I think sometimes that may be true, and for good reason. BA might not be accurate in hyping a particular pitch, or the Cubs may see it as a delivery that will lead to injury. Or in other cases I think perhaps the Cubs want the guy to not rely on that pitch for getting outs, and instead figure they need to work on their curveball. I'm just curious in Phelps case. The optimist in me says it's all true. Phelps looked great last year, with his fastball and curve. But his change is even better, and when he adds his changeup into his arsenal this summer, he'll look fantastic. Vineline (a very unreliable pub, by the way) also claimed that Phelps was supposedly a possibility as a 1st round pick entering last spring, before he broke his skull. I've heard BA say that he had a shot to be a "high round" pick next year, but hadn't heard them refer to as a 1st round candidate. If he really has the arm (and/or projection) to have been considered a 1st round candidate, that's pretty encouraging. Just for the record, Vineline has all kinds of factual errors. They write up Ryu has throwing in the high 90's, which of course hasn't been true since his high school days in Korea. They said Marmol has been in the states or pitching in the states for only 2 years, when he's been pitching in the states for three and in the states for at least 5. They also write up Matt Craig as if he's some defensive wizard at 3B. Always a little hard to sift through their exaggeration.

Don't forget guys like Yusuf Carter, John Defendis, Brandon Taylor and maybe even a recovered Ryan Norwood. And guys who finished the year here in 05 and could be back for 06. And personally I think Phelps proved he is above this league, especially if he is gonna be a reliever. And Billek could easily contend for a Daytona spot in spring.... Good points. Certainly Phelps and Billek, and perhaps even Holliman, might start higher than Peoria and leave it with not such an interesting rotation. If Pawelek were to start below Peoria, and two or three from the Phelps/Billek/Holliman were to start above Peoria, then the rotation could not be that interesting after Veal. You make a good point on the hitters. I might judge that the glass is pretty empty in terms of big-league position prospects. But in terms of guys who might do well enough at A- to help Peoria score some runs and win some games, often organizational players can do that. So who knows. Who might some of the OFers be? Defendis, maybe bring Flowers back..., Davey Gregg, Valdes, maybe Quinones, maybe Carter... Infielders: Kyle Reynolds, Brandon Taylor, Norwood, Simokaitis, Mota, Drew Larsen, Elvin Puello again, maybe another round of Tony Granato... Catchers: Reed, Muyco, more Alan Rick... Doesn't sound like a very exciting list in terms of potential big-leaguers. But I guess you don't necessarily need to have big-league potential to possibly hit respectably enough in low-A league.

Which Boise/Mesa guys were included in the Top 50 beyond obvious picks like Pawelek, Reed, and Veal? Also, the only thing I know about Valdez is that he sat out all of 2004 with some sort of injury. Fair question. I think there were about 8 or 10 guys who played at Mesa/Boise last year or not even. I'm going to try to remember: *Pawelek *Veal *Holliiman *Billek *Johnston *Taylor (Scott) *Muyco *Kyle Reynolds *Simokaitis (sp?) (the Nebraska SS who hit arond .190) *Phelps *Sammy Baez *Mark Reed *Darrin Downs *Mitch Atkins So that's 14 guys from the short-season range. Most were drafted players, so perhaps there is some bias there. But if dudes like Jake Muyco and Simokaitis and Reynolds and Reed and Sammy Baez are making the list, I'd think if Valdez or Quinones had any star potential, the Cub people would have gotten at least a hint in their several years in the states. Baez made it with one year in the states; Valdez and Quinones have each had two, I think, so they might have made it too. I'm hoping they did miss some guys, and some of the Latins who didn't perform very well just got left off. Particularly the SS, or one of the pitchers perhaps. But it's not just a case that unless you were a 1st or 2nd rounder, you need to have some full-season baseball to make the list.

Tim, I think it depended on the day. On a good day the 2-seamer might go 91-93, but not always. Of course, it could well be that without a sore shoulder, he might be able to sustain that *more* consistently, not less. To harken back to what a guy was pre-surgery is helpful, but often guys are compromised by sort arm for quite a while prior to the actual surgery, and Guzman's issues had arisen well before his AA season or else he wouldn't have needed to shut things down with sore shoulder in his Daytona season. I agree that a guy with Z-lite stuff but much better control could be a tremendous pitcher. Heh, could be a Cy Young pitcher. And I hope that ends up being Guzman. But I think it's quite possible that Guzman's stuff might end up being more than "a little" less than Zambrano's. Kessinger started this thread with the bottom line that he likes Guzman way better than Hill. All things considered, I don't know. In some ways, Guzman's potential seems considerably higher. Guzman's potential control seems so much better, and while stuff matters, control is really everything in pitching. So I think Guzman's potential control gives him a really excellent chance to be much the superior dude. On the other hand, Hill's stuff does seem awfully good, guys with curveballs like that don't grow on trees. And, it's hard to sustain good stuff and good control if your arm is always hurting, so the fact that Hill has a golden record for health, that means a lot to me. It will be interesting to re-evaluate how I feel about them a month from now, after most of camp; and then again after a month or two of Iowa time.

In the recent prospects Vineline, Fleita says that he clocked Marmol in that kind of velocity (or perhaps even faster) during Dominican league. So I believe that it's true. How good that will make him as a pitcher, I don't know. We know Farsnworth was faster than that without always being all that good. And we know that Marmol had an ERA in the 6's in the Dominican, so however hard he was throwing, he obviously wasn't getting guys out with that. It's pretty obvious that Fleita likes him, though.

Indeed. But it's often the 4-seamer velocity that people talk about, as if he has this overpowring fastball. And it's often the K's that are used to indicate monster stuff. Zambrano is perhaps a good analogy, in that if Guzman is to end up being successful, he will be like Z in having good GB ratio, in *not* throwing at his highest velocity most of the time, and in *not* having knockout K's. There have been days when Guzman K'd a lot of guys, in WTenn especially. But that was also the time when he gave up lots of HR's. My hypothesis has always been that throwing up-the-ladder 4-seamers at 95 mph is a very useful tool, gets the radar people excited, gets the K's, and gets the high-K's-means-great-stuff people excited. But it comes with a price: with more of those K's and high 4-seamers come more HR's. Again, I'm just repeating myself, but I expect that if/when he's actually pitching real effectively, he'll be mixing more 90-mph fastballs with curves and changes than blistering people with high-90's heat. And the 96-mph eye-high 4-seamers will be more effective as a surprise change of pace. But if he's throwing mostly 90 mph fastballs, I'm not sure he'll have as many people talking monster stuff. Personally I think the healthis obviously crucial. But if he's healthy, I expect he'll be as good as his control. If he's good, he'll be more noteworthy for his unusually good control than for his unusually good stuff. But the combination of very good control with good-to-excellent stuff can make for a very, very, very productive pitcher, even if the stuff isn't quite Oswalt/Clemens caliber.

What one "hopes" for Guzman and what one can "expect" for him are two totally different issues. I have high hopes for him, and have him high on my prospect list. Like Tim, I believe I have him 2nd only to Pie? If he is healthy and stays healthy, he has a good chance to be a very good pitcher. There aren't that many guys who have both good stuff and good control and good brains, and Guzman has the chance for all of that. That said, I do think that his stuff is routinely overrated by Cub people. "Monster" stuff? I don't think so, really. Good stuff, major league stuff, yes, I hope he still has that. But I don't think it's extraordinary. My take before the injury is that he could throw his high, straight, HR-prone 4-seam fastball at the 94-96 that we've heard about, sometimes. And as Tim notes, it appears that he can again do that, so I agree with Tim that it's not clear that his arm is shot or his stuff necessarily compromised. But I think his bread-and-butter fastball was not the mid-90's 4-seamer, but rather the 89-92 2-seamer that's better for the ground balls, but is hardly overpowering. If he tries to live in the majors on a low-mid-90's high 4-seamers, I expect he'll get pounded and give up lots of HR's. I expect he'll need to much more often be throwing a solid, low-in-strike zone 2-seamer that has more sink and action on it. But one which will not light up radar guns or seem like monster stuff or any of that. If he's going to be really good, he's going to need to control his curveball and changeup. Those are two very, very, very, very, very difficult pitches to control. If he has extraordinary control of them, combined with his fastball, he'll be really good. If he has normal control of them, he'll be like a lot of big-league pitchers; look really sharp some days, look not so great on others. Pre-injury it was projected that he might have exceptional control of the curve and change and fastball. I still think that's ppossible. I don't think the injury precludes that. But at the same time, Guzman's control of his curveball/change/fastball was not consistent even before the surgery. Now it's three years later. I wouldn't expect his control of the curve to be all that hot right now. It might become excellent, and perhaps sooner rather than later. But it might take a while, or it might never be great. I'm very, very optimistic about him. But I think it might take a while, and my interest is actually more for 2007, post-Maddux, than for 2006. Second, I think we should beware of assuming that he has this monster stuff, and the only question is health. I believe it's entirely possible that he'll have decent health for a while, but will turn out to have stuff and control which is fine but is less than spectacular, and that he'll end up being a useful pitcher but much less than the superstar we'd like to see.

Yes, Downs might start, although I hope not, since I'm pretty sure he's no more than roster-fill. I suppose he's got a Phil Norton type ceiling, but I admit I'm not that excited about these mid-80's junk lefties. Maybe his father can persuade us that he might someday grow into a Mark Guthrie fastball... In recent VineLine, Cub farm people got to talk about their prospects, and a handful of the Mesa/Boise type guys got included in the top-50 list. (Including Downs). None of the Valdes/Quinones/Mota guys were included, even though both Quinones and Valdes have been in the states for what, three years already? I suspect if there were "potential stars in the making", the "glass is not only half full, it's overflowing" Cub farm hypers would have seen something in Quinones and Valdes to bump them into the top 50. Mota, he's pretty new, so I could see him being perhaps overlooked perhaps. But I wouldn't hold out any hopes that Valdes or Quinones are going to make an impact.

I expect Pawelek will open at Peoria, and that Peoria could have the deepest rotation of quality prospect in the system. Pawalek, Veal, Holliman, Phelps, Billek, perhaps even Scott Taylor, and the best of Avery or Mitch Atkins or Yepez, and you might have a very intersting rotation. Might need to. If Mark Reed is the best/only position prospect on the team (or will it be Davey Gregg, or Kyle Reynolds?), and if Reed doesn't improve on his poor hitting, that could be a really, really poor lineup. Pawelek has already made 14 starts, and it's pretty likely that his stuff is good enough to be competent in Peoria. He's a 1st rounder, and doesn't have all the injury and other baggage that Harvey had. The plate's no further or smaller in Peoria than in Mesa or Boise, so he can practice throwing strikes anywhere. Several of you have mentioned concerns about innings, for good reason. I think it's sometimes deceptive, though, we think a guy is safe if he isn't pitching box score innings. But he might be throwing just as many pitches in Mesa as he would in Peoria, who knows? The lack of box scores doesn't mean he isn't putting some pitches on his arm down there. I know I'm being selfish, but I hope he starts at Peoria. It would be fun to have a prospect to track who's worth getting excited about. He might be!