craig

Questions relating to your draft experience last year: 1. How close did you come to going back to college? In your mind was it seriously in doubt whether you'd sign? Or did you pretty much know you would, but agent just figured holding out into the school year would ensure you'd get as much as possible in your deal? 2. Did Boras pretty much take care of the negotiations, and you left it up to the professional? Or did he keep you apprised about any contacts he and the Cubs had, and what was going on? Were the Cubs even allowed to talk to you directly, other than the initial call to congratulate you on being drafted? How much larger was the offer that you accepted in the end compared to what you could have gotten had you signed back in June?

What number are you thinking, Craig? $4 base. $1 for all-star, $2 for top-5 MVP. $1 each at the 250, 350, 450, and 550 PA thresholds. Cub risk: $4 out the window. Nomar risk: Short of award-level play, max contract is "only" $8 even if he's healthy enough for 550 PA. Something like that. Nomar gets an opportunity and some money for sure. If Nomar is healthy enough to play a lot, I think $8 contract is perhaps pretty reasonable. I'm not that keen on going much beyond that, short of awards-based incentives. Even if he's healthy enough to play, I'm not sure that Nomar is really going to be able to play defense or hit at beyond the place where $8-9 would be reasonable pay. I can't guess what the market for him would be like. I'd be willing to give larger incentives for awards-based stuff.

Obviously it would all depend on the money. I think Hendry has tended to be pretty reasonable in contracts, other than Alf I don't recall any really bad contracts he's taken on. Probably will also be influenced by what Nomar looks like in August and September. If he gets in 150 AB and looks pretty good, he'll get a much better deal than if he doesn't play at all, or hits .150 and shows no range defensively. I think it's very, very desirable that the Cubs be able to work out a fair deal with Nomar and keep him, though. 1. Hendry has money to spend. Money saved by going cheap at SS will instead be spent on outfield. With Murton and Pie around, I'd just as soon not block up the outfield too much with salaries. Especially since the OF free agent pool looks bad. I'd rather spend on Nomar and start Murton/Pie rather than Burnitz, for example, than start Cedeno and spend the Nomar money to bring Burnitz back. 2. In contrast to many OFers, Nomar could be brought back on another one-year-and-prove-it terms. If he works out, great. If not, Cedeno isn't blocked long. 3. cedeno isn't going to come in with no veteran around. I'd much prefer to have Cedeno backing Nomar, with a fair contract for Nomar, than Cedeno sharing with Neifi. Dusty loves Neifi, Neifi will be overpaid, and Neifi is healthy. Dusty would probably largely stick with Neifi, you'd get no production, and you'd still end up blocking Cedeno. By contrast with Nomar, if he produces he produces, great. If the concern is injury, then an injury would at least provide a clear opportunity for Cedeno and Dusty wouldn't mess it up. In other words, I know Hendry will bring in a vet shortstop. Even one as crummy as Neifi would likely block Cedeno quite a bit. With Nomar, the two major possibilities are a) he's not healthy. In which case he doens't block Cedeno. or b) He is healthy, in which case he's got a good shot to be pretty productive. Seems like a good-good situation. If spending a little more on Nomar than Neifi makes it easier for Murton/Pie to also get good shot, all the better.

It's true that his trade value is lower than it's ever been before. But of the three time zones, the only two in which a trade is possible is present and future. It's entirely possible that Corey's trade value may be as high now as it ever will be, even if it isn't as high as it used to be. Corey's at a place where the default is for trade value to get lower and lower, based on aging and approaching free agency, and that's been going on for some time. For any young player, the value is based on potential, and the reasonable assumption that a guy has a good chance to improve a lot. The longer a guy goes without improving a lot, the lower drops his trade value. And the closer a guy gets to free agency, the lower drops his trade value. Corey hasn't improved over his career. Even without the extreme and surprising decline he's shown this year, just staying flat would have caused his trade value to continue to deteriorate.

Haven't read all the posts. But with 3 all-star-days off, Corey needs to only be down for 7 games. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this isn't just a 7-day thing for him. Greenberg, in the interm, can watch, ala Fontenot in his couple of callups. Dusty doesn't need to puzzle over lineup past midnight, Hairston plays center and leads off, no double thinking about it. If Lee is healthy and starting, Murton takes the Dubois role of resting Holly or Burnitz when Dusty thinks his veteran starting corners need rest (which shouldn't be often, especaillywith 3-day break coming.) If Lee is not healthy and misses some time, Corey or Dubois can be recalled if Lee gets DL'd. If Lee isn't DL'd but misses games, perhaps Murton will play left with Holly at 1B. Or else Walker will play 1B, opening infield starts for Macias or Cedeno. There's no reason to think this is any long-term thing, just another of the series of "try something" moves to get Corey untracked. Certainly Dusty isn't going to play Greenberg ahead of Hairston, or Murton ahead of Hollandsworth or Burnitz.

Kris Benson maybe? It's hard to know without seeing him pitch. Maybe Mike Wuertz? Or Don Wengert? Got July VineLine yesterday, had a length draft story, including scouting reports (including quotes from specific scouts, Stockstill for Pawelek, then either the area scout or crosschecker for others guys) through the first 10-rounds. Highlights: 2: said Veal's velocity was average, but that he gets some action/tail inside versus righties, and his throwing-across-the-body delivery gives some action. 3: talked about Holliman touching 93 but typically working in the 88-91 range with fastball, working inside, and having an excellent slurve. Referred to his good frame (even though he's not that tall) and large hands, which I assume are conducive to good breaking ball. 3: Billek, discussed as a strong, 3-pitch control artist with good mechanics/delivery, said he can throw strikes all day long. The Cub scout perceived his issue being that at present he doesn't have a putaway pitch. I imagine they figure that if he can sharpen his slider into something he can use as a punch-out pitch with 2 strikes, that he's got a chance to be a high-level rotation pitcher. If he's a strong strike-thrower, he'll probably sail through the low minors pretty well even without a punchout breaking ball. 4: Mostly discussed Johnson's defensive skills, although siad he does have some bat speed and shows occassional hint of some opposite-field power. Said his defensive tools could play anywhere, including catcher. 5: Taylor, said he was once clocked as fast as 92. I'd gotten the impression from BA that 90's wasn't that rare for him, but Swoope didn't make him sound nearly as fast as I'd assumed. Said he had a slider, and at present used a curveball for his changeup. (didn't sound like that would last in the pro game..) 6: Reynolds, said he was wiry strong, good athlete, good bat speed, can play anywhere. I believe compared him to Vizcaino defensively. Referred to his swing sometimes getting long due to his height. I assume that's the issue that he'll need to correct to succeed as a pro. Also, not from VineLine, but my understanding is that Reynolds has played almost all season with an injury, which may be responsible for why his hitting numbers weren't better. 7: Trey Taylor, referred to 82-89 mph fastball, big-time movement, and sharp breaking pitch. 8: Swoope (in my view the Cubs best scout, and not a gusher...) gushed about 20-year-old Muyco's defense. I'm not sure even Ryan Jorgensen got such good buzz. Swoope also said Muyco has good bat speed, although obviously HR-power is not in the picture. 9: Said Avery can throw 92 consistently when he's right, and has good movement. Obviously he isn't right and 92 consistently; but obviously the minors is to help guys lock into doing things correctly. 10: Simokaitas: Didn't scout as weak a hitter as I expected. Didn't scout as great defensively as I expected. Anyway, the reports were as long or a little longer than BA reports. Several of the players I came away with revised perspectives. Veal as an action prospect, more than as a power-pitcher guy; Billek as a solid 3-pitch control pitcher, rather than as an erratic unrefined power guy; Taylor as not so fast or so fantastic as BA made him sound; Reynolds and Muyco as not so hapless and hopeless as BA made them sound.

It is a little strange. The Boise roster already has 13 pitchers, so where do Holliman, Billek, Avery et al go? I don't see where the Cubs are going to be able to fit these three pitchers in. How about this: *Billek will fit in on Boise anyway. *Holliman won't pitch for the Cubs this summer. Often they don't want college guys racking up more innings, particularly guys who pitch deep into the college playoffs. Also, as a high-profile high-draft, he may well take so long to sign that it won't be worth bothering anyway. *Avery had an off year to slip down to the 9th round. He was expected to go higher than that entering this season. Unless the Cubs are interested in super-slotting him, he'd probably be smart to go back to college and raise his stock. In other words, he may not sign, and if he doesn't the Cubs needn't worry about fitting him in! I don't think it's a problem. Mesa has nothing but a few Latin pitchers. They always need to staff Mesa with some NDFA types. If some draftees sign, they can drop some guys as needed.

At present, here are 9 guys I'd like to add: P: Hill, Marshall, Nolasco, Marmol, Petrick; Players: Pie, Murton, Sing, Dopirak I think those will all fit, assuming: a) that one of them (either Pie, Hill, or Murton) plus Cedeno (or some other current 40-man guy who'd still have options next year, from the Fontenot/Aardsma/Pinto/Koronka/rohlicek/Guzman pool) are on the 25-man roster; and b) Lewis and Crouthers gets kicked off the 40-man roster. Craig, Ryu, Pigs, VanBuren, Connolly, Kelton, Greenberg, there just isn't room for everybody. If Petrick is injured, or Dopirak doesn't merit 40-man protection, or trades open up more spots, then one of those guys could slip in. To fit the 40-man, as mentined above, assume Pie and Cedeno (and of course Wuertz) would make the 25-man. a) Five 40-man position players in the minors: Murton, Sing, Fontenot, Soto, and Dopirak, in that order. b) Ten 40-man pitchers in the minors: Guzman, Hill, Marshall, Pinto, Marmol, Aardsma, Rohlicek, Novoa, Petrick, Koronka. Those guys will all still have options next year. Perhaps they'll want Pie sent down to the minors at first, at least long enough to defer free agency. In that case, either one of my minor leaguers has to be traded up to the 25-man (perhaps Hill, or Fontenot, or one of the pitchers...). Or else you can't have so many prospects on the 40-man. Currently there are 43 names on the 40-man roster, counting the three 60-day guys (Nomar, Fox, Williamson) and the retired man (Crouthers). Of the 43 names, 9 are pitchers who can't be sent to the minors next April without waivers: Lefties: Ohman Bartosh Old Righties: Fox Borowski Williamson Young Righties: Wellemeyer Mitre (I'm not positive on him, though) Leiecester Williams Assuming a bullpen with 2 LHP, Dempster, and wuertz as givens, and a healthy team, there could be only 2-3 spots open for other RH relievers. If Hendry decides which 2-3 from the above group (I'd hope Williamson or an outside guy from the old guys, and Wellemeyer and Mitre from the young righties?), then he can protect 9 new guys from Rule 5 as I suggested above. So he might want to trade two of those four RHP-without-options before Rule 5 decision comes. Very likely he'll want to keep all four of those guys, and let them compete in spring training (in hopes that Williams will rediscover some fastball). In that case, he'd have two fewer spots available. If he pulls a Kelton and keeps Richie Lewis, that would cost another spot. Ways to make space: a) protect fewer new guys. Expose guys as needed from the Petrick, Dopirak, Nolasco, Sing pool. b) trade from my list of guys I want to protect or that I want to send to the minors c) deroster one or two guys that I'd like to keep, be that Koronka or Soto or Novoa or Rohlicek or whomever. d) plan to fill one or two spots on the 25-man roster with non-roster players. If you sign a 5th outfielder to a non-roster contract, then he can be added once you've decided which of Leiecester/Williams/Wellemeyer is going to get cut, or once some pitcher gets designated for the 60-day DL. Summary and bottom line: I don't expect the Rule 5 thing needs to be that big of a problem, beyond Brownlie/Ryu/VanBuren/Craig/Greenburg/Pigs/Hagerty type cats. However, that's what I thought last year; until they surprised me by protecting guys like Koronka and Ohman, total suprises, and insisted on wasting a spot on the beloved Kelton. If they insist on keeping Lewis, and protecting guys like Pigs and VanBuren, then it could be more problematic.

Furcal is having a horrible year, .229 BA, .281 OBP, .614 OPS. Career prior to this year: .347 OBP, .751 OPS.

I don't see Burnitz being a desirable choice, and I'm not sure $5 is appropriate. But yes, I think it's conceivable that the Cubs might choose to resign Burnitz at a price that's performance appropriate, and perhaps in a time-share with Dubois or Murton or something. I just think Hendry's in an ideal spot in that he's got some internal options, be they prospects (Dubois/Pie/Murton for OF, Cedeno for SS, Mitre/Guzman/Hill/Williams for rotation) or modest-priced veterans (Rusch, Walker, Burnitz, Dempster, Neifi), in hand. If he decides to spend his money on Giles, Wagner, and Burnett, it's not the end of the world to go with Walker, Neifi/Cedeno, and Pie. The Cubs have sometimes talked about "filling holes", and "spread it around", when they had so many holes with no adequate internal options. Once they'd "spread it around", they had nothing left for big-ticket guys. I just feel like Hendry has enough options internally that he can adequately refill any of the holes and can reasonably expect performance that's not too far below league average, if at all. So he doesn't need to spread the money over all the spots. He has the luxury of being able to focus $25-30 million on just 2-3 spots. whether those be OF, rotation, and closer; or OF, OF, and SS; or whatever. Where I don't think Hendry's in an ideal spot is that I don't see real desirable, premium free agents available at the places we've got holes. Were a Tejada available, I'd be all gaga. Were a Beltran and Drew available as I saw them last winter, I'd be all gaga. The two places I'd most like to target are a big bat for corner OF, and SS. But the pool of really desirable corner OFers seems really thin, both in terms of free agency and in terms of guys getting close enough to free agency so that their teams would consider trading them at reasonable cost. And SS, there's Nomar and Furcal, not exactly like when ARod or Tejada were free. Kind of reminds me of last winter; obvious hole was closer, but the pool of candidates at the prices required was terrible. (And we're probably fortunate that Hendry didn't spend a ton on Kolb or Benitez or Percival or Dotel...) I'm just worried that hendry will have money to spend, but there won't be the calibre of guys to spend it on. Or where there is somebody, the small supply will mean that there's tons of competition for the same guy, so the price becomes ridiculously high.

Notes on the numbers you're using as your starting points: 1. As noted byothers above, Hendry has stated pretty explicitly that Sosa's $4.5 is handled this year and will not be docked against next year. 2. Rusch can opt out of his contract after this season. Given how well he's been pitching, I don't think there's much likelihood that he'll be on the books for $2. I'd expect a large raise for him, either with us or elsewhere via free agency. Prediction: Cubs resign. 3. Walker's opt-out has almost zero chance to vest, given the AB's he's already lost to injury. The Cubs would have no cost to waive him, but he'd cost only $2.5 to bring back. Prediction: Cubs bring him back. 4. There are indications that Hendry works his budget on a cash-flow basis, which can sometimes differ from mlb numbers which pro-rate signing bonuses. While Prior may list as 3.55 using proration, he may be only 2.75 on Hendry's 2006 ledger? 5. Last winter, Hendry talked as if Sosa's buyout would count against 2005, not 2006, even had he not been traded. That may have been a special case. But if that's Hendry's general policy, then a Burnitz buyout might count against 2005, not 2006. Sometimes when it gets down to cases and to the last player or two of the winter, a few millions hear or there can make the difference. So these detail things could end up being important eventually. For now, though, the bottom line seems qualitatively similar: Hendry's going to have a lot of money to work with this summer, and not really that many holes to fill. What makes it even better is that as it looks now, he may have perfectly reasonable economy/performance fallbacks at each of the holes. *2b: Walker/hairston, not a problem to go with them and focus money elsewhere. *SS: With Cedeno looking so good, the notion of going thrifty with Neifi/Cedeno and spending elsewhere isn't the worst idea. *OF: The idea of going thrifty with Pie/Dubois/Murton in one of the outfield spots and spending elsewhere isn't the worst idea. *Rotation: The idea of going with Rusch as a mid-price but not Burnett-type price and spending big elsewhere isn't unreasonable. *Closer: Time will tell, but at present it looks plausible to go with Dempster as a mid-price guy rather than spending for a big-ticket Wagner type. *OF #2: I don't imagine they'll pick up Burnitz's option at $7 (although it's not altogether impossible). But if they have other exciting ways to spend big money, the possibility of coming back with Burnitz at a mid-price ($4-5?) isn't terrible either. Point: Hendry's got a lot to work with. But if he wants to focus in on one or two really big-ticket guys, he seems well-positioned to fill the other places with reasonable value/dollar support players.

You're assuming the Cubs are going to be willing to head into 2006 with an awful lot of youth on the bench. I think I remember hearing comments from the Cubs in the past that they like using veterans for bench players, but I could be misattributing that. It's basically a baseball truism that gets repeated often, though. Just to clarify, I don't actually assume the cubs will carry 6 rookies. I was just trying to think of areas in which a rookie *might* have a *plausible* (not necessarily probable) shot to break in. I think Cedeno, lefty reliever, rotation starter, each of those are spots where we have good candidates who might emerge (or might not, of course), and where the existing big-leaguers might possibly not justify returning. I don't really expect to break with 6 rookies, but likely that several of those possible places would actually happen. Also, it's worth noting that what constitutes youth on the bench now and what that will look like a year from now can change? Right now we have Dubois, Bartosh, Wellemeyer, Wuertz, and Leiecester all on the roster. Dubois, Wuertz, and Leiecester all spent time with the team last year, so don't really seem like that risky or totally unknown unpredictable. But that's five guys. Last spring, mightn't it have seemed like assuming "an awful lot of youth" to project this year's roster with 5 players like that on it? But now, they don't seem that surprising, and it's typical that there be a spot or two in which a temporary (Wellemeyer) makes it as result of injury. Point being, maybe Guzman will make it next year, but it won't seem that radical, because perhaps he'll have spent 3 months with Cubs and have already shown himself competent, ala Leiecester. Or maybe Ohman will spend as much time on this year's team as did Wuertz on last year's, and with as much success, so that he won't seem like much of a stretch. In the likely event that one of the infielders gets DL'd this year, Cedeno or one of the 2B's could spend some time with the team. Mitre may spend some time as rotation replacement, pending injuries. So I think it's possible that while there likely will be 2-4 guys on the roster, and possibly as many as 6, several of those will probably not seem that radical nesxt spring because they'll already have partly established their big-league competence between now and then. If it ends up getting tight, as somebody else mentioned, there does seem a pretty big crowd of guys who could be derostered. Ohman, Wellemeyer, Koronka, Rohlicek, Lewis, and Fontenot had obviously come to my mind. But I hadn't even remembered that Crouthers and Novoa were also eating up roster spots. I'm probably still overlooking others. But that's at least 8 guys for whom it would be no great shock if any of them ended up being disappointing enough this year so that they might get derostered next year, in the event that some of the rising guys end up looking like must-protect guys. I also agree with somebody's point that some clutter could also be relieved via trade. Hendry has obviously not exhausted the money, there will be cash for a deal if needed. And certainly between the rotation, the bullpen, the outfield, and injury, it's probably too much to hope that there won't be at least one acute "need" that becomes manifest in due time, and that is not adequately solved internally. Point being, I think there may be some challenging Rule 5 choices next winter. But when it comes down to it, I expect guys left off will not be that great of a tragedy. The guys who combine both defense and hitting (players), or both stuff and control (pitchers), both established performance and potential, and good character, and good health, I think those guys will be safe. The guys unprotected will again have some issues, be they character, or health, or control, or stuff, or defense, or plate discipline, or whatever.

Nice compilation, Tim, thanks! that's pretty helpful. Can anybody think of how many guys are last-year options guys this current season who are or will be in the minors? I suppose this will be Wellemeyer's last year on options. Leiecester too, although he'll already make the team so doesn't matter. So, what does it take for spots to open up? 1) Guys currently on 40 but in minors to more up to majors next year. Good candidates include Cedeno (replace Neifi?), Ohman (replace Bartosh?), Mitre and Guzman. I don't expect any of them to open next April in the Cubs minors, even if they do still have options. Pinto is another possibility (replace Rusch or Rem). Lewis and Fontenot are also good candidates, one of whom might replace Macias. So I think it's honestly possible that as many as 6 minor leaguers could plausibly replace major leaguers currently opening. (Other current openers might also get replaced, but at least some by veterans). Actually, it could be even more. If six 40-man minor leaguers become 25-man major leaguers, that could open six spots for others. 2) Other minor leaguers currently on the 40 who will perhaps be removed by next year, even if they don't make it. Candidates would seem to include Rohlicek; if he goes backwards this year, he might be right back off, ala Vasquez? Ohman; if he doesn't show what it takes to make it up this year, he's not going to be back down. Possibly Koronka. Basically all the non-Pinto lefties on the roster from the high minors are close enough that either they need to show they are viable this year, and perhaps step up to majors, or they might be off. I'd think Wellemeyer might be Kelton-like: he's had his time as a prospect, it's getting to be decision time, either step up and be ready, or get traded, or get off the 40. They won't be able to option him next April, but he could be a guy who'd stay on for December and then enter camp with no options ala Kelton of this year. I'd also think that one of Lewis/Fontenot could be on the bubble. Neither are super young. Both probably need to do something this year; whichever of the two looks weaker by October might be at some risk. After another year in AAA they'll each need to look more ready for the next step if they both want to remain on the 40.

This is a tangent. A few years back, some people had the feeling that the Cubs were all tools, not skills in terms of prospects. That hitters as a rule lacked plate discipline (Corey, Kelton..) and that they were swimming with power arms often lacking in control (Zambrano, Juan Cruz, Felix Sanchez, Frankie Beltran, Todd Wellemeyer...) There was a view that the team encouarged "aggressive" hitting (i.e. hack away) at the expense of plate discipline, and drafted pitchers for power, not necessarily control. Whether that was ever true then I don't know, but it seems that isn't applicable anymore. In terms of hitting, Fleita's comments in the chat, at convention, and in VineLine make frequent reference to plate discipline, in a very favorable way for Murton and Coats type guys, in a recognition that it's a pivotal issue for Dopirak and for whether or not a Puello can become a top guy. Sing's patience has been praised and encouraged, and a number of hitting prospects in recent years have referred to plate discipline as a focus area. I don't think there's justification for thinking that the cubs just train guys to be undisciplined hackers. Granted, they may draft guys who are, beleiving (perhaps naively?) that discipline will just come with time. But even the draft seems to have gravitated more toward guys who take some walks and perhaps have more plate discipline of late. Reed certainly seems of that type. Eric Patterson also took a lot of walks, so whether he has pitch recognition skills I don't know, but he must have some value for plate patience. Harvey, Brendan harris, Craig, Todd Ritchie, seems like a fair number of the higher-selected guys lately have had some interest in plate-discipline. (Jake Fox is an interesting one, appears to be pretty impressive in terms of contact skills, not a K-aholic type, but thus far hasn't walked much at all.) In terms of pitching, Fleita has championed a number of guys who don't throw very hard. Valdez, Connolly, and Koronka among them, none of them jazz up the BA juices because they don't throw hard. But Fleita seems quite serious about them. I know, those are lefties, maybe different with righties. But clearly the drafts have *not* obsessed over velocity, and have focussed very nicely on control and breaking pitch. As Mark has noted in the past, the priority on the makings of a good breaking pitch is central to their prospect evaluation. And recent high picks Johnson, Brownlie, Blasko, Hagerty, Nolasco have all seemed to be reasonably control-oriented. Anyway, seems to be a pretty balanced and healthy appreciation.

Dude, I agree that there is a big difference between integrating a pitcher and integrating a position player. And that the Cubs have been more effective with the young pitchers. It's easier for a pitcher to get in. There are 11 pitchers on the roster, and pitchers get hurt all the time, so there are constantly unplanned opportunities for replacement pitchers. Plus, the team usually has a pool of pitchers, so it's not as hard to leave one or two spots open for "competition", where a kid has a chance. Third, pitchers tend to get used once on the roster, and have an opportunity to show what they can do. Leicester wasn't a stud prospect, and began at the end of the pen. But even from there, he got a chance to show his stuff, and when he was in all eyes were on him and his stuff, so he had a chance to demonstrate his ability. A pitcher can give a pretty good idea of what he's got in only a 2-inning appearance, because he's still throwing 35 pitches. For positions, for a 2B to get a crack depends on Walker getting hurt, or for a 1B t get a crack depends on Lee getting hurt. Dubois is part of a competition situation, but that's usually rare. Most often a contending team wants to have a designated starter at most or all positions, and it's not easy to have a "deep pool" of 2B's from which to draw in any given season. Further, managers don't usually like kids as bench players. And unlike a pitcher who will get innings, a bench player rarely gets opportunity to show the full range of his talents. Wuertz, Leicester, Mitre all got opportunities even though none were viewed as premium prospects. That happens with pitchers. But players only get a shot if they are considered good enough to start. Over the last 7 years, Patterson, Hill, Choi, Chad Meyers, and Jose Nieves all got chances.... as starting players. But Roosevelt Brown and 1998 Brant Brown are basically the only young players who were carried as reserves. (And for Brown, that was after having previously been given a starting job.) Given the improvement in the team, i think it becomes increasingly difficult for a young position player to get a shot without having gold-star prospect status. If you're an A prospect, yes. But if you're a B prospect, does a contending team want to bear the uncertainty of whether you'll be good enough, and the adjustment period to getting there? Probably not very often. We've got lots of B-ish players, Cedeno-Soto-Craig-Hoffpuair-Sing-Lewis-Fontenot. Several of them may end up being good ml players. But I think it may be pretty tough for many of them to do so with the Cubs, or to have much value to the Cubs. Maybe not studly enough to be major trade chips. But maybe not studly enough to be given a starting job with the Cubs. And if they aren't given starting opportunities, will they get brought in as flexibenches? It's partly for that reason that I *like* the fact that some of the Cub players aren't being brought along so fast. I think you need to get plenty of experience, to really know yourself as a hitter, to have seen plenty of breaking pitches in the minors, etc., and to be relatively mature as a player and a person before being brought up. If in order to help the Cubs you need to be brought in as a bench player, you need to be relatively polished so that sitting on the bench doesn't mess with swing or mind. And you need to be relatively polished so that the manager is comfortable using you. That's also why I'm so concerned with players playing multiple positions. Fleita said on Hoffpauir that, well, he thinks there's room in the game for a Mark Grace 1B, and that he'll just leave it up to Quade whether Hoffpuair gets OF time. While yes, there is room for a Mark Grace 1B, I don't think there will again be room for a rookie Mark Grace 1B being given a starting 1B job with the cubs! Maybe Hoffpuair will become Mark Grace for the Brewers or in Detroit or something, but I don't see that opportunity coming with the Cubs. So I strongly believe he needs to be prepared to get introduced and used as a bench player. and to me that means he needs to be sufficiently polished as an outfielder that Dusty would feel comfortable with using him there. The same with Craig, he's not going to bump Aramis out. He needs to become sufficiently polished so that he could at least sell himself and win a job as a 3B/1B. If he could add LF to that, and look comfortable/competent in LF as well, it would be so much easier to help the team as a flexibench. Ditto for the 2B's. Right now the backup 3B is Hansen or Macias. I think it would be really helpful for both Lewis and Fontenot to demonstrate that they could play 3B competently. How much easier would it be for Lewis to make the 2006 team if he can be viewed as a 2B/3B, and can be the #2 to Aramis as well as Walker or Hairston at 2B? Or, maybe Lewis could get some CF experience. Or perhaps he's got enough stuff to play some SS, not as a regular but perhaps enough to make a roster as a #2 SS? Long ramble short, I think we're at a stage where for most of the position players, they're going to need to depend either on a lot of luck (right place right time, perhaps an injury to the guy in front of them...) in order to introduce as a starter, or else will increasingly need to make the team as flexibench players. I'd like to see a lot of focus on preparing them to succeed in the latter.

Albuquerque turned 18 last June and will play short-season at 19 this year. And he will *not* add another positive catching prospect to the ranks. Albuquerque is the pitcher!! I think you're thinking of the catcher Mercedes? I don't have final stats, but as of July 22 Albuquerque was 1.45 ERA, 28K/6BB/22H in 31 innings.

True enough. The contact-hitting thing and defensive competence is pretty crucial, though. For a rookie to make it as a flexibench, he needs to look pretty smooth and professional, and flexible. Hoffpauir might not be great at anything, but I think he has a chance to look smooth and professional and to not embarrass himself. Craig has more power and switch hits to his advantage, but I'm not sure he'll look as polished?

Fleita is super positive about everything. But I'm an optimist and I was happy about a lot of the responses: 1) Favorable Guzman health report. Particularly that he'll have no limitations this spring training. 2) Blasko and Wylie the only guys he named who wouldn't be ready for spring. I'm sure there are other perhaps lesser guys he didn't mention, and other guys who will show up to camp and not be good. But given so many arm problems in recent years, it would be really awesome if it came to be April and we'd find hardly anybody beyond Blasko and wylie with a problem. 3) Same line, I was pleased that he didn't seem to expect problems for Santana (shut down with arm stuff) or Ransom (shut down early) or Brownlie or Ryu. The note that Ryu was clocked at 95 in AFL was encouraging. He's always been projected to throw hard, but I don't think he's ever done it much with the cubs. 4) The notion that Hunton might someday be middle/upper 90's was kind of entertaining. 5) ***ONE OF MY FAVORITES*** His response to the Latin guys. He again mentioned speedster *Wilson*, who he'd also mentioned at convention. He mentioned SS *Mota*, said he should be at Boise! To skip a level is a big surprise. Interestingly, in last InfoGuide his bday is listed as June, 1987. Assuming that wasn't a falsie, he'll barely turn 18 before the short-season begins. To be in Boise at barely 18 is pretty young. Caveat: Fleita notices individual tools. So his defense is most likely the thing that is obviously outstanding. He may be the best fielder in the organization, who knows, but whether he has any more hitting potential than Carlos Rojas, not to be assumed. Having mentioned Mota and Wilson in both this chat as well as at convention, that confirms they seem like guys to remember. (Although again, one eye-catching tool might make for more memory, even if accompanied by 4 anti-tools, over a player who's well-rounded above-average in all 5 but eye-catching exceptional in none?) Most pleasing to me was that *ALBERTO ALBUQUERQUE* got mentioned, he hadn't been mentioned in the Convention chat, and he got mentioned as a fast-mover who'd likely skip Mesa. InfoGuide lists him with a 6/86 birthday. To be skipping up to Boise when he's barely 19 is also unusual, and speaks very favorably. I was especially happy to hear Albuquerque mentioned because his DSL numbers were the most impressive relative to his age. If he was posting jazzy numbers in the DSL when he started the DSL year at age 17, and if the scouts like him besides, that's a very attractive combo. 6) Tim asked a neat question about seasonal goals/objectives for players. I very much liked Fleita's answer. 7) I was pretty pleased by his catcher answers. On Soto, that he wants all-star but expects starter. (I've wondered whether he projected better than a backup...) On Reed, that he projects power. (I've wondered whether he was a contact guy, but might not project enough power to ever consider as more than a #7/#8 type hitter). And on Fox, that Fleita doesn't see his defense as necessarily being deadly bad, that with improvement he could become a reasonably rounded player and that if he hits enough, his defense might be good enough that nobody will fault his defense! 8) I also liked his Lewis answer, that he likes him a lot, again the driven/smart kind of stuff, and the notion that he doesn't believe the K-thing is a permanent, irreversible, terminal problem. Time will tell, and he may well be wrong, but we'll see. 9) I liked the reference to Ohman as a "power arm"! I know they think he's got a plus slider. But I haven't really thought about him as a power arm. That's cool, if true. 10) The enthusiasm for Marshall, as perhaps comparable to Petrick for top 5, and with already having enough stuff and already having enough fastball, was pretty cool. 11) A couple of questions I wasn't that pleased about the info. He didn't seem too buzzed about Pinto, not including him in that list of top-6 names, and almost acting as if he's relatively interchangeable with Koronka/Valdez types. I'd also hoped that he thought Hoffpauir might add a little more HR power. I'd hoped he'd be more interested in grooming Hoffpauir for a flexible bench role; while it's true that there is a place for a Grace-like hitter at 1B, I'm not sure there's a place with the Cubs. And I'm not sure it's very easy to win a bench-role behind durable Derrek if the manager doesn't think of you as a multi-position guy. Hoffpauir might become a pretty good player someday, but it's hard to see how he's going to become very valuable to the Cubs, directly or in trade. While I was pleased that he seemed to assume Ransom would be physically fine and could move fast, I was a little disappointed with the "pretty good stuff" eval, which given Fleita positivism seems lukewarm. Anyway, a lot of good stuff, awesome.

That was a tremendous chat. Thanks a ton, Mark. Fleita is so positive about everybody, it's hard not to filter everything accordingly, but I thought he was as direct and informative as possible. Really packed a lot of info into relatively concise answers. thanks a million mark for polishing/compacting the questions so nicely. Question: Had you mailed him these questions in advance, or was he just responding on the fly? Assuming the latter, he's really good at giving pretty good concise info in 1-3 sentences. Really informative. I was struck by his relative honesty regarding the speculative nature of projecting guys. How much power will Pie or Murton or Reed have down the line? Who knows, any could have excellent power but who really knows? How fast will Marshall or Atkins or Hunton or Brownlie or Ryu throw? Seems like a lot of positive hopes, but who knows? The aptitude of scouts to project down the line is remarkable. But I think we sometimes think they're almost prescient. I think Fleita's comments reflect that there is a lot of educated guessing regarding what's possible, but that it's really hard to know.

The DSL is considerably weaker than even the Mesa rookie league team. If you put John Koronka or Jermaine Van Buren or Mark Guthrie in the rookie league, it's entirely possible they could put up stats just as "sick" as Valdez's. Who knows what his numbers mean. But at age 27, if he's been somebody with an exceptional arm, he'd be known from Cuban action previously. I assume he gets the same interest that anybody with a lefty gets. Three of the four minor leaguers who got rostered this winter were lefties: Ohman, Koronka, and rohlicek. So I assume Valdez has interest as yet another name to throw into the possible lefty reliever bag. (We need to replace Mercker this year, and of course Remlinger's contract expires this season, so there are a couple of spots for low-salaried lefties.) That Hendry or Fleita is interested in "looking at" Valdez in spring training is interesting, because they probably have little info on him. But whether they are "looking at" him as a candidate to fill a Daytona roster spot or a WTenn roster spot is more the question in mymind. I hardly think he's being considered for a big-league spot. While his age influences his career longevity and his potential to get better, of course it does *not* influence the fact that if he does reach the major leagues at some point, he will do so under the same salary guidelines as any young rookie. If he does surprise in full-season ball and eventually does become a major league reliever, even if it's at age 29, you'd still get three super-cheap years and then three more club-control-lesser-price years, age regardless.

Did Fleita and Stockstill have a "State-of-the-Farm" session this year? Was anybody able to go? In past that was often one I was most interested in getting feedback from. Now that we actually have an hoonest contender, it doesn't seem quite as relative big as it used to...