Jump to content
North Side Baseball

craig

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,155

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by craig

  1. craig
    Dumb question, but with the new website, have you guys found a way to: 1. Have it default so that topics with recent entries default to the top? When I go to the "Cubs Minor League Talk" forum, it defaults to 2006-2022 international signings and 2016 Cubs top 50 prospects discussion. So I need to Sort By > Custom > Last Reply > Last 5 Days each time. Is there some preference setting I'm missing or need to correct? 2. Have the back-button work normally? I'm using Google Chrome on a Mac. If I click on the assignments discussion, and then his the back button to go back to the panel of topics, it doesn't quite do that, and I get a "Press the reload button to resubmit the data needed to load the page." response.
  2. craig
    I'm good with Strumpf going back to AA for a bit. If he's ready for Iowa and too good for AA, this gives him a chance to prove that he's too good for it and is ready to promote. As a 3-true-outcomes guy obviously getting hits isn't a priority. But I still kinda feel that if a guy is going to hit enough in the majors to make it work, he probably needs to have an AA average above .234. Let him go back and prove that he's better than that now, and that he's too good for AA.
  3. craig
    Very possible. I'd not even noticed that McKinstry was absent from Smith's roster guesses. I'd kinda guess that even if the Cubs cut him, would anybody else pick him up? Wouldn't he just jump at a chance for an Iowa contract, *IF* they were to offer him one? Personally, *IF* they were to send Morel down, I'd rather keep Mastrobuoni up than McKinstry, because I think MM could give competitive AB's and get some hits.
  4. craig
    Quiroz got sold to the Phillies today. :):)
  5. craig
    https://www.mlb.com/player/chris-clarke-669247?stats=gamelogs-s-pitching-mlb&year=2023 Chris Clarke was Rule-5 selected by Seattle. He's pitched 5.2 innings this camp for Seattle, 6K/2BB/6H. Not sure what their competition is, or how much upside they see in him. That kinda sounds like a guy the Cubs will likely be able to get back, *IF* they want him back.
  6. craig
    Bryan Smith's projection is very good. Will be some tweaks at the margins. 1. Will both Keegan and Hughes be on rehab, and neither make the roster? If so, will Borucki make it ahead of Kay and Duffey? Who knows. 2. Might one of Strumpf or Slaughter get pushed up to Iowa in place of Quiroz and/or Young? Maybe Manny Rodriguez to Iowa in place of somebody? 3. Down in the A-level, harder to guess. Smith has Didier Vargas starting for South Bend; that's a fair guess, and is entirely plausible. But that might also be anybody from the Horton, Birdsell, Noland, Santana crowd, too. 4. Smith starts all three of those college pitchers Horton, Birdsell, Noland at Myrtle, and Marino Santy and Moreno. Who knows with any of those kinds of guys. Ferris is a long shot, but possible. Brody McCollough might be used as starter? Maybe Oquendo? Guessing is fun, but more guess than confidence, at this point.
  7. craig
    In less fun news: TJ for Nazier. https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cubs/ct-chicago-cubs-nazier-mule-surgery-20230321-uijmfe77rvdmtgdsc6o2ufh42m-story.html
  8. craig
    I'm pleasantly surprised that Brailyn is actually throwing a little bit already. Shoulder surgery usually takes a long time, so with surgery I'd figured he'd not be back till 2024. Hopefully he'll be good enough to pitch a couple of innings in Mesa this summer, and then perhaps be all in next year?
  9. craig
    Pretty awesome Canario report. Much better progress than I had anticipated.
  10. craig
    Palencia looks so effortless. Nothing to it.
  11. craig
    I think it speaks to the depth of the system when guys like Estrada, Little, and Howard are showing up outside a top 30 list (even if we think BA is dumb).
  12. craig
    Tom, for Howard's EV that you've appreciated a lot, where is that EV data taken from? -From the 63 non-K A-ball AB's last season? -He had a really high GO/AO ratio, is the strong EV data inclusive of his hard groundouts? -Or only taken from non-grounders? -Or is the data strictly from his 3 XBH? -Or is that data actually not so much from the small sample of contact from his 23 games, but is more taken from BP in camp, off pitching machines and Rachel Folden etc? I'm not meaning to sound snarky, I'm just trying to understand what the sample is from which you have the EV data. It may well be that giving guys a chance to hit off a pitching machine or Rachel Folden, maybe that's a purer measurement of their inherent power, without the data getting confused by the varying capacity to make solid contact.
  13. craig
    I'd go all in on pitching for Mule. It would be fun if the Cubs picked up the next Ohtani with a 4th round pick, but given that Ohtani and Ruth are about the only good 2-way guys in baseball history, I think the odds aren't great for Mule. It's so hard to be successful in either role; I'd think he's best served to just go all-in on pitching. Whatever is best for pitching in terms of body-development, core optimization, film study etc, do what's best for pitching. If he's doing everything he can pitching-development-wise, and has some spare time to take BP or DH, that's fine. But don't confuse the focus, IMO.
  14. craig
    Love that! Pleasantly surprised this quickly.
  15. craig
    In addition to the "Metrically appealing" factor, and the velocity factor, I think the third factor is command. A lot of Ryan Jensens throw hard but don't command it well. Cubs obviously believe Horton has the potential to be a control artist with his fastball.
  16. craig
    I admit I've kinda wondered: in world where every RHP touches 98 and many rest 93-95, was Horton's fastball actually anything special? Velocity-wise, I got the sense that it was good but not extraordinary. But "double-plus" sounds pretty significant. I assume his movement and spin are more outstanding than the velocity?
  17. craig
    Bertz, thanks for that input. I just wonder of those 52 guys you pulled, how many of them were pure DH-only prospects at that age? Certainly Ozzie Albies and Wander Franco were not. Ballesteros is really unique in being so quickly and obviously DH-only. I can't imagine there are many comps for 18-year-old DH-only prospects getting significant prospect love. Obviously if he hits like David Ortiz or Manny Ramirez, he can DH like Ortiz or field badly likely Ramirez. But that remains a somewhat unlikely hitting-quality outcome.
  18. craig
    One surprise to me is how Ballesteros has been appearing in the top-20 in many of these lists. I'd gotten the impression that nobody thinks he can catch, and that he's strictly a DH-type. Maybe his defensive potential is better than I perceive, or the ranking people think that? *IF* they do figure he's going to be a DH, it really speaks to how well they like his swing to keep a DH-wannabe on their top-20's. I love having the DH.
  19. craig
    I love Kiley's stuff and how detailed and thorough he is. And that he sees good value in a lot of Cubs prospects. But when I see "empirical", I read that to be scientific, measurable, quantifiable, objective, perhaps reproducible. Putting "empirical" in implies data and indisputable evidence. I don't think ANY of that stuff applies to Kiley's lists. If his list comes out different from Longenhagens or whomever, it's not because his is "empirical". Do I trust his judgement and information better than Law, of course. But "empirical" is not really the word for it. It's still subjective scouting-evaluation. Another hesitation I have is that the scouting metric is so tight. Cub-prospects 2-14 are all 50 or 45, all within one grading step. I kinda feel like there should maybe more discrimination and nuance? I get it, I have no idea and neither does Kiley which of guys 2-14 are going to fail and which are going to become productive. So throwing them all into the 50/45 bushels is understandable. But I kinda feel like a wider grading range would be helpful.
  20. craig
    Tom, I didn't say Wicks was or wasn't a 5th starter, myself. Beats me. I hope he's more. I had just tried to summarize why scouts would see him that way, and would not rank him highly. 5th starter is where scouts place guys with average stuff. And I think almost every big-league pitchers, 5th starters included, have at least one above-average pitch. So having one 55-pitch and otherwise average doesn't make a guy get scouted as better than #5, if that's how they see him, that's why they ranked him where they did. But nothing stays the same. They might scout him differently a year from now, in which case they'll rank him differently. If they said his change was a 55 but used to be 70, maybe he'll get the 70-caliber change back? Maybe a breaking ball they scouted as average this year, on nights the scouts saw him, maybe they'll see him on sharper nights and grade more favorably? Who knows? Tom, I think they already factor in the lefty stuff when they grade the pitches? For example, if a RHP threw a fastball with Wicks velocity and spin rates, that a righty would have it graded as below-average? I think they scouted it as high as average because relative to lefties its not bad, but if a RHP prospect threw it no harder, that it would scout as below average?
  21. craig
    Top two guys got $5.6 and $4.7 this year. Cubs base was ~$5.3. With $0.5 reduction for Swanson signing, Cubs will be at ~$4.7. (Pre-inflation.). Will the Cubs need to trade for cash to afford a #1 guy?
  22. craig
    I wonder what "other ways" he's trying to improve his game?
  23. craig
    Thanks for that link, Tom. The comments that both Amaya and Davis should be good-to-go for spring is encouraging. It would be so great if Amaya plays healthy and establishes himself as a serious prospect.
  24. craig
    Rojas: Hard for me to judge, but Rojas looks taller than the 5'10" he's listed at. Getting bigger is routine (no surprise, he looks stronger than the listed 150lb), but height growth is less routine. Was he a dollar guy, or a low-price signing? It would sure be nice if at some point the Cubs latin scouting-signing-development would pick up. After Gleybar and Eloy, there really hasn't been more production.
  25. craig
    BA's notes kinda matched what I'd anticipated, that scouts don't love guys with average stuff, and that his change didn't look as special as it had been previously perceived to be. From their notes. As we all know, BA's stuff is all second-hand from scouts that they talked to. From their writeups on other Cub prospects, it was clear that they had sources within the organization as well as scouts outside it. "Wicks could be a decent No. 5 starter. It’s mostly all average stuff except for the changeup (which has been more 55-60 in pro ball than the 70 it was in college) and he shows a good feel for pitching. At the same time, there’s also a real concern he’s going to start getting hit harder once he starts facing better competition, which we saw happen in his brief Double-A stint. He's a lefty with a deep pitch mix and a good feel for pitching, all of which are good traits. It’s just more in line with a No. 5 starter, which is something every team needs and shouldn't be discounted or dismissed."
×
×
  • Create New...