craig

That Dorey interview was really, really good. And CubsWin gave a terrific recap of it. Couple add-ons: In mentioned Riley Thompson as the second breakout-candidate pitcher beside Jensen, he mentioned being really fast, I think his wording was tickling triple digits. pre-draft, BA reports had talked about high-end velocity. But I thought in his pro reports from both 18 and 19, that there really wasn't mention of being exceptionally fast, and reports were more low-90's touching 95. *IF* he's really very fast and approaching 100, that's maybe a different story. Particularly for a guy where the fastball is his 2nd pitch. Dorey mentioned that his curve is really good, one of the best in the system, that his changeup is developing or improving or some wording like that, and made reference to developing a cutter. I'm a big cutter fan, and think it often adds a pitch that guys can throw for strikes to different parts of the zone. So I thought that report was pretty interesting. As CW and Tom have mentioned, had some really positive excitement about Jensen, great athlete, explosive stuff. But while he may end up using 5 pitches as Tom is hoping, that wasn't quite the story that Dorey was spinning. He referred to jensen as having been mostly a 2-pitch guy, who also used the change some in college but not a lot; and referred to the curve as a 3rd pitch (not a 5th). Oddly, he made some reference to the curve for Jensen as a pitch he could throw for a strike. I found that curious, since for most pitchers the curve is a very difficult pitch to throw for strikes, and I rarely think of pitchers with control issues looking to add a curveball as a strike pitch. Hope it works. In mentioning Andy Weber as one of the two offensive breakout candidates (with Strumpf), he mentioned Weber having gotten a lot stronger, more physical, and was really driving the ball. That's interesting. He was only 20 and pretty slim when he was drafted; in 2019 he hit 8 HR, but he had 43 other XBH. So he wasn't a singles guy; *if* he's bigger/stronger and some of those doubles become HR's, he could become a different prospect if he ends up with decent HR production. I thought the positivity about Abbott was pretty interesting, reference to transformation as a pitcher; reference to developing the 1-seam fastball to go with his two above-average breaking pitches and his riding fastball. He talked about his riding fastball, and then I thought tossed in the word cutter; I wasn't sure if he was saying he has a riding 4-seamer, AND a cutter, and the two above-average breaking balls, and now the 1-seam changeup, to make him a 5-pitch guy? Or whether he was actually suggesting that his riding fastball is actually a cutter? I don't normally think of guys using cutters at the top of the zone. Talked about his being really athletic, and really competitive, and "killing it" in Mesa, in addition to being in really great shape. And tons of strikes. Very curious to see what he can do. With six years of club control in front of him, *if* Abbott could emerge as capable rotation guy, even if not great, that would be fun to eat up one of the rotation spots, and to free up budget for other targets. Dorey had "sky's the limit" for Franklin, with his projection on his fastball, comment that he can throw strikes, mentioned his curve having really good spin, and of course his changeup has always gotten good reports as being a plus pitch and one of the best changeups in the system, not counting Hendricks. I wish the interviewer wouldn't have changed subjects or directed the interview in non-player directions. Dorey was willingly talking details about prospects, but interviewer detoured him to Brewslow direction, and detoured him to talking about Theo. Would have loved to have asked him another 5-10 minutes to talk about other pitchers who might be emerging or might be guys we'll be talking about a year from now. Would have loved to let him discuss Clark, Herz, McAvene, Schlafer, Roberts, Gallardo, Cruz, Rodriguez, Fenter, Rodriguez, Thompson, Burgman, Bigge, Patterson, or whomever. Dorey might have willingly gone that direction if either allowed or given any kind of little nudge, he was more than willing to talk about anybody. I'd just love to have a prospect interview with him that talked about nothing but players, and didn't spend any time on the familiar top-10.

Thanks for link, Tom! Great interview, really interesting, really good. That and Dorey interview, two terrific interviews in two days. Fun.

Great stuff, cal, thanks. Here's a link trying to capture that interview: https://www.cubsinsider.com/2021/01/23/cubs-international-director-louie-eljaua-dishes-on-newest-international-free-agent-class/ Anybody have a link to the interview itself? I couldn't find one. Ferrera as a Mondesi-type with big exit-velocities is fun. Ballasteros with 1.85-1.95 pop-times is fun, too. The CubsInsider link has a picture of Hernandez from the back; hard to tell with a fuzzy in-swing photo, but he looks more broad-shouldered than I'd expected.

Agree with most of your takes, Tom, a lot mirror some of my thoughts too. 1. Particularly the note that some think Jensen might end up with decent/good control. 2. Agree that Presciado doesn't need to be a SS to be really good; *if* he ends up being a really good hitter with really good power. 3. I'm much more interested in the positive Franklin talk. Glaser talked to a bunch of Cubs people, who have access to his throwing over the last year. Whatever Glaser's articulation of why, it sounds like Cubs people fairly consistently view him as being at that 6-7 level on par overall with jensen. Which I take as pretty exciting. You may have different boxes, but it seems they believe his curve is good. So, the spin is that his control is good; his velocity and fastball spin is good and projects to get better; that his curve is good; and his change is really good; and his work ethic is good. I imagine between any two scouts, their relative ranking of Frankling/Jensen probably hinges on whether they see Jensen checking enough rotation boxes. A scout who thinks he's too small, that his control is more on the fringe-average side and will involve high pitches-per-inning, I assume those scouts will place him behind Franklin. And if you project his control as good, then rotation innings are more accessible. 4. With the Padres guys, they suggested that as good as Presciado seems to be, that different people don't necessarily see a lot of separation. Suggested that some people maybe had Mena ahead of Presciado, and somebody had Santana ahead of both. Optimist says that's because all four might be legit 1st-round-level talents. The best is really good, but the others are so good too that you can't separate much. Pessimist is that none are really all THAT good, more like four 2nd-round guys. Obviously the observation is really limited, so expecting observers to have enough views to rank them accurately is unrealistic. And even for Padres people who have observed, that's still limited observation on the past; how they will develop future, is uncertain projection for anybody. 5. Tom, the other "take" for me was on Howard, and was NOT as positive as yours. He said from people he's talked to, some projected a .240 8-HR type hitter; and the high-end projection was .260 15HR kind of hitting. I admit for a HS 1st-rounder, I'd like to think the ceiling would be a little higher than .260-15HR? Those brackets kind of feel like Addision-Russell-with-less-power on the low end and Jason-Heyward-with-less-walks on the high end. Not quite as optimistic as I'd expected. Again, the player is perhaps too young and the views too few for any of those projections to merit any confidence. But yeah, from the scouting this doesn't seem to project as an asset middle-of-the-lineup bat, more a good-defense guys who'd be #6 hitter, perhaps a #7 on a really good team.

Thanks, Bertz. Questions about that: 1. How does that factor into splits? Not sure whether data supports is, but I think a presupposition in past was that lower arm slot might make a guy more vulnerable to opposite hitters? 2. I wonder on control? Wouldn't a more side-arm guy be more likely to have greater horizontal variance relative to an over-the-top, who might be more likely to have greater vertical variance? Or overall no correlation between command/control and arm slot? Will be interesting to see what Patterson looks like this summer. He was a crazy fun story in 19, but the age, history, draft spot, and velocity didn't reinforce going crazy confident that he'll end up being a good major leaguer. He'd be another fun success story. Cubs have at least 5 prospect pitchers of some interest who will all turn 26 this summer: From oldest to youngest: Thompson (March) Steele, Miller (July) Patterson (August) Abbot (September)

Jensen is obviously a huge swing guy for the organization. People often talk about leadership and philosophy and process, for good reason. But you really build a winning roster one player at a time. A 5-man rotation, each time you fill a spot with an asset guy, particularly initially cheap and with years of club control, that's a huge step towards building a winner. Jensen has the arm and stuff to possibly provide that, and it would be huge if he succeeds. Work in progress for sure. But yeah, the ability to command his stuff, consistently, is the hinge. Would be so fun and valuable if he turns out to be a success guy.

I've very enthused and curious to see what the can do. Still, not to be a downer, but every pitcher in pro has experiments and tried lots of pitches. Every minor-league rotation guy does that. Whether Jensen will be able to throw all those pitches for strikes, that's the question, and obviously those who actually can are the exception, not the norm. Scouting reports on Jensen never seem very optimistic about his control potential, much less command. But I admit wondering and hoping anyway? If I'm a smart scout, I'm not giving 1st-round recommendations on a guy who I don't think has a chance to control it pretty well. I've got to assume if the Cubs claim to be excited about the slider/curve progress, obviously some of that is spin and such, but I'd think some might be that he's showing an ability to repeat and throw those pitches for strikes or close.

Thanks, interesting. There's Steele mentioned again, and Fenter. Thompson not mentioned. Hottovy also mentioned Underwood as a possibility, given his former history in rotation. I think he'd be an interesting one, since I think his stuff and usage has probably shifted some since last in rotation. Hard to envision his consistency or command holding up well, though, but who knows. I wonder about the "multi-IP relievers" bit, how important that actually is, for all the talk they give it. That was talk last summer, too; but when the season actually played, how often did Ross use guys for 2 innings, and did he ever use a reliever for 3 or 4? I guess 2 innings is "multi-IP", so for sure you do want that. But I'd not think getting stretched out to accommodate 2-inning usage would be really all that hard. I suppose it might be a bigger need this year. Early last year, the starters were rolling up innings pretty consistently, so the bullpen was never overwhelmed. Plus the extra roster size enabled a limitless stock of relievers to cover whatever innings came along, and the extra innings rule protected, too.... Depending on roster size and rules, maybe there will be fewer arms to cover more innings. And if we've got some pretty shaky inconsistent rotation guys, guys might get knocked out early more often, too.... Last year, they used 9 starters? Original 5 plus Alzolay, and then Colin Rea, Tyson Miller, and Q each had one or two starts. Obviously you're always going to have a bunch of starters at Iowa who can be called up to fill. From a scouting, career-establishment, and competitive perspective, I'm not sure miller's 1 start or Rea's two starters were really an adequate audition to scout them or for them to prove themselves. Neither does one or two starts, even if they're bad, sink your playoff chances.

I think Rea is totally a courtesy move, and one that every team enables. Guy has a chance to make a bunch of guaranteed millions. No teams block that. Good luck to Rea over there.

I wonder if ≤AA will also have delayed finish, or no? We know guys typically get dropped a level or two. Guys at AA start in majors or AAA, guys who start in AA camp normally dropped to A or lower. I imagine the Cubs could really invite almost anybody who's going to end at AA to big-league camp; probably most any top-50 prospects who'd project to play full-season A-ball, too.

My sense is that Abbott is ahead of those two ... ...I'd put the in-house depth starters in the order of: Cory Abbott Gray Fenter Tyson Miller Keegan Thompson Brailyn Marquez Two caveats. [highlight=yellow]Justin Steele is going to be a reliever long term, but for some reason there are reports that the Cubs have been saying they want to see him start games this year[/highlight] in the minors (at least in spring training). .... Thanks for rotation thoughts, each of you guys who have posted. Win, thanks for note on Steele, I hadn't read that before. That's really interesting and surprising, if true. My sense is that he's been really wild in past, so that seems odd. Of course, he'll turn 26 this summer and has finished 7 years with the Cubs, but has only pitched 340 innings. So they may just want him starting to get a solid 70 pitches thrown on a rotation schedule just to get some real-game innings under his belt? Matt Thompson of ProspectsLive liked Thompson quite a bit, because of his command and variety of arsenal that he can sequence in various ways. He ranked Thompson right behind Abbott, and ahead of Miller. Miller seems to have some good pitch-lab qualities, and some positive buzz from alternative site; has been kinda HR-vulnerable back in his box-score days. Anybody have any data on his splits? The arm slot would seem good versus righties, but is he pretty vulnerable versus lefties? Or not really a problem? Abbott/Thompson/Miller, hard to guess. Level of relative success might depend on which if any actually has a real plus, killer, putaway breaking pitch or not. And how good both command and consistency is. A lot of times collective results are dictated more by the frequency of bad mistakes than by the quality of the non-mistakes. I have no idea how to project their relative performance.

Thanks for that Miller info, that's pretty interesting. Who do you think is in the mix for 5th/6th/7th, of the internal guys? And of those, who do you think might perhaps have the best chance of emerging as a viable not-bad anti-awful guy? 1. Lester: Hoyer has mentioned being interested in bringing Lester back. I hate that idea. That's totally Nowacrat trying to win for this year, and even if he might post an ERA <5, (which might be less awful than what the younger internals might do....), that would be totally boring, and would do nothing to create value out of valuelessness. Please don't do this. 2. Marquez: I assume Marquez isn't really a spring candidate, correct? 3. Colin Rea is still around. It's possible he'd be OK, and may be less awful than the other internal guys. But I don't see a lot of upside or long-term value there. So, not very interested there. But for trying to win the weak central, perhaps he'll get some starts and not kill you. 4. Internal D+D guys: I'm thinking Tyson Miller, Corey Abbott, and Keegan Thompson are probably the three D+D guys? Obviously none have big, high-ceiling stuff. Relative to Hendricks, Davies, and Mills, all would be much faster! :) Hard to know what another year of pitch labbing and stuff might have done for any of them. But I'd actually be kinda interested in using this rebuild season to explore whether any of them might actually be surprisingly interesting? **IF** you lucked out and one (or two, or even all three...) emerged as capable rotation guys, having club-controlled depth would be great at minimum wage. I think about the trade and budget capital that was invested in Quintana, Cole Hamels, and lester over 2018-2020. Perhaps Miller or Abbott of Thompson might give you production not so different from that, but at minimum wage, and free up $40M per year for other targets? I'm not saying it's likely that any of these 3 is ever going to establish as a solid, multi-year rotation guy. But if you did luck out and one of them did, it could help the future significantly. So I admit I'd not mind leaving one rotation spot as kind of an audition opportunity for them. 5. Combeback/rehab/career-breakout-opportunity guy. I've got to assume Hoyer will bring in some other comeback type guy from outside. In rebuild one, there was Feldman and Maholm. I'd imagine there might be some guys out there who aren't going to get rotation shots with the Yankees or Dodgers or Braves, but who might see the Cubs as an opportunity to build or rebuild their careers? Maholm was a post-surg-rehab guy; Feldman had been kind of a depth guy; Jason Hammel had been an inconsistent but kinda-interesting guy with some upside. I could easily envision Hoyer wanting to take a shot on somebody like that, maybe singular or maybe plural? *IF* you hit on a Hammel/Maholm/Feldman, those guys pitched at a level that could have supported a division-run in the vulnerable central. And *IF* you hit on a Hammel/Maholm/Feldman, each of those turned into trade pieces. (Vizcaino never clicked for the Cubs, but man he looked like a high-ceiling good-risk at the time; and while McKinney never clicked either, he'd been a 1st-round pick the previous year and seemed like a solid prospect at time of acquisition...). I wonder if they have any interest in resigning Chatwood? They invested a lot of cash, and time and development, on him. Before he got hurt last year, I'd thought he looked pretty good. I admit it wouldn't burn me to sign him again, to a cheap two-year deal, or something with option, or whatever. "Cheap" being key, but he's still got some stuff, if healthy.

Tom, what are pros/cons of that? I'm probably missing some, but: Pros: 1. That's where the best players are, national teams tend to draw the best. 2. You see guys in real games against good players. 3. When other teams have a long scouting familiarity with a good prospect, it may facilitate trading the guy away. (Cubs wouldn't have made Darvish trade if they hadn't already seen and liked Mena and Preciado back from IFA days.). Cons: 1. Cost: If a guy is good on that stage, every other team knows it too. So, no bargain prices there. 2. Scouting value: If everybody else has seen him too, but nobody else thinks he's worth the price you do, maybe they're right and you're wrong? 3. Lesser untapped potential? Guys on national teams often have benefited from strong programs and strong coaching already; and may perhaps have less unused ceiling? (Almora, Ademan, Tseng...)

Cubs have a slew of interesting international guys, whose success rate will largely dictate the success of the Cubs future. Full season: 1. Brailyn Márquez 2. Miguel Amaya 3. Adbert Alzolay 4. Chris Morel 5. Manual Rodriguez (I'm very interested....) 6. Yovanny Cruz (I''m still interested in him) Younger: Santana Preciado Mena Ronnier Quintero C Caissie (drafted, so kinda doesn't fit, but kinda fits in being literally both international, and talented ..) Kevin Made SS Luis Verdugo, SS Yohendrick Pinango, CF Richard Gallardo RHP Rafael Morel Brayan Altuve C That's a big pool of talent, and that's not including Christian Hernandez or Ballesteros. Unbelievable how good it might get if the Cubs scouting, development, and luck with this pool of talent works out disproportionately well. Sure hope we get a bunch of winners from that pool.

Thanks, Cal. Chris Morel has been hyped up by Dorey, and is top-10 in BA's list and AZ Phil, even after the trade. *IF* Rafael has a "lot more power", then even if he isn't the defensive stud that Chris is, he's got a chance to be a really good hitters. I'm not a Chris Morel believer; the .172 OPB with 39K/0BB at Eugene in 18 still sticks in my head, and 60/11 K/BB at South Bend remains a pretty bright red flag to me. But Rafael is not Chris. *If* he hypothetically has a "lot more power", but also comes without the pitch-recognition and contact problems that Chris needs to be overcome, perhaps Rafael will become a major-league hitter and a serious prospect.

As Tom said, the interviewer suggested the Larry Walker comp; Callis more acknowledged. Five components to the comp: Canadian (1), RF (2), big guys (3), powerful RF arms (4), and serious power (5). I'm guessing without the Canadian commonality, Ryan Harvey would be as good a comp! Obviously the subset of guys who can actually hit and apply their power is pretty small relative to the larger pool of big-strong-big-armed RFers. Hopefully Caissie will be one of the special guys who can hit and apply their power.

Listened to Callis. He compared Santana to Howard. Viewed Mena as the Cubs best CF prospect, Preciada as our best 3B prospect. Comped Caissie to Larry Walker, and said a year from now, it's possible he might be our best OF prospect. Then did the usual Christian Hernandez to Alex Rodrigues comp.

What is the current perspective on Driveline/Pitch-lab's ability to help with command? Is the view that data analysis on delivery, arm slot, release point, weight transfer etc. can result in significant improvements in command, as well as in velocity and stuff? I'm assuming those things can help some, but probably control is largely beyond the reach of pitch lab? Maples is Maples, wild is still going to be wild, right? Jensen, McAvene, Cam Sanders, Burl, Brailyn, Bigge, Bailey Reid, Calloway, Luke Little, Thompson, these guys might all have variably good velocity and overall stuff. Whether any or many will have enough control and command to be big-league excellent, hard to guess, or how much help Cubs coaching will be able to give them in achieving that. Or whether any or many will have enough to pitch rotation versus just relief, as valuable as good relievers may be.

Tom, thanks for citing that Mooney article with Dorey and Hoyer. There was a Sharma article on Tuesday with Breslow, too. https://theathletic.com/2277312/2020/12/22/cubs-craig-breslow-pitching-development-philosophy/ Breslow talked about "risk", but Hoyer's comments add some clarity, that injury risk is a real consideration. (Obviously muscle memory, performance, and confidence are also factors.) Derek Johnson saw pushing velocity as being an injury-risk. He instructed pitchers to NOT try to throw their hardest, at least below AA. That wasn't just for injury reasons, of course; he wanted guys to throw in a comfort range where they could repeat, control, locate, and where change and breaker delivery could be consistent with fastball. Theo emerged amidst Moneyball thinking, where past statistical data was valued. I suspect he brought that with him to the Cubs, such that when tools and college stats were balanced, his scouts may have tilted that balance a little bit more in the past-stats direction than some other teams, or perhaps than the Cubs now? Pitch lab and spin data change so much. The recent view to tilt that balance more towards pitchers with more tools makes more sense, given the assumption that you can optimize their delivery later, and reshape their breaking repertoire even if it wasn't very good in college.

Tom, when did Clarke have TJ?

NO idea why Nwogu took that long for an ordinary slot-agreement pick. My guess is that it was just something procedural, travel related, getting the physical, something like that. Michigan had pretty tight Covid travel restrictions, I think. And Arizona has been pretty hot for a while. With no minor-league camp anyway for Nwogu, probably no hurry to get the actual physical passed and the contract signed. The more unfavorable paranoid possibility is that there were some red flags in his physical.

I'd be surprised if the Cubs opted for Lester and unnecessarily $15 budget hit. Next year also projects to be 3rd-straight year over the lux line. With both Covid and Quintana's injury, they lost any chance to get under for this year. So I'd guess they may not be eager to go over the line again next year, and face triple-over consequences, particularly given the huge financial hit they're already going to take this year. So I'm predicting that they will not pick up Lester's option for next year.

Thanks, Tom, interesting stuff in that.

Wow, that is unbelievable. I also think it's weird that Alzolay is there in the first place. Why isn't he up with the big-league summer camp with an opportunity to impress the new manager, the not-so-long pitching coach, and to compete for a job on the expanded roster where Ross and Hotovy keep talking about how guys might need to be pitching a couple of innings early on? Or competing for a rotation spot in absence of Quintana? It just seemed like a weird thing, I can understand why Alzolay is in complaint mode these days. I think he might be better served to try to become a good pitcher that belongs in the majors than to be whining about things, yes; but it's understandable. I wonder how much the taxi-squad conditions are determined by the Cubs admin, versus mlb agreement? If the Cubs are choosing this, Theo and all of his "take care of players" talk ought to be paying out of his own big salary.

Great points, bertz. Pitchers should be able to keep practicing and developing. The plate is the exact same size and distance in a warehouse as on the field, and pitching is entirely initiated by the pitcher. So a guy should be able to keep practicing his pitches just fine in the warehouse. To some degree, perhaps a little better, without the pressure of success. For example, suppose Burl needs to develop his slider; he can throw it a million times in the pitch lab and improve it. As a hyper-competitive guy, if he tried that in games, but it was inconsistent and getting hammered more often than his more established pitches, the competitive instincts makes a guy reluctant to keep practicing it. Likewise I think practicing on a consistent schedule is easier in the pitch lab. You set the schedule, you set the number of pitches that are healthy and appropriate. In a season, there are rainouts; a relief pitcher doesn't always get scheduled usage, depending on how games are going and how other pitchers are doing; maybe you're scheduled for two innings, but hitters are hacking and your first inning only takes 7 pitches? So to some degree, I wonder if the pitch-lab practicing might not almost be BETTER for development, in several ways? Obviously repeating delivery and tunneling in pitch lab is one thing; repeating delivery and tunneling and locating when adrenalin is rushing in a game, when pressure is high, emotions, when it's 90 degrees or 51 with drizzle and wind, when you're on the road and each mound is a little different than the last, it's obviously a lot harder. Pitchers are the initiators, with a fixed plate size and distance. But way worse for batters. They are responders, so how can they practice and improve their ability to recognize and respond to real professional pitching without facing real, professional pitching? I think developmentally this will really be a wasted year for those poor guys.