craig

Not to belabor, but I think Addison Russell is actually maybe a good comp, in a lot of ways. If only that comp wasn't so un-helpful now, because it brings to mind all of the negative: abuser, drunk, dumb, can't hit But comp how Russell was perceived as a young prospect: people projected him to become a good hitter for average, a good hitter for power, and to have excellent defense. I think that's the optimistic projection for Howard as well. If Howard is under consideration to be a top-5 top-10 prospect in all of baseball in two years, we won't be complaining. I think Russell-on-defense might be an excellent comp in other ways. Russell wasn't fast, never seemed flashy, and never had the "WOW" arm of a Dunston or Baez. Yet Russell was SO smooth and economical, no wasted movement, so quick to transition the ball from glove to throw; he was a really good/clean/simple/effective defender. That seems similar to the scouting profile I'm kind of perceiving for Howard. I wonder if Russell isn't also a kinda decent comp in regards to projected power? Russell was projected to have good power.... for a shortstop. He was never scouted as having Bryant, Soler, Schwarber, Baez or Ryan Harvey power. Power was good, not great; and part of the projection was that his hitting for contact would be pretty good such that he'd be able to get to his power.... I'm getting the sense that Howard is maybe kinda like that? They project he'll possibly/probably grow into some power, and maybe have decent effective power.... for a shortstop; and because potential bat-to-ball skill might get to the power he does have.

1. Howard - Addison Russell (pre-abuse? Or as Russell was perceived while a rising prospect?) 2. Burl - LH Maples? 3. Nwogu - Mike Mallory 4. Little - Andy Sisco 5. Moreno - Angel Guzman.

In processing his input, it means more to me for guys that he's seen, maybe a lot, than guys he hasn't. That Made and Quintero and Herz aren't included, I don't care at all. He's never seen those guys, so his lack of appreciation for them doesn't bother me. **IF** they turn out to be talented, then when they get far enough for him to see them, he'll probably appreciate them then. Strumpf, Alzolay, Amaya, those are guys he HAS seen, probably more than once. So the observation that Alzolay's fastball is "flat", or that Strumf has some mechanical issues with his swing that will be problematic if unfixed, those may be good observations that are worth taking seriously. But yeah, his rankings are often impacted by small-sample or dated info. He mentioned having watched McAvene once, last spring. Not clear that the "effort" that he saw in the delivery (I don't doubt his observation...) was true that time, but might not be there every day, and might not persist after some developmental adjustments. Likewise he alludes to Riley Thompson hitting 100 out of pen and up to 97 in rotation. That seems like info from 2-3 springs ago. Reports from this year seemed to have good velocity, but mostly low-90's, nothing extraordinary. (Although whatever; I'm sure any guy who normally works 91-94 will unleash a fluke 97 once in a while! But in a scouting report, listing 100-in-relief-97-in-rotation kinda suggests big velocity...)

Or maybe Chatwood will be so good and so solid that the Cubs will offer the 1-year contract, and get a draft pick back if they don't keep him? Spring training. Why not be super optimistic, yes?

Brailyn Maybe Keegan Thompson or Justin Steele but I think injuries have sapped any meaningful chance of them starting in the majors. Heh heh, maybe Chatwood will be good and solid, and the Cubs will do a mid-year extension on him? :):)

Thanks, Cal, that sounds interesting. One of the reasons I'm interested in Clarke is that he's still only 21. Sometimes the tall long guys haven't fully optimized their deliveries at age 21, so might be hypothetical projection left. But his control has been good, which is unusual for the 6'7" guys at his age. Hopefully his stuff will continue to improve some, and his command, and he'll end up being better than back-end starter. Given how little he's pitched in college, I'd imagine the Cubs might be kinda patient with him and won't move him too quickly. On the other hand, if he's coordinated and can repeat his delivery enough to be a low-walks guy already, maybe he'll move along faster than I anticipate...

I finally saw BA's top 30, and was somewhat surprised/curious. They have Chris Clarke at #14, much to my surprise, and ahead of McAvene. McAvene was drafted a round earlier, has seemingly a big arm and some high-end stuff, and he pitched very well in his brief pro debut. (McAvene was 20K/4BB/12.2IP, encouraging numbers.) Clarke's numbers were excellent, too (26K/4BB/20IP), but I don't recall him getting as extensive BA attention pre or after draft, so I woudn't have expected BA to have heard enough buzz about him to have him leapfrog McAvene. tom or others, what kind of comments did they have about Clarke? After bombing the Lange/Little draft, it would be so awesome if they ended up with a really good draft that produced several successful and significant prospects.

Thanks guys. Do they still include Justin Steele? Bryan Smith has him at 15 on his list, despite his horrible numbers last year. To some degree I kinda wonder whether the Cubs shifts in development emphases and new technological resources might make it a little more difficult to track guys, for us as fans. For example, maybe box scores and seasonal stats won't be as reflective of new skills a guy is developing. There was reference to low minors being prioritized towards raising the guys' ceilings, then later putting a focus on using what they have. (Consistency, location, sequencing, tunneling, etc.) I imagine that being more relevant for pitchers, who can revise their delivery, or work on new grips for different pitches and spins, without having immediate consistency. I think some of the "pitch lab" benefits may need some time. Perhaps guys had some opportunity there last spring, but weren't able to implement fully or whatever. Perhaps having some more time, it will help increasingly? I'm thinking maybe of guys like Cam Sanders, or Riley Thompson. They showed some progress; maybe they'll relapse this year or make no further progress. But maybe it suggested some adjustments last year, and now they're more ready to fine-tune and optimize adjustments further? Fun to hope, at any rate.

Kind of crazy that Mitchell and Galindo are still around, and that it was 5-6 years since adding them. Galindo has been touted as a power guy for some time; he's yet to hit 10 HR in a season. A little note in a CubReporter observation doesn't mean much, for sure. But a little discouraging when outstanding guys are journeyman A-ballers.

Thanks, Tom. Much fun to have a system back on the rise, and to have a lot of interesting, new young players. Don't think we've ever had a top-30 with so many international players. Not sure how many of them will be prospects by the time they reach AA, if ever, but we'll see. If you don't mind, who did they have for 11-14 and 17, to fill out top 20? I assume Alzolay and Kohl Franklin are in there somewhere, and after liking Ademan in past they probably kept him in top-20 too? Did Jack Patterson make their top-30, and if so any new scouting info or insights on him?

I'm no scout, and don't mean to be a negativist. But the couple of clips of Amaya that I've seen, it doesn't seem like he's got all that much bat speed. I wonder if he'll have enough to hit well at higher levels, especially big-league level?

Thanks, Cal. Mid 90's with a sharp breaking ball and a shaky change, that seems like solid stuff, and reasonable for a 2nd-year guy. The note that "Clinton had no answer for his fastball" is interesting. A lot of 93-95 fastballs are pretty hittable, even in A-ball. If his fastball is not only decently fast but is actually hard to hit, that would be nice to see. The shaky change, that seems pretty common, that's an awfully hard pitch to command or throw consistently. Sounds like a deal where if the change gets solid, he might stick in rotation for a while; and if not, might transition into the 2-pitch relief guy. A common developmental thing is for a guy without a great change to introduce a cutter at some point, to help against opposite-side guys. That might perhaps come later. Anyway, sounds like he might have stuff that could play well in the majors. Like everybody else, probably a question of how well he can command and locate any of it, and how consistently. This was a very impressive step-up season for him.

Not to spin negatively, since I'm very interested in Abbott and since he was really exceptional down the stretch. But to some extent, good prospects don't tend to be in one league long enough to lead leagues in IP, K's, or things like ERA or K-BB%. Most times if a good pitching prospect is leading his league in stuff like that, he's getting moved up to a higher league. If Abbott was more studly, or if he'd pitched early as shockingly well as he pitched down the stretch, the Cubs wouldn't have left him there all year long. https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj6mmbzuoe6hvk7/Screenshot%202019-09-17%2023.12.51.png?dl=0

Cubswin and others, what's the word on Riley's stuff these days? Yesterday capped a pretty nice season overall, K/IP around 1, K/BB around 3 not that bad, HR's maybe the yellow-flag. Draft reports were good velocity, and there was allusion to 98-99 tops, but that seemed kind of the usual "saw it once" hyperbole, with the actual working fastball I thought supposedly more in the 93-94 range in short-outings at Eugene. Reports from college were very bad on control. I don't recall really on breaking stuff, whether they were mediocre movement/break plus super-wild? Or whether he had something good/sharp, but just super-wild. Obviously a 10K/0BB night, you don't get 10K in 5 innings even in A-ball with just a fastball. Must be getting guys chasing on something off-speed for that. Seems like a very interesting guy at this point. Obviously turning 24 next summer, he'll never be young for level. Obviously we'd prefer he was 20 or 21. That said, the clock doesn't stop while a guy goes to college, but that doesn't change the inherent arm or the physical capacity and long-term potential. And obviously if you have surgery and miss a year plus, the clock doesn't stop for that either. Will be interesting if he can stay healthy and stay controlled at Myrtle. Pitching friendly there, so good chance that he'll post good numbers first half. In which case I could envision him getting a second-half promotion to Tennessee, and perhaps be in Tennessee by the time 24th birthday hits in July? My recall at draft was thinking his profile sounded relief-ish to me. Not sure if that's still necessarily true. But if progressing as a good-arm-good-stuff rotation candidate is the upside, and "settling" for throws-quite-hard reliever wouldn't be bad at all.

That's great to have Davis end up with a big day, and able to play. I wonder how much work they'll have for him during the off-season camps and stuff, given he only played 50 games? Fabulous season, and nice to get over the .300 BA and .900-OPS round-number barriers! Will be interesting to see where in the top-5 you guys rank him this winter! :):)

Nice, nice, nice! Cruz just turned 20 last week, so to be 99-98-99 this young is pretty impressive. Nice to see him end the season with a clean outing. It's curious that he's been so wild in his small sample this season; he didn't walk many at all last two years in DSL and Mesa. Who knows. Perhaps injury comeback; perhaps trying to incorporate different pitches? Perhaps all the pitch lab analysis, and the changes suggested in response to pitch lab analysis, result in adjustments that screw up a guy's control for a while? But hopefully pay off long-term? Anyway, if he's now grown into 98-99 velocity, then I'm pretty fired up about his possible future. Great news!

Did the 10th round catcher ever sign? If so, at slot; or at a super-cheap cash-freeing deal?

More than I expected. Thought that there was a report that they'd called a different guy in front of round 3 and asked him to take a bigger sub-slot than that, and didn't select him when he wouldn't go quite low enough? Will be interesting to see whether Cubs start McAvene for a while, and if so for how long.

Interesting the 22-year-old senior Combs got $50K. Most of the late senior signs have been $1K or $5K guys. Relative to the Cubs budget, $50K is still nothing, and relative to draft picks it's still nothing. But I'd guess the Cubs must have liked him a little bit more than the average senior roster-filler. May also reflect that he's maybe a smart guy with some other good career options or something? For example, if all I am is a jock who cares about sports, but have no other skills and didn't really put my college education to much use, maybe $5K or $1K to keep the dream alive and to stay with the only thing I know anything about is one thing. But if I'm a really smart, high-achievement student who's choosing between a Ph.D. track in medicinal chemistry, or dental school, or something, maybe $50K is enough to defer on that for a year or three; but $5K or $1K, I'd just jump right into grad school and get on with my career?

Yes, same. Seems he's been the least discussed guy, and with the least amount of scouting info, of the top-5 pitchers. But it appears he'll have the 2nd highest bonus. Given the Cubs record with pitching, not sure their interest proves anything good. But, interesting nonetheless. He's the guy listed as having just turned 20 last month. I wonder if his youth made the Cubs imagine more for him; or perhaps despite being a college junior, his age game him a little-more bonus leverage or something? I'll be interested if we ever get a scouting evaluation from the Cubs draft people about him? I'll also be intereesting in whether they pitch him as reliever all the way, or try to have him develop change and to go rotation. Just an interesting, curious guy.

Had been reference to agreeing for a deal in the low-40's range. $2.0 is in between 36/37. So maybe a little higher than I had expected. Nice to have it done fast, that frees up a bunch of dollars, so it means they can move forward and sign/finalize overslot guys and don't need to wait on all of those.

It's hard to be a good rotation starter, so the odds of getting a good rotation starter out of an 8th round pick signing for 3rd-round money isn't very high, of course. Obviously. But yeah, we'll hope that he beats the odds and proves to be one of those. I also agree that the delivery we've seen in the few clips is funky; agree that's maybe for better and for worse. In general, I love funky deliveries and agree that they can be deceptive, and anything unusual can make it harder on hitters. Plus certainly versus lefties, that could be really challenging, whether in rotation or in relief. But yeah, pretty obvious why scouts might see the present delivery displayed in the few clips as being well-suited towards possible LOOGY usage someday. The challenges with funky deliveries, of course, are several. One is repeatability, consistency, and command. (If Cishek and Brach could consistently locate their side-army deliveries, for example, they'd be really good.....) If you're wild all the time, not a good recipe. Second is injury. Often weird deliveries, and the inconsistent mechanics that can result, put more strain on the arm. Third is opposite-site hitters. It's nice to have a tough slot for lefties; but will a LH crossfire-curveball guy have movement that challenges righties? The "funky crossfire" bit displayed in a brief HS video clip doesn't at all mean that he'll use it consistently as a pro. I believe one of the reports already suggested that it was there in one viewing, not so much in another. So as a pro, he may well train himself and pitch-lab himself to a much revised delivery. A successful 25-year-old Herz might have a much more consistent and perhaps much less funky delivery, who knows? Also possible for a guy to use different deliveries? (Cueto for example...) Consistency and command with even one is hard enough, so locating from two deliveries is harder. But it's conceivable that Herz might use a lower slot that works great versus lefties; but if that doesn't work that well versus righties, perhaps he'd use a different and higher slot versus righties? Will be fun to see where his career goes, if he stays healthy.

Keith Law, I appreciate your stuff, and I know you won't read this.... But, DavidJohn Herz is actually a lefty, not a righty! Big difference in terms of pro career track, I think! It's gotta be tough for these media guys, trying to act informed about hundreds of draftees, many of whom they've never seen at all or if so perhaps for one brief appearance. And to be whipping off zillions of post-draft writeups and stuff in very short order with no edit-time. But it may also speak to how little they may know, and how modestly valuable their input is. Herz with his weird sometimes cross-fire delivery, that might not work well for arm health or consistency. But if he can throw strikes with it, he might project very favorably as a situational lefty reliever, even if the rotation is too much for him. Hopefully he'll make it as even more than a situational lefty reliever, but it's not the worst outcome.

For reference, Wes Saver twitter where he collects lots of comments from or regarding Cub selections.

Some Q's or things I'm interested in, or thoughts: 1. Will be interesting to see how much over Hearn, Herz, and Schlaffer sign for. 2. Given that they call and discuss $$ before selecting anybody, and based on recent history, pretty much a lock that the first 20 guys are all going to get signed. And that nobody HS in the 30's will. 3. It will be interesting to find out how old Clark really is. College junior, the draft sites list him as having been only 19 last month, just turning 20. *IF* that's really true, then I'm especially intrigued. But I suspect that may not actually be correct, and that one false listing got copied everywhere else? But *IF* it's actually true, and his UCLA success was as a teenager, plus he's so smart that his parents had him skipping one or two grades, I'm curious to see whether he'll both be smart enough to get the absolute max out of the talent he's got, and whether he might still add velocity and skill. 4. I'm also really curious to see which if any of the relievers get used as starters next year. I'd guess probably all of them; even if their future is in relief and the Cubs expect nothing different, they still may want to give them the regular scheduled innings that a starter has, and the usage and development of all their pitches. 5. I'm also really curious to see how many innings they give to the relievers this summer. Usually with a college starter, they've already burned 90+ innings during the spring, and the Cubs are very limited in adding more. So for most college starters, it's <15 pro innings during draft summer. But for the relievers who only pitched 30-50 innings, I wonder if they might be more interested in giving them 15-25 innings this very summer?