craig

Dumb question, but what kind of "velocity gains" has he supposedly accomplished? Was there a velocity reading alleged from this single pitch? I didn't read it, but maybe there was? Or are velocities reported from some other inputs? I'm a little cautious about reading too much into video clips. Guys throwing all out for velocity, you're going to occasionally have a good velocity reading. May not have much to do with actual pitching, where perhaps you want to throw strikes and perhaps locate. If you throw and video-record a thousand pitches, probably by luck one of them is going to both be high-end velocity AND a strike at the same time. Doesn't mean you can locate strikes consistently with anything close to that kind of velocity.....

That seems like an odd input by Callis. Little is obviously a development/make-over project. Doesn't exactly profile as what I'd caricature as a trade-oriented prospect, or as a ready-to-help-soon guy. Any talented prospect with developmental potential obviously has potential trade value, but I don't really see why that would be any more true or worth mentioning for Little than for any other raw prospect. Hopefully he'll thrive in the Cubs developmental process and perform at a level that makes other teams want him. I'm actually curious what developmental plan the cubs will have for him. Obviously the natural media input for any guy who throws hard, but doesn't have present control of an arsenal, is to say "relief". And that seems like an obvious thing for Little. (If you get an effective relief pitcher out of a 4th round pick, that's a win to get ANYTHING productive.) . But I do wonder whether that's necessarily what the Cubs will COMMIT to initially? I wonder if they'll track him for rotation for at least his first season or two? And if he can hold his velocity, improve his slider, and have some kind of not-necessarily-bad changeup, whether they might not give him the opportunity to develop as a starter for at least a while? Odds are pretty remote, I realize; But sometimes teams who end up having success have some unlikely prospects work out in unexpectedly good ways. And we will need rotations pitchers, hopefully without having to average $18M per starter.

Thanks, Tim. That's good.

Cal, the first reports on undrafted guys had us signing a teenage Puerto Rican pitcher who'd supposedly touched 94. But I'm not sure I've subsequently seen him included in listings of Cubs NDFA. Any info on that? Are we sure that the Cubs actually did sign him, or is that maybe not so clear? Or perhaps they agreed, but he's still home in Puerto Rico, so they need to do physical before there will actually be a formal, listable signing? Perhaps the Puerto Rican pitcher and the JC hitter might never get to be as good as the senior signs, but I'm kind of more interested in those two teenagers, because they have more time to develop and will perhaps end up actually being major-league prospects, rather than just organizational roster-fillers. So I hope they really do have that guy.

Interesting that Moreno went that far over; and Burl that far under. By my numbers, *if* they wanted to, they could still go almost $200K over on Nwogu. Not sure there should be any need to do that, but my math, *if* he signs for straight slot, they'll be somewhat below their overage max. I hadn't anticipated that Moreno would draw that much, he's only a little behind Burl. I'm hoping he works out well. It's seemed the cubs haven't really hit on their previous around-a-million-or-more HS superslot pitchers: Cease got them a sliver of mediocre Quintana, so I guess that's the biggest success. But other than Cease, Sands was nothing, Steele is a wildman (although he may still have a chance), Hudson didn't work, and Estrada hasn't looked like a win (although he's still got time.) . Hopefully they're due for one of those to work out. (Franklin didn't get paid as much, but early returns are favorable for him...) .

Thanks, show, helpful thoughts. The notes that he's maybe added some good weight and maybe ticked up a little velocity, that's helpful. Hope so. There were references to 95 at draft, so if he could build up and do that often instead of once a season, that would be great. Would you envision him getting a shot to start? Or getting used as starter for a while in minors, but just for development purpose, probably always with the expectation to be a relief guy? As a relief guy, I'd think the crossfire would be especially useful for lefty-left stuff. He got paid same as 3rd round McAvene, tied for 3rd highest in the Cubs draft. I thought it interesting that Fangraph, Longenhagen rated Schlaffer ahead of Herz, even though Schlaffer got only half of Herz's bonus. Herez had gotten much more enthusiastic buzz at time of draft. Hopefully both guys develop really well and both turn into big-league assets.

...He still has the crossfire delivery (which I like), ..... Yeah, the crossfire is interesting. Surprised to see that. What are the pros and cons for that? Better angles against lefty hitters, of course? You'd think the physics of it would normally not help in terms of weight transfer and force. But might get a little more body torque and spin? I imagine tinkering with that the degree of crossfire a little bit in pitch lab might be able to impact the spin axis to variable effect. Perhaps the Cubs have already worked through all of that, and have found this degree of crossfire to be most conducive to spin axis? Good point that he looks fairly smooth and repeatable here; but that it may simply be because it's practice, and he's not throwing competitive game speed.

Very cool to have Manny Rodriguez pitching again. Hopefully he's fully healthy, and there is nothing structurally underlying that is damaged. I watched a couple of his spring training outings, and he looked pretty interesting. Fast fastball, and his curve looked pretty good. Didn't look like a super wildman, although living on a sharp curveball isn't exactly an easy way to be a strike-thrower. But yeah, *IF* he's fine physically, I'm very interested.

From different discussion board:

I saw a note that for college draftees, Trackman had Burl and Little with the best and 4th scores for 4-seam. Wow. Nice. Not sure whether that was for LHP only, or for all college draftees?

“He’s pretty special,” Heefner said. “He legitimately has two pitches that are borderline unhittable. The fastball and the curveball. It’s shocking that he didn’t go higher than he did, because [highlight=yellow]with the Trackman data they have today, where you can compare guys to everybody across the country, I’ve heard several organizations say that his fastball and his breaking ball graded out the best in the whole Draft[/highlight].”

lol - I had the exact same thought when I read that. Benjamin Rodriguez http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=milb&player_id=675851 I'm assuming Eric is referring to this guy in our system. Just accidentally replaced the 'g' with a 'q' I think. I don't know of a "Benny Rodriquez"... That benjamin is a pitcher. Maybe he's strengthened a ton and has gone from 82 to 96 or something. But it seems maybe kinda unexpected to include a pitcher in the middle of of a line about strength-program hitters?

I take it you weren't a big fan other than Howard. Heh heh, just trying to think of Cubs I remember, the types of profiles they seemed to have when drafted, and the possibilities associated. Everybody loved Russell. Maples, big arm, big breaking ball, smart, good athlete, high ceiling. mallory is going way back, but Hendry had bunches of Dave Winfield comps for him when he picked him. Andy Sisco might be the next Randy Johnson. Angel Guzman was a fantastic prospect for a while, without being a massive Zambrano guy when young; and while his fastball ended up being really good and fast when healthy, as a young guy he wasn't a power guy, so in that sense Moreno seems like a guy who might start without much velocity, but might project into a really good fastball in time, as with Guzman. :):) . I like the draft fine, who am I to judge? 1. Unlike so many Cubs drafts over the last ten years where our picks were often way out of line with mainstream media rankings, Howard, Burl, and Nwogu all seemed well within the mainstream in terms of overall prospect value . (I know, who cares about the rankings, the team knows way more and has more research. Yet all of the Cubs research and analytics genius didn't really vindicate picking Zastrysny and Stinnett and Little and Arriel Prieto etc. where they were picked....) 2. I think there is a refreshing self-confidence, perhaps even arrogance, regarding their analytics, pitch-lab/hit-lab, and their development possibilities. Two relievers with loud tools, big arms but limited repertoires and massive wildness issues. I assume they have a self-confidence to pitch-lab fix the wildness and find Little some grip and arm-slot that will provide him with a 2nd pitch. Nwogu also seems to have some pretty big tool in his power; are they self-confident from their video-game testing that he's got the inherent tools, and that their hit lab resources can help reshape his swing and transform him into a successful big-league power hitter? So I think it's fun that they seem to have the self-confidence that they can take very unrefined raw talent with pretty big tools and develop those guys into effective major leaguers. In past they drafted a lot of kind of experienced college pitchers with some pitchability and multi-pitch and existent control, etc., but without big arms. (Keegan, Zastryzny, Abbott, Richan, Lange, etc...). So I love getting some big arms, and a big-power guy, outside of round 1. Seems like a more high-ceiling draft talent-wise. (Even if role-wise maybe two relievers don't have the same value-ceiling as guys who might become starters, but talent-wise I like it.) .

Cal or anybody, fangraphs references the Cubs strength program having helped Brennan Davis, Benny Rodriquez, and Cole Roederer. Who is Benny Rodriquez?

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?