craig

That doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence... I do count Hannemann as a raw guy who didn't work out even though he went to college. There are definitely parallels between Hannemann and Davis. I know Davis is the better athlete and has a higher upside. Brennen Davis actually has one of the highest ceilings in the entire draft... I just don't think he reaches it or even gets close. I believe Kiley McDaniel mentioned how some scouts were worried his bat was a 30 or 40. I don't count IFAs with amateur draft picks. I'm strictly talking about the draft and the scouts involved with the MLB draft. I don't want to compare Gleyber and Eloy against our draft picks because it creates weird comparisons and we lack a lot of knowledge about how they scout internationally. It's not fair to compare Kris Bryant and Kyle Schwarber to Gleyber Torres and Miguel Amaya and so on. MLB teams scout those kids at a very young age and come to agreements when they are 14 or 15. Sometimes even younger now... I do totally give credit to the international scouts for doing a great job and signing some top prospects. I think we need to ask UK what he thinks and what other scouts think of the Cubs 2018 draft class. All of your points are legit. Hannaman like Wilson was a raw hitting prospect, and the Cubs are 0-2. Even if they are O-2 thus far, that still doesn't prove they'll be 0-4 after this draft. (Even after Rizzo starts a game 0-2, that doesn't mean he'll never get a hit later.... ) Your point on Eloy/Gleber vs Davis/Roederer is valid. Different scouts involved, to some degree. (McLeod and others are involved with big-ticket internationals as well as high-round draftees, though, so it's not a totally different scouting group). It's the same development system at play whether a teenager was scouted by a draft scout or an international scout. You are certainly right that Law had a non-gush report on Roederer, and some scouts question Davis's bat. So you may be correct that the Cubs have crummy scouts and drafted badly. That's certainly a plausible judgment to make. And even if it isn't, it's less than likely that some HS guys picked in the 60-80 range are going to success and prove otherwise. I guess I'm just arguing two points: 1. The Cubs strategy was to draft for upside, and in their scouting perception, dumb/ignorant/naive/misguided as that may be, they thought they were taking two upside guys. 2. The Cubs put in a lot of effort on those two players, more so than did Law or Kiley, and believe the two guys have pretty significant upside. So maybe some difference in scouting opinion, it happens often. It may well be that Law and Kiley and Kiley's sources are good scouts, and the Cubs are bad scouts, so the Cubs may be dumb to believe that. But hopefully we'll get lucky and the Cubs scouts will be vindicated.

Interesting article in the Athletic about the Cubs draft, with some good quotes from Dorey etc.. https://theathletic.com/384762/2018/06/07/an-inside-look-at-how-the-cubs-2018-draft-class-came-together/ Show, I hope you're wrong. I think some of your arguments are a little mixed. Seems to me that one argument is: 1. Cubs haven't done well outside of the first round thus far (I agree), so they won't do well outside of the first round in this draft either. 2. A second argument is that have failed with raw prospects before, so will fail with Roederer and Davis. 3. A third is that they didn't draft upside guys. You may well be right. But I think your second argument is the hinge one. I think Wilson is the only $$-HS guy they've signed. Hanneman is another example of a raw guy who didn't work out, but he was college already. The others, Crawfords and the like, those are 3rd-day picks. So to me, it seems like the Cubs record with HS-hitters like Roederer and Davis is pretty much wilson and that's it. I agree, Wilson's been a hopeless failure, and a wasted pick. But I'm not sure failing on one HS pick, and then also some 3rd-day guys, I think that's a small data pool on which to conclude a trend. So I'm optimistic re both Roederer and Davis. I think your 3rd argument is somewhat confusing. You complain that they didn't select upside guys, when to my perspective they took two such in Davis and Roederer. Reading what Dorey said, they were very much looking for upside guys, and ID'd Davis and Roederer as such. So the attempt is clearly there. You've already concluded that their attempts will fail, and you'll probably be correct. (Most 60-80 picks fail, especially HS ones....) But that's a scouting evaluation on your part, I think, (or a scouting failure on their part), more than a strategic failure. If in fact they did fail. My thinking is that although some of their HS guys have failed (Wilson and Sierra), they've had good luck with Gleyber and Eloy and Amara. So I'm not sure it's as well established and conclusive that they will fail to identify and develop teenage hitting prospects.

INteresting thoughts, Toonster. I'm not sure I view the draft in the same way. I don't think diversity in a draft is critical. If a couple of drafts focus on pitching, and then one focuses on infielders, I don't mind the "focused" drafts at all. Goal is to get major leaguers, and that's hard; so I won't be surprised at all if the draft doesn't produce many useful big-leaguers. Lots of drafts don't. And with two high-risk HS guys as picks 2 + 3, the chance of missing on both is pretty significant. But I also think the chance of hitting pretty strongly with one or the other is also pretty meaningful, and is maybe higher than with some of the college guys available at that area. But yeah, I had no complaint with focusing. Think maybe the scouts can do a more thorough job if they know what they're focusing on in a particular draft? I think you've been kind of negative about the recent pitching-focused drafts. Certainly Hudson year hasn't looked too hot, but that was a hitter-oriented draft. Last and previous years were pitchign, yes. But, 2015 they weren't starting till round 3. Given nothing 1st or 2nd rounds, I think Hatch, Miller, Clark, Robinson, Swarmer, Mekkes, that's really doing pretty well. Three AA starters this fast, two A+ starters, and Mekkes, I don't think that's too bad starting with 3rd-rounder. Last year: Lange, Abbott, and Thompson are all already at Myrtle, and pitching pretty well. (K/BB rates are really good.) Little, Uelman, and Lacy are all starting at South Bend, and showing some variable promise. And Estrada seems to look promising in Mesa. So, not sure that was a bad draft. The goal is to create big-league value, so the fact those pitchers are clustering in A-, A+, and AA, and there isn't much position-support for them, I don't think that changes the chances that those drafts will be big-leauge productive, given that they didn't strt till round 3 in the Hatch draft. Of course we're all minor-league fans, but the goal isn't to have balanced A-ball teams, it's to produce big-leaguers. So I don't mind having some very imperfect, imbalanced minor-league teams.

Both Cease and Estrada were 6th-round picks. Maybe this will be the round? D.J. Wilson was 4th round, he's the only other million-dollar superslot I can recall. (Well, obviously Sands and Steele, too...)

Hit tool is essential. Even HR's depends more on the hit tool than power; you can't hit HR's if you don't hit the ball on the nose with reasonable frequency. Can compromise on arm, speed, even defense, but not hit. Roederer, supposedly a hit guy, seems like a natural and interesting pick. But Davis is the odd pick. Fangraph says Cubs especially focus on hit-tool, yet took Davis, even though media scouting variably talks up all the other tools except for hit. And even though there might be overslot involved. I think it's pretty obvious that the Cubs do not agree with the 20/40 hit eval on Davis. Obviously they don't KNOW, but they must clearly scout the possibility/capacity for Davis to end up with good hit. Should be interesting to see how these guys play out. Hitting mlb is so, so tought, though; odds that either of these 2nd-round guys are going to end up being quality big-league bats has to be pretty modest. But, sometimes champions are teams that get lucky with unlikely guys.

Puzzling for sure, and risky for sure. I agree, there is nothing in the MacLeod's Cubs drafting that suggests they've got any notable insights outside of top-10 picks. Several thoughts: 1. They have seemed to do pretty well with Eloy, Gleyber, Amaya. Maybe their scouting for teenage bats is good? I hope it will turn out so here. 2. Floor, ceiling, risk. I guess risk is the price of upside. Perhaps by taking a couple of shots in the 2nd, you hope one of them clicks? Pretty much no-such-thing as safe winners in the 60-80 range. 3. Obviously these are all pure, pure scouting picks. Cubs must think they see elements in the pitcher; scouting. The HS OFers, that's really pure scouting picks. Well, just like Wilson was, and Hanneman was, and Hudson was..... 4. Cubs have known they had a bundle of picks in the 60-80 range. So I have to assume they've spent a lot, lot, lot, lot of time reviewing these guys. I assume BA and PG and mlb media guys spend a lot of time on the top-end, first rounders and stuff. Not sure they have resources or focus on 2nd-50 group. But Cubs theoretically invested a whole lot of time in that part of the draft. 5. If some scouts love Davis + Roederer, and seem them as top-80 guys, do they share that with BA, the same way they share views on first-rounders? If you want to steal Davis or Roederer in round 4, do you tell the media you think he's a 1st-day guy? I dunno, and wonder how much of the media ranking is sourced from scouting sources. Whatever, time will tell. Would be pretty fun if Hoerner emerges as a true-blue hitter who adds some power as well. And hope the two OFers both magically turn into hitters.

No idea what the Cubs strategy will be, in terms of under-or-over-slotting at 24. I imagine they can only have contingent strategies that depend on player evaluation and availability. Mocks vary widely from one analyst to another, and likewise change substantially by the month (or week) for a given media analyst. Jim Callis interview noted that there seems to be an even wider variance in valuation on guys this draft than most others. I don't know the players or how the Cubs value guys, but several thoughts: 1. It's a lot more likely to get a star at 24 than in the 60-80 range. -***IF** there's a guy they evaluate really favorably, I'd think over-slotting would make sense, even if they need to underslot on one or more of the 2nd-round picks. Going BPA 1st-round makes a ton of sense, even if it costs $$$ for 2nd-rounders. 2. I'd not be surprised if there was somebody the Cubs ranked among their top-15 guys still on the board at 24. (Given how differently teams evaluate guys.) 3. Going BPA may not mean over-slot. Cubs do their own evaluation. Just because a guy demands over-slot doesn't means Cubs scout him better. 4. Cubs strategy will allow for many possibilities; what actually happens depends on scouting evals and on who's left. 5. Many promising prospects are willing to sign for slot in rounds 1 or 2, rather than going to (or back to) college. So going overslot in round 1 does not preclude getting really good top-80 guys in round 2, even at-or-below slot. Likewise Monday may draft really well even if they take nothing but slot guys.

Do we have any velocity or scouting reports on him this summer? Is his velocity average enough to be a reasonably legit prospect? Having him put up some really nice games reminds me that it will be nice to have three 2nd-round picks on Monday.

Any velocity updates on recent Lange and Little? Sometimes I get some in April, when it's maybe cold or they haven't really gotten into a groove; but also when they aren't at all tired yet. A couple of months in now with regular rotation, I'm curious what they've got on a good night like this?

Life has been too crazy to read all of the nightly minor league discussion threads. Has there been scouting info on swarmer? I assume he's standard 90-93 fastball/curve guy?

"Expect" more, yes. But what you heard/reports was 90-92 early, and 88 late. That's about what we've gotten in his earlier bad outings, and as fast or faster than what we heard last summer. So yeah, we all want >92, and expect that based on #1 draft selection and pre-draft scouting reports. But thus far he's consistently not shown it. Thus far. Hopefully some warm weather and some success, or perhaps a little more confidence with his mechanics, and we'll be getting 93-95 routinely later on this season. Hopefully.

Thanks much for the Little report, Cubswin. 88-92 velocity is what Lester and Quintana use, to variable success I guess; both are control artists. Wonder how well going with average velocity and variable control will work? still hoping to see at least a little more velocity at some point. If they drafted him expecting him to be an 88-92 guy, I'm not sure that's really a great 1st rounder plan..... Think they may have been seeing more velocity than that when they used a first on him. We shall see, I guess.

yeah, Hill put together some "wow" numbers at Iowa, and Cashner was viewed as a pretty high-ceiling, serious prospect at the time. Not sure he ever pitched much at Iowa, but I recall Guzman being viewed as a really serious prospect, high-ceiling guy; I guess that was entering his AA season, though, and he didn't return to Iowa until a rehab (or two) later.... Couple other guys who weren't on the Cashner/Samardz/Hill level, maybe, much less Prior/Guzman/Wood/Cruz/Z, were Sergio Mitre and Todd Wellemeyer. I think Alzolay is viewed more highly, though, particularly in retrospect given the actual careers Mitre and Wellemeyer ended up having, and particularly if we see last-night's version of Alzolay very often going forward. If that's going to be even semi-frequent/normal, he'll have a chance to become viewed as a top-100 prospect, which I don't recall Mitre or Wellemeyer ever being perceived as.

Hudson with 7 K's. A Hudson who K'd people might start to be more interesting.

It's a long season. Will be interesting to see how a lot of the pitchers settle in over the marathon. Inconsistency tends to be the name of the game at all levels of baseball, so nothing crazy about ODLC looking bad, then good, then perhaps just as bad next time. Too few starts to figure out what the ratio of good/bad will be for any of these guys, yet, over the long haul. I look at the Cubs, Lester's been alternating between bad-sharp-bad-sharp. Darvish has been mostly off but on some. Q has been off and on. Just as I don't think that DArvish's present 6.0 ERA or Quintana's 8+ ERA well represent what they'll probably be over the duration, or that Chatwood is likely to sustain his >8BB/9IP rate, likewise I don't know how representative some of the early results are for the minor league pitchers. But it would be nice if the good outings started to become more normal and the struggle outings rare outliers.

Ademan has K'd over 40% of his AB. Obviously early and small sample, but at this point I wonder if his hitting development might not have been better served with a South Bend assignment. Probably makes no difference, though.

Thanks rubes. Yeah, for a guy whose scouting reports and 1st-round status assumed a plus fastball, that's nothing to get excited about. Hopefully we'll see better in future. But you'd almost think with the adrenaline of opening day, you might expect extra fast if anything... O well, better luck next time, I guess.

What kind of velocity did you see?

Not great opener for little: 0.2-2-4-4-2-1. Pulled him mid-inning at 35 pitches and still only retired two guys.

3 players as in position players, or including pitchers too?

Yeah, obviously odds aren't good for anybody in the 63-98 range. And certainly the Cubs have scads of people who have done research on past outcomes, so they ought to have a more informed take on how variably bad the relatively bad odds are. I thought they'd said in past that odds were higher for finding a pitcher in rounds 2-4 than a hitter, but I may not have understood or remembered correctly. Probably sounds dumb, but one of the reasons I'm interested in drafting pitcher is because you don't need to be 3-plus-pitches-with-control-and-command to end up being valuable. A command pitcher with 3 plus pitches is rare and is really good. But the Cubs have 14 pitchers and use all 14 plenty; you don't need to be a high-end starter to be useful and to have an opportunity to contribute. Plus for position guys, you need to be really good to get a chance to start, and even then you might be blocked. But a pitcher is never blocked.

If they spend all five top-100 picks on pitchers, I wouldn't mind a bit, myself. Maybe without being a great thinker on this; but I'd rather see picks 2-5 go to pitchers. First round pick, if there is an excellent hitting prospect there, terrific. But by pick 63, don't think the chances are very good to get a guy who can both hit and field and hit with power. Foreseeing which pitcher is going to work out is harder than with players, so I think your chance of getting lucky on pitchers in round 2 and 3 is better than with hitters. I also feel like pitchers are better trade fodder.

Lange will not get his first pro win tonight. Pen gives up 2 in the 6th, walks in the tying run. 4-4.

Lange's done after 5, 2 runs, 1 earned. Abbott's done after 5, 5K/1BB but 7 hits and 4 runs. But Abbott is in position to win his first pro decision.

Submitted by Arizona Phil on Mon, 04/09/2018 - 3:31pm Permalink Tennessee RHSP Adbert Alzolay pitched in Extended Spring Training intrasquad game this morning (Monday 4/9) on Field #6 at the Riverview Baseball Complex: 3.1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 7 K, 2/1 GO/AO, 59 pitches (37 strikes)