craig

Anderson gives up a 5-run 3rd. Jose Paulino, after starting year on DL and then pitching poorly when he was eventually activated, has now sequenced several good starts together. Would be fun to imagine him becoming a useful prospect, and that perhaps the early bad outings were his "spring training", and this is the real guy.

1. Paredes has really been looking good as a hitter. I wondered about the power pre-season; we age-assumed some power would come, but would it actually? It has, just as age-based normal. 2. Defense: I know it's not modern and fashionable to give any consideration defensively to errors. Sophisticated people kind of laugh at people who act as if errors are a measure of defensive effectiveness. Still, every error made is a lost out, And 10 extra errors can kind of neutralize the value of 10 extra highlight-reel plays. No idea how his range is, but Paredes has made only 6 errors. Their really is value in a guy who can consistently make the routine play. And I think a guy who doesn't make errors probably has innate hands and coordination that doesn't need to be taught; that kind of guy will probably have an easier time being reliable as a multi-position player, or in adapting to a switch to 2B or 3B. *Zach short, the college veteran, has 17. *Gleyber had 26 his year in Midwest, in not quite 3/2 as many games. *Baez, 19 in the Midwest league, had 15 errors in about 2/3 as many games. 3. Size/build: "stout middle infielder" is what article said. There have been multiple references to Paredes being "thickly built", etc. Obviously he's not Carl Edwards or Ademan, and he won't have as much future "filling out" added strength. But after seeing the occassional game clip and stuff this summer, he isn't nearly as "stout" or "thick" as I was expecting. he seems just fine to me. is he going to be fast or transition to CF, obviously no. Is he going to physically grow into way more future BP power, no. But he certainly doesn't "eyeball" as "stout" or as having a weight problem. Not nearly as big as Baez, for example. I'm not saying he's going to be an asset defensive big-league SS; the bar there is extraordinarily high. But I'm thinking the "stout" stuff as the standard part of the narrative is overblown.

16K/1BB over last 10 innings. Is this the short stocky Mexican guy who supposedly has a decent fastball and sometimes curve? Was used and decent in a Mexcian league at 18, then kind of went backwards last year? Did he cost anything? Wondering if he's JAG who's happening to put up some numbers against short-season. Or if he might be a big-league prospect. Anybody have any insights or thoughts on him? Cubswin, thanks for notes on Morel the other day. Might be a good hitting prospect, if he adds strength. Hmm, 11 errors in 23 games isn't super encouraging defensively.

Same.

Think I'd rather get a good 1st rounder. O well.

Agree with Dave. The only other "conspiracy theory" option, other than injury, would be that the Cubs don't want to tell Estrada. If they announce/leak what Lange gets, Estrada'a advisor might then be free to demand every dollar left. But if Estrada comes to terms and agrees and signs, and Lange is further under than Estrada could count on, that might free a few extra bucks for whatever use they might have.

Yes, thanks also. win, I believe Az Phil has noted in past that Maples delivery doesn't have much deception, and his take (this may have been a 2016 comment) was that his fastball (at that time) didn't have much movement? So, the sense was that while the fastball had velocity, it still was pretty hittable. Not as excellent or valuable a weapon as one might assume based on velocity. Does that makes sense, or seem to jive with what you've seen? I may be misremembering, so forgive me in advance, I don't want to be attributing observations to Phil that weren't actually his, and that I've misremembered and twisted/fabricated in my own fuzzy memory. And even if I am kinda remembering sorta accurately, even then a post from over 12 months ago based on observations that precede that may not represent current realities, so who knows. Even this year, in Maples breakout year at age 25, he's still got bad walk-rates. Not sure whether his command issues will prevent him from ever having any lasting success in the majors. Would really be a cool story if he did end up having lasting success. Maybe a chance to be a wilder version of Grimm?

Obviously in Estrada case, he can't sign till Lange does. That would be the mistake that Houston made couple summers back.

Yeah, no way he pitches again this summer. I'd figure him for A+ next spring, assuming he looks healthy and OK in camp.

Lange 8K/4BB/2hits over 7.1. Walked in a run in the 3rd, that was it, and was apparently cruising down the stretch, I believe got last 8 guys and 12 of last 13. Kendall Rogers said he K'd the last guy in the 7th with a 93 mph fastball.

Thanks for the numbers Dave, and agree it's a surprise. Bad one, but perhaps also a good one. Bad re Estrada: maybe we don't have that much to spend on him, maybe they won't even get him signed, and even if they do maybe that means he wasn't valued as that great of a prospect; if he barely gets a million and the rest of the league let him go to round 6 because they didn't think he was worth even a mill. But I think it's very good re Abbott. Think we've been assuming he was a budget pick, was taken to save $$ for Estrada, and isn't really a legit 2nd-round talent. This suggests that the Cubs scouting saw otherwise. There were other college pitchers who'd have signed for the same slot value; Cubs obviously liked him a lot better than some of the media scouting sources, or perhaps better than other teams. Of course it's possible that they mis-scouted him and he'll prove he's not really a 2nd-round value. But I think the Cubs have some smart scouts and are pretty thorough. I'm really pretty happy that they think he's good enough to be worth full 2nd-round slot, and that he was the best BPA there. That's more fun and makes me more optimistic than if they think he's a 4th round talent.

Surprised at full slot there. Curious.

I thought they'd save a little more, was guessing $2.0 flat. Oh well. On Meredith, he can easily back off of Clemsen in the event Estrada doesn't want to sign. But I think this will be pretty standard, like it is every year under the new CBA. You get your first ten, you get most of your college picks after that, and you don't sign anybody 20-or-younger taken after round 20. It's just the way it is. And I don't want to, really; because that would mean Estrada was a screwup and wasn't going to sign.

Yup, backup-plan insurance pick for sure.

Yeah. But yes, who knows what will happen? Maybe Abbott will end up being better than Estrada or Enlow! Who knows?

Heh heh, who needs such a big scouting-staff budget, if all you need to do is scout the Cape Cod League? :):):)

Lots of positive love for curveballers. But several common problems with curveballers: 1. It's super hard to control and command. 2. A lot of curveballers aren't perfect and hang a few. The hangers can go for HR's, more often in majors than with weaker college hitters. Yes, a lot of killer curveballs can be really tough on hitters; but the frequency of mistakes, and resulting damage, is part of the effectiveness equation. 3. A lot of curveballers can kill in college or low minors, because they can use unexceptional fastball to get to two strikes, then use curve as putaway. But curve can't kill if you can't get to two strikes. Not trying to be negative, I'm fine with trusting the Cubs judgments here. Just hard to throw curves consistently.

Seems like the cubs grabbed a lot of "not as good as previously" guys. Lange, Thompson, Estrada, Thomas, all kind of "off years" or not as good as they used to be. Don't expect to see any of these guys pitching this summer, other than maybe the senior sign closer. Or if any do, it will be very, very limited. Guessing the Cubs liked Estrada better than his BA and mlb rankings. Plenty of overage and underslot cash to play with.

Agree, think scouting must be a lonely job, and these guys love baseball and scouting. So if a smart fan like you talks and asks questions, detailed questions perhaps, or scouting opinions, I expect many of those guys are quite free and happy to talk. Everybody's different, of course. But my friend used to go to tons of games, and he would very often talk to scouts and get lots of insights.

Good outing for Moreno. 2 walks, 2 singles, 1 flyout in 5 shutout.

Copied from friend on another Cubs board, he didn't link source for this:

But, are you doing that? We got Schwarber way under slot and got to spread his money into Sands, Steele, and Cease, on top of that....You don't do it, unless you truly like Rucker, Gonzalez, or whoever.....But, it also doesn't mean you're going light up front for ONE guy. Spreading that savings out is likely a much higher percentage play, especially in a weak draft. Cubs account is that they liked Schwarber pretty much best. Not sure if that was true, or if it was good scouting. But, that takes the complexity away. If the two guys they like the best are also two underslot guys, duh, win-win no-brainer. What I'm saying is that *IF* (hypothetically) they really liked Conforto better, but he'd have demanded an extra $500K and cost them Carson Sands, it's not so obviously a win-win no-brainer. If the two guys they like best are the cheapest, sure underslot them. If it's a have-no-clue-there-are-a-bunch-of-equal guys, then may as well take the cheapest. But if there are one or two guys who you really scout as better, I think I might just go after my two favorite guys in round one, even if it derives me of a chance for Carson Sands or D.J. Wilson later on. I'd be pretty hesitant to settle for a lesser guy in round one in order to save up for later rounds. If it's a thin draft, that may be all the more reason to get the best guys that are available while they're still there. Not to be overly shortsighted, but perhaps selecting Schwarber, who's a career .207 hitter and is hitting .162 this year, and is a fringy LF/DH, maybe won't turn out to be quite as genius as the story assumes?

Those seem to be arguments that prep pitchers are bad-risk/bad-value picks for $2M. In which case, not sure I see great wisdom in going cheap and compromising quality in the first, in order to make a bad-risk/bad-value expenditure in the 2nd.

I'm less confident than you guys about the availability and wisdom of going cheap in round 1 and spending it overslot in round 2. Maybe it's genius. But if there's a $2M HS pitcher hanging at 67, I partly wonder why? Why didn't somebody else take that guy during picks 15-66? If there are ten prep pitchers with $2 price-tags, and 9 are already taken and one is left, might suggest guy isn't perceived as equal value to the previous 9. Put differently, if a guy is firm in his pricetag, and if nobody drafts him at his pricetag, does that hint that he's not perceived as excellent value at that price? Will be interesting. Obviously it's all about scouting and player evaluation, so if you can get your favorite prospects and save money besides in round 1, win-win. But it may be best to play it simple, to take the two best players you can in the first round, even if they come at or affordably over slot. If you get two guys who you scouted among the top 20 guys in the draft with your top two picks, and if you scouted them wisely and they prove to really be two of the top 20 guys, you may do well to just keep it simple and get those two best, high-end guys that you can. There will still be potentially useful guys available for slot or modestly over slot in rounds 2 and 3. hatch isn't a super-star, but he's a good prospect that signed for 3rd-round slot. Zagunis was slot and he's a good prospect. Don't compromise too much on your 1st-round quality, is my keep-it-simple thought. But, of course I'll trust the analysis of the Cubs.

Agree, toonster, I think that's how it's continued. D1 is usually the more "winning" roster, as relates both to experience and sometimes talent. My recall is that D1 has tended to have both more 2nd-year guys who'd looked interesting; and more of the $$$-first-year guys. In the latter, it may be that the bigger-ticket guys are inherently not just more talented, but may also just be more smooth and polished and confident and ready. There have been a number of times when a pitcher who started D2 and was doing well, would get "promoted" to D1. And most of the promotions to Mesa are D1 guys. Not excellent analogy, but something like Myrtle to South Bend, or Eugene to Mesa. (Obviously poor analogy, since both D1 and D2 face the same league and competition in actual games.) I think it also probably goes with the territory that some of the D1 guys are 2nd-year (or sometimes even 3rd-year) guys. Perhaps more physically mature and more baseball polished and more ready to win DSL games; but in terms of big-league potential, you kinda figure anybody who isn't good enough for Mesa by 2nd year, probably isn't going to ever hit the majors. Having 2nd year guys might give D1 a better W-L record; but kinda hard to get very fired up for a 2nd-year guy who wasn't good enough for Mesa and age-wise a year old as well.