craig

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.

Who specifically are you talking about? Obviously for some players, an uptick in velocity is fleeting but it does happen to many HS kids who do maintain the velocity. It's a natural aspect of a teenager growing and maturing. The other concern is players who are a bit older who have an uptick in velocity and then blow out their arm almost immediately (Rob Whitenack comes to mind). Blackburn I think may have been a guy who was supposedly bumping up into the 93-94 velocity in the spring, but then never got back there again. Whatever, Carlson sounds like a really interesting possibility. Seems like a lot of very interesting possibilities. heh heh, I know it's probably super immature and juvenile and unsophisticated. But if the Cubs were to pick two first-round young non-college pitchers, I admit I'd think it was kind of fun to hope. Might have a little more upside than with the Zastryzny types.

Nice to have Albertos with an effective day.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billazbbphotog/status/870739225703981056[/tweet] Hits seem kinda rare for Adelman, though. Maybe a Barney type?

He's only 22, he's definitely putting up solid numbers in Tennessee.(though he is repeating the level) The stuff was never eye popping and it seemingly had regressed a bit. But, there's not been any reports surface this season yet, on how he's actually throwing..... Is he a 6th starter type? Maybe. But, its probably for a team trying to be horsefeathers. .... He's kind of a 50/50 guy, as far as [40-man0 goes, to me BTW...... With the rest of the season determining .... Yeah, time will tell. As you emphasize, we'll see, lots of season left to determine. His good May could be totally an outlier. Or maybe one of these days we'll get a fresh scouting report that sounds better, that makes him sound more promising, and that helps to explain how he's been doing this well. Still, I'm an optimistic guy, so I'm more interested/hopeful than you, Dave. Interesting thing in Tseng's recent starts has been that the K's have been solid. In four of last 6 starts, he's had as many or more K's than innings. His numbers really are pretty nice; 49/11/2 K/BB/HR. Probably flukey/lucky thing, and he's due to get pounded. I suspect the low HR's is the lucky part; his GO/AO is only 0.71, HR should be a vulnerability. But sometimes we find out that results aren't really so much luck, and perhaps reflect pitching realities that weren't were captured by our latest scouting report? I'm a fan of guys who don't walk people, and with K/BB >4. If he's good on 2/3 of K/BB/HR, he's got a chance. I konw your eval is bad #6 for a losing team. But I think we sometimes undervalue "back of rotation" guys. Heh heh, I think I forget the value of a decent "back of rotation" guy until we don't have one! When you're going with brett Anderson, maybe it would be nice to have a decent back-of-rotation guy. Anderson, Butler, John Lackey, those guys are starting 40% of the Cubs games; wouldn't be asking for a super-stud back-of-rotation guy to be better than all three of them? And on a team with a good defense, a good offense, and a good bullpen, all three of which I still hope prove true in future years even if for the moment the offense stinks, a solid #5 starter can start an awful lot of wins.

Wow. Fun.

Thanks, Dave, I've been wanting to get a report. I feel a little bipolar on that. Positive, that the fastball is good. Anytime it's a late-round college guy, I always wonder if the fastball isn't really major-league. But a good, deceptive, solid-90's fastball with location, that would seem quite legit. Having everthing else be mediocre/fringy/below-average, that's kinda disappointing. I'd thought that maybe there'd be the solid fastball plus one plus putaway pitch. The scouting report is kind of unexpected. K's normally come on breaking balls. If none of his offspeed is very good, how is he K'ing everybody? Weird.

I wonder about that. Have you seen him, or gotten good reports? I'd never seen the guy until spring training TV game. In that particular game, he looked like a liability defensively. Seemed kind of slow, dropped a ball that he got his glove on, and that I think would have been a pretty easy catch for somebody who wasn't as slow. Then seemed to have a hard time getting down to field a single in front of him, kind of fumbled it around. I was surprised by what a burly-chested top-heavy guy he was. Physically looked like one of the stronger wrestler-looking bodies on the team, more like Schwarber than a normal baseball guy. But, that was just a couple of plays, so who knows, and I'm no scout. But wasn't what I was expecting. I had these memories of supposedly running well and having base-stealing potential (he never actually did); talk about him perhaps playing some 2B (he never did); perhaps playing some CF (he hardly ever did). And of course the reports of lacking HR power. So I was surprised he looked more like a DH-slugger than like a fast limited-power utility guy.

Burks wouldn't make my Top 10, but mid teens. Hatch has some weird numbers. If I'm doing the math in my head, he's got a BABIP-against of over .350. His K/HR/IP splits are great. Walk-rate stinks and BABIP is lousy. If the latter is just a matter of bad luck, as opposed to getting behind all the time and throwing fastballs down the middle to keep the walks from being even worse.

Pretty amazing. 13 outs by K, one caught stealing, only two outs on batted balls. 9 balls in play, only got two of them out. Baseball is a funny game.

Volatile indeed. I'm an NFL Packers fan, so we're always drafting in the late 20's. I always figure that given the different valuation of players, when picking in the late 20's, you should pretty much expect that somebody who's in your top-20 on your board should last to your pick. If the Cubs can scout smart, so that their top-20 can really idenfity the best 20 players, I think they too should be able to get two of the top 20-25 players. Guessing which top-20-25 guys slip to them is hard/impossible to predict. But they'll have opportunity. Should be fun! Just hope they scout smart and guys stay healthy.

Thinking: 1. Too expensive to draft HS'er? 2. Too much inherent risk with HS'ers? or 3. We're in too Nowacrat a mode to go with two HSers, given Win-Now mindset? That HSers are too distant, even if they prove to be good long-term values once they eventually do arrive and thrive? I've got no problem with going HS, if scouting judges them as good value, risk considered, and if HS leverage doesn't make them overpriced. And even if waiting 5-years for a HS kid to blossom might not match our present ideal window-of-opportunity. Maybe that might actually be good, too.... Maybe 5 years out, that might provide a good timeline to replace one of the Russell/Baez/Bryant/Schwarber/Contreras/Hewyard guys leaving in FA. Seems weird to be looking for replacements already, but maybe that's a way. And if some of the young guys do end up stars/good enough to justify Cub extensions at high prices, the team will need some low-price guys to balance the budget.

Has anybody seen Michael Rucker, or have inside scoop? 32K/2BB/1HR/19.2IP, pretty good splits. What I think I know: 1. Lists as only 6'1", 185, so not a big guy. 2. 11th round, but got $180 overslot. So, the Cubs liked him kinda, although still $180K isn't exactly a bonus baby. 3. 23, so already kinda old. 4. Was 3rd team All-American at BYU last year, his only rotation year. 5. Started at Gonzaga (he's a Washington kid), pitched like 10 innings as freshman; sat out sophomore year while transferring; swing reliever/6-start guy as junior; last year Friday night starter as senior, 180 innings total over his four years in college. 6. The bizarre K/BB/IP splits he's showing this year have no precedent in college. He was <1K/IP at BYU, and senior year was first year his K/BB got as high as 3/1. So good chance this is kinda SSS non-sustainable fluke. 7. Perhaps relief is an advantage, don't mix in as many pitches? 8. Beats me, but maybe pitching in BYU/WAC is like pitching for the Rockies? All anti-pitcher environments, thin air, etc? Last year at BYU, he had a 2.76 ERA; the rest of the staff was 4.5, nobody else was less than 3.5, and BYU ERA-against >7. So perhaps relative to environment/competition, he was better than realized? 9. https://baseballdraftreport.com/tag/michael-rucker/ Listed Rucker as #158 draft prospect last year, quoting some scouting report that said: Draft scouting always seems to inflate everybody, but if in relief he's able to consistently pump it up and work at low 90's, with control, and has somehow tweaked up his slider into a good knockout pitch, maybe he's a thing?

Sounds pretty serious for Caratini. Sounds like he'll be out for quite some time.

Odorizzi has been a 2-3 WAR guy. If you end up getting a consistent, durable 2-3 WAR guy at end of round 1, that's not bad. But if that's the prospect's ceiling? Different story. Few guys reach or sustain their ceiling, so if that's the best you might possible get, and there is an 80% probability that you'll get less, that wouldn't seem a great value. I don't share Tom's premise, though, that the ceiling for Enlow would be Odorizzi level. I think there's the ceiling possibility for being considerably more than Odorizzi. Young, slender, projectible guy who might add considerably more velocity, and who pitches with balance and a good repertoire, there is at least a chance that guy could end up very, very good.

Thanks for Peyton notes. Had assumed as an old 29th rounder, that he had no moe than roster-fill velocity. If he's got good command of 92-94 sinker, that's not inadequate. Love to see Midwest guys do well, so would be fun to see him extend success and build a career.

slicing out the best possible sample of a guy and there he's still not striking anybody out / controlling the strike zone kind of seems like damning with faint praise kind of situation Fair enough. ....As far as the Ks, I get it. I love Ks, but that's not Hudson's game. If he had induced 39 ground outs vs. 8 fly ball outs in his last 4 starts, the lack of strikeouts becomes a lot more worrisome. Not trying to change your mind on him. Just stating why I'm encouraged. I'm also encouraged. Players have success in different way But counting the two XST games, he's had 8 starts, and 7 of them have been variably effective, he's only had one terrible start. It would seem that for now, as a 19/20 year old, relative to low-level hitting, he's pitching effectively. So, for the moment, being effective relative to his league, and certainly relative to his age, now seems the norm and not the exception. Usually being effective is a change compared to last summer, so I take that as encouragement. And the extraordinary GO/AO ratio seems reproducible enough to suggest that's no fluke. The K's are terrible, particularly in conjunction with the BB's which are mediocre. (And the BB's don't capture the other "wild" things, if you added in the HBP and the WP, the ratio of K's/"wild things" would be well below 1.) But you can get away with a lot if you never allow a HR. Tom has correctly mentioned the massive importance of HR-allowance rate (hello, Lackey and Underwood.....). That's the area where Hudson has excelled this season, and assuming the GO/AO is even remotely sustainable, that should continue to excel. HR/K/BB seem the big three to me; If the GO/AO allows the HR to be great, and the BB's are anti-awful, he's got a chance. It's odd that his K-rate is so exceptionally low, when at draft and in early camp, there was talk about his curve being so good. Most K's come on breaking balls, obviously, so it appears that was either untrue to start with, or that he's lost that curve or any semblance of control over it. So I think there may be a possibility (which doesn't mean probability) that K's might improve. He just turned 20; he might get a little faster, and grow into mediocre/average velocity. And sometimes guys who have just turned 20 can adjust/improve their curveball some.

Cease on DL

The lack of K's is a concern for both de la Cruz and Clifton, in my opinion. For high-stuff prospects, they might be too inconsistent as prospects to do it every time, but I'd expect a guy with a plus big-league arm and plus big-league stuff should dominate minor-league hitters on the occasional game when their stuff is on. Not every game, but I'd expect a 9K/1BB/6IP start now and then. de la Cruz has had only a single start where he out-K'd his innings, a 6K/5IP start. de la Cruz is supposed to have good stuff, but as a high-HR/low-K guy, maybe his stuff isn't all that excellent, or his fastball that notably fast or movement-ish? Lots of minor-leaguers can work at 90-92 and touch an occasional 95-96. And for a guy who's touted for his size, should he be worn out after 5 innings? Not sure that testifies that "big/strong/durable" is necessarily a true asset? But, the guy has only pitched 240 pro innings. Hopefully he'll gain consistency and sharpen up the change and offspeed. Just not sure the results indicate notable life on the fastball, or any high-end breaking stuff. Seems like a solid prospect, but probably not much change to be more than a #4 rotation type? Obviously with the Cubs potential defense and position group, if you have a collection of three #3/4 type rotation guys, a great pen, and find one or two top-end starters, you could win a ton of games.

Justin Steele has sequenced three decent starts, 2 earned runs over past three starts. His overall numbers are weird, 1.6 WHIP and giving up I think a .330 BABIP or something like that. His K/BB splits are terrible. Obviously he doesn't have especially good stuff, needs to get by with unexceptional stuff. And traditionally he's been wild, or at least inconsistent. But composite numbers are a mix of all games, and he's had two bad starts, one terrible; the other 6 have all been one earned run max. Has some groundball profile, so that's a good thing. Will be interesting to see how he can progress as the season progresses,and whether he can either improve his consistency or perhaps improve his K-quality. Would be fun to see him develop into a decent prospect.

Thanks for scouting account, Win. Very helpful. And glad to hear the report that Cease claim's it's not a big deal. Your observation that he was locating what catcher was asking for, that's encouraging, and that the hits were bloops, etc. Thanks also for links.