craig

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.

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.