craig

Thanks, Tom. Obviously they always list the top end. So probably a 93-94 guy will routinely be working 88-91. Still, it seems the reports have enough velocity to pitch with. It's usually going to location and movement that get guys out more than pure speed. And in all of the scouting stuff, it was much more for his control and pitching than his raw velocity that give Hatch his value. So, if his velocity is his weakest quality, and that's still 93-94, I think you've certainly got a guy with a chance to be a very effective pitcher. Will be fun to see how he does next season. I'll be disappointed if he doesn't have pretty good success at Myrtle. In terms of "best fastball", I think Brady Clark will certainly be faster, among the new selections. Faster is one thing; "better" is another. Will be fascinating to see how next season plays out for those two guys. With you, Tom, I'll be a little disappointed if Hatch doesn't start out at Myrtle, and have good success. For Clark, I'll be disappointed if he doesn't pitch well enough at South Bend to pitch his way up to Myrtle by some point during the season. I may be wrong on those, though. Cubs have seemed to avoid moving guys too much during their first full pro season. And have also sometimes surprised me by starting guys lower than I expected. Regardless, really hope both of those guys have the health, and velocity, and effectiveness next season so that twelve months from now both will look like guys who will have useful major-league careers.

Great stuff, cal, thanks for both the reports and the chats. Interesting in the NWL that Eugene is viewed as such a pitcher-oriented park. That was not true at Boise. The notes on Galindo weren't very detailed, although the "big arm" wasn't familiar. The notes on Pieters were interesting, sounds like a pretty athletic outfielder. Mentioning Clifton as a 93-95 guy with a shot at three above-average pitches, plenty of reason to hope there. Still, being ranked behind somebody like Happ suggests not a lot of managers-buzz for him, tools-wise. If the report is underselling him, I think it might be on account of the curveball. Reports haven't been many, and not real consistent, but my impression is that his curve might be pretty good, if things go well for him in future. The comments that Paulino lacks command are disappointing, albeit not that surprising. We'll see how that goes next year. One observations is that most of these guys, personality seems to often get more buzz than tools. Happ isn't that good defensively and isn't that good as a hitter... but he's universally regarded as a strong worker. Dewees has negligible power and no arm... but he's a hustler. Paulino is short on control... but he's competitive. Wilson can't hit that well... but is working diligently to learn. Clifton really knows how to pitch. There is so much talent in the major leagues, and so much competitive drive among players who get there, that I'm not sure that diligent work is going to enable guys who are variably limited in talent to succeed. Still, it's very fun to have an organization where professionalism, smarts, and strong effort are so much the norm and not the exception. Very fun to root for "overachiever" guys who are getting the most out of whatever talents they do have.

Az Phil

1. If the Cubs include him in a trade, I'll look forward to what the Cubs get. 2. I don't see many trade targets to use him for, myself. *The rotation has Hammel #5 and Montgomery #6 under club control. Unless they trade Hammel, I don't really see a present rotation spot. *Perhaps as more likely than trading Hammel is simply not resigning Fowler. 3. I think Almora's usage next year and behind is interlinked with Fowler. If Fowler ends up back, not that much role for Almora. But if the Cubs don't invest what it takes to keep Fowler, then there is opportunity for Almora. 4. If so, I envision Maddon doing mix-and-match. If Almora hits well, he'll play a lot, as much as his performance deserves. If he doesn't, Heyward can perhaps pick up a lot of CF starts. Almora, Heyward, Zobrist, Bryant, Soler, Schwarber, possibly Coghlan or Szczur, Maddon will have an ample collection to choose from. But without Fowler starting and leading off almost every day, if Almora produces he'll get used. *If he does hit well enough to stay in the lineup a lot, that will improve an already historically-great defense even further. *But even if he doesn't, Heyward in center with Bryant or Zobrist in at least one of the corner spots won't be a bad defensive outfield. And could be really good offensively.

1. Agree, Clifton is an example of a raw projection guy, who has developed very nicely to this point. Scouts projected possibilities for him from the start. *That said, he had K's from the start. If K's are a significant indicator, as Tom and I have suggested, from that sense Clifton "performed" from the start. *K/BB is very different; walks can be refined/reduced... sometimes. Clifton has improved predominantly by lowering the denominator! (Kerry Wood is an example of a great prospect who had blah K/BB because he was so wild, early on. When he got the walks down to manageable level, he took off.) 2. de la Cruz had good K's even in his first little sample. Which was only 11 innings anyway. In his first full summer, his numbers were excellent. (Although being 19 in the DSL, with a 64K/75IP ratio, wasn't that age/league exceptional, even though his K/BB and ERA were very good.) 3. Each prospect develops individually and uniquely. Case by case. 4. K's is an excellent but imperfect indicator. Samardzija had two >9K/9IP seasons in majors, and 5 straight >8. A very strong stuff/strikeout guy in the majors. But in the minors, it was 5, 4, 5, all while always being old-for-league. Scouting/velocity always knew he had a good fastball; but you don't K people with the fastball, you K with off speed. He was trial-and-erroring with breaking stuff until he finally settled into something. It happens. 5. I think stats are more predictive for hitters than pitchers. Hitters get stronger and add power, absolutely. But I don't believe the hitting tools change tremendously. If a guy's vision and mental processing just aren't good at processing fast-moving pro-pitching, I don't think you "learn" that with experience. Think that's mostly inherent. Yes, strategy and approach can improve; yes a guy can build up muscle and become able to clear the fences at 24 when he wasn't strong enough at 18; yes a guy can kind of learn to go the opposite way, or learn to pull the ball. So sure, there's lots of development possible. But usually, if a guy isn't very gifted at making contact at age 19, he's not going to be very good at 24. (I've got my doubts whether DJ Wilson has the pure ability to hit....) *Contreras may be as strong a counter-example as I can ever remember in the Cubs system. But pitchers, they are more changeable. You can tweak a delivery; you can work to make the delivery more uniform between different pitches, so that hitters can't "tell" whether it's fastball or off speed; a guy who didn't have a cutter can often add one, to great effect; a guy who didn't have a change can work at it and eventually perhaps have it click and become an effective pitch. I think if you've got velocity and the ability to command the fastball, over time you can sometimes develop and master some other pitches. I think it's much more common to see significant changes in how a pitcher profiles over time, than for a hitter. *Heh heh, did I ever mention that I love the cutter? :)

Tom, I agree in large part with this. There's something of the "rich-get-richer" aspect. Guy who already has good arm, even a little improvement can increase that separation from the norm. A guy who's already got good command can more easily introduce new pitches and refine them. A guy who already has a very repeatable delivery can more easily eliminate the inconsistencies and improve command, etc.. But by "perform well", what are you mostly factoring? FIP? K-rate? K-BB? I have no system, but look at all of that kind of stuff. *Faustino had a very pedestrian K-rate, in the 6's only. *Garcia's wasn't that hot either. 7.4. His walk-rate was really low, though, so his K/BB was strong. *Ocampo had a solid K-rate, but his walk-rate was terrible. *Clifton had a poor walk-rate at Boise. For me: 1. I think I tend to look at K-rate for present "stuff", and figure that BB's can be variably reduced with time. 2. I think BB's as a manifestation of control problems can be reduced with time. (Clifton's made massive reduction in his walk-rate, which is a huge factor; but I also assume the reduction in walks also manifests a tremendous improvement in command and location. it's remarkable to me, actually, how much that improved by the end of the season.) But I also always wonder with "wild" guys. For a lot, a guy who struggles with control and fastball control when he's 18 might always have issues. 3. K-rate reflects present stuff. But I think guys can develop good pitches over time. Maybe this summer Yunior Perez threw little but fastballs (beats me). But he's got lots of years ahead to work on grip. Seven years from now, he might have added all three of slider/cutter/change, even if he may not have any of those in more than rudimentary form now. Most K's come on off-speed movement. So guys who throw fast and can control their fastball now, that doesn't preclude developing the support pitches in time. (Perez is a guy I'm hoping all of that happens with.) 4. I'm pretty interested in size. de la Cruz got bigger and stronger. Arguello said that Brailyn Marquez looks bigger and stronger, impressive size. Eloy the hitter got much bigger and stronger physically from two summers ago. Yunior Perez lists at 6'4" 190; maybe he'll be an Edwards, but fair chance that when he's 21 he'll be a lot bigger and stronger.... and maybe faster as well. Clifton is an example, he's filled out a lot since he was drafted, and my understanding is that consistent fastball velocity has increased accordingly. *The size factor is significant in my book, which is one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to assume that Faustino and Garcia have the same capacity to improve their stuff that Perez and Marquez have.

Thanks, Tom. Heh heh, we go with what we've got at the time. We'll get more info as time goes by. I was very surprised that Paredes didn't make that list. Usually the ASL isn't a super big league or a super deep league, since most college draft picks never factor on those lists. But at the same time, it's a really difficult league because each team carries long rosters, guys are coming and going from the draft and on up to short-season, and it really is instructional, so I think a lot of the pitchers are doing a lot of their work outside of games, so the sample size for the other managers and Mitchell tends to be modest. So, no top-20. *But Allesandro would have been top 10 *Paredes was just off the list. *Moreno was just off the list. *Assad didn't miss by a lot. And so much is projection. Who's going to get stronger and faster, who's going to add velocity, who's going to learn control, who's going to learn to hit a curve. Who knows.

Carrera is 5'10"; what do you have on him that gives him higher upside than the tall decent-velocity Assad? I don't recall much-if-any scouting on him, other than the stats which show excellent control. Thanks for the "5-tool" scouting on Paredes. That's helpful and meaningful and encouraging. Yeah, the arm is good. I agree, that having a guy who's pretty good SS but can be an excellent 2B is often a high value. The power, of course, is crucial. Part of power is having the levers and bat speed and exit velocity, all that stuff. But a lot of HR's is based on skill and vision. A lot of light-tower BP guys rarely hit them in games. And a lot of the game HR's are by guys with unexceptional raw power but guys who are more frequently able to apply the power they do have and drive the ball. So, if indeed he's a very good contact hitter, he may hit more HR's than guys with more BP-power. Hope he developed well, and we see solid defense and good HR-power down the road. Like you, I'm not worried about the "fitness" bit. A couple of Arguello pictures included Paredes this week. He's a thicker guy with thick legs, but he doesn't look overweight to me. If he's built more like Gleyber and Baez than like the other SS's in instrux, that doesn't seem prohibitive. Just may provide stronger legs for hitting. May entail slower legs for base running, or perhaps for defensive range.

Tom, couple thoughts: 1. Paredes: The tool for making contact and not striking out is the first tool for a player. *Defense and power also help to differentiate a Russell from a LaStella. *I wonder what he's got in those areas? *Defense: That the league managers, Mitchell, Phil, and Arguello uniformly don't seem to project him as a SS suggests that the defense may not be flashy, presumably more 3B/2b than SS. *Most good defensive 2B/3B were once SS's, so I'm hopeful that his defense will be an asset in the infield, even assuming he doesn't stick at SS. *Baez and Russell were both guys with bigger/stronger body-shapes than traditional SS, who back at age 18 were projected to move off due to body configuration. Wrongly so, as we now know. So hopefully the same will prove out for Paredes. *That said, even amateur viewers like Az Phil and Mitchell saw the SS defense immediately stand out strongly for Baez and Gleyber. Doesn't seem the same for Isaac. If he looked notably good as a defensive SS, I think the managers and Mitchell would have noticed, and gotten him into the top-20. *Power: I also think that Mitchell and a lot of coaches/managers tend to watch BP. I'm guessing if Paredes had exciting BP-power, again he'd not be missing the list. So, I'm guessing his present BP power isn't noteworthy. *Still, I'm hoping that he's young enough and well built enough, and 6-feet isn't too short for a lot of guys who hit with power, that some HR's might come in future. *Obviously being able to hit the ball on the nose often is crucial to power, so perhaps the gift of contact combined with hopefully average raw power will still produce solid HR numbers, as opposed to LaStella/Theriot/Barney. *Certainly his XBH would suggests reasonable power. 2. Assad lists at 6'2", he's the longest of the Mexicans. There are plenty of high-end hitters who are 6'0", and perhaps it's easier to have a compact swing. But the frequency of high-end pitchers at 5'11" and 6'0" is modest, obviously with some exceptions. *So I agree, Tom, that being a stocky short-ish hitter is very different from being a short, stocky pitcher with short levers. *This is why I'm relatively guarded on Carrera (5'10") and Garcia (6'0"). *There are exceptional guys who are short and effective. Hopefully one of our short guys will be one of those exceptions. 3. Stats/age: Young-for-league is such a value, particularly for teenagers, in part because for certain body configurations the guy is likely to continue to fill out and add strength, either velocity or power. *That possibility may be reduced if a guy is already filled out at 17? *I think Tseng was an example, his stats/age at age 19 were quite impressive. But he was already filled out physically when he signed, had nothing to add. And his 3-pitch repertoire was already rather advanced, so he didn't have a ton to add there either. *Very different from a guy like Perez. Inexperienced, so his repertoire and command is completely undeveloped. Undeveloped physically, so his strength will change.

Thanks for BA comments, cal.

Arguello has a ton of nice pictures up. Nice to get a kind of picture of the guys. That was sure a lot of guys they signed in the 15 class. With smart guys and strong development process, hopefully a number of them click.

Yeah, not sure they've really scouted great on the pitching. But, there's probably always a fair bit of luck involved. May also be that their scouting system is better established now than it was in the Blackburn draft. And you never know, maybe development will end up better than we think? *Zastryzny looked pretty good, maybe he'll be a useful lefty reliever or 6th starter? *Maybe the relief version of Pierce Johnson will stay healthy, and end up being a good reliever? He was 35K/22 inning as a reliever; there is some talent there, I think. *Chad Clifton has been a very nice development story, I think, even if Skulina and Sands haven't. Maybe Steele will make it in some capacity in the long run? *And then there's Cease, whose early development, in terms of control and stuff, seems pretty favorable. Heh heh, if we got a couple of pitchers in the 30's and another in the 2nd round, I'd certainly be delighted to give those scouts and development guys a couple more tries at it!

Thanks for correction on Weaver. He was pick 28, I think, so wasn't literally comp round either (but close enough). I'm thinking HS, because sometimes talented HS pitchers last that long, in part due to the obvious risk. But no problem taking a good college pitcher either. (Lance Lynn, for example.) I'm partly thinking like 2010 as an example: 34 Blue Jays *Aaron Sanchez (minors) 38 Blue Jays *Noah Syndergaard (minors) 43 Mariners *Taijuan Walker (minors) Our guy Mike Montgomery was a comp pick. When you look through the comp area for most drafts, there are a lot of guys who don't end up being very good, whether pitchers or players. The Cubs with Ryan Flaherty, Brett Jackson. The success rate isn't great, so pitcher-injury isn't the only risk. Will take some good scouting and some good luck. But there are usually some guys in that area who become variably good.

Marques and Perez are definitely interesting. Assad. Obviously Albertos. Ocampo. But yeah, as you say, the pitchability 6-footers, Antigua/Tseng types come to mind. Steele 91-93, hope you're right. But I assume those are topping velocities. The couple of game reports I've seen were predominantly 80's, with an occasional 4-seam 91-93. Maybe a Travis Wood ceiling, without the curve? Or Clayton Richard with less velocity?

Yeah, I'm not necessarily enthused about TJ rehabbers, but I'm fine with trusting the admin on this. They've got more info and will have plenty of time to do a lot of thinking/analysis. But I think a lot of good pitchers were HS picks in the comp-area. Syndegaard, Matz, Luke Weaver, some good talent is available in that area. We'll have two shots. Not sure I'd be trying to burn it all on one superslot and go cheap with the other; may just want to do two pure scouting picks. Not sure how our scouting is, though. Our scouts thought that Sands and Steele somehow had lots of projection, and Blackburn, and instead not of those guys ever got any faster than when they were in high school, with Sands getting slower. They scouted Stinnet as having this strong velocity and terrific control capacity; neither has proven remotely true. So, maybe we just don't know pitchers, beats me. Tom, I wonder how much talent some of the Latins have, in terms of "elite" potential. Being an effective finesse pitcher in the dSL is one thing; but elites kind of need some pretty good physical capacity and velocity and breaking balls and stuff. No idea which have high ceilings, versus being lmited-tool overachiever guys. Hopefully Arguello and Phil will get to see several of them and pass along some scouting observations.

My feeling is that by the time you're drafting in the 30's, there are some very talented and high-ceiling pitchers available, particular HS pitchers. Yes, they have significant injury risk, as do all pitchers. But by that point, the risk that a position player will fail because he's just not good enough is just as high-risk. Given the Cubs have almost no excellent rotation prospects, and that our staff is old, I'd like to see pitchers. We could use a couple of high-end arms.

Thanks for the links, guys. Cool to get some up-beat impressions on Morel. Will be interesting to see how some of these guys progress. Torres and Eloy stood out pretty quickly, and that class looks to be impact. Between Sierra, Morel, Amaya, Albertos, and Paredes, will be interesting to see if the Cubs can get a couple of guys out of last year's class. With nothing international on the sandwich years, and no high draft picks this year, it's probably VERY important that the Cubs get some significant impact prospects out of that international class. My guess is the Cubs won't be signing any draft-pick FA's this winter, so if Fowler goes, having a first and a comp pick could give them some chance to add a couple of good talents. Obviously two picks in the 30's isn't like having top 10 picks like we built with, and maybe you take a shot with a comp pick on a projection pick and he never ends up any faster than Paul Blackburn. But given the Cubs scouting, I'd be pretty happy to take two shots at a couple of pitchers with our two picks.

I like the "advanced" reference to Eloy. Also very encouraged at the Albertos input. *70-changeup. Hadn't appreciated that before. If a guy throws 97 but his better pitch is a change, that's a lot of possibility. *"Stuff guy". *"Will build up some instructional innings". That doesn't suggest there is a presently serious arm injury, or that any surgery has been done or anything.

We would be complaining about 38 of Daytona's last 49 games getting rained out if we were still there. Nice!!!

Myrtle scores 3 in the 7th to take a 5-3 lead. Eloy K'd with runners 2nd/3rd-no-outs-tied, but they got two after than anyway. had bases loaded one out, chance to score more, but DP ended threat. Pugliese pitching on into his 4th inning. Torrez and McNeil should both be available, I think, having last pitched 4 and 3 days ago.

Thanks for pointing him out. I'd been thinking the same thing, that he's been good for Eugene, just as he'd been good for Miss and in Cape. Sure, he's a short reliever. But a lefty who can throw strikes in the 90's, not sure why that might not play up. Will be interesting to see how he does going forward. I'm a huge believer in the value of relievers.

Thanks for passing along that stuff/scouting info, Win. The favorable report on the change is news to me. I believe it. That would help explain both how he's gotten to be so good at the end of the year, and also why he's been so very effective against lefties. Big curve and change, are there any harder pitches to control? Not sure how well that control will carry over into next year, but if he's actually developed a good change, and can throw his curve for strikes, that's a good combo.

Myrtle goes down deep in extra innings. Daury Torrez has an excellent game in relief, 4K's in 3 perfect innings. Offense-wise, that's a really weak roster, and other than Clifton not sure there's much very significant on the pitching-side, either. Still, when the big-league pitching staff normally carries 13 pitchers, the 6th starter and 12th/13th guys on the roster aren't always especially talented, but can still make a difference. So who knows with guys like Morrison, Leal, Underwood, Torrez, or McNeil whether one of them might develop favorably and end up being a useful 12th/13th pitcher type guy. Leal won't turn 22 till after spring training begins. I'll be curious to see whether the winter reports include any higher velocity compared to results 1-2 years past? His composite numbers are somewhat blah, but he's 39K/8BB/38 innings over his last ten starts. If we were to receive reports that his regular working fastball velocity has bumped up from upper-80's into low-90's now, and that he's now implemented an effective cutter to go along with improving change and slider, maybe he'd look more plausible as a 4th starter than he was perceived before. Torrez supposedly throws fairly hard now that he's in relief this year, and his low-slot fastball might seem kinda tough on righties. His composite K-rate is way up (almost as many K's this year in relief as he had last year in twice as many innings). And he's finished pretty strong, with some notably good box-scores within the last month. (27K/5BB/19IP, 4-of-12 hits in one outing.) Will be curious whether either Torrez or Leal get 40-man roster. Or Ryan McNeil.

Paredes-Martinez-Rose go 0-13, and Eloy only 1-4. South Bend loses in 10, 4-3. Nice 84-55 season, but they're done. Very fine record for a team that really only had Eloy as a high-end prospect.

"Markey, Skulina, Clark, Miller, Mekkes, etc have taken more seriously on this board than Kellogg" Kellogg is a much better prospect than Markey, Skulina, or Tseng. They have failed, he hasn't. Until he fails, he's a prospect, in my book. But certainly Tseng and Jokish are illustrations that having a resume of Kellogg-esque numbers in the Midwest League is little proof that a guy will be successful at higher levels. I'll keep an eye on Kellogg as long as he's having success; for a guy with minus-velocity I'll probably give up pretty quick if/when he fails. Here's Kellogg's resume: http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/profile.asp?P=ryan-kellogg Not sure how exciting 3.15, 3.76, and 3.60 ERA's are in college, with K/9 of 5-6-7.