craig

I love Eloy as a prospect, but I wonder if the expectations aren't getting to be too much too fast, and that we might be a little disappointed when he goes to Myrtle and is solid but less-than-great early on. A thinking I always have is that from 19 to 20, a guy can often improve tremendously, so if he was already this good at 19 what might he do at 20. I'm still hoping for that. But I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers plateau or slip some during the first two months at Myrtle. 1. Cubs have been talking about wanting him to run deeper counts and be more selective. That sounds appropriate for sure, but in my experience often when a guy takes more pitches and puts himself into deeper counts, the K's naturally go up and the power sometimes goes down. (Can't whiff if you resolve counts before 2 strikes, and can't let-it-rip as aggressively with two strikes as you can with none....) So fair chance that trying to work deeper counts and take more walks will happen, and we'll like that; but that the K's will spike significantly in correlation, and the HR's won't. 2. Myrtle is a pitchers park. 3. While some guys do figure a lot out and get more confidence and more successful with a year, plenty others don't. (By all accounts Eloy is already a confident and fairly smart guy. Not clear his confidence or smarts will grow that much...) 4. A lot of guys just take a while to get rolling, and April is often a hitter's worst month, even if the weather isn't that cold. So I'm not going to be very surprised if Eloy comes through May and he's hitting .275 with only 4-6 HR's and a heightened K-rate, and an OPS more in the .750-.850 range than being a >.950-OPS Carolina-League-superstar. Hope I'm just being cautious, and he'll just be awesome in every way, like minor-league Schwarber and Bryant were.

Torres is a really good prospect. And there is a ton of scouting supporting his high rankings. He's very smooth and polished defensively, and he plays a good SS. By all accounts he looks really smooth as a hitter. His plate discipline now looks to be solid. He showed some solid power. Very much a complete, no-red-flags prospect at a premium defensive position. Terrific prospect.

I love these lists, and the snapshots they give of different people's opinions and insights. Where is there some consensus among observers? While I sometimes look for consensus, it's also a reminder that there can be widely varient opinions about gys. I'm less confident in the insight of the BP scouting. The "scout" who ranked Clifton #4 did so apparently without having seen him enough, or to have talked to enough actual scouts who had, to know that Clifton is tall and well built. Instead he wrote his original evaluation thinking that Clifton is undersized, based on the inaccurate 6'1" 170 listing on some websites. If guy has seen Clifton so little that he thinks Clifton's built like Greg Maddux, how can I assume the scout has seen Clifton's change and breaking pitch enough to scout them accurately? And if he hasn't actually seen or gotten very informed on a guy he ranked #4, should I assume he's spent a lot more time on guys 5-and-higher? One of the other thoughts with these rankings is that sometimes the authors are kind of regional. Maybe live Atlantic area, so will have actually seen Carolina Leaguers several times; but maybe haven't actually seen Midwest League or California League guys? So sometimes their insights into some prospects is much more first-hand than with others, for better or for worse. Cubs obviously don't publish their internal evals. But I think about how Cubs have at least 20+ guys in their scouting network, and their internal group is spending a lot of time self-scouting. So I'd normally assume that *IF* there is a difference in evaluation of a Cubs prospect between what the Cubs think and what the internet raters think, the Cubs internal consensus is probably much better informed, and probably reflects a consensus built from a much larger number of evaluators. Unfortunately we don't have access to what the Cubs honest internal assessments or rankings ever are. If we did, it would be fascinating.

So that chart basically suggests a 50-50 chance whether Eloy makes 1 WAR.

Thanks, Tom. The "unconventional body type" is one thing (which we obviously already knew), but the evaluation that he's not good enough or quick/rangy enough to play good SS is another. Baez has an "unconventional body type" for SS as well; but from very early on scouts who actually watched him play realized that he was really good and projected well at SS. He stood out immediately for his defensive ability. I guess I'm seeing a fairly recurring consensus from sources that while Paredes may stay at SS for a bit, that nobody thinks he's going to be an asset starting defensive SS in the majors, that he doesn't stand out defensively even relative to the short-season collection of infielders in camp, and that people may not even be projecting him as an asset defensive 2B in the majors. So, the impression I'm getting is that he'll likely need to move down to 3B on the defensive spectrum to have a chance to be average or asset defensively. Rather than that he's anywhere close to class with Baez, Russell, or Gleyber defensively. *Again, perhaps I'm misreading the reports. Or perhaps the reports are uninformed and will prove faulty, and he'll end up being a very smooth, asset defensive 2B. A solid/average defensive 2b with a high-level bat, that's a super valuable guy. And an asset defensive 3B who can really hit and has some power, that's a super valuable guy. I like the Cubs system, but don't think it's especially good. Think there's a difference between being a guy who's slipping into the back end of 30, versus somebody who's a clear top 10, top 15, or even top-20 guy. Somebody who's knocking on the top 10 even if he's not included for now. I've got Paredes at 12 on my list, knocking on the top-10, viewing him as a guy who might be really good and if he holds up to a year in full-season. Manuel made clear that he had Hatch and Martinez knocking on the door; didn't imply that at all for Paredes.

Given the source and how people seem to love a healthy Albertos tossing in Paredes with him is pretty encouraging. The answer to the question on Paredes is also what I was both expecting and hoping to hear. I was actually maybe a little disappointed with Manuel's answer on Paredes. We've been discussing him for top 10 or at least top 15, but Manuel only mentions ranking him in top 30. Not sure, maybe he's got Paredes 15 and just used the "top 30" to not give anything away. But I thought in past he's been fairly free with "top 15" or "top 20" allusions, and he certainly didn't hesitate to give away that Martinez and Hatch were right outside his existing top-10. Has the usual negative comment about Paredes's SS-aptitude. Still, good actions and hands and coordination are at the heart of good infielding, and being a good hitter who barrels the ball easily is a rare and precious gift, even if without great power.

You guys are smarter and better informed, so I may be way off. But I'm not familiar with what the historical studies show for college pitchers vs HS pitchers versus players in the 27-30 range of the draft. I thought the outcomes were fairly interchangeable, statistically? (Specifically for that area of the draft, not just "first round" picks whose overall data in favor of players is heavily skewed by the top end of the first, and may not be at all representative of the back end of the round.) I don't have an inherent problem with taking a HS pitcher there (or two). If the Cubs do so, I'll actually be pretty intrigued and excited about it. The Cubs certainly will know the statistics/history/risks associated. If they see the potential reward justify taking pitcher(s), I am very comfortable in trusting their judgement. Sure, pitchers can get injured and fail as a result. But players who have gone unchosen through 26 picks usually have talent limits and flaws enough to limit their likely success or odds of becoming highly valuable. Hitting big-league pitching, and doing so with power, is incredibly difficult. So there aren't safe, low-risk stars-to-be hanging out at 27/30. Maybe the risk/reward balance is not inherently anti-pitcher. (Not like in the top-5.) We can have all the sophisticated awareness that pitchers get hurt and TINSTAPP, but championship teams still end up having good pitching. The Cubs rotation was great. They built that rotation with $$ (three FA starters), and long-shots that worked out despite almost overwhelmingly unfavorable odds (Arrieta and Hendricks.) In the current model they could just buy pitchers (Lester, etc.) in large part because they didn't have $$ expenses on players. That may change, as the players become increasingly expensive. Likewise we've seen that the trade-price for *GOOD* young pitchers is very high. Cubs may have to just gamble that they can draft/develop smart/lucky, and be able to convert 27/30 level picks into talented arms that work out and stay healthy. And even if you're going to trade your 27/30 picks for pitching, that may perhaps be best accomplished if they are talented, unbroken, promising young pitchers that we have to use in trade. Again, I'm not saying they should draft pitching, or HS pitching in particular, with their firsts. But if they do, certainly won't assume that they were unwise and that the Cubs were too dumb to assess the risks.

de la Cruz is on a non-traditional development path for a Latin prospect. But I don't see it as being necessarily problematic. The chance to become a good major-league starter is still there, even if it's very unlikely that he'll be a good starter; much less likely than that that he'll ever crack consensus top-25; and much less likely than that that he'll ever function as a TOR guy. But yeah, if he were to eventually develop into a good, effective major-league starter, and be qualified as a #3/#2 type guy, that would be hugely valuable for the Cubs. Is that likely? Of course not. But it's not beyond plausible. *I also think we really want ace/TOR, for good reason. But the value of mid-rotation or 3/2 type guys should not be underestimated. Particularly on a team with GREAT defense, a 3/2 type guy can help win a ton of games, especially if a really strong bullpen behind could be assembled, and a strong, consistent offense maintained. On de la Cruz, he's 21, so he's obviously not young for a guy with so little full-season experience, particularly a Latin prospect. Very rare that a Latin kid who's coming into his age-22 season and only has 40 full-season innings will end up being an asset rotation guy. But his schedule is somewhat unique. 1. Obviously lost most of a full-season to injury. 2. He also signed relatively late, so that he'd only pitched 11 innings before age 19. *Clearly most good Latin big-league pitchers were signed young and had their pro careers started before age 19, so that as 19-20-21 came along, they were moving up the ladder. Perhaps the fact that Oscar didn't is a red flag. But may simply be that when you basically start at 19, and then lose 21, you're going to be behind the normal age curve. Which is certainly a reason why a guy is less likely to make top-25 lists, which was the original question. If hypothetically de la Cruz was to have an excellent season, perhaps start at Myrtle and finish at Tennessee, the same body/physique/velocity/control-development-or-lack-thereof would naturally be more likely to make top-25's as a 20-year-old than as a 22-year-old. But if he's on track to develop into a capable rotation starter, not sure it's really that crucial whether he comes up at say 24 versus 22. I'm kind of comfortable with the Cubs development system, that they are well able to individualize the development plans. And may be pretty good with working with guys on atypical tracks. Obviously Willson Contreras is an example. Hopefully Hannemann will end up being a successful example. Hopefully de la Cruz will also end up a successful example.

Yeah, nice choice. Three other sleeper relievers: McNeil, James Farris, and Rosario. (Maybe as a now-rostered guy Rosario isn't that deep, but I don't recall him ever getting much discussion.) Farris doesn't scout great, but he's continued to be very successful up through AA and AFL. Solid K/BB splits and low HR's, who knows if/when he'll finally hit his ceiling and be overwhelmed by the superior competition. Plenty of K's, so even without the velocity, he's getting K's with the breaking stuff I guess. Not yet, and only two more steps left.... Three obscure starters, lacking any significant fastball: Hedges, Tseng and Leal. Tseng, has seemed to be in constant decline, but he can throw strikes. I wonder if coming back strong and healthy might not give him good results this summer? Nor likely, but if he turned into an anti-awful strike-thrower, who knows? Hedges had a good season, was good at AA as well as Myrtle, and over his career has excellent WHIP and K/BB and stuff. Has been an extreme ground ball guy, low HR's. So, might be a guy who's better in reality than in a scouting report. If you locate your stuff, throw the sinker, and get the ground balls, if you don't allow HR's and don't walk many, you can do pretty well even without high velocity. Leal finished pretty well, another guy without big K's but with good K/BB and low walks. Sleepers. May as well add Erling Moreno.

It's pretty remote that any non-Eloy will ever make end-of-season Top-25 lists. Top 25 should be somebody with some serious tools, pretty well rounded, pitcher better have a pretty strong arm and good stuff, a hitter better be reasonably toolsy. Top-25 guys should have potential, if health and things go right, to possibly become stars, and certainly to have a very reasonable shot to become solid asset starters. Cease has the big arm to make that kind status. Whether he'll stay healthy enough, improve his secondaries, and improve his control enough so that he projects as a starter, less than likely. Unlikely that he'll ever be Top-25, but he's at least got the tools/upside. Happ, he's a nice Top-100 guy, and seems a fairly safe guy to have an extended major-league career. But being so low on the defensive spectrum, not having big power, and K'ing so often, it's hard to see the "star" or "asset starter on a winning team" profile for him as a left-field prospect. I'll be pretty surprised if he ever makes a top-25. de la Cruz and Albertos, very unlikely to stay healthy, and have the performance. Who "will be" top 25, no "safety" that either "will be". But if the question is who "might be", they've at least got a chance. ***IF*** everything goes perfectly, they would seem to have the stuff and perhaps the physical capacity to someday be viewed as a top-25, could-be-asset-rotation-pitcher with good arm and good stuff. Long shots, but at least they've got an outside shot. This year, we'll have two top-30 picks. There's the possibility that if you get lucky, you could get a high-talent player there. A pitcher who throws hard enough to make a top-25, if their control and secondaries develop you could get a top-25 there, if the guy stays healthy. They gave Sierra a strong bonus, maybe Sierra will develop great kind of ala Eloy, and turn into something. Remotely unlikely, but too soon to be certain the answer is no. Probably not too soon based on Arguello type stuff that Ademan will need have the power to be a top-25. But most likely the Cubs situation is that after Eloy, getting middle-of-the-order stud hitters isn't going to be happening. Maybe Cease has an outside chance, but getting rotation aces with overwhelming stuff isn't going to be likely, either. If we're going to get a high-end pitcher, it may need to more by virtue of great finesse and command than by ace-like stuff. (More the Hendricks-model high-end guy than the Verlander or Syndegaard model.)

I think the Cubs have very few guys who have any reasonable shot to become a top-25 prospect. Eloy, obviously. Happ, very little chance. He's not that kind of a prospect, doesn't have the defense or contact or power to be a top-25. Cease obviously has that capacity, he's got exceptional talent. Other than Eloy and Cease, I'd think to get into top 25 it pretty much has to be a pitcher. de la Cruz or Albertos have the kind of stuff and upside to possibly get into a top-25, if they develop right. No clue with the teenagers, of course. It's too early to rule out that perhaps Sierra might evolve into a force. Or that maybe some young pitcher will mature into an extra zillion mph and become a force. (Marquez? Hudson?) Maybe Morel will add on 45 pounds of muscle and be a totally different physiqe, who knows. But as I see it now, I'd say that Eloy, Cease, de la Cruz, and Albertos are really the only visible guys with the upside to even ideally end up in a top-25.

I was intrigued by how many references Manuel made to having a lot of good arms in the low minors. Not sure I totally track what he's thinking, maybe it's Cease/de la Cruz/Clifton/Hatch/Albertos he's thinking about. But my first read was that he wasn't really thinking about them so much, as a depth of other possible-emergence arms, particularly in terms of arms way down below the full-season world. Again, I have no idea, Manuel may be naive or ill-informed, and of course every team has arms that might emerge. But I got the impression Manuel thinks the Cubs have an unusually deep collection, I wouldn't have assumed that myself. "The lower levels of the Cubs system have talent, which is evident in the rosters at short-season Eugene, low Class A South Bend and high Class A Myrtle Beach. The Cubs have more intriguing arms at the lower levels... "With all the Cubs’ lower-level arms " "then the dpeth of arms at lower levels" "pity Jaron Madison, the farm director who has to find innings for all these lower-level pitchers. Good luck with that Jaron!" "South Bend’s rotation is going to be really crowded" "I decided the Cubs had enough young guys with upside that I didn’t have to rank every middle reliever"

Wilson is the odd one to me. His bad-half-good-half layout makes for potential over-rating, I think. The story appears like "he figured it out", but may as well be a case of any hitter who has some random hot-and-cold spells. That he ended up kinda cold doens't support the "figured it out" view, but who knows. I thought his was odd, in that Manuel left Hatch off his list, even though his comments in the chat were really enthusiastic for Hatch. "Hatch was fantastic in college this year and will move quickly after what he showed the Cubs in instructs — advanced FB command and a plus slide piece at its best. Darin Erstad compared his slider to that of Brad Lidge in a story on the BA site earlier this season, and that’s high praise. .....Hatch has it all over Clark in terms of pitchability, command, etc." Manuel projects Hatch at A+, talks pitchability/command, if his slider has Lidge comparisons that's really good, etc.. That seems pretty top-10-ish to me; that Manuel could be so positive on Hatch, but still have him behind wilson, not sure what that says. Heh heh, maybe that Manuel is a dope; maybe that he REALLY likes Wilson; or maybe that his positives on Hatch don't reflect some negatives as well.

Sharma allegedly tweeted out that he has heard that Albertos is the Cubs best pitching prospect. That's interesting, for a kid who's pitched four innings or whatever in his career, and is years away. all of the Albertos stuff is all coming from the Cubs, obviously. It's not like Manuel or many of the other list-makers were attending and scouting his four innings. So, we can be skeptics and figure the Cubs are just hyping for hype's sake. Or perhaps that even if their are Cub sources that honestly believe that, that their opinion is about as dumb as when Fleita glass-is-full hyped many worthless prospects. But, for me as the optimist, I tend to accept the Cubs input at face-value. 1. They have shown pretty good evaluation skills/record to warrant that. So assuming they honestly believe that, I'm fascinated. 2. They've generally seemed to be pretty honest and straightforward. Don't see why they'd be spinning a false story here. 3. I also don't see any strategic advantage in spinning a false story that some of them think Albertos is a better prospect than Cease, de la Cruz, and Clifton. If you're trying to make up trade value by dishonest spin/hype, you'd be better off to spin-up the relative value of Cease, de la Cruz, and Clifton than to down-hype them as not-even-as-good-as-the-4-inning-guy. There were reports of some scouts thinking Albertos might have been the best pitching prospect in the international pool that summer. That was before the account of him having added several mph since, despite not being a real "projection" body. And that was before the accounts of him changeup supposedly now looking like a potential 70, in addition to the strong breaking pitch as amateur. When making these top-10 lists, I think BA doesn't want to "miss" on a potential star. Manuel made some comment to the effect that he was going to make sure he got Albertos into his Top 10 one way or another. If Martinez becomes a functional 4th OFer or OK regular, and BA "missed" and left him off the top 10, o well. But if Albertos becomes a star and a top-20 prospect, Manuel didn't want to have "missed" and left him off when he already knew that possibility was present. But year, he's a teenager who hasn't pitched much. Who knows, perhaps the 2017 Albertos will be about as disappointing as Stinnett turned out to be, after the Cubs were all so gung-ho about his possibilities.

Thanks so much for that huge wall of text! Very, very much appreciated! :)

Good post, Dave. Agree, it's a pivotal question whether Eloy stays, and potentially becomes a middle-order monster; or becomes the #1 in a trade for a significant pitcher; or ends up less. Another pivotal is whether one of our pitchers emerges and becomes effective.... for us. (Rather than as a trade chip.) We don't know how quickly we'll need outside pitchers. Your post, as have others, has some trade-chip focus. And we may well need to be making a major pitching acquisition, all of us are objective enough to realize we've been lucky with the pitching health. But as an optimist, I conceivable that the existing rotation might stay healthy enough and effective enough through July so that no major Eloy-level mid-season trade is required. (I'm not saying it's probable or to be counted on, but I think it's more than a 20% possibility.) So if no major rotation-trade is essential pre-deadline, next offseason might be a whole different assessment. And the priority on trading for outside help might not be that extreme. I'm optimist, I know, but it's not inconceivable that a non-severe solution to the Arrieta+Lackey FA scenario will emerge. Some possibilities: 1. Assumption: Sign one *good* FA. Perhaps Arrieta himself, perhaps somebody else. But I think there's a good chance the Cubs will have the $$, with Arrieta + Lackey + Montero coming off next year, to sign one rotation spot with FA. In face, I think that's not only "possible", I think it's more than likely. 2. That might then leave only one #5 rotation spot to fill. We saw in 2015 that a team with Haren/Wada/Wood/Richard/Beeler as 5th starter can win 97 games. They may not need or insist on acquiring a long-term, multi-year #5 from outside. (3. Maybe they'll sign Ross and he'll be ready?) A year from now, the collection of Zastryzny, Clifton, Hatch, de la Cruz, Cease, and two first-round draft picks might look like a good pool. Will 5-7 of those guys look ready for April 2017 rotation spot, no. (Maybe none will.) But I'm hopeful that **if** 2016 develops well for those guys, that next year the Cubs won't feel they need a long-term external guy. Might be comfortable with a one-year type guy as a replaceable bridge, who doesn't need to be great or expensive. So maybe we'll be keeping our prospect pitchers, and hoping to develop them so that we don't need to trade a big package for an external guy?

Interesting thoughts,Win. Two thoughts: 1. My guess is that they begin each season with a "plan" for each guy, at least anybody they've have for even a fairly small while. My guess is that they do a bunch of review and analysis after the season, develop a plan, present that or discuss that with the pitcher, and begin the season with that plan. How often they revise it during the season, I don't know. 2. When Derek Johnson came over, he believed that throwing too fast was bad for command, for delivery consistency, and for health. He had pitchers throw sets at different velocities, charted the command results, and then assigned them velocity bands within which to throw their fastball. Often less than what their max-velocity could achieve. So, for example, maybe Tseng could throw 91-92-93, but supposedly he might have a velocity-band assigned at 88-90, if that was where he'd charted as being most consistent with best command. I believe some of those constraints were then removed late in the season or entering playoffs. Not sure whether: 1. Johnson kept that up; 2. Whether it only applied to lower-level guys; 3) How often they re-evaluated and revised the band; 4) How it was enforced if a pitcher over-threw his band; or 5) whether Jim Brower does that or anything similar.

Yes, and that moment will almost surely not pass. When Theo came, there was a theory that hitting would become scarce and teams with hitters would have a trade leverage advantage. That theory does not appear to have been fulfilled.

Yeah, where a guy goes and where he'll develop best is probably largely independent of which level. But maybe impacted by the personality and the particular developmental needs, and how the org dictates pitch usage. Cease needs work on the change (and curve). Do they have a plan where manager, pitching coach, Cease, and catcher all have some quota? For example, 3 changes per inning? 15 per game? How do they actually control and dictate that a guy is practicing what he most needs to work on? I have no idea how that goes. I wonder. Because by human nature nobody wants to get killed. Suppose a guy really needs to really improve his curveball, but he's not very consistent yet and he hangs a variable number each game. In A-, maybe there are so few guys strong enough or good enough to hit the hangers out, so he can practice his curve without losing every start. But perhaps at a higher level, those bad curveballs are so often going over the wall so that he never wins. Human nature might say, "I don't want to throw those anymore."

Those are good points, Win. I've just kind of assumed Cease is so wild, and has so much development left, and needs so much more work on his change, that he'd probably take a steady pace. But, that might be dumb. In a sense, I don't think it matters hardly at all where he goes. I don't think his development depends on who he's pitching to, it just depends on him. He's obviously got a good enough fastball and a good enough curve that his stuff will match up well anywhere. The plate is the same size and distance in A+ as in A-. His ability to repeat his delivery, to throw his change and curve for strikes or at least close, is progress in those areas probably doesn't much matter whether he's pitching in South Bend or Myrtle. It would be pretty cool if both Cease and Hatch show well so that they can succeed in A+ this season, whether they start there or not. Two fun guys to watch. Will be really fascinating to see how hatch's stuff shows up, and Cease's control and consistency.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if Cease went straight to Myrtle. Agree with you, Cal, that Hatch is more likely. But I'd think it's more than likely that neither starts at Myrtle. If Hatch does, it will reflect that he's had a good spring and the Cubs are pretty happy with him. I recall thinking guys like Pierce Johnson, Kellogg, and Preston Morrison might skip straight to Myrtle(Daytona), but I think Zastryzny is about the only college guy who's done that. Certainly an interesting pool of names/prospects for SB, Myrtle, and Tennessee. Iowa pretty bad. Phil isn't much of a Hedges fan, but I wonder if he'll start again, after his good season last year.

Yeah, well said. Agree with that. Will be interesting to see what they do and who exactly they bring in. But yes, it's going to change, at least a little.

Next year, losing a pick will cost only a 3rd round pick. Much reduced disincentive then. (Which was obviously the point of that CBA revision.) And we'll only get 2nd round comp picks, rather than first, if we lose Arrieta or Davis. Agree that good chance that next year we'll be signing a FA rotation guy. Whether that's Arrieta or somebody else, time will tell. The Montgomery rotation experiment is going to be really interesting, and impactful long-term. If he were to settle in as a perfectly respectable rotation guy, rotation planning gets a lot simpler. Much can change in a year. None of our prospect pitchers seem compelling or close right now, and most likely that will seem likewise true 12 months from now. But I'm optimistic that Clifton, de la Cruz, and Cease will all progress well this year. And Zastryzny as well. Obviously I'm an eternal optimist, but I totally get that all of these guys will have setbacks, and 12 months from now none will look like future rotation assets, much less 2018-ready guys. And obviously Cease is at best several years away, more on schedule for when Hendricks hits free agency. But, if Montgomery shows solid, and they resign Arrieta or somebody better, all you'll be looking for is depth and 5th starter. AS we saw in 2015, you can kind of wing it at 5th starter (Wood, Wada, Beeler, Richard, Haren....). *IF* Z is going to ever become a rotation guy, a year from now might be the time to give him his shot. *IF* Clifton is ever going to become a rotation asset, good chance he'd be ready by summer 2018, even if not necessarily April. And *IF* de la cruz is ever going to become a rotation asset, he'll probably have a good 2017 and end up in Double AA, looking to be ready by the end of 2018 if not before. So, what I'm rambling to is that *IF* one or more from the Zastryzny, Clifton, and de la Cruz group have good seasons, by next winter they'd look to be ready within one year or less. (By or before the opening of 2019.) In which case, the Cubs might not be looking to pick up a 5-year-FA to replace Lackey. Rather, they might be looking towards a place-holder short-term guy, who won't break the budget in FA or have long-term budget impact. Put differently, it may be that for 2019, the four spots other than Arrieta may all be filled by guys presently within the organization. I'm an optimist, of course.

http://www.fanragsports.com/mlb/burkhart-chicago-cubs-top-15-prospects-2017/2/ Some fairly detailed reports with sometimes interesting scouting observations, or input from his Cubs sources de la Cruz: "The changeup has improved since last year, and he’s recently added a slider" "...The motion is about as low-effort as it gets and features a clean, flowing arm action with extension from his mid-three-quarters release point. .....his arm can drag when pitching out of the windup....." Hatch: "sitting 94-96 mph with life and sink at instructs while flashing a plus slider". (I didn't think Fleita worked for the Cubs anymore...) "Cubs believe that ... if not for the injury in 2015, he may have been a first-round pick"

It interests me how Happ always gets ranked as favorably as he does. The reports are always negative about his future at 2B; the reports are never effusive about his power; and he K's all the time. Yet they still like his hitting to consistently respect him. Hope they are right. If the Yankees resign Chapman, loaning him out for a couple of months while getting him back and getting Gleyber for that temporary loan could look like really brilliant GM'ing.