craig

Sickels still includes Underwood at #9. He also still includes Almora; has Almora, who may very well be the Cubs primary CF next year, at #5, behind Clifton and Happ. I'll be curious to see the comments and discussion as those go forward. He includes Hedges in his top-20: mentions his heavy sinker being as high as 94. Will be interesting to get a little more scouting on some of the less well-reported guys.

Nice post, Win. Helpful (for me at least) to keep some perspective. An amazing thing has been that so many of the graduates have been good. When we had all these top prospects a couple of years ago, I would often tell myself "Yeah, but you know prospects fall off; you know a lot of these guys won't actually work out for whatever reason." But here we are, and almost everybody IS working out variably well, even guys like Vogelbach and Zastryzny; and a Contreras is working out WAY better than I ever imagined. A guy like Hendricks is working out WAY better than any of us thought to dream. The only guy who's kinda disappointed has been Soler. And that's me being disappointed with a .769 OPS and OPS+ 105, with lots of space to do much better in future. Maybe the hit-rate has been pure luck/coincidence. But the astonishing hit-rate with our prospects may speak to the Cubs Way? Perhaps we'll continue to have unexpected success with prospects? Maybe our development process really is that good, and the types of guys that they bring into the system are that coachable and improve-able? Obviously it won't be the same when our top picks are in the 30's versus in the top 2-4-6-10 range. But if they can frequently get the best out of the talent they've got, it could be pretty nice.

Hey, toonster, thanks for the input. Fun to see your optimism and enthusiasm! I expected (and hoped) for more velocity out of Hudson. The nature of a HS projection guy is that he gets faster. I was disappointed that there was no evidence that happened, and instead that the actual guy this past season appeared to be slower than what the draft summer, fall instrux, and spring camp reports had suggested. Hopefully he adds a bunch this season. If you go 2-3 years into your career and no added velocity has come yet, then it's probably not going to.

From both sides of the plate. 4-4. Wow, that's great. Good for him.

Cubs add 4 to 40-man: Leathersich Caratini Hannemann Underwood

..The bold is correct. .... Tom, is this primarily a park thing, as opposed to a league thing? If it's a league thing, shouldn't all pitchers have received those league benefits?

You are correct. Happ is >22% K-rate; Jackson was <24% K-rate through AA. <2% difference through the comparable levels, but maybe even that is significant. It wasn't really till Jackson hit AAA that his K's went nuts.

Not sure I'm tracking the MB logic here. Are you arguing that hitters were league average against him at SB, and that he isn't really much different/better now, his reputation/stats have just gotten deceptively padded by park/league effects? You've got him only #10, behind guys like Pena. I've actually got him higher, I had him 3rd on my list (behind Cease, in front of de la Cruz/Happ). Couple thoughts: 1. You may be right. His numbers are as nice as they are in part because he allowed only 4 HR's, despite having only a 0.68 GO/AO ratio. May have gotten park/League lucky/protected, and it's a lot easier to pitch when you're not scared of HR's. 2. I thought his SB season showed considerable improvement. My recall is that he was wild and wildly inconsistent early, but that during July/August he was much more consistent. So even if his SB season was hitters-league-average, I think his late-season was probably much superior. And I think that continued and further-improved at MB. 3. One of the late scouting reports evaluated him as having 3 solid-to-plus big-league pitches, in the fastball, the curve, and the change. Can't remember, was that an announcer or manager, so perhaps baloney? Or perhaps the BA Top-20 or something? 4. His K-rate is solid. More than K-per-inning. So, good stuff seems to be there. 5. HIs 2016 couldn't have all been park/league. He was league pitcher of the year, and led that league in WHIP, BA-against, ERA, and was 3rd in K's. So, the league saw him as unusually good relative to the league. 6. I think his consistency and control improved as the year progressed. Over his last ten starts, he was 63K/10BB. That is VERY good. His stuff was good enough in SB, but he was too inconsistent. If the good-stuff 3-solid-pitches guy is able to fairly consistently access those pitches, there's potential there. 7. Young. He'll still be only 21 for first quarter of next season. So there's still time to continue to work on consistency and control. Obviously younger than Hatch (who I like very well) and de la Cruz and Kellogg and guys like that. So, young enough that there may still be a little more physical optimization and delivery optimization/consistency-improvement left for him. 8. One advantage as a starter is that he's got some interesting splits, or lack thereof. He was actually better versus lefties. May be coincidence, but doesn't appear that he'll get killed by the higher volume and quality of lefty hitters that big-league teams can stack against RHP. 9. He's had control issues in past. Those seemed to diminish a lot late last season, but that control/consistency is really a key question. Easy to have it when you're in a groove, when everything is going well, and when you're facing crummy Carolina-League hitters where even if you make a mistake they won't hit it over the wall. I think it will be huge question whether his control/command will be good enough going forward, and consistent enough. Easy come, easy go, I think.... That's where your Justin Grimm analogy may prove true. Grimm can look terrific on days when he can locate and throw strikes; but that ability can vanish in an instant, it seems. We'll see with Clifton, whether the strong control he showed 2nd half this year will be the steady thing from now on, or whether he'll be off-and-on. 10. The curve and the change, those are two very hard pitches to control and command. Easy to envision those being hard to consistently throw for strikes. 11. Clifton is now a pretty well built guy. I'm not sure there's any inherent reason why he'll be physically unable to sustain a rotation workload. Plenty of 6-inning starters around. 12. To my knowledge, he's pretty much fastball/curve/change. Don't think he's added the cutter yet. Sometimes when a guy finally adds the cutter, a pitcher can significantly improve his arsenal and effectiveness. So, it's possible that he's still got another positive step to take.

I'm hugely concerned about that. He's K'd a ton at every level, just as he K'd a lot in college. No hint that this is a correctable problem. Huge red flag for me. Statistically, not sure he's got the HR power to justify so many K's. But even more than the K's as a number, I wonder if that isn't just a manifestation of a scouting/tools problem. You don't continuously K that often without there being a reason, or perhaps several reasons. Sometimes the higher you go, the more the reasons get exposed or perhaps taken advantage of. Without either a strong defensive position or a strong HR rate, I'm pretty cautious on his ability to work around the contact problems that cause the high K-rate. I've got some Brett Jackson concerns, honestly. That said, I'm hopeful I'm just paranoid, and that somehow the problem will be somewhat correctable. Scouts and stuff don't seem to view his contact problem as being acute and prohibitive; he still ranked shockingly high in the Southern League BA rankings, for example, and smart Cub fans like you still have him as high as #2. So perhaps my concerns are misplaced in some way.

Zagunis career .836 OPS with .401 OBP. In five minor league stops of >2 games, his worst OPS is Myrtle at .818; the other four have all been .846 or higher. This year he slugged .469 with 10 HR in 101 games. He's 23, so not old for an AAA guy. Don't see why he might not project to potentially have enough bat to be a starter in the majors. I'm still curious how the power will go, up or down. Better pitching in majors, it goes down for lots of guys. (Baez thus far, for example.) But quite a few guys get stronger after age 23.

Fair point. Of course, anybody beyond the first one or two guys, there are serious questions about whether they'll be starter-quality guys. Even if healthy, who knows if de la Cruz will have the command or the diversity of pitches to start? Most good relievers were once variably good rotation prospects. Will be interesting to see how other people place guys. Everybody has their own views, of course. 1. I don't have Caratini as high as you because I perceive him as a 2nd-catcher. Little power, and I don't get the sense that his defense is excellent or above-average. Obviously starting catchers sit more than other players, though; so being a 2nd catcher can be a very important guy. A 50-start second-catcher, that's still a lot of games. So, perhaps I am undervaluing him on that basis. I just struggle to envision him being an above-average starting catcher. 2. Clark, I don't know that much. I'm interested in Clark because he throws hard and has excellent stuff; but also largely because IMO he hasn't failed yet. Maybe just a novelty factor, but I tend to rank guys up a little bit who are too new for me to know their faults. Clark may well have some, at which point he'll drop on my chart. But for now I'm not sure he does, and until they manifest I'm ranking him up some. *My understanding is that Cubs thought his 2016 college season was compromised by injury. (Was it his ankle or knee ? Don't remember, but it was NOT his arm.) So I'm kind of passing off his mediocre college season to health rather than concluding that he's prohibitively wild and always will be. *Maybe the "hasn't failed yet"/"hasn't shown his limits yes" is dumb. But until a guy fails or shows what he can't do, it gives the possibility that his ceiling is higher.

Happ snapped his K-ing streak Saturday, going 4 hitless AB without a single K. Over his previous 9 games, he'd K'd exactly 50% of his AB: 16K/32AB. http://www.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=l119&t=p_pbp&pid=664023

Your tool works really well, Tim. I like the format. To me, I see clear 1: Jiminez Clear 2: Cease. 3-5 definite: Clifton, de la Cruz, and Happ. (That's my order, but any order is fine I think. Although at this point I'm thinking Clifton has the edge here.) 6-9, I've got Zastryzny/Hatch/Albertos/Candelario as a group. I can understand tom or others wanting to bump Paredes or Kellogg, for example, into that group. 10-17, Guys I see as possible if unlikely starters, as opposed to role guys: Paredes, Eddy Martinez, Paulino, Kellogg, Hudson, Clark, and Zagunis. 17-21, I've grouped a bunch of long-distance but-who-knows-who-might-work-out Latin guys. Who know which might emerge as a serious guy, perhaps a good or even impact starter someday? Galindo, Marquiez, sierra, Amaya, Ademan. 22-24: Position bench/utility/role guys: Caratini, dewees, Wilson 25-41: Pile of pitchers. Variably distant; variably plausible for relief versus rotation; variably wild; variably good velocity. steele, Rivero, Williams, Pierce Johnson, Underwood, Moreno, Carrera, Miller. Who knows who might emerge? Last year Zastryzny and Pena would have been in that crowd for me; both ended up pitching for the Cubs, and Zastryzny is now probably #6 starter. Perhaps several of these belong higher. For me I just found it helpful to group "types" of guys, and then try to rank within their sub-group. Not sure how much star-power there is, outside of the Eloy/Cease. Hopefully one of the far-away Latin kids will emerge with some star-power. But still some guys with opportunity to become useful major-league guys. I also suspect the Cubs development program may be helpful. May do a better job in optimizing guys compared to the Fleita program.

Yeah, figured I'd forget somebody! :):) Is he dead? Did we ever get a report on what was wrong with him, and what his rehab/comeback prognosis is?

Same. Those are three pretty good prospects, I think, pending De la Cruz's health. After that, we'll see. I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody, and I've got some in wrong order. But just a quick listing: Maybe Steele could still fit in there somewhere; maybe finesse Morrison. I guess rostered Rosario. Zastrysny Hatch Albertos Clark Paulino Hudson Kellogg Rivero Moreno Torrez Pierce Johnson Underwood Hedges Leal McNeil

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.