craig

DelaCruz. High ceiling and throws strikes, great combo. I like EJM, but he hit badly in his limited Cuban games, and we don't have much clue whether he'll have a clue against non-BP pitching.

Fun to have the minor league games getting rolling, and getting more reports from Az Phil, Arguello, and variable others hanging out down in Arizona. Eloy hit a long HR yesterday. Steele and Stinnett apparently impressed, Stinnet hitting 96 and working 91-93. Clifton and Alzolay were good yesterday. Somebody said they'd seen Blackburn a few days back and were surprised by how good he looked. Will be fun to have some pitchers emerge.

Tom, Az Phil mentioned that your guy Brink pitched. Only 4 strikes in 15 pitches or whatever, but he pitched. So he must not have had surgery or anything.

Thanks truffle, very cool.

Yeah, he basically pitched for only two weeks, so it would seem he had three presumably injury knockouts: 1. Missed first two months 2. Pitched a week. 3. Missed six weeks. 4. Pitched a week. 5. Missed last three weeks. Speaking of injury I-wonders, Edwards got pulled out mid-inning after three batters (out, single, walk.) *Probably Maddon wanted to use his wildness as an occasion to give Strop a mid-inning appearance? (Strop promptly gave up 3-run homer.) *Or is a 2-baserunners-then-remove an indication that something wasn't right physically? *I suppose other reasons also possible; maybe if he'd just walked a guy, they wanted to get Edwards out right away to make an immediate correction, or have a teaching moment, or something?

Thanks, Tom. Jordan Brink: Do you know whether they did surgery after the season, and whether it's shoulder or elbow? As a guy who's 23 now, he's kind of in a tough spot, probably kinda needs to be healthy. Maybe it's been all coincidence, and his arm is healthy as can be. But if he's missed most of last two seasons because arm has problems, guys with problems don't always just have them disappear over the winter. And if he needed or needs surgery to fix something wrong, he's kind of late on the time clock to go through that and then start his career. He did appear twice in June, got shut down, then rehabbed enough to pitch two innings again in early August, before they shut him down again. Cubs have wanted to be the smart, optimal developmental organization. It would be awesome if one of the guys you've mentioned really did show some development, and emerge as a value. I think your point is well taken that some of the Martinez/Blackburn/Tseng/Torres/Null type guys could get re-evaluated this year. To get much attention in A-ball, seems to me you either need to have some really noteworthy velocity or stuff, or else you need to post some eye-catching stats. With the Martinez/Blackburn/Tseng/Null rotation, none had either, and none showed stellar K-rates. But, guys their age can sometimes improve their velocity, by variable or marginal degree, with a little maturation, or optimization of mechanics, or just by trying to throw a little harder for the gun. Guys their age can sometimes revise their grip or sharpen their breaking ball, and boost their K's. Having 3.0 ERA-type in A-ball is boring without projection/stuff, but if you carry that up or a little lower to AA, add 1-2 mph to your normal fastball, add 2-3mph to your "tops-at" fastball, and add an extra 2K/9IP to your K-rate, suddenly back-of-rotation possibilities can seem more real, or the prospect of relief success can seem more realistic. I do wonder also whether the new pitching coach will make an impact, in some cases favorable? My understanding is that Derek Johnson originally did NOT want his guys throwing real hard. That he had them throw a bunch in camp, determine where the range was that they could consistently control the fastball, and they were trained to NOT throw harder than that, even though perhaps they could. Limiting velocity was expected to have more consistency in delivery, better control, and also avoid injury. But a new guy might perhaps approach it differently? Or perhaps a new camp, a guy who could throw 91-93 pretty often if he wanted, but had found 89-91 to be his control-sweet-spot one year, perhaps a year later for whatever reason he can now control the 91-93? Johnson was highly respected, but sometimes a new guy has some new insights. Maybe for whatever reason, the new guy is able to get Blackburn's curve working consistently? Or make some very subtle adjustment with Torres so that his slider breaks a little better, deceives a little better, and controls more consistently, and suddenly it evolves into an any-count pitch and a 2-strike put away? Development, you never know! Thing is, I doubt the Martinez/Blackburn/Torress/Null/Tseng types are really going to have that much trade weight. I think teams in a trade tend to want a little more upside, not limited-stuff back-of-rotation wannabes?

I just switched my vote to Edwards, to be a consensus guy and to help make it obvious that Edwards is going to win. We could just declare Edwards the winner, DelaCruz #11, and move on to vote #12? OK, maybe not, maybe Martinez is now too close to DelaCruz to do that this fast.

I'm going DelaCruz and Edwards at this point. Giving DelaCruz the edge, because he throws strikes, and projects as a full repertoire rotation guy. Not many guys end up being TORP, but he's got the stuff/projection where if things work out he might be exactly that. Edwards has a good shot to be an excellent 6th/7th inning guy, and those are super valuable as well. Using the "which would I more regret trading away", I'm feeling less willing to give up a possible long-term rotation cornerstone than a wildish 6th/7th inning reliever.

I agree. Agree also, just to keep this moving along.

Easy Underwood for me, on this tie-breaker. 1. Outside evaluation consensus: As Cubswin just noted, outside sources almost invariably rank Underwood ahead. Maybe for some informed reasons? Just following the crowd isn't necessarily correct; but sometimes the outside crowd actually does have some objective sense? 2. Inside evaluation consensus: McLeod and the Cubs scouts do their own ranking. Both this offseason and last, they valued Underwood ahead of Candelario. Maybe for a reason? 3. Age: Underwood is a year younger. 4. Ceiling: Underwood scores higher. 5. Pitchers jump: Pitchers have greater opportunity to "jump" than hitters. You throw the ball yourself, you're the initiator. As the initiator who determines each pitch, it's way easier for a pitcher to "figure something out" and make a performance jump, than for a hitter. 6. Scouting and inconsistency: Scouts, including McLeod himself, see Underwood at times having a plus heavy fastball, a plus curve, and a plus change. Again, a very young pitcher has a greater opportunity to improve consistency. 7. BB-progress: 6.2 - 4.5 - 3.2 - 2.8 BB/9. Underwood has been on a steady pathway of control improvement. For a guy who is scouted as having very good stuff, and who'll play his AA season at age 21, that seems pretty good progress. Good stuff and low walks, that seems good. 8. Fastball/groundball/K/BB puzzle: Underwood's faults of course are the HR's and the low K's. Interestingly, his GO/AO ratio is pretty good, 1.42 on his career. That seems to match the scouting, that his fastball is a pretty heavy ground ball pitch. That also seems to match the scouting, that he's thrown a lot of fastballs thus the modest K-rates. Breaking balls and change ups can improve with practice; if they do, K's can go up and HR's can drop.

Really hard to sift here, but I went Cease. Cease and DelaCruz have higher ceiling than Underwood, for me. Using the "which would you more mind losing", I think I'd be more disappointed to trade DelaCruz or Cease than Underwood or Edwards, but that's just gut feeling. We know that even mid/back-rotation guys cost a lot, and make a huge difference. During regular season, the quality of the 30 starts by #4 matter as much as the 30 by your #1 or #2. So, paying $32/2 and a high draft pick for Lackey. So if Underwood could basically fill Lackey's mid-back rotation slot in a couple of years as a minimum wage guy, and perform at a high level, that would be very valuable. But I'm going with Cease in hopes that he can both stay healthy and figure out how to command his potentially plus-plus fastball and curve, and improve his change to pretty decent. Very fast with movement, that's not easy to find.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-duane-underwood-jr-lost-weight-20160302-story.html

Ahh. Thanks! :) That's cool.

Agree, if we could hope Sands into sitting 91-93 by natural maturation or by some small adjustment in his delivery, that would be sweet. 91-93 velocity is plenty good for an anti-HR ground ball lefty, with both a good curve and an OK change, IF the control/command is excellent. If the control/command isn't too hot, then even at 91-93 he won't be very good. I'd prefer an 89-91 control guy who's anti-HR compared to a kinda-wild 91-93. But you need the command, and a good off speed pitch. Tom, you mention that "At least in that video he only threw a couple pitches below 91-92". Not sure where you're getting that, eyeball estimate? I didn't see 91-92 velocities displayed in that video link, and Josh Norris, who posted the video, said he was actually 89-91 that video day.

I think the Cubs still hope Sands might improve his fastball some, add a little bit more velocity, whether through mechanical optimization or whatever. In that video, to me it looked like he had to work pretty hard to get it up to 90 mph, and that his fastball command looked kinda spotty as a result. As a modest-velocity finesse guy, he'll presumably need to have above-average command and/or improve his velocity somehow.

.. Wilsson Contreras, the Frenzied Receiver. :) Some pitch-framing analysis suggested Contreras was quite poor at pitch-framing, well worse than Schwarber. Who knows. But I think good pitch framing is usually associated with a quietness with the glove, not sure "frenzied" and good-pitch-framing typically jive. But, who knows. Hopefully he can be a nice, good pitch-framer, and if he's an energetic frenzied receiver in everything else, that's just fine.

Same for me. Eloy is well ahead in early voting. Got a chance to be a mega-masher; by all accounts he's smart and mature; early results suggest approach and contact aptitude are so-far-so-good. He'll be 19 all year. Will be interesting to see how full season goes for him this year.

Tom, couple thoughts on that: 1. This year, Edwards was 2/3 of a great pitcher: High K's and incredibly low HR's. Still there aren't a lot of top big-league pitchers with BB/9 of 7. That's on par with the worst of Carlos Marmol, not with David Robertson. (Who had a 1.8 BB/9 this year, and has been under 3 BB/9 in 3 of last 4 years.) Edwards' walk rate is double Strop's, and half again higher than Grimm. Yes, it's only "one flaw", but for a pitcher to not have control of even your fastball much less any other pitch is not an insignificant single flaw. 2. That said, I'm super hopeful that Edwards control challenge is correctible, or at least manageable. He was 7BB/9 this year, but 4.2 and 3.2 the two prior. I'm thinking there's an excellent chance that he will make some adjustments, improve it a lot this year and beyond, and blossom into a Grimm or Strop-like weapon in our bullpen. 3. When his walk-rate was decent, his K-rate wasn't so great. K/BB last two years: 1.8, 2.2 Not that great. 4. Underwood K/BB last two years: 2.25, 2.35. Comparable or better. (HR rate, no comparison.) I have Edwards and Underwood back-to-back, 6th and 7th. I'm very optimistic on both of them, despite their individual issues. I expect Edwards to make some corrections, get his walk-craziness under somewhat better control, and be an effective reliever. But guys who are wild with fastball as well as curve and change, it's not always easy to be consistent. So I'm not expecting great closer or anything, I anticipate more the Grimm kind of role, use him when he's getting the ball over, take him out when he can't. Underwood is 3 years younger, has much better command of his fastball, and will have opportunities to start, which may provide more WAR opportunity than a middle/setup reliever. Over the next three years I expect Underwood to improve considerably on his consistency and K-rate, and probably also HR-rate. Guys in the 20-21 age range, like Cease, Sands, Steele, Underwood, DelaCruz, I don't expect them to stay the same. If they don't improve, duh they'll fail. But I think it's entirely plausible to anticipate that Underwood has development left for him. And, scouting people seem to expect that as well, so it's not just me. My understanding is that Underwood's delivery isn't always consistent; that hitters can tell his curveball sometimes. I'm projecting that if he can gain greater consistency so that his curveball is more deceptive, guys will swing more, connect less, his K's will go up, and his HR's will drop. He and Edwards both have good opportunities to become very valuable pitchers for us.

His K-rate will rise this year. 1. I predict his K/9 will be above 7 this year. 2. I also predict his BB/9 will also rise, above 3. 3. I predict his K/BB ratio will also rise, perhaps up to 2.5:1.

Interesting tiers, tiger. That might be a fun discussion. 1. I'd probably move Vogelbach down at least one or more tiers from yours. A modest-power OBP-oriented DH doesn't value as high for me as those other guys 2. I'd maybe drop Edwards one tier. I love good relievers, but his chance to be an effective reliever is iffy given the wild-man syndrome. I think he's got a good shot to become a Strop or Grimm-profile guy, very good stuff but too wild to be a sure-thing as a long-term 7th or 8th inning guy. 3. I'd bump Underwood up a tier or two. The Cubs and so many of the scouts seem to like his stuff so well, I think he'll have opportunity and repeat-opportunities that lesser-stuffed overachievers like Williams won't get unless they are instantly effective when given a small window of opportunity. And I think that Underwood is so young, less than a year younger than De la Cruz, Sands, or Steele, and not much more than a year younger than Cease. We all understand those guys are going through development, and don't expect them to be finished products. The same, I think, applies to Underwood even though he'll be in AA and they'll just be starting low-A (Cease maybe not even that.) I think future Underwood may profile differently and perhaps more impressively than Underwood past.

That's pretty much how I feel too, I might sequence them differently every time I thought about it, and will probably readjust that the sequence almost every month. That's probably a pretty interesting, and pretty helpful, way to do it.

Almora. Top-tier defense and strong contact make him a good prospect, limited by the power. Happ has a big power advantage, but I'm not sure his scouting has ever projected him as a 25+ mega-power guy. With very high K's and variably below-average defense anywhere but left, he's really going to need to hit a lot of HR's to make it as a big-value guy. Not sure he's ever going to hit THAT many HR's. In a sense, both of these guys have variably limited ceilings, Almora's in terms of power, Happ's due to defense and scary K's.

McKinney. Guys who are true-blue hitters are hard to come by. Hitting high-movement/velocity mlb pitching may be the hardest and rarest skill in sports. I have bat-speed concerns with Candelario. He's a year older than McKinney, and Tennessee was the first time in 6 minor league stops over 4 years above .745. I know he's youngish, a couple months younger than Schwarber, and he's not really all that much older than Russell, McKinney, or Almora. But his swing has looked average/slowish to me in videos, (amateur eyes and very small sample....), and I'd think with his good approach if he had the wrists and the bat speed, it should have manifested itself not so rarely over his last six stops. We'll see what he shows this year. Hope I'm wrong and that he explodes and shows some serious hitting and power.

That makes sense. I guess most guys spend more than 6 weeks in AA on their development path, so I won't be surprised if they give Candelario more time there too. Won't be surprised whether he starts at either level, I guess.

Small sample, but Morrison was 30K/3BB/0HR/22IP with 2.4 G/A ratio. I don't remember many Cubs pitchers putting up splits like that, ever. I'm old enough to remember way back when Mike Harkey, Lance Dickson, and Jamie Moyer put up some really strong minor-leaguer numbers. Scott Downs? Mike Meyers? Mark Prior's brief minor-league work was pretty great. Will be interesting to see how Morrison's stuff translates to presumably A+ this spring. Well, maybe it won't, in the event that the results are decent but not special; given that with a triple-minus arm, he'll need to be sustaining doube-plus results to sustain much interest.