craig

Thanks, Cal. That was a very detailed interview. I thought the comments on delaCruz were helpful, he said 90-95, mostly 92. That's good, and the kid perhaps projects for more future. But a mostly 92 RHP, that isn't exactly dominant or overpowering. The stuff about Contreras and his personality/areas-that-needed-development was quite interesting. Having a good "clock" is really desirable, and perhaps he hasn't shown that. But I'd rather have a guy who was highly energized than a player who's kind of lethargic and can't stay focuses. The Underwood bit was also interesting, having the plus or double-plus pitches at times, but maybe not being sophisticated on how to use them or to recognize what's sharp on a given day, and not having them consistently.

3 Cubs in BA's top 100: Torres 41 Contreras 67 Happ 87

Yes, not promising. Maybe we did spend most of the discretionary money on Heyward....

Yes, agree with your main point. Hard to get top-5 without showing enough power progress to project as a teens-range HR guy.

You're using words like "fringe" and "likely to stick through his cost-controlled years". You have "very little" doubt, and you "think" he's "likely" to stick. The scouts like Law who rank Torres really high aren't putting in all those cautionary/escape/guarded phrasing. They like him; they are convinced he will play good, asset SS defense. No cautionary caveats. Lindor, maybe not. But I think he's expected to be very much of the Addison Russell type. None of Russell's individual defensive tools graded great, but he graded very well this summer. The "efficiency" you talk about, I think that's the key. That's why Russell is so good, and I think the Torres guys see that in him as well. The "clock" factor, too. You guys are probably too young to remember, but I think Torres like Russell is expected to be more like Rey Sanchez than Shawon Dunston.

Toonster, you're kind of so-so on Torres's defense. I think some scouts like his defense a lot more than you do. Law is one of them.

Torres. My understanding is that there are zero questions about his SS defense, that he safely projects as a big-league SS, and will probably be a plus big-league defensive SS. My understanding is that he's much like Russell defensively; he's really good, really smooth/coordinated/polished/instinctive, even though he may not have a Dunston arm or look super fast. With Contreras, he's my definite #2.I think questions remain whether he can become above-average or average as an overall big-league defensive catcher, when framing and blocking and pitch-calling and pitcher-handling and all of those things get considered. So for me it's the defensive no-worries-excellent versus the defensive-not-so-sure-yet that distinguished Torres and Contreras. That said, with Russell at SS, I won't be surprised if Torres ends at 2nd, where he'll be a big defensive asset just as Russell was at 2nd. Not because he's not a good defender who'd be good at SS, just because SS is blocked. Think "might end up at 2B" sometimes implies defensive limits, maybe-not-good-enough-for-SS. Doesn't apply here at all in Torres case.

Law's Cubs: 15. Gleyber Torres 27. Willson Contreras 47. Ian Happ 69 Billy McKinney 88. Albert Almora 91. Dylan Cease As was noted yesterday, he's shockingly high on Torres, Contreras, and Happ, all three. Bump three individuals top-50, two top-27, and you're going to rank the overall system pretty high. Those three guys are the divergence between Law and BA, I think. Being that high on one, not shocking. I doubt other evaluations will go that high on all three, though.

He's a big Happ fan, too, and I think he really likes Gleyber also.

Apparently, Bowden said the Cubs were one of the 9 teams (not that it's surprising) I'd say that's extremely surprising, if it's actually true, particularly if Bowden's bit about perhaps as much as $30M has any merit. That would be very surprising to me if the Cubs are in discussion on a guy that would be even remotely close to $60M with tax. The good point is that if there is anything to it, that confirms the Cubs have some $$ left. I know some of you have been confident that was true, but I've been less certain. So, even assuming we don't get Lazarito, hopefully they'll find somebody else who's worth spending some money on.

Thanks for Caratini post, Tom. I heard that interview, nice to see it spelled out exactly. Very positive about the hitting.

thanks, Tom. Nice little interview. Yes, he sounded pretty positive on Edwards. I thought he was fairly positive on Johnson, too. I thought his comments on McKinney were interesting. He talked about what a good approach, good eye, good hitter he was, but that he wouldn't have "big" power; but he talked about hitting 20 HR! Seems to me that 20HR, while not perhaps Bryant-esque "big power", is still plenty of power. How many guys hit over 20 HR's? There's only 20 guys who hit 30 HR's last year. A McKinney with 20-HR, with his contact and walks, could be an enormously valuable offensive player. Other McKinney comment was that after his injury, McLeod didn't think the hard fields in Arizona would be safe for him. So sounds like he'll have a delayed and compromised spring, and presumably a compromised season as a whole.

That is pretty depressing collection of top-10 lists.

Wait and see is correct, and hopefully Law and Kiley are right, we stole him, and he's going to be a fine player. I do admit some doubts about the "Yankees offered $10M" story. Strains credulity that a guy was offered $10M and ended up in a position where he accepted $2.6 (Giants) and $3.0 Cubs offers.

Contreras was a really unusual jump. Don't expect anything quite like that. But, certainly he'd been in discussion and in back-of-top-30's before, so for people like us it's not like he came out of totally nowhere. We all certainly knew about him, and that he had some tools. Personally I'd look for more modest and less-extreme jumps. Caratini has been in top-30's. If his hitting and power jumped some, and some favorable defensive reports started to come in, catchers can get into lists pretty easily. If you want a real long-shot, how about Skulina? Nobody talks about him. But he's pretty fast, has a pretty good slider, and inconsistently has some very good outings. His numbers last year were K-per-inning. He's the kind of guy with the size and raw stuff, where if he both stayed healthy all year, and improved his delivery so that his control improved and consistency appeared out of thin air, you might have a very good prospect. Pierce and Zagunis are kind of in that landscape, too. Non-young college, injury-interference, wildly inconsistent, forgotten men. But sometimes full health, a delivery adjustment, some success/confidence, resulting increase in consistency/command, resulting decrease in HR-allowed, and a yesterday's-news guy can suddenly be back on the map. Dewees is another. As a 2nd-round pick, it wouldn't be Contreras-esque if he emerged. But what if he showed up in Myrtle, locked in, and mid-year was hitting .320 with 10-HR and 20 stolen bases? Sure, that wouldn't be Contreras, but he's not exactly a guy who many posters have really loved or discussed much. I know these aren't as extreme a the "not-in-org-top-50-jumping-into-mlb-top-50" jump of Contreras. But I'll take what jumps we can get!

On EJM, I agree it's very probable he's off. Not necessarily because he won't be an excellent prospect, but because of his circumstances. He's presumably going to start in XST, and get lots of Cubs-Way training etc. So he likely will not be playing any box-score games until Eugene's season starts in late June. There just won't be hardly any new information or stats or scouting looks on him for rankers to consider, unless he starts in full-season or gets called up their quickly. So other guys will pass him on media lists. Wouldn't really reflect either way on his long-term. But if you start at 97, and have no visible opportunity to move up or prove yourself, some other guys will elevate past you on the list. (Within the Cubs own system alone, they've got plenty of guys like Eloy, Candelario, Underwood, DelaCruz, Cease, Steele, and Caratini who could jump their way into the top-100 with good first half. So if EJM is standing still, in the minds of the rankers, he should be off the list.)

Thanks, Tom. That's pretty good. I heard a Myrtle interview with Madison at the convention. Not sure I'm remembering it all exactly right. But he mentioned Caratini in a favorable way, and suggested that Caratini hit in bad luck first half, and was actually hitting the ball pretty hard pretty often for most of the season. Defense has more questions and a ways to go. Madison also mentioned that Happ will be full-time 2B. Suggested that Happ's bat was Myrtle ready; but he might start out at South Bend because of his defense. If Happ starts at South Bend at 2B, South Bend has the chance to have a pretty interesting roster. Some might be XST and some Myrtle, but it's possible that you might have Happ, Dewees, Eloy, and Martinez possibly all at South Bend. DJ Wilson and/or Galindo also not impossible. If they do bunch their better guys there, combined with the rotation they might possibly have (DelaRosa, steel, Sands, Paulino, Alzolay, Araujo, and perhaps some from the college pitcher group (Kellogg, Twomey, Brooks....), that could be a really interesting roster.

To belabor my standard precaution: hitting mid-90's in a showcase isn't inherently very impressive. If you can't, it's a bad sign, but if you can, it doesn't prove a ton. 1. Full-season minor-leaguers are pitching every 5th day and getting tired; showcase guys can be building up and resting all geared toward that showcase. Will a show-case mid-90's sustain mid-90's after 15 starts? 2. Even Tseng and Ryan Williams can hit mid-90's, if they are well-rested and throw their 4-seamer for velocity rather than their 2-seamers for movement and outs.

Happy New Year, guys! Hopefully it will be a really fun one for the big-league team, and a fun one for the developing prospects, and hopefully signing some more, as well. Win, I agree that drafting pitchers in the mid-late 1st is much more understandable than doing so in the top 6, for risk-reward reasons. When picking in the top 6, there should be a player who's good enough to have only modest performance risk; why take the injury-risk pitcher? But by pick 10 or above, the performance risk with players is rising, and the inherent injury-risk with pitchers may be no worse than the performance-risk with players. Case-by-case, scouting all the way!

Thanks for interesting review. Certainly some pitchers from these recent drafts will emerge in time, who aren't recognized yet. Other teams may have guys like Steele/Sands/Cease who may emerge down the road, but aren't recognized in top-50 lists yet. The strategy of using high picks on players, and then stocking up on pitchers with picks outside the top-25, that's a great strategy. But your review highlights how challenging it is to hit on sandwich/2nd-round/later pitchers. Internationally they've also focused their spending on players, even this year thus far. Pitchers are risky acquisitions. But still you've got to get them somewhere, somehow. With Hammels and Lackey expiring over the next two years, would be nice to be able to replace them with internal guys, quality internal guys. The system may be pressed to do so. The strategy may be to simply buy them or trade for them rather than developing any yourself. But seeing the high price for pitchers in trade, that approach won't come cheap. Hitting on a couple of non-1st-round picks somehow would really, really help. Johnson, Underwood, DelaRosa, Steels, Cease, Tseng, Sands, Hudson, please develop beautifully, perhaps unexpectedly better than we have reason to hope or expect or than statistics could justify!

We're all speculating, but I think Dave's argument is well structured: they had access to massive $$$ for Moncada; they stated an interest in pitching "at all levels" only two months ago; and Theo is too long-term and youth-oriented to allow the farm to get emptied by two blank years. Targetting Price/Miller/Carasco/Samardz/Lackey types, those wouldn't fit the "all levels" phrasing. [unless they were just referring to all levels within the major-league staff. High end starter (we'll talk to Price, and offer Baez or Soler for Carasco); second-level starters (Lackey, Samardz, Miller, Ross); back-end depth rotation/swing guys (Cahill, Warren); swing guys (Cahill, Warren, Richard); true relievers (Bastardo, Giles).] But since "levels" normally refers to major and minor leagues, the "all levels" comment most likely implies stocking up the minors as well as helping at the big-league level. Given IFA as pretty much the only means of off-season minor-league pitching procurement, (other than via trade), the "all levels" comment certainly suggests the intent to use IFA. That would also seem to fit Theo's long-term thinking. Same interview as the "all levels" comment, he talked about how he expected some "impact" pitching from the young minor leaguers, mentioning guys down in the short-season level (Cease, Sands, Steele, DelaRosa, Alzolay...). But the admin has generally seemed to be cognizant that the farm is not rich with pitching. Theo knows they could be needing rotation guys next winter (Hammel) and the following (Lackey), plus in event of injury for other guys. So with no chance at big-ticket IFA's or high-round picks for the next couple of years, unless he's satisfied with the pitching he's got on the farm right now, he'd likely understand the importance of adding some IFA's this cycle. Still, they seem to prioritize just getting value. So even if they know they want pitching, the IFA signings thus far have once more heavily skewed towards position guys.

I wonder whether the opportunity to get Heyward came at some expense to the procurement budget? Theo talked about needing "creativity". If Theo was appealing to Ricketts and accounting/budget to get creative and reallocate due to special Heyward opportunity, might they have not have expected him to provide some of those millions by reallocating some from the Cuban cookie jar? We'll never know, unless the Cubs do proceed and sign some more significant Cubans. But they may have heavily depleted their discretionary cash.

Glad we kept him, but not a fan, personally. Good arm, so that gives him chances. But so, so, so very wild. Not many useful major-league pitchers who have no control, and not many guys whose stuff is so superior that they can be useful without any control. But, there's always a hope. Maybe Bosio or the coaches next spring, or perhaps down in instrux or something, can help him make some adjustment in his delivery that could improve his control from awful to merely below-average, and maybe he'll still have a shot.

Drafting team gets to keep him. Cost is peanuts, like $1K or something insignificant. And unlike the major-league version, I don't think the drafting team needs to even keep the draftee on it's AAA roster. Basically it's a free transfer of roster-fill players. Most major-league Rule 5's don't stay with drafting team; AAA draftees never get returned to original team. Heesch and Chen have been productive minor-leaguers. Best wishes to them.

Agree completely. It's not like we've got an excess of relief options. Wood was good in relief, and his expected salary seems reasonably in line with what relievers get. (See Motte's $10/5 deal; Cahill's $4.5/1, etc...) That he can pitch extra innings, go multi-inning, and start if circumstances necessitate, he seems like he fits very well. If there's some compelling reason like Heyward to clear salary, OK, but I'll be surprised if he's traded.