craig

Who has options? I know Edwards does, and Rivero, and Ramirez does not. Patton does also? Does Brothers? He's a lot more interesting if he does.

I actually think it looks pretty good. (Going to be tough for a Rule 5 to crack that pen though....) 5 starters, 9 relievers, that's only two extra guys really. 1. For any 14 pitchers, typically at least one would be opening the year on the DL and at least one would be on the DL at any given moment in time. 2. Ramirez, fair chance that he won't actually show up healthy, or healthy and controlled enough to make the team. 3. Some other teams are always short. So if everybody is both healthy and looking impressive, shouldn't be too hard to trade a Ramirez or Grimm or somebody else. 4. Isn't Brothers just a flyer? Maybe a new start and a new pitching coach will fix him. But pretty fair chance that he won't be fixed, and they'll be able to release him in camp and be freed from much of his modest salary? 5. I don't know, but is there any chance that Brothers still has options left? 6. Brothers only brought back a modest-bonus DSL pitcher. If he looks as wild as ever and remains ineffective in camp, I'd be surprised if anybody picked him up were we to cut him. Good chance you could get him to Iowa and take more time to try to fix him there? 7. A chance Hammel will get traded for salary relief so they can address CF. Maybe just let Warren/Cahill compete for 5th spot? I like it a lot, actually.

Interesting. Obviously there is some hope that Samardz has the arm and velocity and stuff to pitch better than his 3-year composite; and some fear that Leake would pitch worse. But yeah, pretty good chance that actual Samardz won't be any better, and may well be worse, than Leake or Lackey or Hendricks or Hammel. Tangent: We've presumed that rotation was going to be the place where the pitching upgrade would be most noticeable. But I wonder if relief might be an area? Statistically, both rotation and relief were very good last year. Both look very vulnerable to decline. But if we added some bullpen firepower, and both the added talent pitched well, and the risky wild return guys like Strop and Grimm remained good, the Cubs could hypothetically have a very, very strong bullpen. You can win a lot of games with Hendricks/Hammel/Leake types starting and giving 5-6 innings, and then turning games over to a really good/deep bullpen. In the playoffs with zillions of off days, you can turn games over to the bullpen even quicker.

Thanks for info, Bear Cub.

he's been struggling even worse in winter league than in the states. Even after the 4-4 day, he's still only at .218, 20K/0HR. Ouch.

.... Hmm, pretty short.

Thanks, cal. Heh heh, gotta give Longenhagen credit, he thinks for himself! :) Perhaps a reminder of how every scout has his own opinions about guy, and the concept that there is any uniform "consensus" about any player is a myth. Contreras: "all the traits of a big time power hitter"? That's a new one! Candelario: "butcher"! I think Longenhagen and John Manual from BA define the boundary extremes on that eval! :) (In Manual's favor is that his opinion is taken from two or three pro scouts, so fair hope that Manual's sources outnumber and "out-accurate" that of Longenhagen. Not sure how many AFL games Longenhagen attended; I'm guessing Candy's 3-error game was one of them? *"Mild case of Vitters disease" is another take I haven't read before. (I could very much live with that, I think.....) Vogelbach: "bat speed" but "bad approach", that's another spin I don't think I've seen. Not sure what he doesn't like about the approach, but that would seem to be again the opposite boundary from some Vogelbach supporters, where Vogelbach's take-a-walk approach is perhaps his best skill. Anyway, kind of fun to read opinions from a guy who's way out there and has no compunctions about being so. Somehow I don't anticipate that Contreras will really be a big-time power hitter, though!

Shocked/stunned. Will be interested to see whether the guy can ever add any power. His HR rate has gone down each year. I'd thought this past year might be time for a bump, using the old "FSL-pitchers-league" bit. But it continued plateau/decline. Hopefully he'll still bump it up some next year, somehow. But after 4-years straight, I suspect he probably just doesn't have the quickness to hit a lot of game HR's.

I'd just do the main three, Contreras, Johnson, and Candelario. No way I'd waste a spot on Vogelbach. Only playable skill is walking; don't see any team burning a 25-man spot to protect a walking DH. If they keep a 4th guy, I'd assume it would be one of the pitchers.

Don't think so. QO could theoretically be repeated, if the team still thinks the guy is worth it but the rest of the league still doesn't think guy is worth multi-year deal Very different from Franchise Tag, since Tag deprives NFL player of free agency, whereas QO does not. Seems fair that NFL team should pay escalating price to deprive a guy of FA two years straight. But since QO doesn't at all deprive guy of anything, baseball QO can go FA if he wants, there's no reason to make it increasingly hard for the team the second year. I assume a QO-acceptor can re-work deal any time as well. Replace the $16/1 QO agreement with a $33/3 deal in it's place, if they both wanted to? Wonder if Fowler has any interest in accepting Cubs QO?

Ah, then I'm way wrong. I thought they did something with Pena different than what they did with Contreras. If it was EXACTLY the same, then the question of Pena being rostered remains open. Something seems not right, though. You write that Pena and Contreras could have jumped ship. I don't believe that can have been true. (Just using common sense here, not having read the rules.) The Cubs could have rostered Contreras whenever they wanted. I can't imagine they'd have **ever** let him become a completely free free agent free to jump ship this fall. We see what international unlimited FA's get; and we see what teams spend for first and second round talent, especially prior to the draft cap. *If* Contreras had really been free, would he not have received an offer of at least a million, and possibly several of them? Proceduraly I can't imagine the Cubs ever let him go free.

He's Rule 5 eligible for sure. (Well, unless the Cubs now decide to roster him, which I don't expect.) And there isn't anything procedural that necessitates doing this prior to rostering him, if that was indeed what they intended. (If this was an obscure procedural step needed prior to Rule 5-protection, then Contreras would have undergone the same necessary procedural step, which in fact did not happen.) As Ryan said, he just decided that he'd rather stay with Cubs on a minor-league contract than wait and hope for something more attractive elsewhere. If he had reason to expect other teams to offer him major-league contracts, he should have waited. Given how thin the Cubs pitching is, especially in terms of potential yo-yo guys with options, he's probably wise to stick with the Cubs. I'm sure a 40-man spot elsewhere would pay better, but I can't imagine there are many orgs who are more thin in terms of both rotation and relief yo-yo candidates. But, certainly if some other team wants him for 25-man, they are free to Rule 5 him.

A few years back, the Cubs were clearly in rebuilding, talent-accumulation. I have so many questions about how it works internally now. Now the Cubs are a 97-win team who went to the NL championship series. I wonder how much discretionary money the Cubs have to spend? And how internally they split that between prospect procurement and big-league free agency? Do they have totally different budgets? In the Soler/Concepcion and Jiminez/Tseng/Torres years, were they stealing tens of millions from the big-league cookie jar because there was nothing worthwhile to spend that money on? Or do they have a fixed budget for procurement, which had $14 mill per year between draftees and internationals? Do they have different cookie jars for draft versus international procurement? The face that they can't spend for the next two years, can they borrow from the future? Or can they only spend from whatever savings and revenue-past has accumulated? Internally, is Theo sitting in a room in which McLeod/Madison/Dorey are having heated arguments with Hoyer/Bush/Shiraz Rehman? McLeod wants $30 million to sign Cubans, but Hoyer wants that to sign Fowler and Zobrist and O'Day rather than settling for Darren Jackson? Do FA spending and international procurement come out of different budgets with different Zell-sale debt/borrowing constraints? I would just love to have an inside dope scoop on how this plays out internally. Dave, as you mentioned with the "all levels" bit, I think that could very much fit an interest in Sierra. If he was signed and went to AA or AAA, but might be ready fairly soon, that could provide an extra alternative to Hammel if he hits the wall again, or be an option for injury replacement. One of my other "all levels" thoughts has been that Castro doesn't have trade value for a good big-league starter, but he might have value for an interesting minor-league pitching prospect. How good of an almost-ready prospect arm might you get for Castro+Happ? Or Castro + Underwood?

Good point, Ryan. Carrying a guy on the 40 with the options-shuffle is way different than needing to carry on the 25. If some other team liked him enough to commit a 25-man spot to him, they should have liked him enough to commit a 40-man spot to him. Way easier. So I don't see him as a likely Rule 5 guy, unless he somehow does something to change a team's evaluation over the next month. (Is he pitching winter ball, I wonder?)

3 thoughts: 1. Manuel suggested 7-12 for Cubs placement. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although perhaps a little high. I think often the guys who write up a particular organization tend to fall in love with their guys a little bit. Some of the other BA guys might not value the Cubs as much, so wouldn't be surprised if they ended somewhere more around 15, but whatever. Doesn't matter much either way. 2. Much of Manuel's info comes from other scouts, but also talking to internal Cubs people. That's especially true for low-exposure guys like DelaRosa, Jiminez, Cease, and instrux-level Happ. Not tons of premier scouts flocking to Northwest-League games. I suspect Cubs sources probably pump their guys pretty much, even if not necessarily as flagrantly as Hendry and Fleita did. When you look at Manuel's info, several key evals hinge on Cub sources: *Torres: "Some club officials give Torres plus future power" *Happ: "He focused solely on playing second base in instructional league and impressed club officials with his athleticism, making throws from all angles and improving his footwork." *De La Cruz: "His fastball sits in the 92-93 mph range but bumps 97 regularly when his delivery is in sync" (seems like Cubs info....) "Club officials try to rein in their enthusiasm with regard to de la Cruz, but they clearly have high hopes for him." Cubs know more and give more thought to their guys than anybody else. So, honest internal eval is probably more valuable than any other source we have access to. And given the recent success the Cubs have had with their evaluations and development, plus how articular Cubs guys tend to be, I can see how Manuel would tend to respect their input. Still, it does make me wonder if what Manuel hears and what influences his rankings, whether all of that really is honest or not? Call me guarded.... :) 3. Pretty impressive/encouraging to have a system with so many impact graduations, and then still have possible impact guys like Cease/DelaRosa/Jiminez still hanging out in the 5-9 range, and still have many possible perfectly-solid-regulars prospects like Contreras/Almora/McKinney/Candelario still included, and to have a possible impact-reliever like Edwards not even make it. And to have a guy like Eddy Julio Martinez who may be JAG but perhaps will be a special athlete who perhaps will also hit besides waiting behind, and a nice prospect like Steele waiting to perhaps earn solid top-10 future. Good place to be.

I think Manuel has Happ too high. I included Edwards in my top ten; Happ, Candelario, and DelaRosa were three who I didn't include. Why is Happ too high? 1. So many K's. He's got the nice stroke that appeals to scouts. But, he's consistently been a high-K guy in college, and he's been a high-K guy in his first pro summer, even against short-season and A- pitching. K-issues are a concern to me for a guy who's gotten quite a few post-HS AB's. There might be some good underlying reasons why he so frequently swings-and-misses. And swing-and-miss issues usually get worse up the ladder, particularly in the majors. 2. Overrated Defense. I think Manuel seems too favorable about Happ's defense. Manuel casts his 2B defense in a favorable light, and made Zobrist allusions, and hopefully for good reason. But I'm pretty guarded/skeptical there. I know he played 2B in instrux, and he played center in minors, but I'm somewhat doubtful that he'll really be big-league average at either 2B or CF, or anything like Zobrist who's a super fluid/coordinated/instinctive guy everywhere. Az Phil is of course no scout; but his comment on 2B Happ in instrux was "looks stiff". I'm guessing that perhaps Happ will blossom defensively and perhaps be able to give LaStella-caliber 2B, or Denorfia-caliber CF. But I'm guessing that really LF/RF are the only two positions where he's got much chance to ever be a big-league asset defensively.

I'm not that big a Candelario guy. So I had Edwards ahead of him. Seems like a decent-across guy, but not sure I see anything special. *Manuel has his defense and arm really good. Just this week Law thought his defense was a limitation, rather than a significant asset. I assume he's got a good chance to be fine, but not a "because of his glove" guy. I'm a little guarded there. *I'm optimistic about his power. But none of the scouting reports really describe him as a HR-guy. He's been a 10-11 HR guy, while young. So, I'm very optimistic that he project the raw power and hitting skill to eventually be a 14-24 HR kind of guy. But none of the scouting reports seem to scout as having big power in the Baez/Soler/Schwarber/Bryant/Jiminez mold, or even in the Addison Russell mode. I'm guarded their too. *His K/BB are solid, very much so if he was a HR guy, but at the same time not amazing or anything. And his average hasn't been anything wow. .270's this year, .250 previous season. I'm pretty optimistic; K/BB is controlled, and having 8/1 K/HR ratios at 20/21 gives him a serious chance to maintain respectable K/HR ratios future. But I don't get the sense that his wrists and bat-speed have the "pop" that really good hitters have. So, again I'm guarded. Seems like a very nice prospect, but maybe more a guy who might be an average-across-the-board guy rather than good-at-everything-and-special-at-something. Overall a very good prospect, and we'll see what the new summer brings. Hopefully he'll step everything up, the more Manuel-like defensive evals will become the norm and win out over the Law-view. Hopefully his BABIP will look better, and he'll bump his HR's a little further. I admit a certain level of hypocrisy, probably. Candelario has a chance to be a solid/average starter. I see Almora as having a chance to be a solid/average starter. I've got Almora in my top 5, because given the Cubs present layout, a capable solid/average CFer projects to be a very valuable commodity. And with Soler/Schwarber having defensive limits on one or the other or both sides, having a good-D CFer seems especially important long-term. Perhaps if 3B was to Candelario what CF is to Almora, perhaps I'd have Candelario securely in my top 10, and Almora on or off the bubble too.

There aren't many teams looking hard to trade for DH's whose only skill is walking. I don't really see any problem with Vogelbach being outside the top 30. (He's at #40 on my list! :)) I have Edwards well into my top 10. But really, other than Candelario, I don't see compelling reason to flip Edwards over the guys BA included. *The info Manuel got on de la Cruz was pretty enthusiastic. "Beast", "stud", plus movement-plus-velocity fastball that touches 97, throws strikes, I can see why Manuel ranked him ahead of a wild reliever if that's his intel. Maybe his info is baloney, and the scouts he talked to weren't really that smart, so Edwards as a 7th inning reliever may have a much more valuable career, very possible. But I can see how a possible rotation asset would rank ahead of a wild reliever. *Likewise Jiminez, with his power potential, I don't think it would have been wise to exclude him from the top 10. So if those guys are coming in 8th/9th, I don't see huge argument about posting 42walk/53inning Edwards behind them. It's maybe the nature of the ranking/projecting business to try to ID and rank impact players. Cease, Jiminez with his Bryant/Schwarber-level raw power (and no attitude/effort/intelligence/contact/K issues thus far), and DelaCruz (given the "stuff" evaluations Manual was working with), those three have shots to be stars or high-impact guys. I think BA doesn't want to omit possible impact guys like that, and if they do their is no shame there, since they obviously mention how distant and raw and short-season each of those three guys are. But If Edwards becomes an effective setup reliever, I don't think BA would have the same "How did we miss that guy?" shame. Miss on setup reliever, o well. Miss on a big star? Big miss.

Back to Edwards, unpredictable things happen in this crazy game, and unpredictable management decisions as well. But I think at this point, whether it was Theo-team-dumbness or whatever, I think it's relatively unlikely that Edwards will be realigned onto rotation track. Rotation-track guys, they typically want guys who can eat innings and have diverse repertoire. Edwards is slight, wild, and thus far can't control any pitches much less three different ones. I'll be pretty surprised if they realign Edwards back to rotation track. Like it or not, disagree with it or not, he's probably on the relief side for good. Very good relievers are super valuable. I'd be happy if he could be a really good reliever. Whether he'll have enough command for that to prove true, time will tell, I have no reason to assume he will and none to assume he won't. We've seen Grimm and Strop be super valuable as wild man relievers with very good stuff. So it's not like it's impossible to be variably successful despite control issues. Or, maybe Bosio will be able to clean him up and his control really won't be that bad long-term, who knows.

In their projected tools, they have Gleyber with 60's on everything (including power) other than speed (55). Not sure I've projected his power to be as good as his defense, for example. But if so, that would explain why he ranks so favorably. And if that projection proves correct, he'll be a very fine player.

But it isn't "nuts" to skip over a reliever who can't throw strikes. You can make most of the top 10 sound similarly undesirable if you want to frame things that way. ..... I agree with Tim's note. True, most of these guys can be framed in a negative way that could justify excluding them. That said, I don't think it's "nuts" for BA to hold that view. We can disagree. (I included Edwards in my top 10, certainly, and I think really good stuff and really good relievers are very valuable.) But it's not "nuts" for a contrasting opinion to be lukewarm about a reliever who can't throw strikes. Hardly "nuts" to consider a 41BB/55IP reliever to be too wild to be very good. And not "nuts" to exclude a guy because they believe he's going to be a reliever (lots of people do), and because they think he's too wild to be an excellent one.

Thanks for list. Agree, interesting that good-stuff-wildman Edwards off. Interesting that DeLaCruz included. I'll be interested to see what their comments are about him. (Please share if/when they post some.) Surprised that KHapp was so high. Surprised that Candelario was included.

Thanks, Tryptamine, nice writeup.

True. Age 18, A-ball: Torres: .722 OPS, Profar .883 K/HR ratio: Torres 38:1 Profar: 5:1 (115/3, versus 63:12) XBH: Torres 32, Profar 57 K/BB: Torres 3:1, Profar 1:1. Torres is an excellent prospect, but looking at what Profar did at same age reminds why Profar was such a buzz back then. I guess I'd be more excited about Torres if either it was widely projected that he'd have pretty good power, or if he profiled as an excellent contact guy. Hopefully the contact will grow steadily. But early on, his K-rate has been a red flag, particularly for a modest power guy. I never really like to see 38:1 K/HR ratios. For him to tighten that up quite a bit next year will obviously be one of the things I watch for.

Agree, I don't see why this would be a top-10 system now, or why it should become one next year unless a lot of maybe guys break through. (Which is probably true for most orgs.) But, I admit I don't know other orgs that well. Maybe I'm underestimating us. But seems like nobody in Full-season who projects any star-power. 1. No TORP guys in full-season, 2. No middle-of-the-order hitters either. Torres projects nicely, but nothing special, and with bad K/HR ratios thus far, he's shaky. Contreras looks nice.... for a catcher. But neither has the power nor the special defense to have any "wow" potential. When very limited guys like Almora are fitting in as high as #3 (my own list) or Zagunis as high as #5 (toonster list), or Underwood top 5, or a wild Edwards, it speaks to a lack of top-end talent anywhere close to graduating. There are guys who might contribute, but just not a lot of potential impact guys. Seem more like complementary pieces or support guys than front-line asset starter prospects. Basically seems like a fairly average list to me. Which is pretty nice considering all the guys we've graduated. Not sure I see much reason to expect any major jump. Eloy, Cease, Martinez might perhaps be high-ceiling guys, but that's partly because we know too little to know what their limits may be. I'm not faulting. To still be solid/average, maybe better, after so many impact graduations is pretty impressive.