craig

He pitched after that game, though, and effectively. So I'm not sure we should be injury-worried about him.

Just to Clarify on the IFA slots: http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/trade-central-cubs-braves-swap-players-international-slots/ http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/2014-15-mlb-international-bonus-pools-and-slot-values/ 1. All of the slots were 2014 slots, not 2015 slots. (At least, that's BA's understanding). 2. BA says the Braves had been within $100K of exhausting their cap. The trade frees us $830K more for them. 3. There is a cap on how much a team can trade for: 50% of their slot. If the Cubs had given up the three slots, and the Braves not returned a smaller slot, that would have exceeded the Braves acquisition allowance. In any trade, seeing who is adding value to make a deal mutually acceptable is an insight into the internal valuations. Presumably they didn't do the trade 1-for-1 because Atlanta wouldn't, and the Cubs needed to sweeten the deal to make it work.

Thanks much for the reports, cal. that's some unexpected buzz for Edwards, higher than I'd expected, and more TOR than I expected. Would we have expected that he'd finish 5 spots ahead of Archie Bradley last winter during Samardz trade discussions. Reading a report like this on Russell makes him seem like such an extraordinarily "safe" prospect. Not a huge K problem, not real defensive questions, not a big question about breaking stuff. He just seems so safe and low-stress. Like the Bryant bat-speed bit, and the defense comment was relatively encouraging, I thought. Almora, not so much. Possibly 4th outfielder, trouble with fastballs, and more high-leg-kick doesn't excite a lot. I wonder if he's got any interest in toning down the leg kick? That he's even included, though, still speaks to the possibilities that many see.

Definitely. .900+ he's top 20. If he reproduces his .605 OPS from this Tennessee, or his combined .684, he's off all "top" lists. In between those extremes, I'd probably kinda guess he's need to be at least .760 or better to stay top-100, and probably at least .820 or so for top-50? Beats me. I imagine he'll fall well between the awful and great extremes. I'm sure hoping he's nearer .850 than .700, though.

Yeah, we'll see, he'll be an interesting one to see how the different evaluators place him. Obviously minor-league prospect lists are fun for us, and fun to talk about. How one gets rated, of course, is pretty fluid, and how good the guy actually is as a major-leaguer is what counts. When a guy is young-for-league, non-production is always forgiven to varying degree. But the "he's young" view only lasts so long for guys who don't actually become productive at some point. Almora will still be only 21 next summer at Tennessee, so still young per level. If he hits, and with power, 2014 will be immediately forgotten as a developmental year. But at 21 in his 4th pro season, I think the willingness of evaluators to dismiss non-production will diminish a lot. If he follows up non-productive 2014 with a so-so 2015, then I think people will be getting off the bandwagon fast.

There are ten full-season leagues. So on average, that on average five top-50 guys per league. Almora at 18th in Southern League and 11th in Florida State League, by BA's evals, isn't going to make top 50. I think he's got a fair chance to stay top-100, at least in some lists. (BA's, for one.) I was pretty encouraged, actually, that BA's lists still included him in top-20's for both FSL and SL. Kelton and Almora were both age 20 in their Daytona seasons, and both were ranked in the second ten. If Almora is already viewed as a top-20 guy in that league, and perhaps a top-100 guy overall, then IF he has a breakout hitting season at AA the way that Kelton did, I'd figure he could climb back into top-50 a year from now. Personally I expect that will require two interconnected things: some kind of adjustment in swing plane or approach or something so that he can get the ball in the air more often, rather than hitting so many ground balls; and simply hitting more HR's and improving his HR-projection as perceived by evaluators. We know he's not going to walk very much; and while he will almost certainly make some adjustments to increase his walk rate, that will inevitably come at the expense of striking out more often. Low walk/low-K guys never increase their walks without also jumping their K's. But being a bat-speed guy, more of that bat-speed needs to turn into doubles and over-the-wall HR's, rather than so many fast-bat-speed ground balls. Offensive production on ground balls is never good, and he just hit too many grounders this year. Offensively he's going to need to live on batting average and power; neither will be excellent at his 2014 ground ball rate. 9 HR's isn't a bunch. But, 9 HR's isn't bad for a 20-year-old on an off year playing a bunch in the FSL. Suppose he was to, say, jump that up to 15 HR's next year in AA. If I replaced 6 of his groundouts with 6 HR's this year, without changing anything else, then his OPS for the year would jump by 59 points and his OBP would slip up over .300. If he'd gone through FSL/SL this season with a combined .742 OPS instead of .683, I'd be a lot more optimistic.

Don't need "pure hitter" scouting to make top-50 if you post .928 OPS in AA at age 21. Reports don't have Almora as a "pure hitter", given his leg kick and balance problems, his problems with pitch recognition, his problems with breaking balls, and his problems pounding balls into the dirt. But if he comes up with a .900+ OPS at AA next year, like Kelton he'll be in the top-50, pure hitter or not. I wish! Doubtful, but maybe he will.

Did anybody other than Hendry and Fleita ever pump Kelton as a pure hitter? I don't recall BA or the greater scouting world ever being as buzzed about his hitting as Hendry was.

There are few meaningless phrases in this game than "pure hitter". I sure like it when scouts say it about our guys, though. Glad to hear that kind of talk for Schwarber and McKinney. Maybe Russell too?

Gotcha. I wasn't even thinking about him. Boise's league is probably about the easiest one for a guy to make a top-20. No disrespect, every league is interesting and has some prospects. 1. The league is rather small, only 8 teams. Much easier to make Top-20 when teams are averaging 2.5 guys, whereas other leagues with 13-16 teams it's statistically barely half as likely. 2. Good prospects frequently don't spend any or enough time at that level to qualify. *Good college draft picks like Schwarber and Stinnett who would easily be better prospects than Zagunis/Leal/Clifton/Burks/Crawford/Conway types, or Bryant the year before, aren't listed. *Many good HS guys never get listed. Almora pretty much skipped Boise. Not sure, but won't surprise me at all if Sands skips Eugene, and possibly Steele as well? *Tseng and Soler both skipped Boise. 3. The BA chat said this particular year wasn't strong at all, making reference to this summer's Northwest League class being a "one-star" class.

I'm guessing you're confusing "Burke" with somebody else?

Yeah, that's a little curious. Leal being ranked higher pretty much inherently says they're projecting him better. So I'm guessing that the Clifton "projects better" is either alluding to velocity, or to potential ceiling which few guys reach. The two guys are only two months apart in age (Leal March, Clifton May). Surprised that Leal's stuff got scouted that well. Surprised they said he averaged 90 mph on his fastball; I'd assumed he was slower. In that league you'd think a 90 mph fastball, control, and both a change and potential plus-curve would rack up a lot more K's. If he's really 90-average now, and matures into a couple more in future, a 91-93 well-commanded fastball with a plus curve and change could make a very effective pitcher. We'll see. I'd have expected Conway>Clifton>Leal valuation if you'd asked me yesterday morning. Pretty surprised both that we got 4 guys in, and that Leal and can't-hit Crawford were included. Thought manager's "If he commits himself" comment on Baez was interesting. Not sure if that was meant to be praise for how promising he is, or a bit of a knock on his effort? Or both? In my memory, Boise's top-20's are the worst of any league I can remember. Not sure how much comes from the BA author, versus the managers in that level of league. Obviously there aren't many teams in that league, so a lot easier to make top-20 with an 8-team league than bigger leagues like Mesa, Kane, and Daytona. But I wonder whether VanTol etc. understand that hitting is really important, and if Baez or Crawford can't hit much, then the sky is not the limit?

Mitchell's velocity info might explain that? He's got Steele at 89-91, Sands at 91-93, plus more projectable.

If Steele and Mejia are 21/22, that's 5/22 Cubs in a 13-team league.

:) Yes!

Agree, Amaya at catcher would be interesting, especially if he apparently shows good aptitude. I don't think Bruno did. Amaya's chances at catcher could be a lot better than as a pretty much one-position 2B-only guy. It also seems to fit my perception of his defensive talents: quick hands, well-coordinated, smart, but not rangy. Obviously range doesn't matter at C, the other parts do. On the other hand, he's never been scouted as having a rocket arm, so that's a strike against. With Schwarber, Zagunis, and Caratini, plus Contreras, that's kind of a big schlew of developmental catchers. But as you say, Amaya wouldn't start higher than Eugene or at best South Bend. So I don't think he'd be blocked or anything, at least at first.

Texas was in Myrtle Beach. I wonder why they chose not to renew? Seems like normally the default is to maintain an affiliation. So to some degree, aren't any cities/facilities that become open basically ones whose existing team found unsatisfactory in some way? It might be that if facilities were really awesome, Myrtle Beach wouldn't be open in the first place? Beats me. 8 rainouts still seems like kind of a lot, but 18 is ridiculous. Is the distance from our Tennessee team really significantly different? I'd doubt that's much of a factor.

Underwood has to be one of the better development stories for this season. His odds of becoming useful are way better now than I perceived them to be last September, that's for sure. Still very inconsistent. Some days he's a K-guy, sometimes few. Some days he walks a bunch, sometimes hardly any. Sometimes he's all groundouts, sometimes he's heavily fly-ball. sometimes control seems fine, other days not so hopeful. Hopefully he'll stay healthy long enough to work through everything and come increasingly consistent. If he has different ways to get through a game, that's fine. Hopefully the high volume of HR's allowed won't be a career-long vulnerability.

Naive question, but what does that actually mean? Is "glove-side" relative to the pitcher, such that with RH Underwood Johnson is talking outside for RH hitters and inside for LH hitters? Or is "glove-side" relative to the catcher target, such that "glove-side" improvement means he's improved his inside fastball against RH hitters and outside for LH hitters?

From that Cooper chat, over the last 35 years, the only two players with higher K-rates than Baez have been Rick Ankiel and JR Phillips.

Thanks, animal. Helpful to read.

Will look forward to your Blackburn scouting.

I recall a couple of comments by Az Phil about Torres's defense, and they were extremely positive. I can't recall the details, but he seemed to rank Torres as the most gifted defensive SS he's seen down there. He seemed to rank the rookie-league SS's in this defensive order: Torres => Penalver > Hak Lee >> Baez, Alcantara, Hernandez > Castro. He was super gushy, and was acting like Torres has a chance to be up with the great historic Venezuelan defensive SS's like Vizquel and Davey Concepcion. Obviously all the usual caveats apply. Phil isn't a scout, he watches a finite number of games, he gets influenced by those that he sees, and he can be a bit of a gusher. But given that his observations are the only ones we've gotten since the signing, I think it's fair to consider that Torres may well be a true SS until/unless there is evidence or other scouting opinion to the contrary.

He's going to end up in my org top 5. I hadn't given that much thought, but I think that's totally justifiable. After the obvious first group (Bryant/Soler/Russell/Schwarber in whichever order), I can see the argument for putting a really gifted defensive SS who can hit and walks plenty ahead of the second five, with Almora/McKinney and the 3 pitchers in some sequence or other. Whatever order, whoever is going to get listed at #10 is going to be a very significant prospect.