craig

I'm going with Edwards. He's hard to hit, he allows very few HR's, and by account he's got good late movement on his fastball. (Which is probably why the HR's are so low.) He's already been reasonably good in AA. Concerns are control and durability. His control this past year was inconsistent at best. Maybe that was partly missing time, and then not being in a groove when he came back, but I'm a little concerned that he's maybe going to have some Marmol-light issues. Obviously he's a pitcher, and after some arm issues last year the risk of future arm problems is probably elevated. Plus the size and question of whether he can sustain his stuff beyond 60 pitches as might be needed to start. But everybody has questions at this point, and I'm not sure there aren't as many or more concerns for Torres, Almora, and McKinney. (Or Rivero). I'm also not a believer that value vanishes if a guy moved to relief. Pitchers with good stuff who can get people out end up being useful, and always get opportunities. (No place like the bullpen for having usage ending up conforming to performance.) I'm very much motivated for the Cubs to end up with a really, really good bullpen. If Edwards ends up there, but he's good, that's still not a bad value for a #5 prospect.

"Signing" is often used interchangeably with "coming to agreement", so he could basically make his decision by the end of the month, even if that was an agreement with the Cubs. Cubs would obviously need to offer him some pretty good guarantee in case of injury or something, and perhaps still let him work at their facilities or whatever. Ridiculous and even faintly possible, no. But yes, due diligence.

Yeah, that would be fun.

That would help a lot, and would streamline getting everything done during a compressed signing period, plus avoid anything like this awkward Aiken deal. Cubs have had at least one failed physical within the last several years, (DeLeon), so while it's uncommon it's not so rare that doing physicals altogether would be unnecessary.

I don't see the advantage here. 1. It shrinks the signing timeline to two weeks. That seems rather brief, given that management have a lot of draftees that they need to work with. 2. A two-week window doesn't seem a lot of time to get all the physicals done. 3. A two-week window doesn't seem a lot of time to work out contingency signings. You kinda need your high-round guys signed before you can sign later guys, in order to access the overage money, and in order to know what you've got to work with assuming some sign sub-slot. 4. I don't think it's good for the scouting community. I can recall the Dempster trade summer, Randy Bush saying things would pick up after the draft, but that everybody and all the scouts had been so busy with draft stuff that there was no time for trades or for scouting pros. If you bump the draft back to July, then the scouts may be all engaged scouting amateurs for so long that there's isn't much time for scouting trade-deadline minor-leaguers. 5. It shortens the amount of season within which signed prospects can play.

The "being good" is the key. Zobrist has been good offensively and defensively. Alcantara was .254 OBP, .215 versus RHP. He's going to need to show a lot of improvement. Hope he can, and if so he can be really valuable. But hitting big-league pitching is tough, so no guarantee. We'll see.

Who knows what they're going to do about 2B/3B at the start of the season. My guess is they don't know themselves. Baez, Alcantara, La Stella, and possibly Olt. Four guys now competing for two starting spots, and either 3 or 4 roster spots. Of those four, one could easily argue that Baez, Alcantara, and certainly Olt really belong in the minors improving their offense and earning another chance. The other oddity is that Alcantara has played hardly any pro 3B, and not sure La Stella has either. Not sure how ready they'll be defensively to start the year at 3B. I wonder whether in absence of Valbuena whether they might not sign some backup 3B. I think this would be the kind of open-opportunity situation that the agent for any non-roster guy or a comeback-from-injury guy would be on the phone calling about. Not sure how many people are in the Cubs complex at Mesa these days. But if I was La Stella, I'd be down there begging a couple of guys, one to stand on 1B and the other to hit grounders and choppers and bunt, and get in all the 3B practice, throwing especially, that I could get.

Structuring a lineup with some OBP on top might be nice. Cubs haven't had a serious OBP-guy at leadoff very often. Depending on how left and 2B shake out, it's possible that one of those spots could provide a decent OBP guy batting 2nd, too. La Stella, Coghlan, and Denorfia all profile as guys who *might* be pretty solid OBP guys, and might kind of fit into 2nd slot. Not sure which of them will be any good this year, or get to play much. But on a given day, fair chance that one of those three might be in the lineup. *La Stella was a .407-OBP minor-league career, and his .328-OBP for Atlanta is still well above league average. *Denorfia stunk last year, but was .335-OBP or better the previous four years, .331 career. *Coghlan was .352 last year and .340 career. I think Transmogrified Tiger made a good point about more stability in terms of expectations. Offensively, Fowler gives some stability to one of the three OF spots, and leadoff and the front of the batting order. Alcantara might do very well this year, but there's also the chance that he'd be a black hole offensively. If he's good, there are lots of places for him to get AB: maybe CF (with Fowler to left; maybe LF; maybe 2B is Baez doesn't earn it; maybe 3B until Bryant is ready. I don't know how 2B will play, but La Stella, Baez, and Alcantara provide an interesting pool. Rather diverse profiles. I think this also makes it a little easier to send Alcantara down, if he looks pretty rough. The way the roster stood, you almost had to play Alcantara in CF, whether he looked improved or not. Now, perhaps easier to send him down if he's really best served with more Iowa time.

He's also got Cease and Steele in his top 30. He commented that all the pitchers in the Cubs first 7 rounds were in his top 30, but I think that was a mistake. 6th round covers Stinnett, Sands, Steele, and Cease, all of whom are in. But 7th is Norwood, I don't think he really has him in there.

Are you talking about Denorfia? And if so, you mean 2014 right? He had 4 WAR in 2013, which was way higher than anything he'd done previously. 2014 was an outlier going the other way too though. I had just taken a quick look at the offensive numbers and they looked similar to other years. Definitely an outlier with most of the extra WAR coming from defense it would appear. His offensive rate numbers in 2013 seem in line with his previous three years. 2014 was way off low, but 2013 was not at all flukey high. His WAR was probably higher in 2013 in large part because he got 520 PA; in his other seasons he's been 300's.

...It may be that signing Gomes could happen only if they make some small deal of Ruggiano first. . .... Heh heh. I knew it seemed like a possibility, but I didn't anticipate them dealing Ruggiano within hours! Funny. By the way, this won't trigger Gomes move..... yet, at least. Motte had put the roster at 41, I think, so this just gets it back to 40. They may reach an agreement with Gomes, but they'll need to clear another spot before they'll announce anything.

Yes, assuming major-league contracts. It may be that signing Gomes could happen only if they make some small deal of Ruggiano first. Ruggiano was $2 last year, I think. Ross, I assume he'd be a target if they trade Castillo. Rumors often drag behind actual discussions. I wonder if actual Ross discussions preceded the trade for Montero?

Yeah, agree that a vesting 7th year may not be very persuasive or add much value to Lester or his agent. It might, of course. With 7 years, that would take him through his age-37 season. That might seem like a lot of stability for a guy and his wife? But yeah, for exactly the reasons that we don't mind it at all, he probably wouldn't value it much. Still, sometimes a guy figures he's going to last, and getting an extra $25 secured might seem kind of appealing. Maybe the agent would like it, too? They like to report the richest version, so $138/6 might not seem as productive as $160/7? In either case, no harm in Hoyer offering it. Assuming he doesn't take it, no harm done; if he does sign, no harm done either.

Hi, deeg. I actually like that idea. Can't-lose value. 360 innings isn't easy, if the vesting threshold is really that high. If he's healthy enough and effective enough to still be racking up 180+ innings/year at the back-end of the 6-year deal, that means the 6-year deal has worked out really, really well. Terrific. And assuming the 7th year doesn't vest, you've lost nothing extra. So I'd very willingly support offering that.

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.