craig

Service time is less of an issue with Soler, though (at least in terms of team controlled years). As I understand it, he can opt out of his 9 year deal upon becoming arb eligible, but he'll still be under team control. He may wind up being more expensive, but if so, that means the cubs have an all-star caliber RF on their roster, and I'm cool with that. I think with Soler that clock issues will be less a deciding factor than preparedness for MLB. Not sure I'm tracking. 6-year free-agency will still apply to Soler, no? So shouldn't the question of whether or not he's got a full year in by the end of 2015 matter as much for him as for anybody else?

Heh, I thought 0.3% earlier, but maybe that's little low. 1-3%, maybe? Stuff on Soler is long-term optimistic, but doesn't seem like he's envisioned as a real fast-mover refined hitter. It is true that September call ups are kind of different. But they do count towards service time. If you want a guy to not get free agency, you often send him to the minors for a bit in the spring. If the guy has gotten a month of September service, then you'd need to wait an extra month the following spring to delay free agency.

0.3%. :)

In terms of Badler, I wonder if his scouting isn't better on Latin guys better than Asians. Most international guys are Latin, so I assume he spends more of his time and is better networked there, and has just seen a lot more of those guys a lot more often. I'm sure he attends some other tournaments and stuff where a guy like Tseng would have pitched, but my guess is that his views on tseng are probably limited.

Your memory is correct, Badler had Moreno 16th and Tseng 23rd. I'm voting Tseng ahead because I think Badler may have underestimated him. The Cubs seem really high on Tseng, they spent a lot of time and a lot of scouts on him. I think Badler had him down because his velocity dipped, but the Cubs think that was temporary. I think the dollars maybe reflect that. Moreno got $650; Tseng $1.63. As always the Cub scouts may be wrong; but they are pretty gush on Tseng.

Yeah, he's been the biggest Torres guy. I think there may be some Almora-to-Soler type thing going on here. Torres is the "polished" one, who will make a "smooth transition", and plays middle. Soler is the physical specimen with the big power, and Jiminez projects to be a specimen like that as well. But "polished" and ready for smooth transition, not so much. Being built for power and being able to actually hit HR's versus game pitching, who knows. Badler's consistent support for Torres is very encouraging.

Jiminez, Black, Rivero, Tseng. Hmm. I guess I'll leave Tseng off for now.

I voted Z, but could pretty much flip a coin. I perceive Blackburn to have a higher ceiling, but a lesser chance of ever racking up 60 big-league starts. Z's older, and might move much faster. But even in his case I think he still has a great deal of adjusting and recalibrating left. *Getting the cutter refined and strategically integrated into his regular pitch sequence will be a big factor. *Refining his breaking ball, and actually deciding what is best for him is also an unfinished issue. Where his breaking ball(s) were and where they will end up on the slider/slurve/curve continuum may be adjusted considerably. *And his change was another unfinished pitch. I won't be surprised if his pitch distribution in April is very different from what he settles into by July and September.

This gets right to the question. As a bad runner and defender, for him to have major league value it's all a question of bat. (Same kind of story with Vogelbach.) Does he have enough bat to justify the rest of his liabilities? Given your premise of average power and mediocre hitting, he's worthless. I'm not sure we know the answer yet, and am open to giving more time to clarify/confirm the answer. If he's going to have value and sustain a big-league career, he'll need to hit well AND show reasonable HR power. I don't expect that, but I think it remains uncertain. I think the HR power is really at the center here. He's a big enough, strong enough guy that he ought to be able to hit HR's. And if his questionable reputation for being able to hit the ball proved true, decent raw power combined with above-average contact should result in above-average HR output. No, he doesn't have Wow power, and if he's not hitting well what power he has won't hit many HR's. But if he can merge hitting with HR's, he may be productive enough to justify his bad speed/defense, at least in a platoon setting. He looked totally outclassed in his Cub debut, very little solid contact or sign of having any gift for hitting. But, small sample size. His PCL numbers are solid and more encouraging. But they aren't great either, there have been lots of 4A guys, big-league useless, who could do upper-.800's OPS in PCL. His numbers this past summer were too scattered, no reason to trust them. If he spend the summer in Iowa, I'd not be shocked if he produced at a steady .900+ OPS there and builds interest; or if he bounces along nearer the .800 OPS mark and erases what little present interest still remains.

Not sure I get the Lake versus Vitters bit. I'm thinking Lake is for center, and Vitters is hoping to get a role in LF. If Vitters were to make the roster right out of camp, barring injury it will be in a platoon. Lake might well be the one every-day starter in April, in center. Things could then play out. If Vitters is hitting much better, perhaps he starts to get Lake's starts vs RHP with Sweeney playing more games in center. I think the management scouting is somewhat intrigued by Lake's tools, and think his future may not be represented by his past stats.

With platoons, a guy might start on opening day even if he doesn't start for the next week, if an opponent happens to have a lefty #1. Are we facing a RH starter on opening day?

The original scouting report in Muskat had "87-92 mph". That Washington traded him for Hairston fits with their not thinking he was very fast. http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2013/07/08/78-scouting-report-on-pineyro/

I'm with you on this one, Kyle. (Well, not enough to vote for him here, but enough to be VERY interested.) Not sure why being 26 should really be held against him. That his Cuban situation interrupted his baseball career at age 22 doesn't impact his talent. If we moved him back in time three years and made him 23 again, would that increase what talent he does or doesn't have? I don't see the "ceiling" concern, either. If you've got a big fastball and a 13.4K/9 breaking ball, that suggests that he may have the stuff and the baseball talents to be a very effective big-league pitcher. That he didn't use those talents for several years doesn't change that. I have no idea how he'll turn out, who can do more than guess? He'll not be the first guy with a strong fastball and a sometimes sharp breaking ball who can't locate the fastball, or control the breaking pitch with any consistency. He may be too wild to ever be any good. But with a big arm and some good coaching, maybe his splitter will develop into a deadly pitch, and he'll throw enough strikes with enough consistency to become a very good reliever. Maybe soon. 30 minor-league innings can't prove either way.

I have Black way ahead of Pineyro, based almost totally on fastball. My info may be faulty, but my perception is that Black is very fast and has a plus fastball. I think that may be true both for the velocity, and perhaps also some life/movement on it. Every report on Black has seemed to have the plus-velocity report. My perception is that while Black's fastball is plus, that Pineyro essentially has a minus fastball. I think he's more on the Hendricks end of the spectrum, fastball-wise. Obviously control goes a long way, and PIneyro seems to have that. Maybe I'm underestimating his velocity; maybe Johnson can work with him and he'll end up with perfectly average fastball velocity/life. Combined with good control an average-velocity fastball can be big-league effective. But my perception is that he's working with a lot less stuff than Black. But, maybe my info is wrong and he's not really all THAT much slower than Black.

Ha was well off my top-40 before this, but I almost think it's encouraging. Maybe a bad wrist is why he couldn't hit and had no power? Maybe if he really does get it fixed, and he's more competitive healthy than he showed, maybe 5th OFer is not beyond his reach someday?

I'd probably have lake back a few names, still. Blackburn, Zastryzny, Black, Rivero, Jiminez, Tseng, Rivero, possibly Maples, I might still have behind all or most of those guys. He's still only 23 years old, though, and he hasn't had his current height/size/strength for that long. I think there's a chance that he will continue learning to hit with more power as he gets more accustomed to playing while being physically mature. 15HR, or better, for a fast, good-fielding outfielder, he's still got a chance to be a pretty useful player.

This is off topic, but if Lake was eligible for ranking, where would you guys have placed him? Would he have been on the list at least several spots ago? Would this maybe be the area where he'd be showing up? Or would he still be some names down your lists?

Theo explaining that: "I think it makes sense if you are going to give that kind of security, the club should get a benefit in return." If the player wants the security of a guaranteed multi-year deal while he's pre-FA, the team getting FA year(s) balances the benefits. But the option(s) are a distinct benefit, of massive significance. For an agent to give a team a club-option, he needs to be getting something very valuable in return. Significantly enriched per-year guaranteed salary? Considerably enriched salary during that option year, with an enriched buy-out payment if the club declines? A club option is too valuable for an agent to concede that without getting something pretty player-favorable back to balance those values.

Jiminez, Blackburn, Zastryzny Tseng might be a good one to add.

hey, way to go, Tim. These are fun. And a nice forum for thinking about and discussing guys who aren't all at the top of the discussion list otherwise. So, glad to see it's back.

Geiger has a shot to be a serious HR guy. If he was a name guy or played a defensive position, we might look at his numbers pretty favorably, and his progress. But, he's not a name, and defensively he's a 1B, so his odds are slim. As befits a guy at spot 31. Being RH doesn't help with the Cubs, either. Depends on the HR power, I guess. Last year he hit only 17 HR, which is nice but not a ton; the previous year he'd hit 17 in less than 70% as many AB's. Tennessee is a HR-friendly home park, so if Geiger does continue to improve, and perhaps has a little better luck, I'd not be surprised to see him him 25 HR's this summer. So I understand how BA is interested. But Lockwood, that I don't get at all. Hopefully they and the Cubs know something we don't, and he's going to be a really strong OBP guy going forward while playing snappy defense.

Cates, Lockhart, Beeler, some surprises

I actually like listings that source from Cub scouts. Because I think the Cubs talk and think and analyze and know stuff about their people more than anybody else does. And because the opinions the Cubs have most dictate the decisions the Cubs make with regard to their prospects. From that angle, I thought it was encouraging that this guy is so up on young pitchers Blackburn, Underwood, Tseng, and Maples. The Tseng as a 96-mph with good slider/curve/change blend sounds pretty good. The bit about Underwood with a plus-plus curve is also interesting. I don't get that, really, or see how it jives with his performance last summer. Wouldn't you think that a guy with a plus-plus curve would be a swing-and-miss pitcher in Boise? A plus-plus curve should be a good wipeout K-pitch; yet Underwood had very low K-rates. Not sure it really makes sense. Maybe his control is so poor that he just never gets to two-strike counts? Or his curve is so sharp that hitters don't even chase with two strikes, so they all just go for balls?

Sounds like a scout's list with scout's comments, written or verbal, written/revised by Loxas. Also sounds like it's coming from somebody inside the cubs. What scouts outside the Cubs would: 1. have any opinions about Trey Martin? 2. have had multiple conversations with scouts about Jen-Ho Tseng? 3. Be so positive about so many of the Cubs prospects?

Yeah, it's all a question of scouting.