craig

I think the cubs went in strong because they didn't project a strong class this upcoming summer.

I was thinking more where the bus cone drives the deal. He "arranges" for four of his guys to sign with the Cubs, each at $250. Nobody is actually paid $750, so it doesn't exceed the limit. Essentially one guy is badly underpaid and three are overpaid, but the bus cone ends up with a good deal overall. (Heh; how do I make my entry box not automatically insert a space into bus cone?) That might make it easier for the bus cone to get good players in future. ("I've got a strong history of getting good players $250K deals. That other bus cone might gamble to get a million, but it's pretty unlikely; but I can pretty much promise you'll get $250K…")

"The Cubs have the No. 4 international bonus pool, which was $3.9 million this year, but won't be able to sign a player for more than $250K." Signing twelve $250K guys would get to 3 million. That might not be a bad way to go. A dozen $250K guys, Ten $250K Ten $100K Eight $50K I suspect this will exceptionally challenging for scouts. You scout and find guys you like; but how much time can you really invest in the guys you like? Spend months scouting guy and making connections with him and his family, and just as you realize he really is a very good prospect it's all for nothing, because now he's good enough to get $300-$400K from somebody else and all your work was for nothing. Kind of a conundrum. The whole purpose of scouting is to identify guys that project well. But the better they project, the less likely that you'll be in any position to sign them. Hard to decide where to spend your time. Maybe it's not that bad. Maybe you do some package deals with some bus cone and it works out somehow?

Theo's only had two drafts, and the admin's policy/philosophy clearly operates AGAINST this kind of pickup. If I define mid-rounds as 2-15, which is probably generous on both ends, they've only selected 4 college position players in those rounds over the two drafts. The strategy has been position round one, then prioritize pitching volume after that, which works against getting guys like the Cardinals have. The four college position guys: 12 draft: Bruno (7) and Krist (9) 13 draft: Hanneman (3) and Hankins (11) Bruno obviusly fits the Cardinals-success profile. Krist doesn't really fit; he was a $10K sub-slot picked there because he'd free up $140 for Almora/Underwood. Hankins also fits as a not super toolsy, but smart, sound, fairly polished baseball player with a fairly mature approach as a hitter, etc.. A patient one-step-at-a-time prove-it guy, if he's going to make it. But 11th round, that's getting pretty late. Not sure the Cardinals have hit on many college players that late as $100K guys? I believe when drafted the Cubs listed him as a catcher; so if he ever does make it, it will surely be a patient-development schedule that takes till 25 or beyond. Hanneman is college, and he's very much going to need considerable patience. But he certainly has the potential to be a second-day pick who may take till age 25-27, but who could end up being a productive big-leaguer. Very unlike the targeted graduation schedule that we're accustomed to. He's still kind of different than the limited-tools-but-polished-and-fundamentally-sound-and-capable-all-around-hitter guy the Cardinals have produced. Hanneman's very unpolished and very inexperienced. And with a $1M bonus, he's not quite a 4th-8th round slot type, either. I think the new regime will be an improvement for both patience and development. But for now the draft approach just isn't very oriented towards college-hitter 2nd-day picks.

Hanneman?

Yeah, the "who's to say he can't" logic is not that inspiring. I'm interested in Hendricks, but I'd like to see him open with Iowa. If he's ready to be a capable big-league guy, he should do very well at Iowa; and if he doesn't sustain excellence at Iowa then we know he's not qualified. I think I'd prefer to see him start with Iowa. If we have another summer trade, or an injury, then if he's excelling at Iowa he can get called up and get his shot then.

Baez (and Bryant) can drive call ups if they have great seasons in the minors. But I agree with Kyle, there's a fair chance that one or both won't accumulate a full service year between 2014 and 2015. I hope they hit so well, and in both cases improve enough defensively, so that they play themselves into the majors before September, and make it obvious that they should be opening-day starters in 15. As I mentioned earlier, I'm actually not so sure that the Baez/Bryant timeline differs greatly from Edwards/Johnson. Both players have defense to worry about, and contact to worry about. Pitchers sometimes advance more quickly. Both guys throw strikes, so I'm not sure exactly what they need to resolve. It may be that more-or-less what they throw now will carry up, and they may not need a lot of minor-league work if in fact they are going to end up being good. The flip side, I think, is that Johnson comes with durability questions given his past and his delivery, and Edwards comes with durability questions based on his size, and his history of limited pitch counts and limited innings thrown. So in their cases, they may be pitching very well and be big-league ready ability-wise, but the Cubs may not want them up adding September innings to their workloads. So, probably not likely that they'll really see many big-league innings (or service days) this season either.

How many of your sources think Candelario will be able to play solid 3B defense (even if not in Chicago)? And does he project enough power to be a good starter at 1B or OF?

I'll be very surprised if Javy has not used up his rookie eligibility by then. KB is 50/50 for me as well. Good point, Dave. This may be a high point for our prospect rankings, in terms of "official" BA type lists. 1. For Baez, either his star will have dimmed somewhat by November, or he'll have graduated. If Baez is killing the minors like he did in AA, he won't last; and if not his status will settle some. 2. Bryant starts in Daytona, so he's got a better chance to be very productive without having expired eligibility. But if he's great enough, it's at least possible that he'll be expired. And of course there's a chance that his star will dim some, between the K's and the defense. 3. I think edwards and Johnson are both close enough that they might be in a gone-or-down situation. If Edwards is kicking high minors like he did A, given his age and starting in high minors, might he not get called up and expire? Johnson too, when a pitcher starts in the high minors, if he has a great season he can be earning a call up. But if they don't pitch well enough for call ups, they may not look quite as shiny.

Thanks for these updates, cal. Great to hear that Vizcaino is up to 45 pitches already, and looked good. Paniagua, Arias, fun to get positive stuff on all of them. Torres doesn't appear to have gotten anything out of the infield in any of the box scores I've noticed him in.

Agree with cal, Almora will start at Daytona and can be moved up from there when the time is right. Also, I don't think the Daytona weather is a problem in the spring, is it? On Almora, I was pleased to see the comment that he's filled out some. That had been my superficial impression just from the hugging-Bryant picture. Whether a guy hits 25 or 12 HR's makes kind of a lot of difference.

I think guys who live on their fastballs and don't have very advanced secondary pitches can get that label, too. At this stage, we don't know that Torres is throwing much other than his fastball. Which might also fit with having few walks and wild pitches. Which would also fit with Tim's comment. If you're just throwing fastball strikes, without doing a lot of offspeed, and without really spotting the ball and moving it around, that might go as a "thrower". There are guys who just rely on their natural movement, or their inconsistent command, to move the ball around.

Thanks much, Bob. Not sure how many of the other four starters. But I think Edwards, Johnson, Black, Pineyro, and Wells are all interesting to varying degree. I'm curious what your observations are on the other four? I'll guess, and if you were willing I'd like to see how you'd modify/correct misconceptions? Black: 92-93 average, good fastball movement, good slider, mediocre change, mediocre control. Edwards: 91-93 average, pretty similar to Black? fastball movement also good; somehow more deceptive/explosive? Is he more curve or slider, or who knows? Whatever it is, it's more deceptive and obviously a much superior putaway K-pitch? Much better control of all his stuff? Velocity fades some after three innings? Johnson: Not quite as fast as Edwards/Black, but maybe average 90-92? Does he hold his velocity a little better? Pineyro: He's been good, but I have less guess on him. Touches 93, averages 89-91, with good control and movement? A pretty good slider? Or am I underestimating his arm strength? Wells: Averages 88-91, although maybe touches 93 on occasion? Pretty heavy 2-seam movement? Breaking ball so-so?

I know I feel a lot better about Blackburn now than I did before his final two playoff starts. The guy who over his last ten starts of the season had a 1.9 WHIP, with 27BB/18K/31 IP, coming off an arm injury, he wasn't in my top 20. The guy with 17K/1 BB/11 innings, or whatever exactly those numbers were, in his two playoff starts, he is in top 20.

I like the good Maples. Nice to have him end his season with an excellent game.

Really encouraging to see a good bounce-back game for him. 8K/0BB. It's been about two months since an outing with more K's than walks for him. Hopefully he'll be healthy and good next season.

Pierce Johnson has pitched only 3 innings in the last 16 days. Corey Black is younger than Johnson, and his last start was more recent than Johnson's. Johnson's at 118 innings on the year. I wonder if they've just shut him down for the summer? And if so, whether that was planned from the start, or his arm is tired.

Pierce Johnson was scheduled for tonight. So when I saw shutout through four I liked it. But, in fact he didn't start. I hope everything is OK with him. He's had a nice, consistent season. Hasn't had any of those 13K/0BB type "WOW" games. Hope he's healthy and finishes fine in the playoffs.

Very unexpected. I have no idea what to deduce from this, other than that Hoyer is getting a prospect they like. Give that we have basically Schierholz and who knows what in the outfield, DeJesus certainly seemed like a guy the might have kept. And he's been very positive leader-type, which the Cubs seem to value to some degree. So I'm assuming Washington is giving somebody McLeod thinks has a shot to be worthwhile. Of course, he thought that about Concepcion, too, so we'll see. But, if we can get some better-than-Pinyera A-ball pitcher, great. I can't imagine they are counting on Lake being good. My guess is they don't think they know what Lake will be; he could be pretty bad, but there's a chance he'll be pretty good. At this stage in a rebuild, why not give him an extended look and hope he's one who does work out well. Last, I don't think they really love DeJesus as a CF.

Vogelbach's ratio of hits/XBH is around 39.5%, Barney's (minor league) ratio is about 23.5%. Now, I'm not saying Vogelbach couldn't stand to be a bit higher, but his ratio is FAR closer to Baez than Barney. Yeah, Barney as a major-leaguer has really boosted his power. And Vogelbach was a lot more power-oriented in short-season last year. This year, Vogelbach is lower than Barney, and lots less than XB-oriented guys like Baez and Villanueva. Vogel has 130 hits, 22 doubles, 18 HR. 40/130 = 30.8% Barney this year: 28XBH/83 = 33.8% Baez: 66/129 = 51.2% Villanueva: 56/118 = 47.5% May just be a fluke/coincidence. But maybe there's something real, who knows. Much of the scouting has talked about what a "pure hitter" he is rather than an upper-cut slugger. It may be that he's got a level groundball/line-drive stroke, and doesn't have a lot of lift in his stroke. Many of the game reports have talked about his HR's being rocket line-drives, rather than soaring high flies. And having many of his balls-in-play being hard-hit balls, without lift. Not sure how adjustable/teachable "lift" is. But he'll probably eventually need to lift his HR-output.

Vogelbach has been heavily a singles hitter. When he gets hits, a disproportionate amount of them are singles. Much higher singles/hit ratio than Darwin Barney, for example.

Agree. Keep Baez in the middle. Baez/Castro/Alcantara are the pool to cover two positions. Whether Baez moves to 2B, or Castro, I don't care. I'd prefer Baez to stay at SS, if they believe in him there. Casto at 2b would be easier to replace, if at some point you decided to trade and replace. But if you move Baez to 3B, and need to cover both SS and 2B with only Baez/AA/Barney, I think you're at risk of having disappointing production there, or at least of not necessarily gaining much ground relative to the league at those positions. SS/2B: Castro/Baez/AA/Barney is the pool. 3B: Valbuena/Olt/Vitters/Villanueva/Bryant is the pool. That all assumes, of course, that management believes in Baez as a middle-infielder defensively.

He was up to 93 last year in the DSL too. This year, he's been working 90-92; topped out at 94 in one of his starts. Thanks, cal. That's pretty encouraging. Every RHP can throw that hard or harder, but lots need to back off some to throw strikes. With 15 walks in 153 pro innings, we know he's not overthrowing. His K-rate has improved quite a bit this year. (Last year 50K/75IP; this year 40/39.) For that to happen while taking the major step from DSL to American minors suggests that he's probably improved and has some kind of breaking ball that's working for him. My sense is that the cubs are pretty strict about limiting how hard guys throw. Perhaps for some combo of health/mechanics/control reasons. May be that some guys like this will be "allowed" to throw harder later, if they can still control it and maintain their mechanics.

I've not been much of a Villanueva guy, given all the K's. But he's played most of the year at age 21, and his OPS is now probably over .790. I think he's now near the league's top-10 for OPS, and near the top for slugging (for guys who weren't good enough to get promoted mid-season and thus fall short of AB requirements to get listed in the league stats.) He's been 21 for most of the year. Most guys who hang in the .770-.805 OPS range throughout their minor-league careers don't end up being asset big-leaguers. So I don't expect CV will either. But, the fact that he's been able to sustain his OPS each year despite promotion suggests that he's been improving as fast as the leagues have. He's shown significant progress during this season, and having just turned 22, he's young enough to justify at least the hope (not the expectation) that he might have enough improvement left to make it as capable big-leaguer. He may have already reached his ceiling, of course; but with most of next season still at 22, he may have some improvement still left.

Q: What's the scouting on Rosscup? Standard 88-92 velo, kinda wild, but good curveball? I don't really know. The limited usage and modest promotion rate suggests that management may not be real high on him. His numbers are sure interesting, though. I think a good 7th/8th inning reliever is very valuable, and every team is going to carry and use lefty reliever(s), whether very good or not. If Rosscup can be a good lefty, I'd value that a lot. Beliveau is having a good season. 2.36 ERA, 71K/1HR/42IP. Not sure why the Cubs wasted him so quickly. I'd rate Rosscup > Cabrera. Cabrera is sometimes fast, but he's never been that good, and he's been a HR guy. Low HR's for Rosscup helps him, and I think guys who give up lots of HR's in minors, often give up lots more in majors. In the limited CF group, which includes Szczur, Ha, and Andreoli, I wonder whether Zeke DeVoss might merit some consideration in that group as well. He's a year younger than Szczur, and his .405 OBP is higher than Szczur has ever scored. DeVoss's .779 OPS is a little shy of the .804 that Szczur had at Daytona last year at the same age; when Szczur was up to .804 last year, I was pretty interested, much more than I am now. I'm not a DeVoss guy, but it may be that Szczur will fall below DeVoss.