craig

Clifton has agreed, for 3rd round money.

bryan, thanks for all the research and info. Really awesome to pop on here and have a bunch of info right away. Alamo sounds interesting. #348 on the BA list. Given the dreadful situation at catcher in the Cub system, any top-500 catcher is obviously interesting. My assumption is that Clifton pretty much emptied the overslot fund, so I doubt there's anything left, and I expect a pick like this is a "just in case" pick. (Just in case he changes his mind and really does want to go pro; just in case somebody who said they'd sign for XYZ changes their mind; just in case somebody fails their physical....) Still, it would be fun if I was wrong, and if they really still do have some superslot money left.

I wonder if any later picks, whether Clifton, Masek, or Frazier, will outprice Hannemann? Or Skulina, for that matter? Those slots are $736 and $477.

I don't know anything about him, but that would seem to be more the kind of picks I'm anticipating. A guy who's a meaningful prospect, and might develop into a good prospect. But who's not going to get a million bucks or anything like that. I tried to look Eicholtz up on BA's top-500 list, and he wasn't listed. He was #47 on their Florida list, right behind Karsten Whitson, who is also not on BA's top 500. So, Eicholz may not be anything amazing, but obviously lots of guys who end up being 1st-rounders weren't coming out of HS either. That's the job of the scouts to find some of these guys, and gets some pitchers who could become pretty good if they fill out, improve their delivery, and get coached well. I expect several of those, rather than one big ticket prospect. But, of course, what do I know, I'm just speculating.

I assume that Serrano and Jones are totally off bounds. No idea how much Sheffield or Whitson are asking. I assume the Cubs are doing some accounting to figure out how much they'll need to spend to cover the guys taken thus far, and then doing a whole bunch of phone-calling to players they like who are still out there. Not sure how much they've got left, but it could still be pretty substantial. I wouldn't be surprised if Frazier or Masek might be overslot guys to varying degree. Still, I assume they've got something to work with. My guess is that it won't go all to one superslot, one $1.5 million type guy. But rather that they'd have several guys more in the Eicholtz type category, guys who might not sign for $100K, but might for $250 or $425 or something. I'm hoping they can add several more guys who could have been legit 4th-5th round type picks, and who have the potential to perhaps blossom into really good players.

100%

.... This is exactly what I've been thinking. When everybody is going with 10K guys in the next rounds, the ability to keep going overslot gives you a good chance to grab several more guys who you like well enough to be 4th/5th round guys, but who happened to slip through or whom weren't quite willing to take slot. There is no question but that the team is going to use it's money. It's not a matter of cheap, it's a matter of deciding how to spend a finite amount, when, on whom. Hannemann might be somewhat overslot, or maybe right on, who knows. Masek may well involve some overslot.

Carrie Muskat

I'm with Kyle on this. I think the obsession with $$ being way overblown. These are just straight-out scouting picks, BPA (so long as price doesn't go Serrano-prohibitive). Callis might have Hannemann at 214, but Cub scouts saw it differently. Callis might have Z at 76, Cubs saw him being much better than that. Neither pick was made to save money. They were made as scouting picks, because McLeod etc. likes these guys. Maybe for good reason, maybe not. But it's just an issue of scouting, not money. From the quotes, it sounds like Hannemann might sign for slot. But if he's off of slot, he'll probably be over rather than under.

I wonder if there isn't some opportunity there. When other teams have run out of cash and need to be picking $10K guys, if you can be offering $200-300, I wonder if there might not be a bunch of guys who hoped to be 3rd-5th round and who'd rather sign for 5th-6th round cash than delay the dream go to school? Either way, I'm sure the Cubs will know what they've got going. If they've picked some guys they know are going to cost, and they need some extra hundreds, go with the $10K picks. But, maybe that won't be needed. Other thoughts $$-wise: one great prospect is probably worth more than several sorta-good ones. So I understand the push to go for some $2.5 guy..... if the scouts really believe he's pretty special. But I wonder if going for the super super-slot demand guys isn't kinda poor dollar usage? Underwood, for example, was $235K over. Not huge, but that overslot was enough to secure a very good-value pick. If we've got $1.5 in discretionary, I wonder if it isn't actually better to go for 3-5 guys you like a lot but who are $300-500K over, rather than to blow it all on one superslot guy? All depends on the scouting, I guess. If the scouts really think Denny is a great prospect, one good player who ends up being a quality starter is well worth it. But perhaps it would be as smart to get several guys instead.

Agree. There are some college pitchers who are finished, and won't change. But I think it's a myth to assume that a 20-year-old college pick won't change in the pros. *The fastball can change. Lots get a little stronger at ages 21-22-23; improve their mechanics/delivery a little; and end with more velocity. *The breaking ball can change, a lot. Lots are still tinkering with their breaking ball in college without settling into the best or having done so with consistency. Think of Samardzija, and how many iterations of breaking ball he's gone through since he was in college. *The changeup can change. For Z that sounds like it's already an advanced plus pitch. But for a lot of college pitchers, the change is kind of an inconsistent underused show-me pitch. In the pros, that often changes. *The cutter can change. For most college pitchers, the cutter is a "tinker on the side" pitch, but hasn't been optimized into a crucial game-usage pitch; in the pros that can often become an absolutely integral tool. For attacking opposite-side hitters, for throwing strikes and controlling the count, for getting contact outs.

Relief is always a fallback. But the Cubs definitely drafted him with the intent that he'll be a quality starter. They see him as a high floor with a good ceiling. Plus change, plus fastball, good control, the ceiling will depend on integrating the cutter and developing the breaking ball.

Great post, I agree with absolutely everything you wrote here. The 95 stuff, that's fine and good, and hopefully it will mean that he's got a very useful/effective fastball. But every half-decent prospect has touched 95 with a straight-ball. If you're working velocity is 88-92, with 2-seamers that do something useful, of course you can hit 95 with a straight 4-seamer. So I completely agree that we shouldn't get it in our head that he's a power lefty, and then be disappointed and fault the scouts when in fact he's anything but that. I also agree that it seemed a disappointing pick. I always figure that at 41, there should be somebody on the top-25 of your board who slipped, because you value players differently, or for signability, or whatever. Last year, for example, Johnson came across as a guy who was scouted as a mid-first round talent..... if he could stay healthy. Underwood had 1st round upside.... if he could put it together. So Z certainly doesn't come across as having that kind of high talent. But this Cub scouting system has a bunch of intelligent, thoughtful guys. I trust they know what they're doing and made a thoughtful pick here. Z is a fairly young junior (just turned 21 at end of March). Perhaps some of the velocity pickup is real, not that rare when a kid is 20/21, or mechanical. He sounds like a smart guy, and most importantly he throws strikes, so I assume he'll learn and adapt and perhaps get the best out of his abilities. The general scouting seems to be that he doesn't have much of a breaking ball. I assume the Cubs think the potential for a useful breaking ball is there, and I assume as with any lefty that he'll need to learn a cutter. The ratio of stars selected at 41 is super small. If they can get stronger-armed version of Travis Wood, it can be a good-value pick. Heh, in other words I'm an optimist, I trust that the thinking is sound, and I assume the guy has a chance to be a good solid major-league pitcher.

I have no idea. But, if the Cubs take Gray, I'll be great with that. I'll immediately conclude that they weren't worried about the Adderal; that they've done their research and due diligence, and that if they aren't worried about it I won't be worried either. In which case I'll be super thrilled at the idea of adding a control artist with a great slider, who happens to throw a 100-mph fastball as a second pitch. And who'll be willing to sign sub-slot to some degree, such that tomorrow should be a super fun day as well. And if the Cubs don't take Gray, fine.

Vogelbach slips past .800 OPS.

Unfortunately it says something about the lack of safety with Bryant if we see him as even less safe than an injury-vulnereable pitcher.

I think that's pretty reasonable, Kyle. Everything gets tougher. I think it's more likely than not that CV would project to the .603-OPS guy you've got, rather than a .700+ guy. But, not everybody follows normal trajectory. Hopefully he'll be one whose improvement outpaces the levels, and is able to hang in the mid-.700's.

Huh? I kind of see what he's saying. By most accounts a major reason they took Almora was for his attitude/character. They want a bit of rah rah hard working types. They could view a guy shooting up the rankings with at least a little help from foreign substances as not only a risk for future suspensions and a career that doesn't wind up as well as you'd think if forced to work clean, but also just a character risk in general. I get the thinking. I also get that Theo didn't go out of his way to avoid or stop users in Boston. By some accounts Gray is a "warrior" who's really into baseball and winning, whereas Appel is a bit more cool. It may be that Gray's attitude/character might be as or more desirable, more focused on baseball and winning. So it's possible that Cubs might actually like Gray's attitude as well or better. Or not. If they take him, I'm sure we'll be told how much they like his stuff, how much they like his work habits and his baseball attitude, and that the meds didn't matter. Assuming they don't (I don't think they'll take him), we'll never be told why. My guess is that the meds haven't really reduced his baseball potential by much. If they take somebody else, it's because they really like the other guy.

Agree. Johnson, everything was different. He signed really fast, I think he signed within a week or so. So he could have been pitching by July 1st if they'd wanted him too. Plus he'd not pitched many innings due to his injury, so his arm wasn't carrying the pitch counts that Gray and Appel have. But with his health questions of course they were especially careful. I doubt the #2 pick, especially assuming it's Boras (Appel and Bryant are both Boras boys, right?) is going to settle very quickly. So I doubt the Cubs will be controlling them by June 20 as was true for Johnson.

First two picks, no, BPA, and preference to player if BPA permits. I'll be surprised if picks 1 and 2 are both pitchers. But round 3-20, I expect huge focus on pitchers and catchers.

Yes. I think the Cubs would figure that he's thrown so many pitches this spring that they won't want him throwing much more. Or if it does, it will probably not exceed one or two dozen innings, and if so only some of those in full-season. If the over/under was 20 innings in full-season, I'd definitely take the under. AFter going hard for four months, he'll get a month off. He'll sign in July, after which rest they'll want to be careful about stretching his arm out. It takes a week or so to move and go through all of the orientation-to-the-organization activities, so probably mid-July before he'd likely be tossing from a Mesa mound. Two more weeks of "spring-training" before rookie league. So August is basically all he'd have, and that probably building up from 30-30-45-45-60 pitch counts. Several of those probably in Mesa/Boise. So if Daytona, probably only be 3 or 4 starts max, on reduced pitch counts. Good chance they won't think that's worth it, and will just shut him down for the summer, and work with him in fall instrux away from all the media attention.

Thanks, TT. That's a pretty strong swing. *The 28K-17K is a big improvement. Villa's been kind of a risky-K guy for a while. If he could be stabilizing at 17%, his chances go way up, IMO. *He's got 5 HR's now, I'm assuming that at least four of them, perhaps all 5, are in the "good" package? 4 extra HR's per 100PA are worth 40 points BA/OBP and 200 points OPS. I don't expect that he's going to be 4-5 HR/month guy, but those months will always help the stats. Will be interesting to see how things play out. Would be fun if he really could keep elevating, reach .800, and stay there or above. Continuing to find some HR's would make that a lot more likely. April is routinely a bad month for hitters. I do wonder whether part of it is the BB thing. Wouldn't surprise if CV was trying to work the count some in April, but since he's really a hacker and doesn't really have a very good eye at the plate, that was doing more harm than good.

He's a plus defender. Yes, power is probably the biggest concern with him. I think hitting in general is my biggest concern. He's hitting .265 this year, and hit .250 at Daytona. He's got 45K/13BB/196 AB, and had over 100K's last year, so he's kind of a high-K-low-walk guy. They can say line-drive swing, but it's not like he's a notably good contact hitter. He hit 17 HR two years ago, 14 last year, 5 in 53 games so far, and he hit a bunch in camp, so his power seems fine. Nothing great, but not a liability, I don't think.

I don't think so. The ball comes faster at 3rd, the body/throwing angle on choppers and bunts is quite different, the length of throw is different, the time to throw is different, and the sight-line on pitches is significantly different so it's harder to get a good jump on a ball. If they think he might someday become able to play good 3B defense, then put him at 3B and let him try.

Do you feel that Ha isn't capable of playing at center? Or did you just overlook him?... I think Ha has a chance. I think Szczur has a chance. I think Jackson has a chance. I think Lake could have a chance. I don't think any of those has a great chance, or a chance to be great. Ha: I like Ha, I'm not sure how good he is but I have hopes that he's very good defensively. I assume he could be better than DeJesus defensively. Ha's offense is limited in that he's shown very little power, and he K's a lot. I don't know how long he'll be injured this year. He has an .811 OPS this year, but that's in 25 games with a .387 BABIP that I don't expect to last. Last season he was .737. At 22 he's got time to get better, and if he does he could become a pretty good player. But he's got two big steps up. He's got a chance, but it won't surprise if he doesn't succeed. Szczur: He's 23, almost 24, so more than a year older than Ha. He's running a .741 OPS, after .751-overall last year, and he has no power. As with Ha, I'm not sure how good he is defensively but I hope that he's got very good CF ability, certainly more than DeJesus has. He's .359 OBP this year. If he could play excellent defense and be a .360-OBP type guy, he could be a pretty useful player. He could improve some, he's got a chance, but again it won't surprise if he doesn't succeed. Jackson: We all know his deal. He'd need to improve a whole lot, and perhaps he's still got a chance to adjust and make it work. Maybe premature to say he doesn't have a chance. But certainly it would be a much bigger surprise if he improves and succeeds than if he doesn't. Lake: No evidence that he has any defensive instincts, but the gross speed/arm tools are present. With no evidence of any kind yet, there is no evidence to prove that he couldn't end up being capable defensively, and perhaps really good. He had .773-OPS last year at age 22, and has shown some signs of progress offensively. He could improve some, he's got a chance, but again it won't surprise if he doesn't succeed. None are safe or compelling CF prospects. Probably Lake is the only one with a very high ceiling, since he's got much more power potential than Ha or Szczur. All of them have a chance, at least if Lake is given a chance in OF. Hopefully one (or more) of them will improve and break out and establish himself as a good major-leaguer. For Lake I think HR's and power are essential; I doubt he's ever going to be a consistent contact hitter. But he only hit 10 HR's last year, and slugged .432 and .434 the last two seasons, so it's not like he's been that much of a slugger thus far. But there may be some untapped potential.