craig

http://www.thecubreporter.com/comment/210688#comment-210688 Cal mentioned this Arizona Phil article from yesterday, in which he made reference to the Cubs having apparently signed a 23-year-old Cuban pitcher of some possible interest. In the link, Phil lists the pitcher/catcher assignments for AAA and AA in camp. As always, the listings are somewhat questionable; many of the guys will end up moving down one or more levels; and many others will be released. The lists are helpful, just to get a reminder of what kind of personnel are available for the high minors other than guys who will get demoted from the Cubs. The list is not thrilling, IMO. More importantly, the list gives info on who's injured, as well as who isn't. There are usually some surprise injuries, or at least injuries that I hadn't known about. That is true as usual this spring, although overall I'm rather pleased that there aren't more injuries or more noteworthy injuries. Granted, these are just the AA/AAA groups, so many of the younger and perhaps more exciting arms might be injured, but we'd not know from these lists. Anyway, anybody on "limited activity" is injured to some degree. And the list is pleasantly short. Those Phil lists are: Chang-Yong Lim (Limited Activity Only - TJS Rehab)
 Marcos Mateo (Limited Activity Only - TJS Rehab)
 Marcelo Carreno (Limited Activity Only)
 Hunter Cervenka (Limited Activity Only)
* Dayan Diaz (Limited Activity Only)
 Andrew McKirahan (Limited Activity Only)
 Brett Wallach (Limited Activity Only) Hadn't know that Carreno or Cervenka or Diaz were hurt. I'd figured that Wallach had been released, and just forgot about McKirahan. Some noteworthies who are NOT on the "limited activity" list, all guys who have had arm issues in recent past or who ended up the year not pitching: David Cales
 Carlos Gutierrez
 (1st round pick we got from the Twins) Kyle Hendricks
* Zac Rosscup
 Dontrelle Willis
 Zach Cates
* Gerardo Concepcion
* J. Morris
 Ben Wells
 Seeing Wells on the list, without any obvious "limited activity" is fun. One noteworthy name that is NOT on the list is Jose Rosario, which I think is bad news. Pretty much anybody who pitched significantly in Peoria last year is on the AA/AAA rosters (Jensen, Reed, Wells, Concepcion...). So if Rosario was healthy and fine, I'd have expected him to be in the same group with wells and Reed and Concepcion, if not even higher. So pretty safe to assume that something isn't completely right with him yet. I thought this might be a nice thread to start. In due time we'll get similar lists, including "limited activity", for the lower levels. Overall I was more pleased than disappointed. Seems to me I can recall some very disappointing reads a decade ago, where Justin Jones and Billy Petrick might show up unexpectedly limited, or Sisco or Ryu, or whatever. Last year Maples. So this list isn't bad. We'll see when the lower minors list comes out.

Tell me again, how old does a Cuban need to be before he gets beyond the signing cap? Age 22?

Frandy Hatley Daury (not eligible if he doesn't end in "y")

I thought Arizona Phil had mentioned some rule regarding how quickly guys can be derostered. Such that Rusin, for example, couldn't be removed from 40-man until late in spring training? Anybody remember of understand either the rule or the logic behind it? I'm not sure I get it; if Rusin can't be derostered for a while, why were they able to deroster Believeau? And where does Raley stand, the Beliveau side (they could if they wanted) or the Rusin side (can't yet....)? Anybody know? I'm wondering whether Raley is on because they value him more, or if they just can't take him off yet, but may do so soon? Also, derostering is riskier than not Rule-5-ing. By exposing Hatley, a selecting team would have needed to keep him on 25-man. If they deroster Raley, a team could just put him on their 40-man, but could then option him to the minors.

I'm not close to voting for Chen yet. Had a .692 OPS last summer, and while he played center in Peoria I've got the idea that he isn't really a big defensive CF prospect, more of a LF. No hint of power thus far, although I suppose with time he might mature into Clevenger-type power. So looks like a 5th outfielder type prospect to me. Although, if he can improve his hitting enough so that his OBP is good, there's a place in the majors for guys who can play all three OF positions, and run pretty well. Sometimes a team with a hole or an injury has to start a guy like that. As with Theriot and Penalver, there's opportunity in the majors for guys who can support .340 OBP and play several positions, power or not. Penalver has a chance to become a good defensive SS. I can see a Theriot-type upside offensively, with a slightly higher defensive ceiling. Theriot has gotten over 3000 AB's in the majors, so again, there's obviously big-league value for singles-hitting defenders who can support .340 OBP. And certainly anti-awful is a big deal. You won't have stars at every spot; being anti-awful at your cheap and lesser spots is key. So perhaps if Penalver and Chen were someday the worst guys in the lineup, but were both .330 OBP guys, that wouldn't be too bad.

Loosen Hatley delaRosa Weak vote for Hatley. Good relievers are highly valuable, and Hatley has the arm and stuff where he could be one. But, results matter too, and he hasn't shown a lot. Probably one of the long line of good arms, but inadequate control/consistency that filter in and out of the majors and probably every system. But, given his late transform, I'm hoping he settles in. Maybe some coaching and sustained health and he'll be able to put it together. Chance isn't compelling but it's at least possible, and the alternates aren't a lot of sure things. toonster, I like Loosen better. You don't like his stuff. But BA had him at 89-95, and said his curve has sharpened up. That fits with what I've heard; that he had solid velocity and a good breaking ball this year. Not sure if he's curve and slider, or same pitch termed differently by different observers. He's been a 9K/game guy, so it would seem he's got a pretty good putaway breaking pitch. At least relative to FSL, and apparently better than Hatley had last year, or Struck. Loosen's WHIP has been solid, 1.1 last year. So this is no Dallas Beeler. Maybe his practical stuff is better than you've given him credit for, and maybe he's been improving where some other guys have plateaued?

thanks for sharing that.

True enough. Heh, If Hendry or Stockstill or Wilken (or Fleita internationally) took a pick that seemed counter to history and seemed to be going against the odds, it was easy to assume that they were just ignorant or impulsive, and did it without even knowing or realizing the risk. With the new guys, if/when they do go "against the odds", I think we'll know that it isn't because they hadn't studied the history. They'll know the risks, and will be pretty thorough and informed in their risk analyses. Yes, of course it's the nature of the board to discuss and debate and argue and criticize! But at least for now, it's fun trusting that the decision-makers know what they're doing and will make intelligent, informed decisions. If they do something curious, you know there will be some reason for it. I sure don't feel that way about my favorite basketball team the Milwaukee Bucks, and I haven't often felt that way about the Cubs before. I like it.

As Dave notes, we can perhaps sign a couple of big tickets and get several others too. Obviously it's a huge summer for the team. Getting #2 pick and international money is a rare opportunity and may not happen again for a long, long time. (Unless it happens again in 2014...) However they divvy it up internationally, whether it's focused on one big stud, a couple of $1-2 million range guys, or really spread around, I trust that they'll be pretty thoughtful and analytical about what they try. And I know they'll be investing a whole lot of scouting time on this. I think the ideas would be a player who was so outstanding that we could justify $3 or whatever, and that in due time he'd look as promising as Solar/Baez/Almora do now. But I'll accept whatever they do, and hope for the best. A pitching rotation can come together pretty quickly, sometimes. Perhaps two years from now, a camp with Samardz/Appel/Paniagua/Jackson/Garza/Johnson/Vizcaino might perhaps look very gifted. Position players, though, that's going to take longer even if guys work out.

Two innings in, but Rondon has been good. Hope he can keep it up. Would be awesome to create a useful pitcher out of the Rule 5.

Not sure I'm following your points here. "I just think calling his approach garbage isn't fair." Who called his "approach" "garbage"? I didn't. I think his approach is excellent, if "approach" means choices/plate discipline/anti-hacking. I just think he can't hit. I guess I don't think he "has the hit tool". But I hope I'm wrong. It would be pretty cool if good development could coach it into a guy who showed no hint of possessing it.

His walk rate was great. His BP power is also nice. No sign early that he can really hit the ball, though. .240-type guy. So if the development guys can turn a guy who can't hit into one who can, that would be pretty impressive testimonial.

The player-vs-pitcher discussion is fascinating, but so is big-ticket versus spread-it-around. I wonder what the data is there, and what Theo's take is? I've got a sense he may perhaps be a believer in the big ticket. That one star matters more than volume. Three things come to mind: 1. Almora. The whole draft centered around Almora, and mostly settled for slot or subslot thereafter. 2. Convention: Theo said the most important day of the year will be Day 1 of the draft. Not day 2.... 3. Paniagua $$$ was not spread around. Obviously unconvincing. Draft isn't international; Paniagua was 22, unique; and they loved Almora. But I wonder whether they don't believe that one elite prospect is worth more than a volume of good but non-elites? We'll see how I all plays out this summer.

The Cubs supposedly have an intelligent, thoughtful saber/computer/data-informed management team. This is exactly the kind of landscape where their analysis should helpful. I'd love to be in the room to hear them argue through these questions. I assume they know what Kyle knows, that stud young players are more likely to stay studly than teenage pitchers. If they can find a player good enough to justify a $2+ deal, I'll love it and prefer it. But if they spend $2 on a teen pitcher, I'll have to believe they see such superior potential that it justifies, despite the risk. We've certainly heard Theo comment on the draft, how historically high-pick pitchers don't produce as well as high-pick players, and how more premium pitchers emerge from non-high picks than is true for players. I've got to assume analogous trends apply to internationals, and they know it.

Nice point, Rob. If the new development approach can do miracles, Golden would be a nice challenge.

I think Beeler took a huge step back. If you're a projection prospect and you aren't improving, you go back. His prospect-hood was based on the premise that he'd improve. His slider would get better, his K's would go up, his HR's would go down. Instead he was basically the same guy, maybe worse: no K's, high HR's, high WHIP, gobs of hits, no K's. Kind of how I've felt about McNutt. Three years ago he was a hot projection guy who was combining good arm and good results. But as with any prospect, the assumption is that he'll continue to improve. Three years later with no improvement evident yet (and off to a dismal first week in exhibition games), he's going back.

Heh, I'm one of the impulsive voters for Latin and completely unproven guys! My three this time were delaRosa, Torres, and Castillo. One hasn't played in a pro game; one hasn't played one in the US; the 3rd has but hasn't hit much at all. On Torres, being Top 20 in DSL might be pretty significant. As cal mentioned, Candelario and Amaya made that list and have fairly quickly moved into our top-20. It's further down, but in some ways top-20 there may mean a lot more than top-20 in AZL or Northwest, where there are only like 8 teams providing candidates. The DSL had 35 teams. I'd assumed he was just a strike-thrower with little projection; but if he's a true strike-thrower who throws in the 90's with a good and projectible frame, that sounds more interesting to me than Struck or Beeler. Not likely that any of struck/Beeler/Loosen/Torres will end up being above-average major league starters; but while the chance is very small for Torres, it may be almost zero for Struck. In a sense, I'm going for unknown distant guys, who have some favorable scouting and are too unseen or too distant to be sure they'll never be more than mediocre or anti-awful, over guys who seem pretty remote to ever become above-average starters. Of course, I'm not even remotely consistent. I voted for Loosen a few times earlier, and I think Hatley also. But having done so when he wasn't getting voted in, I've gotten bored with that so want to vote for some other guys! I'm also impacted by toonster's posts. He's comped Struck and Loosen a few times, and has persuaded that Struck may be as promising as Loosen. But I'm already certain that Struck's potential is very limited, and he's got no chance to ever become an above-average starter; so if Loosen is really on that par, then I'd rather take a shot on some younger, more distant, more unknown, but somewhat less limited guy. Or at least a guy whose limitations are currently less known to me.

Agree there. But I voted Dunston here, in part because without knowing anything favorable about Rosario's injury, my default is that it was serious. The game account of his injury day sounded very serious, and it was clearly arm, not an oblique or an ankle or anything like that. Maybe he never had surgery, but I'm not sure on that, and even if he didn't that doesn't mean his arm is and will be 100%. This is a case that will be fun to see play out. If we get reports in the month upcoming that he's throwing fast and fine, and he shows up in a regular April rotation pitching regular innings with good effectiveness, those doubts will fade.

de la Rosa, Reed, and Contreras. All unproven, but I'm going with the ceilings here. To my knowledge, none have talent limitations that would preclude them from emerging as top 10-15 guys in future, if things go well.

I picked Reed and Wilson Contreras. Partly for the sake of variety. If Reed can throw 98, and Hyde thinks he might be a breakout guy, then I think he's interesting to break into the top 35. And I think he's going to be starting or piggy-backing this spring. Contreras, his coach or manager at Boise compared him defensively to Pudge Rodriguez. hyperbole, of course, but sounds like he might have some elite defensive potential. Not like Clevenger converting. The organization stinks for catchers, and a good defensive catcher isn't required to hit a ton. He didn't improve much as a hitter last summer, but I could imagine focus being on the catching, not the hitting. Perhaps his bat will step up.

Q1: Do you just need to be 16, or 16.5 by the July 2 signing deadline? Q2: Was BA listing present age, or age when they signed? Present, I think? If it's present age, and they needed to already be 16.5 when they signed, it would be kinda hard to have many guys currently 16. If so, I'm thinking that Disla (17), de la Cruz (17), Hernandez (turned 18 in January) may all have been guys who weren't eligible before this July. So I'm not sure there's really a conscious orientation towards "older" pitchers. I would imagine that if you're going to spend $80-170K on a projection guy, you'd probably like a tall project who might grow into serious velocity later, even if he doesn't have enough speed now to price himself out of your budget. Will be interesting to see what the Cubs hopefully upgraded coaching procedures can do in terms of developing these project picks.

Cal, thanks much for posting that stuff about the INT signings. Interesting to get the names for the $80-120K guys. Not sure how to read any of that, but perhaps a $100K guy now is in the same class that a $250K guy would have been a year ago. Glad to hear positive buzz on DeLaRosa. I guess McLeod really liked what he saw before July 2 and really pushed to get him. Maybe thought he was kind of an Almora-style guy (not nearly so in talent or caliber, of course....); a guy without fabulous speed or great BP power, but who has a coordination and feel/head for the game, and who can hit. Not sure how much ceiling, but true-blue hitters are hard to find. Hopefully he really will hit.

I think the Cubs score so well not necessarily because they added so much, but because they lost so little and won so few. Easy to add wins relative to such a low frame of reference. And much of the war they lost (Dempster, Maholm) was not lost during the offseason. If you did the same WAR differential relative to July 15, would the Cubs not score that highly? It's cool, though. And I'm not trying to minimize the quality of what they've done. I've been very happy with what they did.

It's at the expense of a DSL team. I'd be curious to hear the reasoning. They've supposedly invested heavily in Dominican academy. Have optimal training facilities and coaching staff. Seems surprising to take a bunch of the guys away working at lesser facilities with with perhaps lesser coaches after all the gush the Dominican facilities have received. Perhaps the new rules factor. You can't buy a lot of top guys. Might be easier to attract a $200K Venezuelan if he can stay closer to home? Or if you're one of those $50K guys that don't particularly count against the cap, and five teams are offering the same, why not stay home if you can? Or, maybe they've got or are building some top-tier academy in Venez too, that just hasn't gotten so much buzz?

I voted Scott. Basically because he's 20 to Arias's 22, because Scott allowed zero HR, and because I know more about Scott. cal, can anybody fill in more "story" on Arias? What I know is that: 1. he's tall (6'5") with a strong build for rotation pitching (lists 220) 2. that he throws hard and scouts with some natural sink. 3. That he's kinda raw in terms of offspeed stuff. 4. He's already 22. For scott, we know he's a South African who picked up baseball late and didn't have tons of coaching. So it's easy to imagine that his breaking stuff is going to be way better at 25 than it is at 20. But does anybody know how Arias, with his size and velocity, didn't start pros till he was 20? Most Dominicans with his size/velocity are pros at 17 and their offspeed stuff is well developed by 22. Is he as near his breaking-stuff ceiling as most 22-year-old Dominicans? Or is there reason to think that like Scott he's just getting started on his developmental journey, and what he is now may be nothing like what he might end up becoming?