craig

loosen hatley mcneil

Given all the electronic advances on the farm, this shouldn't be surprising but I am still super impressed by this news. Yes. I think the quantitative record-keeping is going to really impact the way they evaluate, and train. I think it's a pretty big deal. Plate discipline analysis will go a whole lot deeper than the W/K kind of assessment that's about the best we fans can use. I also think having the comprehensive video records of every pitch is also a big deal. Not like days when a bigwig makes a couple of 3-day visits, and gets a skewed opinion on a guy if he happens to slump or happens to hit a couple of HR's.

That is interesting. I wonder if he makes it to the second round. Its also scary. Shoulder fatigue is a worse indicator than elbow stress isn't it? Yes and it isn't close. More often than not shoulder injuries kill pitchers career's, while elbow injuries (specifically recovering from TJS) are becoming more of an inconvenience that delay a pitcher's development by about a year and be able to come back to pre-injury form or better once recovered. While I agree that it isn't close, I think you're underselling the significance of TJ. First, it's more often two years, since the second year is largely rehab throwing. (Whitenack, for example, wasn't really pitching to win last year. And Vizcaino isn't really expected to be pitching to win early this year.) Second, I don't think it's that preponderant to come back to pre-injury form. I think it's pretty normal to return to pre-injury velocity, but I don't think recovering pre-injury control is much more than a 50-50 gamble, if even that favorable.

Hatley was an outfielder, he converted to pitching with the Cubs. AS with most converts, his velocity profiles much better than his control or his age.

Agree. And 14 HR allowed. It seems teams don't see a lot of buzz. But, he'll still pitch this whole season at age 23. As toonster notes, it's the lack of any above-average pitch that's an issue. You kind of need at least one good pitch in the majors, I think. But coaching and tinkering can sometimes change an average breaking ball into a good one. Hopefully that happens with him. On the age thing, it means a ton, but I like to be a little careful with that too. Different guys start pro at different ages. If you sign as a young Latin, and you've got any potential, you better be hitting leagues at younger ages than a college pick, for example. But you might not have as much improvement left. Future improvement is partly a function of age, but also of experience and challenges/adjustments you haven't needed to make before, or coaching adjustments that you haven't had the coaching to receive before. So a guy like Lake, for example, his being 22 now isn't as effectively "young" as a 22-year-old out of college.

Scott Arias McNeil A lot of the guys left have known limitations. These guys are new enough so that I can imagine whatever I want. Soon enough they may confirm that they're as or more limited than other more known guys outside the top 30. But for now I can imagine that with time they'll grow or get coached into both the velocity, the repertoire, and the command required to end up being good.

Scott Loosen Arias All have pretty good arms and some chance to make it as starters. Cubswin, I think I'd put Rusin at the bottom of the four lefties.

keep going. It's fun. As other baseball picks up, we may get more people visiting nsbb more often rather than less.

Absolutely, Fleita wanted power rotation arms too, everybody does. But I got the impression that Hyde wasn't as oriented towards "fast-tracked as a power pen arm". He didn't sound as "fast-track"y. Maybe that's just me hoping. If a guy can't pitch rotation because he's got inconsistent mechanics and can't throw strikes, it's not like relievers with inconsistent mechanics, poor command, and the inability to throw strikes are hot commodities either. So consistent mechanics, control, and strikes are developmental priorities for future relievers, just as they are for rotation. And I got the sense that Hyde believes that's best accomplished by innings and time. So perhaps a two 115-inning seasons as a starter in A- and A+, followed by a 65 inning season as a reliever in AA, following by a 40-inning half-season at Iowa and a midseason callup, isn't "fast-track" but is developmentally effective? I wonder how the decision-making was made last year. Zych was fast-tracked as a reliever. Was that McLeod's call? Or Fleita's, since Fleita was still the farm boss? Or were both in sync on that?

Thanks, Dave. That's pretty interesting, and pretty aggressive. If he does start there, I hope he justifies doing so and has good success there.

True. I think that's why the promotion rate needs to be individualized, especially in past. Some guys need to be pushed to a failure league so that they realize "doing what got me here" isn't going to work. Others need to stay at a low enough level to have success even while trying something new. With the recording equipment that's now available, every pitch thrown or see or swung at, at least for home games, is now recorded. So I think that quantification will be possible, and as a result I think the new regime may manage assignments and promotions better. Each player has his own manual with with detailed targets in all kinds of detailed areas. For hitters, walk rates, take rates, take rates on different pitches in the count, selectivity rates for swinging at bad balls, etc., I believe all of those are now specified and recorded among other things. If the records show that Reed is throwing 75% fastballs at Peoria, 23% sliders, and only 2% changes, and his expectation is set at 60%/25%/15%, I assume there will be a record and he will have to answer why. If they are now able to quantify all this kind of stuff, and if promotion requires compliance, and if non-compliance results in a bad grade on your bi-weekly report, won't players be pretty inclined try to comply?

That would be interesting. Definitely heard some good reports on him last season at Peoria (he was the Chiefs' hardest thrower and I think he hit 100). There aren't too many openings for Daytona's rotation, but with Peralta currently gone, there is a vacancy. Reed will be 21 all year, with only 159 pro innings, and few amateur innings before that. I wouldn't be surprised to see him redo A-. If you want a guy to practice throwing more of his 2nd and 3rd pitches, pitches he'll need in the majors, starting him at a lower level might make sense. But who knows. I also don't think opportunity is much of an issue. With piggy-backing, anybody with any rotation possibilities can get a shot. At convention, Hyde talked about rotation versus relief. I'm simplifying, but basically I inferred relief being for non-prospects in lower minors, and even in the upper levels it's for guys lacking in control and/or arsenal. Even a future-reliever he wanted starting for innings early on. That's kinda why I figured that if they mention him as a darkhorse, to possibly emerge as good, then they probably haven't written him off to the failed prospect bin yet, so they'll probably want him piggy-backing or something.

I also suspect they'll give Reed a shot at starting/piggyback. They've got some different ideas than Fleita, I think, and very much want some power rotation arms. If they thought his control and potential for a 3-pitch arsenal was too limited to justify a shot at rotation, I doubt they'd mention him as a dark-horse breakout candidate.

Good. If he's list age or younger, and the Cubs like him enough to invest a couple million, in the event they signed him, that would mean he'd have at least a chance. If he'd been actually older and a lesser prospect with lesser projection left, that would make him significantly less interesting. Not sure how hard or easy it is to get out of Cuba these days. And maybe the guy escapes well before he connects with the agent. But if the agent was really steering this from the beginning, an agent would not want him to defect early. Doesn't want him to sit out for a year, and he'll lose some millions I think (assuming he might sign for $2 or more, perhaps Concepcion or more), if he goes into the "pool". In the unlikely event the agent was steering even before the defection, he might not have encouraged that if he didn't believe the age was correct.

The age is that he's actually older, and thus a lesser prospect? Or that he's actually younger, and shouldn't be eligible?

Reed has a good arm. Would be fun if he could emerge as good.

Great points. He's never combined all his bests at once, and if he does he'll be really good. When his walks have been anti-awful, his K's haven't been great. When his K's have been great, his walks have been awful. But if he walked like last year (or better), and his K's were elite or close (like 2011), and his HR's were good (like last year) or better (as sometimes happens as guys mature from age 22 to 29), he could be a LOT better than a .275-20 guy. Of course, often walk/K/HR all interconnect. You get the low-K by swinging early and often, so the walks go down. The walk went up when he took more pitches, which put him into more 2-strike K-situations. So perhaps K/walks will always correlate; he buys more walks at the price of more K's? Likewise more K's may be the price of more HR's? But if all the good stuff came together all at the same time, and the HR output grew as well, his bat still would seem to have a chance to be good enough to justify a lot. Of course, there are "ifs" for every prospect in the top 30. I kind of think that anybody in the top 30 has a chance to be pretty good, if the "ifs" work out favorably. Torreyes, Watkins, Amaya, Jensen, Scott, etc., any of them might perhaps become 2-WAR guys or better, right? If the possibilities come up favorably?

Exactly.

That's more or less how I feel about him. Make that three.

Jensen Bruno Scott

Yes, very much, this is why I had him 15th or so on my list, ahead of Amaya, Hernandez, Watkins, or Alcantara. My point was simply that I understand why other scouts/services wouldn't rank him that high, and it's a common theme. When a guy is a touted tools guy, he'll get ranked high before the production is there. But when you're strictly a one-tool guy, the production usually needs to precede the status. If Torreyes hits really well, the way we think he might, then his ranking will rise accordingly. It's just sort of a chicken-egg, which comes first thing. I'm calling Torreyes a "one-tool" guy, but don't read that wrong. He's not inadequate in any of the areas, IMO. But the only one where he stands out is contact. His defense grades as fine, (but he's not toolsy like Alcantara or Baez), he runs fine (probably pretty average for a 2B), his walks improved from horrible to average, (but he's not Szczur or Brett Jackson), his arm is OK, and his power is probably adequate ( neither his present nor projected power is an asset, but he hit some HR's and got some doubles, so he's not a Theriot). Really the contact gift is the one and only **plus** tool that he's got. Fortunately for him, that's the most important tool to be special at. If he's extraordinary with that, while being nothing-special-but-nothing-problematic in the other areas, he's got a chance to be a *very* productive player.

Heh heh. I like Torreyes too, but he should hit over .711-OPS before we can fuss much. One-toolers need to hit first before expecting much buzz. On Vitters, "Some scouts inside and outside organization feel comfortable projecting a .275/20 HR hitter. Brings little intensity to ballpark. Destroys left handers .331/.377/.625. Fielding is only adequate at best."

Here's the rest of the BA list. Some surprises. 11. Juan Carlos Paniagua 12. Christian Villanueva 13. Alberto Cabrera 14. Matt Szczur 15. Junior Lake 16. Paul Blackburn 17. Duane Underwood 18. Dillon Maples 19. Logan Watkins 20. Marco Hernandez 21. Gioskar Amaya 22. Tony Zych 23. Robert Whitenack 24. Trey McNutt 25. Josh Vitters 26. Barret Loux 27. Matt Loosen 28. Lendy Castillo 29. Marcus Hatley 30. Trey Martin 31. Reggie Golden

I still think it's fun. Where else would we be debating the relative merits of Jensen, Zych, McNutt, Ha, Bruno, and prospects of that caliber? Obviously not a ton of separation in this area, and not many guys who are going to end up being asset starters. But I think it's fun.

That said, and given the unpredictabilities of who is and isn't injured, minor league spring training is pretty short and is a questionable window in which to make evaluations. The minor league season starts within a week of the majors, but isn't it true that whereas big-league pitchers are starting in mid-February, and most players come early, that minor-leaguers don't show up until like March 10th or so? My details may be wrong, anybody know? I'm just thinking that we all know how limited the sample size is and how misleading big-league spring performances can be. But the minor-league camp may be barely half as long, so that the impressions there should be even less reliable. I suspect it might be wise to have the assignments for actual prospects largely pre-planned, and only slightly adjusted based on injuries or spring performance. Back-of-roster roster-fillers, maybe some of them can go up higher or lower, or make a roster on basis of injury. But I don't think a hot small sample in camp should often be used to skip a guy ahead of where he'd been preplanned to go. If he looks hot in camp, but then stays that way in spring, bump him up in May or sooner. But otherwise I think you get a little hot in Mesa where it's warm, you can lose that pretty quick with several days of moving, sometimes to colder weather, and the brief hot spell in camp can have no carryover.