craig

1B is WAY more important defensively than LF, I think. Grounders come quicker than flies and are harder to handle and require more bend/flex. Every non-force groundball out entails a throw to 1B, many on close plays and many involving throws that aren't perfect or easy. The 1B is just involved in a lot more plays, and a lot more non-trivial plays that discriminate between excellence and mediocrity, than is true in LF. (I think.) I'd think the difference between an excellent 1B and a mediocre one is probably much greater than between an excellent and mediocre LFer. Obviously flat-out running speed matters more in LF. So perhaps based on running speed, Vogelbach would just inherently be a lot more problematic in LF than 1B. But it's possible that if running is bad but bending is worse, that he might be as bad or worse at 1B than in LF, and it would hurt you more. Further, he is NOT a tall man. He's only 6 foot, and if anything his limbs seem short. So in terms of "stretch", his 1B stretch capabilities are probably well below 1B normal. What I'm rambling to here is that despite his speed problems, perhaps he's actually BETTER suited to LF than to 1B? That he'd do more harm at 1B than in LF? Or that even if he's no better or worse at one than the other, that his mediocre/average at both would be better placed in the less discriminating LF spot?

If we trade Soriano to Cleveland (which I strongly hope happens), I don't expect Chisenhall to be included. But if so, and if the Cubs scout his defensive profile as decent, I'd be pleasantly surprised. Heh, it's been years since I've thought that Sori and his salary could ever be traded for value. (So my expectations are probably lower than for many of you.) So if they could trade him for a young player with a chance to be good, and to be good for years, even if the odds aren't great, I'd be thrilled and all for it. Especially at 3B, where we could use a shot. Chisenhall's minor league numbers were never thrilling, but they've also seemed to show reasonable progression. HR/K/walk rates have all been reasonably, albeit never special. Seems to me that if you've got a guy with a good stroke, who could hit 20 HR's, keep his K-rate to around 20% or less (per AB), and take a fair share of walks, that would be pretty good. In the minors I'm sure he played against all lefties. In the majors, he might be more valuable as a platoon guy. As for the Vitters comp, I'd think a LH version, who was enough better defensively so that he could play an acceptable 3B defensively, who was more walk-friendly, who had a good shot to be a 20-HR guy, and who didn't have the personality/mental challenges that Josh has, would be a very interesting possibility. (Of course, I have no idea whether Chisenhall is any better mentally/personality wise, and I know he got kicked out of college for problems; but most guys have a better baseball head than Vitters.) Vitters is still a prospect, so being like him but variably better in two or three aspects would be a pretty good prospect. Chisenhall has added weight, and should be healthy, so he might be poised for some power bump. That said, very unlikely that Cleveland wants to trade him for Soriano. I'd think that if anything happens, it would end up being very different from Soriano-for-Chisenhall simple.

toonster, I don't think SS defense is at issue. We've got other SS's, and if pro scouts thought he was a big-league SS defensively he'd not have lasted till 7th round. But whether he can play solid 2B/3B/LF or C is important, and I'm taking your answer to be "yes". Offensively, I see his ticket being as an OBP guy, so I don't think the HR power is a big deal. 10HR is plenty for 2B/utility. But to be an OBP guy, K's and HR's matter as well as walks. Hard to have a high batting average if you K quite often but HR rarely. Also easier to support a strong BABIP if you can use the whole field, including all the way to the fences, and keep the outfielders honest. Often college guys who K like he did at Boise get killed in full season, where the pitching gets way better. So his K-rate is obviously a scouting red-flag. But I agree, he was trying to make some adjustments to become more patient and take some walks. So hopefully he'll find a new equilibrium in which the walks become consistently good but the K's are manageable and don't get in the way of a big-league OBP.

There is something about a .442 OBP that kind of commands some interest. And with 25 extra-base hits in 67 games, that isn't Barney/Theriot either. Probably nothing real, but whatever.

I went Jensen, Bruno, Scott. As cubswin and others have noted, Jensen had very good numbers and has very favorable scouting. I'm pretty interested. If he was two inches taller, he'd get tons more respect. Bilbo's been lobbying for Bruno for a while now, so given the number of questions that everybody has, I'll give him a vote. I'm kind of a skeptic for six reasons: a) I suspect he plays a lot of positions because he isn't really big-league good at any one of them; b) he struck out 47 times in 252 short-season A, that's high for a pure contact guy; c) he's 5'9" so I don't project real HR power; d) he took some Boise walks, but his college profile was strongly anti-walk; e) I've seen lots of guys have some nice hitting stats in the Northwest League who got buried in full season; and f) his BABIP was like .436. So it will be no surprise if he's totally off the prospect map by July. But, a guy who consistently hit really well in a top college conference and who went .938 OPS in pro might really be a hitter. May just be a natural, instinctive baseball guy with a good stroke who's a quick study and will be able to adapt as needed, and really will hit. Or maybe the catcher thing will actually work? For all my doubts, a .442 OBP is a pretty good reason to keep a guy in view. Taylor Scott had a good year. He seems to have quite a good fastball, and he showed surprising progress with his control. I was very pleasantly surprised that he could get promoted to Boise (I'd thought he'd be in Mesa), and post a 2.52 ERA with "only" 29 walks in 72 innings. (Not good, but I expected he'd be super wildman supreme.) Boise has traditionally been a fairly HR-possible park, but he allowed zero. HR-allowance is a huge factor for pitchers, so if he's largely living on his fastball, hitters know a lot of them are coming, but he still allowed zero HR's, that's very encouraging to me. Obviously it's projection to imagine a put away breaking pitch ever developing that will all him to be a strikeout guy, and by accounts he's awfully skinny, so who knows whether he'll grow into really serious velocity. But I think he's a pretty interesting projection guy.

I agree Cubswin, catcher is hard to find. I think it's THE hardest, much harder than SS. And I think BPA definitely applies, the question is how to apply it. Random tangent thoughts: 1. If one of the catchers actually justifies first pick, that would be pretty amazing. 2. Given the physical wear, you almost want to avoid potentially "wasting" a high first-round pick on a catcher. I don't know, but I'd think the failure/attrition rate could be as bad or worse than a pitcher. On the other hand, the skills/tools requirement for a good catcher are so many, that it's hard to find a perfect guy very deep into the draft. So 2nd/3rd round seem potentially very good places to try. 3. Theo mentioned at convention that statistically players have best success in rounds 1 and 2. So I don't think a player needs to be above-and-beyond to get taken in either of those rounds. I think tie-goes-to-the-player in both of those rounds (or should). 4. Need: While pitcher is viewed as organizational need overall, relative to "players", catcher is a class unto itself. There is no organizational need more acute than at catcher. So if there is ever a BPA tie, need should go for the catcher over a pitcher. There will always be some projectable good arm available the next round that perhaps you can coach up. But not so for catchers. 5. BPA is a very fuzzy term, and involves projected likelihood of becoming good and staying good and how good (ceiling). A college catcher doesn't last beyond round one without having known flaws. (Donaldson, Fox, Gibbs, Flores, Muyco, Richie, Hannah, Jorgensen, it didn't take time to realize they weren't perfect, that was understood from day one....) There just aren't that many who have the arms, the receiving abilities, the intelligence/leadership/communication skills you want, enough strength for power, and the ability to hit all in the same package. Especially hard to balance BPA for catchers against pitchers when there are so many factors and when comparing a catcher with some obvious ceiling-limits to some good arm. 6. Man, Castillo is really a significant variable. WE know he strikes out too much and his hitting doesn't look that fast or great. So he's not going to be a perfect star. But if he could hit enough HR's to make his offense viable, and improve his game-calling so that he'd be an overall plus defensively, it would sure make a huge difference to have him stabilize C for a bunch of years as a solid/average-or-better-overall catcher. I want Jackson and Vitters to work out, but if either or both fails, the next option isn't that far behind. But the hard-to-find-replacement-if-he-fails situation at catcher makes Castillo a much more important hinge guy.

Absolutely. That's the ideal. If you get stuck with a college pitcher, that's the breaks, and I'll just hope he'll be one of them that both is/gets really good and stays really good for a long time.

I really appreciate what BA does and the thought they put into it. But they are sometimes slow to change an opinion. They've had this idea for years that Castro would outgrow SS. I have heard people think that Baez SS/Castro 2B might actually be a better defensive alignment than the reverse. (Although maybe that was Arizona Phil...). Probably unrealistic, though. Teams don't move established SS's for an upcoming prospect whose defensive profile isn't really very different than that of the established SS. There was a post in the convention thread saying that Castro looked a lot bigger. If so, hopefully that's good muscle that will help his power, at no expense to his defense. But despite already being a 3-year veteran, he's still only 22, an age where a lot of guys are getting heavier. Perhaps BA's notion that he'll outgrow SS will be vindicated. It may be that Castro will need to fight to keep himself slim enough to maintain his SS defense, but that fight will come at the expense of some power. If so, and if Baez can basically replace the slim-Castro defense, then perhaps letting Castro beef up into a 20-30 HR guy at 2B rather than a 15-HR guy at SS might be well worth it.

Nice contrast. Theo's had some comments about the poverty of rotation pitching. Man, nothing highlights that more clearly than the inclusion of Rhee and McNutt in BA's list last winter. A fun game is to look at a list now, and guess which several guys are most likely to be off the list next year. At first it's easy to distinguish likely core pieces (Castro, Rizzo, Samardz if health permits....) from guys who seem shaky to be long-term assets But interesting that some of the weaker candidates, there isn't much depth behind. LF Jackson: most likely to be off, clock is ticking. But, not likely that we'll spend a premium pick on an outfielder, and there isn't much for 3rd outfielder prospects in the system. So if Jackson struggles, but we don't acquire a serious young OFer from outside, who might replace him? Szczur? Martin? Schierholz? Or wold they put some good-bat who's currently an infielder like Vogelbach? Candelario? Not a compelling group of Jackson alternatives. Jackson might have a mediocre but not awful season and possibly still show up next year. C Castillo: I'm not sold that he's really going to be a keeper as a starting catcher, offensively or defensively. But if he doesn't look good, we've got nobody this side of the draft to consider. If we don't spend a high pick on a catcher, Castillo could have a pretty disappointing year but still return to that list next year. Candelario: Obviously pretty iffy whether he'll hit so well and also show enough defensive progress to make the list again. (I sure hope so, it would be awesome if he advances to full season and improves his hitting enough to still project like a middle-of-the-order bat, while at the same time improving his defense enough to still look plausible at 3B.) But zillions of options here, in case he doesn't impress. Assuming Baez justifies his big-prospect status, and BA finally accepts Castro as a SS, then Baez can list at either 2B or 3B. So basically the 3rd infielder spot could go to whichever of Candelario/Vitters/Stewart/Villanueva/Barney/Watkins/Torreyes/Amaya/Lake/draft-pick looks best. Seems like plenty of options there.

I've heard otherwise. And he certainly doesn't look to be 210 in that Christmas picture. And frankly, I don't think 210 would be remotely desirable for him. He's got a huge barrel chest. I think 220-230 is a good target. I expect he'll be 240 or under this spring.

Obviously the feasibility of ever actually trying him in left depends on lots of variably unlikely stuff all being true at the same time: 1. Him really hitting like a serious middle-of-the-order guy 2. Rizzo being good at 1B 3. Vogel being acceptable in left 4. LF still being open.

Most positive comment on his defense that I've ever seen, even if Law or Callis's scouts may not agree. Also interesting that Hyde, unprovoked, brings up the idea of trying him in a different spot later.

http://vineline.mlblogs.com/2013/01/20/cubs-convention-live-down-on-the-farm/ Down on the farm session from the convention summarized. Mostly administrative/philosophy type comments. (Vogelbach was the only guy commented on, by Hyde.) Some I found interesting were about the Kane County move; what they look for in a rotation prospect versus dropping a guy to relief; and comment on the difficulty of teaching plate discipline were interesting. Of particular interest to me is that they've now installed cameras now at ALL of the parks. I think that's huge. So they can get video on every pitch, every AB. Hyde and McLeod and Johnson etc. can watch everything or anything they want from their offices without needing to travel or rely on scouts to describe it. They can keep records on how many non-strikes a guy is swinging at, etc.. I think having all of that data should be invaluable for coaching, or for nagging prospects about what they're doing wrong, or for analyzing what's different between the hot periods versus the slumps. And of course that will all be available for prospects to study their AB's. Really cool.

Theo was asked about the draft at the convention tonight. He said that study shows that players tend to give better value than pitchers in the first round, and also in the second. But that good pitchers can last much deeper into the draft. Said they might draft a pitcher, but they might also do like last year and get a player with the first, then draft arm after arm after arm like they did this year. Obviously depends on the scouting and the talent. I agree with that. High-pick players can often be really good for years and years. Pitchers are pitchers, so even if there arms are still good when they reach the majors, the odds aren't high that they'll stay special for years and years. If we draft a pitcher, of course I'll hope he's the special guy whose arm lasts for years and proves a big-time ace. But I'd prefer if a player emerges who's good enough to justify going #2, and go for pitchers after that.

Arias-Jensen-Zych I've voted for Zych and Jensen before, first time adding Arias in. Zych is fast and had excellent stats for a 21-year-old in A+/AA. Serious anti-HR profile. Had individual games and stretches where he was really good, but inconsistent. Some of the walks and runs came in bunches. Young and inexperienced enough so that if the consistency improves, he's got a high ceiling (as a relief pitcher). Jensen had good stats, has a good arm, has good fastball movement, seems to have a diverse arsenal emerging, and most importantly seems to be a natural control pitcher. Arias requires a whole lot more projection. But he's big, strong, and fast, with a heavy fastball. After placing vote, and checking their stats, I was surprised to rediscover that Arias is pretty much the same age. All three are 22, and will pitch the whole minor league season at that age. As a Latin guy, I'd kinda just assumed Arias was young with lots of projection/time left. But he's only a few weeks younger than Jensen, and a few months younger than Zych. But while age may be comparable, there's a chance that he's got a lot more untapped potential to still realize.

I can see that. For me, I'd put Zych well ahead of Ha. But that's probably because I value a reliever a lot more than a utility outfielder. Relief pitchers throw over 1/3 of the innings, but backup outfielders don't usually get nearly 1/3 of the AB's. Ha looks like a 5th outfielder prospect to me, until/unless he shows some hitting and power tools. He had a .737 OPS this summer, with 96K/6HR. This winter, 26K/1HR/73AB in Venezuela. Doesn't look like enough bat to become a big-league starter to me. Kind of a shame he didn't work out at catcher, where the hitting standard is lower.

That's interesting scouting, toonster. How do you reconcile those scouting evaluations with the statistics? If his fastball is as fast and his breaking ball has far better action and break, why is his K-rate poor while Zych's is excellent? And why is his HR rate very high while Zych's is very low? Seems to me that if McNutt has a better breaking ball, his K-rate should be more than 2/3 of Zych's. And he shouldn't be giving up 12HR to Zych's 1. Maybe McNutt's stuff is just as good or better, and it's just that Zych has better control?

Rondon-Jensen-Zych. Arias would be next on my list. I like Zych better for a number of reasons: Fastball velocity Fastball movement Movement on primary breaking ball Control on primary breaking ball Projection for development of a good third pitch GO/AO HR (this is huge. Anti-HR versus HR-oriented...) Age Developmental trajectory. Health Zych is on a very healthy trajectory, IMO. He's younger, has been successful wherever he's gone and has yet to hit a bump. He's got a big arm, he's got a sharp slider, it's too early to say that his splitter might not become good, he's got good GO/AO and K/BB and anti-HR record. AA at 21 is fast movement, but there's lots of projection left. Has a chance to be a high-ceiling pitcher with two plus-plus pitches. There have been no red flags thus far. I'm not super high on McNutt. He had a reputation for being fast, but I'm not sure that his fastball is really that good or projects as a plus big-league pitch. Movement and location as well as velocity determine fastball effectiveness, and I'm not sure the combo is that plus. And my sense is that the package of movement/location/consistency for his breaking stuff has been effectively sub-average. So he's flashed some red flags for sure, and has kind of been plateaued in AA. Zych's K/BB/HR were win-win-win; McNutt's have been lose-lose-lose. Fortunately development isn't always linear. For a while Samardz wasn't that fast, and didn't seem to have any go-to breaking pitches or any K-stuff. But then somehow his velocity stepped back up a notch, and he came up with several good, K-quality breaking pitches, and control got better besides. So I'm hoping McNutt is just about ready to surge forward after kind of getting stuck for a while. Although I have no reason to expect that.

Jensen\Rondon/Zych Blackburn and Arias would be my next two. I'm a hopeless optimist I'm sure. But I think this is a really fun part of the system. Nobody's got sure-thing superstars hanging out in the late 20's. I think the volume and quality of legitimately interesting pitchers still left this deep into our system is pretty nice. I'm very optimistic about some of these pitchers. Blackburn is a tough one for me. The reports from Arizona Phil and others on his stuff were not very impressive. But as CubsWin mentioned, the fact that management picked him so high says somebody was impressed. If they project a reasonable big-league fastball, I'm fine to trust their judgment, at least for now.

I didn't vote for him, but I agree on Jensen. Like him quite a bit. None of his numbers were great, and none of his stuff scouts great. But all of his numbers seemed very good, especially for a guy in his first full year out of JC. And his stuff sounds good, even if it isn't great. And its maybe getting better. My understanding is that he came up with a changeup midyear, which was looking like a very good pitch by the end of the year. Callis didn't put him in his top-30, said his ceiling was #4 starter, and envisions Jensen ending up in relief, with his low-90's fastball that has natural cutting action. Callis gets his info from scouts, so I take that seriously. Still, a 90's fastball with cutting movement and control, what's wrong with that? That's a very useful first pitch. It's not like every team has 3-5 big-leaguers actually working faster than low-90's with good movement and with good control. The "cutting action" would seem to explain Jensen's strong GB rate, modest HR rate (6HR/140 innings), and good success versus LH hitters. I think the earlier reputation was that he was fastball/curve, kind of a 2-pitch guy, which might explain the relief projection. Either that or being only 6'1". (Or just that he's not good enough.) But if he successfully integrates the change, that might give him the more complete repertoire that he'd want as a starter.

Thanks. If his defense is solid/average, then he's interesting. There aren't many utility infielders who don't play SS. So for a guy to carve a long-term career as a utility 2B/SS, being decent at SS helps. If you're fighting for the last roster spot, the true SS who's also proficient at 2B will obviously be defensively preferable to the decent 2B who's going to be a problem if he needs to start more than 3-4 games a year at SS. But certain for us, Barney does have that capability anyway. The CF probably helps a little bit. And could help a lot if he ended up hitting so well that you didn't mind him playing, or maybe even liked it. I guess we'll see with the offense. I'd written him off prior to last year, and the early season I didn't even pay attention. But he was only 22, and has now gone 1>5>9 for HR's, he added an extra 5 doubles, his slugging was no longer Barney-esque. I tink an .800+ OPS at age 22 in AA is pretty interesting for a decent-fielding middle infielder. And his second half was over .850, I think. Probably got hot, hit a few HR, and it won't be sustainable. But if it's real improvement and maturation, but physically (for the power), and in terms of actual hitting, if he's got enough improvement left so that he could even remotely approach those numbers in the majors, you'd have a useful starter. .383 OBP, those don't grow on trees. The curious thing was that all of his number got better. BB-rate jumped a bunch, and HR's/slugging, but very weirdly his K-rate actually dropped a little. Usually more HR means swinging harder, and K's go up. Or more walks mean working count deeper, getting into more 2-K counts, and K's go up. His SB volume also went up, which I don't normally see versus better defensive catchers. And his errors at 2B went down. So really a nice year for him, progress in every aspect of his game, and no cost to making the changes. (Contrast to Szczur: his walk rate went way up, but that brought his K's ways up, and his HR's/slugging way down.) Watkins is 23 now, so not that young. But, I don't think there is a super long baseball season or a high level of competition in rural Kansas. Not sure how many quality pitchers he faced, or how many games he actually played. As the HS QB, I'm sure his baseball season didn't run very long. So maybe a kid like that had more to learn and isn't as far along developmentally as the typical 23-year-old all-baseball top-prospect kid from California or Florida. Maybe the recent improvement is real, and maybe he's still got some more left? He's LH, which might also help him make a big-league roster in a bench role initially, then perhaps later get some starts versus RHP, and perhaps play his way into some partial-platoon usage. He had pretty strong splits, .846 to .667 or something like that.

Rondon Zych Wells

Watkins. .383-OBP in AA at age 22 is very good. Showed improvement in every area My questions are: 1. How good (or bad) is his 2B defense? What have you guys seen or heard? 2. Will he be able to sustain his second-half surge, or improve further? Or will he revert to what he'd been before? 3. Will he ever have opportunity to do much good for the Cubs? 4. Does he really play SS adequately enough to be a useful big-league utility guy?

That's usually the problem, management usually waits until it's too late. Becoming a good catcher takes a much longer commitment than converting from SS to 2B, or even converting to pitcher. Even for that, sooner is better. Marmol was 19, that was good. Randy Wells. But think how much better it would have been had Burke converted a couple of years earlier? Or Junior Lake, perhaps the best arm in the system, but he'll be 23 this year. Getting kind of late to start pitching.