craig

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?

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?