craig

Thanks, Tim. Helpful, and I guess the "first half" is easy to deal with because that's how the stats sources split. In my head I'd been using April-July as my baseline, because it was at the end of July that Dempster and Maholm went away, and it was the awful post-trade August/September Jackson/Vitters/Berken roster that looked so super awful. But even before the trade deadline, we'd been 16 games under .500 at the end of July. With Dempster (2.25) and Maholm (3.74) in the rotation. Most of our spending this winter has been for starting pitchers: Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, and Baker. Two of those four will need to replace Dempster and Maholm; the other two plus Wood will compete for the VolstadWood spot. All I'm saying is that even the best of the new guys is not going to come close to matching dempster's league-leading 2.25 ERA, and I doubt the second best of the new guys is going to upgrade Maholm's 3.74. So the big improvement at #5 Volstad/Wood spot is going to be offset substantially by the downgrade at the #1/2 spots. The rotation could improve meaningfully; a) Garza and Samardz could both pitch better than they did b) The upgrade at the #5 spot could be huge, much larger than the downgrade at the Dempster/Maholm spots c) I don't know how to count how many starts had been made by the real junkers through August, but there were a number of Coleman/Germano type starts even before Maholm and Dempster said goodbye. So we could improve a bunch on those starts, too. Still, we were 16 games under at end of July. So most of the improvement is not going to be able to be provided by the new signings. Most will need to come from guys we already had. Whether that be Garza, Wood, Samardz, Marmol, Valbuena, Stewart, Castro, Castillo, Jackson, Soriano, Barney, Rizzo, I don't know. But if we end at .500 this July 31st instead of 16 games under like last year, it's not going to mostly be because the rotation is 16 games better, or that Navaro, Schierholz, and Fuji add 16 wins. Most of the improvement is going to need to come from within, from guys we already have, and it's going to need to come from small-steps improvements from many sources. Rotation perhaps somewhat better; offense perhaps somewhat better; relief perhaps gobs better; defense perhaps a little better; baserunning perhaps a little better. Obviously the rotation signings could boost the bullpen. In the unlikely event that Garza/Baker/Samardz/Jackson/Feldman/Villa/Wood are all healthy two of those seven will pad the bullpen in addition to Fuji. Wood, Fuji, and some other major league pitcher could stabilize the pen a great deal.

How open are fall instrux to scouts? Is it all Cubs-only, with the complex closed and they are only scrimmaging against other Cubs? Or is this more like extended spring training, where Cubs prospects are playing against Giants and Angels prospects, and the whole joint is open to any scouts from any teams? In other words, if a guy starts flashing high velocities in instrux, can other scouts see that, and do their Rule 5 drafting accordingly? I think it is open, right? So Arizona Phil can and does go and watch, if he wants? This is a dumb question, but was prompted by the Robert Whitenack case. Toonster mentioned Whitenack in his ranking list, which got me wondering. During the season, Whitenack had a 6.0 ERA and a 1.9 WHIP at Daytona, and from what I've heard was mostly 87-88 at Daytona on a fast gun. Neither those results or velocities would seem to have made him a commanding Rule 5 candidate. Yet the Cubs rostered Whitenack. Which would make a lot more sense if he was resting at 90-91 in instrux and touching 95 again, and if the improved velocity could have been seen by non-Cub scouts. I seem to recall Dolis getting rostered a few winters back, after there was talk that he'd been hitting 99 in instrux. So I assume it's open and scoutable?

I heard that Whitenack was 87-88 at Daytona, which might explain why he had 1.9 WHIP there and a 6.0 ERA. But I heard he was more comfortably back 90-91 in Mesa instrux this fall. I have a lot of confidence that management is pretty intelligent and is applying a lot of thought to prospects. That Whitenack got rostered suggests that they project him to come back with a lot better than the 1.9-WHIP stuff he was throwing at Daytona; that they like his upside enough to have not wanted to risk losing it; and that perhaps he'd shown some improved stuff in Mesa that had been seen by other teams.

Torreyes Amaya Zych I think Zych is underrated. His K/BB/HR were excellent, he's really fast, and his breaking ball is really good when it's on. Maybe I'm the only one, but I tend to think that as a college pick he's old and should already be near his ceiling. But he was a very young pick, and pitched almost all summer at age 21. Amaya made good strides defensively, so both Amaya and Torreyes project as good defensive 2B. (Not great....) Amaya is bigger with more power, Torreyes is about the same age but two levels ahead, has pretty remarkable contact skill, and played hurt for much of the season. But Torreyes is so small, I think there's only so much power projection left. But I like both as 2B candidates, to someday hit 2nd, 7th, or 8th in the lineup.

We haven't acquired Price, Upton, Olt, or Bourn yet, so we'd perhaps look more competitive if we do. But as it stands today, I don't see the team much ahead, if at all, of the roster we had last year pre-August. Offense/lineup wise, we're not necessarily any better. Schierholz and Navarro added. April-May Rizzo won't upgrade on April-May LaHair. I like the pitching moves made, but no matter how wise or good-risk those moves have been, we're going to be hard-pressed to approach the Dempster-Maholm-Samardz-Garza-Wood rotation that was so effective during April-July last year. We can improve on Volstad, but Jackson's not going to match Dempster's league-leading 2.12 ERA. So I think we'll be challenged to equal the April-July rotation. So if the lineup isn't obviously improved, and the rotation will be challenged to equal last year's, I don't see why we should be a lot better than the not-good April-July team of last year. The other concern is the depth-injury factor. Rotation-wise, we probably have better depth for injury. (Although Garza and Baker are injury risks; did we have any entering last season?) If we have perfect health, the lineup has a chance to push for .500. But if Castro or Rizzo get hurt, or Castillo struggles, we don't have strong replacements. So while we can look at WAR's and Saber predictions and conclude that "hey, this looks like a .500 team", usually some things go wrong.

Playoff teams either win 90 or get very close, close enough to "seriously consider" 90 as within reach. I think it's plausible that the Cubs could have a variably realistic shot at .500, or perhaps a game or two over, within the next two seasons; but not really at the playoffs. If having an outside shot to go 82-80 is "good", then I guess the Cubs could have a shot at being "any good". But I think being playoff-good, 90-win good or very close, is remotely unlikely within the next two seasons. I suppose there is always a shot to "catch lightning in a bottle", as MacP or Lynch mentioned many years ago, so perhaps remotely unlikely is still a lot better than impossible.

My understanding is that Lake's infielding days are done with the Cubs, and he'll be full-time outfielder next spring. With his arm and speed, and his size, he seems like a natural for RF.

That's either foolish on your part or pathetic on the Cubs' front office's part.... Heh, maybe both. Vizcaino will be coming back cautiously this year, so basically none of our top-5 prospects other than Vizcaino are going to impact this year. And given where Baez, Almora, Soler, and Vogelbach are developmentally, I don't expect any of them to be winning a lot of games for us in 2014 either. So if we're going to contend in either of the next two years, it will need to be built on the poor roster we finished with, supplemented by improvement from youngsters (Castro/Rizzo/Castillo/Jackson/Vitters) and by dollar-purchased pickups. I may be foolish, but I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years.

Q: Are there really 8 sandwich picks this draft, so that we'll only be at #41? I'd hoped to be a little higher up into the 30's. O well, I'm sure you guys have followed that and have it right. Haven't been involved in this discussion, but I'd value a high 2nd. Is it a showstopper? No, Kyle is right, the odds of hitting big there are modest (his 1/5 x 1/4th may be pretty representative....). But we're a really bad team, and will need to hit on some lucky picks going forward. Hopefully with really committed and intelligent scouting and really committed and intelligent player development, the odds will be a little higher. Admittedly I have concerns with Bourn. Much of his value comes from leg hits, baserunning/stealing, and his defense. I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years, and if/when they do become good, Bourn's legs might not be nearly as productive as they are presently. So will he actually be able to contribute to a contender? I don't know. And if his value is heavily built on his legs, will his trade value also deteriorate if his speed does? So I guess I'm not wow on Bourn, although I think he's good and would be a significant help towards anti-awful right now. But I guess the second-round pick has an iffy but possible value towards contending years; I think Bourn's value towards contending years would also be somewhat iffy. I'm fine to go with whatever management decides on this. If they think he's worth the cost in dollars and pick-2, I'll be excited about it and trust their judgement is good, and enjoy some less awful baseball next year. I do think there is some "culture" value in creating a team that is getting the most out of it's ability and is attentive to small things. Not going to the world series with Bourn, Barney, and the rotation that we've got. But having a culture where strike-throwing is a given, and where detailed attention to defense and baserunning is a given rather than an exception, that could be a good place for rookies or outside pickups to join. If you've got an overachieving perfectionist culture, then perhaps at some time future when the talent is above average rather than below average, perhaps overachieving could win it all.

I was told he hurt it within the first week or two, and it didn't get right until June, after they finally rested him for a while.

torreyes/amaya/zych I like Zych. In his first real pro year, at only age 21, he advanced to AA and pitched very well. 64K/19BB/1HR/61 innings are really good raw numbers. His ERA and hits-allowed were higher than I'd expect based on thepure K/BB/HR stuff. Throws fast, routinely 95+ on fast gun, and touches 100. Has a really effective slider, when it's on. His reputation is for having so-so control, so I assume his command in the zone and his command of offspeed stuff isn't great. But 19BB/61 innings isn't exactly a major problem. If his slider can get more consistent, and perhaps if his splitter develops, he's got a chance to be a very significant late-inning reliever. Amaya and Torreyes seem like analogous 2B options. Amaya's defense gets good reports now, and Torreyes 2B defense gets positive reports. Both seem like good batsmen. Torreyes had a hand injury early that significantly influenced his season. But he's an exceptional contact guy, and has a little bit of power. His BB-rate improved and will improve somewhat more. Had a terrible BABIP, but I'm think that's a function of swinging with a bad wrist. If he's able to support a more typical BABIP, with his excellent K/HR ratio (29K/6 HR is very nice), he could be a high average hitter. Projects as a nice #2 or #7/8 type hitter. Amaya scouts as a very nice contact hitter, and showed major improvement in walks and power. But his K's were problematic, seemingly too high for supposedly such a pure batsman. We'll see with him.

Underwood. Chance to be a #2 or #1 guy. Reportedly made strong progress in fall, and has responded well to coaching input. Can obviously top high 90's now, and can rest now in the low 90's with strikes; being so young he perhaps projects to rest more consistently at higher speeds. Speed isn't everything, but it's an awfully good start for an athletic pitcher. Obviously Szczur is closer and has a higher chance to be a major leaguer. But as distant as Underwood is, his chance to be a really good, high-impact major leaguer may be higher than Szczur. I like Szczur. I think he's got a chance to be a strong OBP guy who steals bases and plays a rangy CF and is a nice leadoff guy. Got a chance to become like Bourn.

I feel that way too. If I was told that there are solid medical reasons to think that he's completely healed and that he has no more injury risk than any other young arm, I'd have him up in my top ten. Pre-injury, I had him as the top guy in our system (this being pre-draft, pre-Vizcaino, pre-Paniagua....)

Underwood szczur Rondon Underwood: Totally unproven, but has such a high ceiling. Not many guys left at this stage with star possibility, and without having any strong evidence that they can't/won't ever get there. Szczur: Way opposite extreme, very obvious limitations to his game and with no star possibility. But has a chance to become a good-range defender and a solid-OBP high-steal table-setter. In my view, Underwood and Szczur are also opposites in that Szczur could fall off the map fast; if he can match his Daytona type profile at Tennessee, he'll stay solid, but if he hits as poorly in AA this spring as he did last August, even guys like me who still think he's got a chance will be dropping him fast. It wouldn't surprise me if Underwood could jump strongly, and a year from now he'd become more widely recognized as a pretty serious talent, even if he's still very distant. Rondon: :) If he does well, I want to be the poster who can claim I called it! And if he stinks, who will remember other than me? :) But, he's going to be in the major leagues, and they think he has both enough velocity and enough control where they'll be able to use him some, not just waste another year. The odd confluence of circumstances for his draft selection enabled the Cubs to select a guy who has more tools and higher upside than is normally available in Rule 5 pick, while at the same time probably being more ready-now to actually be able to pitch in games. If I was checking 4, Candelerio is the other one I wanted to check. Under the Underwood logic, he's got a chance to become a very strong player. Really good all-around hitters with power are hard to find, and he's got a chance. Even if he's limited at 3B and may end up in LF, RF, 1B, or C. Not sure if he's got the quickness, but he's got the arm to be an excellent catcher,and might be a really good hitter relative to catchers.

Underwood Rondon Szcurzur This is my first vote for a player since Vogelbach, I think! I've been going with 3 from Paniagua/Johnson/Underwood/Maples/Rondon ever since. (Tim will love that....). I've been tending to vote for pitchers who didn't have many innings but might end up very good (high ceiling) over position players with some pretty well-established flaws that limit their potential. An inexperienced pitcher's mechanics might get fixed, he might get taught a new grip, and he might develop a slider or cutter that he didn't have before. So a gifted young pitcher like Underwood or Maples might end up becoming very good. But when a position guy has a recurring flaw for years, I'm not a believer it's likely to go away, so it will probably always limit or sink him. (I'm thinking Jackson's K-contact problem, the contact problems that Villanueva and Vitters have with breaking balls; Vitters defense; Szcursur's power; Torreyes power; Lake's contact; Lake's infield defense....). Underwood: purely potential here, but he's improved his consistency a lot since the Cubs signed him, and he's got a very good velocity now with potential for that to become outstanding. Athletic, coachable, has a chance to develop into a very nice pitcher. The right combo of arm/stuff/command/health rarely converges, but I see his plausible potential to be very high. Rondon: My understanding is the Cubs love him. That he was throwing very fast in Venezuela, and that he has good control and movement on his fastball. As I often do, I'm totally deferring to the scouts here. But I think they see him as having a good chance to be a good reliever, with a chance to become a good starter down the road. Note: I wonder if management has a somewhat different approach toward relief/rotation that was true in years past. The Samardz conversion to me suggests they may not be as role-assignment oriented as was true before, and that if a young pitcher looks excellent in relief and shows signs that he can throw strikes, it's possible that Samardz may not be the last relief-back-to-rotation conversion. Szczur: Got a chance to be a traditional leadoff-type hitter. .390 OBP at Daytona with almost as many walks as K's, and lots of stolen bases. And has a chance to have excellent defensive range in CF. Michael Bourne type possibility? I think the Cubs and Szczur have bagged the try-for-more-lift/power idea. Hoping for a souped up version of Pierre/Bourne? (Pierre with better defense and lots of walks/OBP? Bourne with much better contact skill?) Pure hitting ability, for contact and for at least line-drive power even if not HR power, seems the question. This year will be huge. Theo's guys have had him for a year, now, and have all offseason to work with him. If he OBP's/steals like at Daytona, he'll be a value. If he hits as uselessly as at Tennessee, forget it.

Johnson. I think he's got a chance to be very good. Vitters has a chance, but I'm losing confidence that we'll ever want him playing 3B defensively, and that his hitting will be good enough to offset some of the concerns (defense/baserunning/face). I've been voting for talented distant pitchers for a while now, ahead of position guys with too many flaws.

I have Soler #1 on my list, too. Too late for the discussion in the #1 vote. But big power, disciplined swing, good contact stroke, short quick stroke. Seems to have good personality, highly responsive to coaching and a really motivated worker. Soler and Baez have things in common, but they are kind of polar opposites, too. The very controlled, anti-K, small-stride HR hitter versus the wild, undisciplined, big-leg-kick HR hitter. It's been a struggle for Baez to hit .200 at Daytona and AFL, and at both stops he's been unable to get his OBP over .250. I love his potential, but I think the bust potential seems so much higher than for Soler. When a guy is whiffing so much and has so much trouble OBP'ing at or over .250, it makes me worry that he's got trouble with movement. And guys who have trouble with movement don't always adjust well to the better pitching in the majors than in A-ball. I like Baez a lot, but I think he's got so many more failure flags that I can't put him as high as a Soler who has premium power but doesn't have so many failure flags.

Vogelbach Paniagua Johnson

So if I am reading this right, you have Johnson, Paniagua, and Underwood all in your top 7? Interesting. Why them over Vogelbach or BJax? Do you think the pitchers upsides are that much greater than Vogelbach and BJax? Or Candelario? (I'm assuming you have the same top 4 as what seems to be the consensus) ooops, I got my numbers wrong. I Have Maples at #9, behind Vizcaino/Paniagua/Johnson/Underwood. I've got Vogelbach as well as the regular big-3 ahead of Maples. I haven't decided in what order the big three, Vizcaino 4, then Vogelbach, then the four other pitchers at 6-7-8-9. Yes, I do have all four of those short-season new pitchers all ahead of Jackson. His problem contacting the ball has been so extreme, and so persistent through years of college and pro, that I don't think it's realistic to think he's going to "figure it out". He's got a chance to hang around in some role, but I don't think he's got much chance to actually be very good. I think each of Paniagua/Pierce/Underwood/Maples has a chance to become very good. Who can guess which if any will actually do so. But it's much easier for a pitcher to correct a major problem than for a hitter. And easier to dream that a guy will correct something when it's been a problem for 11 innings than for years and years. Last, it sounds stupid but I use something of a simplistic gut reading: which prospect would I more regret losing? And at this point, if we traded Jackson I'd mind less than if Maples got traded or if Johnson or Paniagua had a career-ending injury.

Hi, guys, greetings! I haven't been around much, and am again way behind here. But I thought the Maples stuff was interesting. This exchange was in the comments - and I was very surprised at the assessment of Maples' ceiling ..Marc Hulet says: Maples has the highest ceiling of any pitcher in the league and people I spoke to felt he would be ready to go for spring training 2013 so I’m excited to see what he can do. His ranking is based on pure potential and upside. I've heard that too, that his his breaking ball is exceptional and he's really fast. I agree with Hulet that he's easily got the highest ceiling of any of the pitchers, Paniagua included. But as Hulet said, it's just pure potential at present. As analogy, the Cubs paid Paniagua a serious bonus based on scouting and scouting alone. Other than struggling in a bad of Panamanian league last winter, Paniagua hadn't pitched in games in years, and he wasn't any good when he did. But his scouting stuff was plenty good. And now, 3.2 minor league innings, I personally think it's entirely appropriate to include him in a top-10 list. (6th on mine). Neither the bonus nor that valuation is based on his 3.2 innings; it's based on scouting and the 3.2 innings and whatever instrux stuff. I think it's entirely fair to rank a guy based on scouting and potential. While Hulett didn't rank Paniagua as high as I will, I think it's entirely legit for him to rank Maples very high, based on pure scouting and potential. Talent-wise, Maples's stuff is better than anybody we've had in the system since Archer, and his talent relative to his position is much more special than Vitters or Szczur or Villanueva or Hernandez. That he hasn't pitched much, does not change the scouting look of his stuff. I think guys like Hulett don't want to miss on prospects who might become special. I've got Maples 8th, because I'm a believer in control and the early results aren't favorable. I like his pure stuff better than for Paniagua, Johnson, or Underwood, but I've got him behind all three because he seems least likely to gain control. Still, if he's healthy and gets some coaching, pitchers can sometimes make adjustments. More common for a high-walk pitcher to drastically lower his walk-rate than for a hitter to drastically reduce his K-rate, even if still pretty improbable. I do agree with the argument about inconsistency on Hulett's part: if Maples is in based on scouting/potential, and Underwood, then Paniagua should make it too. All three are in my top 8.

Johnson sounds really promising. Interesting that he would choose to change jobs. Is that a step "up" professionally? I'm not sure that being a coordinator seems like much of a step up, and might involve a lot more traveling? And interesting that after being at Vandy for 12 years or whatever, that he'd choose to move now. Possible reasons could include: really big raise, really liking the men and the ideas in the Cubs development system, just wanting a new challenge, or personal life issues. (For example, perhaps he was a target for years, but didn't want to move while kids were in school or something. But now they're graduated?) He seems like he really fits with what the Cubs ideas. Sounds smart, analytical, articulate, and really a teacher. And the idea of focusing on one target change at a time seems to fit in with some of the things they've been doing instructionally. The process for making a mechanical adjustment in the swing or the delivery is very difficult, and the Cubs seem to be working to break it down. Challenges for sure. A pitcher who comes to Vandy, they've talked to Johnson during the recruiting process. Not so in minors. Easier to connect as a teacher when only guys who like the way you communicate join your program. second, lots of internationals in the minors, not so at Vandy. Being able to communicate to them could be a new challenge. Third, Vandy is a strong academic program that attracts academically capable students. Sometimes a professor is great in teaching Ph.D. students, but not so good with undergraduate freshman. Lots of guys in the minors who might not be nearly as smart as the guys he's been used to teaching at Vandy; will his communication work as well? Fourth, Vandy has been able to produce good pitchers, but it's also attracted them in the first place. Sowers, Sonny Gray, these were top-shelf talents before he ever got them, so he was starting ahead of the competition. I think he's pretty clearly starting behind the competition with the current pitching talent in the system, and the draft keeps a pretty level playing field. But seems like a very exciting signing. Hopefully he'll be really effective with out prospects. The reputation for getting added velocity out of some of his guys is interesting given how few of our guys are power arms. And given also that the Cub scouting seems more interested in control pitchers than velocity guys. Hopefully Johnson will help get the best of both worlds; have a Blackburn pitching like a real pitcher, but in time building his velocity up where it's a plus rather than needing to be a "works well despite sub-average velocity...."

http://japanese.about.com/b/2008/03/26/graduation-season.htm I googled it. It's March. "Since the Japanese school year starts in April and ends in March, March is the graduation season. "

Thanks. Which was when in Japan?

If he wanted to sign U.S., he should have done so last spring or June, when guys like Concepcion and Soler were getting $7 and $30. The fact that he didn't suggests that either he couldn't (some rule), he didn't want to, or mlb teams didn't want him. If he's so great now that teams are going to blow two years of signing budget on him, its unlikely that he wasn't already a known power-arm back in June. Weird things happen I know, so maybe he's gone from 88 to 99 over the last three months. But the simpler explanation is that teams new about him then but he didn't sign. Which would leave either of two explanations: he couldn't (some rule prevented) or he didn't want to.

Posting would also be outside of the "international signing" limit, true? All unrealistic, I'm sure.