craig

In the prospect rankings, there have been recurring uncertainties about how to rank guys like Wells and Whitenack, given their health uncertainties. Or rondon, who is unfamiliar to most of us. Or many of the distant low-innings pitchers (Maples-Underwood-Paniagua-Johnson-Blackburn....) In past years, the minor league session at the convention has often provided some interesting info. Sometimes updates on how rehab guys are doing. Velocity input. X has been showing good progress with change, Y is adding a cutter, Z was throwing both slider and curve but this year it's going to be all curve. We'll continue to work Q as a starter for a while longer, but we probably think he'll end up in relief. P has added 20 pounds of muscle. T, U, and V showed really good progress in fall instrux. Questions: 1. Will there be a minor league session again? Or might that be something that Hendry thrived in, and his successors Stockstill and Fleita continued to do, but the new guys won't? 2. It's been Fleita and Wilken for years. If they have it, I wonder who will be the management guys who represent? Hyde as the new boss, even though he hasn't gone through a season with the players yet? McLeod? 3. It used to be an hour with just Hendry, which gave him time to answer a ton of questions about a bunch of prospects. Later less articulate Wilken joined, and Fleita is so gushy that it was hard to filter through the hyperbole. Plus recently they have a handful of prospects who aren't very articulate and waste a bunch of the time that Hendry used to have. If they still have it, I wonder if they'll stick with the recent diluted format? 4. Anybody going? I'm hopeful that with the new regime and it's emphasis on farm and development, that they'll consider this to be a very worthwhile section, and maintain it. I hope that, if anything, they make it better. If they canned the prospects, and just gave it to McLeod, or McLeod and Hyde, I'd love it. If they moved it up to a better spot, on Saturday instead of Sunday, or perhaps in a bigger room, that would be nice too. I'd love to have it such that WGN would record it and post it. I'm also hopeful that we'll get some happy news. You know, "Our doctors have been really thorough with Ben Wells, and we don't have any concerns that his issues last summer will carry over. After the rehab program he's gone through, his arm is very strong and he's at no greater risk than any other pitcher his age." "Jose Rosario did not need surgery, he'll be 100% go when camp opens." "A couple of Latin pitchers to keep your eye on are X/Y/Z..... X was not a big-dollar signing, but he's been really progressing...." "Maples is 100% physically, and we've made some mechanical adjustments this fall, his release point is now consistent...." So hopefully some guys will rise in our expectations.

I went Rondon, Zych, Whitenack. I think relievers are somewhat undervalued. I agree with comments by others on wells. If I wasn't worried about his arm, he'd be way higher.

Agree. You can go with scouting potential and youth for only so long. Time to produce.

I like him as a prospect. "Ideally" I see Villanueva doing .750-OPS, perhaps even a shade higher. But there are 50 prospects the Cubs have who, if they reach their "ideal", could be wonderful prospects. Valuation factors in my perception of likelihood. I hope Villanueva can become a .750-OPS guy, but I don't expect that or think it's very probable.

No. But I don't see either as especially good prospects. I see neither with high ceilings or high probabilities. I like Villa, but he was only in A-ball, so he's not close. I see him as a guy who ideally could become a plus-defense .750-OPS type 3B. But becoming an .800+ OPS hitter seem way less likely than that he ends up being a <.700-OPS guy. I realize that the offensive norm at 3B has gotten quite low. So my good-defense .750-OPS picture, while probably not an all-star, could be a solid asset starter. Vitters I think needs to be an .800+ OPS guy, because I don't think his defense will ever become more than average and is likely to remain variably shy of that. His baserunning will always be below-average. So he's got to be a strong hitter to make the composite worthwhile. It's possible. I've long been fairly patient with Vitters, hoping that HR's would come. When many posters faulted his low walk rate, I always figured that if/when the HR's would come, the combo of HR's with his previously low K-rate could make him a very high average and high-slugging hitter. Central to that was the premise that his pure hitting/contact gift was strong. ('He hits everything, including off the plate, which is why his BABIP and slugging and IsoD aren't higher.....") But I'm doubting that his "pure hitter" gifts for see-ball-hit-ball are so special; may really be a more limited see-fastball-hit-fastball gift. So I still hope that he'll hit enough to make the composite worthwhile, but I don't think he's likely to hit so well that he'll be a major asset, And there's a fair chance that he'll never hit well enough to justify himself as a regular starter. I do understand that if he could continue his HR/power growth, and continue his walk-rate growth of last year, all while returning to the contact-guy-that-rarely-K's of 2011 (54K/229AB), then you'd have a really productive bat. If I had a choice between signing a 4-year 3B versus a 4-year CF, I'd prefer the 3B I think, and take my chances with my CF prospects or with DeJesus. But the FA market is what it is, and CF is where a player of Bourn's caliber and age is available, perhaps at a non-horrific price. I don't think 3B, C, LF, or RF have anybody of comparable quality/age.

Some things never change. Wow, surprisingly high. Heh, Callis always has them too high, so I guess this is no different. Always hard for me to analyze. I think the year ahead could vary heavily. Obviously, Baez/Almora/Soler/Vogel could shoot us way up, if they all rock, or if Baez flops and the other three aren't that great, it could be a big letdown too. But I think a lot will ride on the pitchers. We don't have a lot of reputation for having very good pitching, and what we've got is primarily on the "potential" side, very unproven. Vizcaino will presumably be a nonfactor, because either he'll be no good or he'll have graduated. Otherwise, Paniagua, Maples, Johnson, Underwood, Blackburn, none of them have pitched hardly at all. Arias and Scott haven't gotten to A. Whitenack was rehab, so he's like a totally unknown now. Wells pitched only a few innings in A, and with his rehab, he's another totally unknown. Jensen and Zych have pitched only a season, and Burke essentially the same. That's a significant volume of guys with variably interesting potential. They could all be blah, but there's a chance that several of them could break out this year, or else could validate interest that was previously scouting only. If so, they could help elevate the reputation of the system. One other factor that could elevate the ranking a year out: few of the top guys will graduate. Usually when a team is ranked really high, it's because it has some big-ticket prospects that are valued really highly because they're both gifted and already advanced. Usually an advanced guy either graduates (so he's a non-factor next year) or he flops (in which case he's also a non factor next year. For us that Vizcaino, Jackson, and Vitters. But otherwise, there's hardly anybody else in out top 30 who should be graduating if they develop well.

Apparently in some discussions, Hoyer also suggested that he's pretty comfortable with the position situation in the minors, but not so the pitching. My impression is that Soler, Baez, Almora, and Vogelbach are really good prospects. But that that they are all fairly distant; that there aren't a lot of other good position prospects; and that given their distance, that there aren't many position prospects close to the majors. Of those who are in the upper minors, Jackson, Szczur, and Ha are three of the possibly better ones, and each at the CF position that is currently unblocked. By contrast we don't really have any good corner outfield prospects closer than Soler. So I found it interesting that of the three outfield spots that Hoyer is looking at, none of which are strong, that it's the CF spot, the spot with some depth of decent-if-iffy prospects in the high minors that Hoyer is looking at. Maybe it's just because Bourn is there and they like him, whereas there are no 3B/LF/RF who are available. Maybe the Win-Now priority is stronger than we think. Obviously none of Jackson/Szczur/Ha are ready now, and while DeJesus is adequate as a necessity CF, Bourn would be a big Nowacrat defensive upgrade. It may also be that they don't take Jackson/Szczur/Ha very seriously at all. If they aren't very comfortable with those three, though, it's hard to see how Hoyer could be very comfortable with the position landscape in the minors. The only other position guys north of Baez/Soler are Lake and Watkins. Or, maybe I took the third-hand comments way out of context. Rizzo, castro, that's two young long-term positions. Possibly Barney, and perhaps they like Watkins/Torreyes/Almora/Baez as down-the-road 2B. 3B, maybe they still like Vitters, or else figure that will be for Baez? OF, maybe they figure that CF is the present hole, but down the road if they added one, that between Soler/Almora/Jackson/Szczur/Ha/Lake/Dunston/Martin, that they've got some numbers there.

Sounds like trade bait if he gets good. We've rarely (ever?) had enough good young players for a good one to be blocked, such that trading a valuable young player would make sense. But perhaps that day will come. Could be Marco, if he gets good enough to be valuable. Could be Baez himself. Maybe Vogelbach. Perhaps some day an outfielder?

It's kind of ridiculous to talk about the percentage difference between percents like that. Out of curiosity, why do you think that's the case? The difference between rates very meaningful. Expressing it as a ratio itself seems to be fine. A 1.6% rate increasing to a 2.9% rate being called "80% higher" is purposefully done to make it seem much more extreme than it is. In that example above, you are talking about a guy hitting 17 HR vs a guy who hit 10 over the course of a full season. A difference, but not that huge of a difference in real terms. It's just unnecessary and purposefully misleading to describe the percentage change between those percentages. I see your point, although it was not "purposely misleading." The raw numbers (8 HR to 7, 33 walks to 19) didn't seem to reflect how much better Amaya's rates had been, so I popped the rate ratios in for convenience. And of course I was just grabbing them from a stats page, which did not have them listed in rates (1.6% or 2.9%). So you did more rate work than I did to come up with those. (Or use a better site....) I guess partly a purpose of writing in a forum like this, at least for me, is to process ideas myself. (Not to mislead others or be disingenuous.) Last year my take was that Marco had power potential, but Amaya had no ceiling because he was a barney (no-power/no-walks). This year he walked quite a bit, and showed power, so perhaps his "ceiling" is somewhat respectable. If he could be a good-fielding 2B who hit 10-15 HR's per year and takes walks, that would be a good starting 2B. I could live with a Todd Walker offensive player who could play defense and run the bases.

Rondon Zych Whitenack. Rondon's fast, has control at least of his fastball, will already be in the majors this spring, and has plenty of untapped ceiling in terms of developing his slider and his already excellent change. Zych is fast, young, has a sharp slider. Anti-HR guys (only 1 HR allowed) with 64K/19BB appeal a lot. Has plenty of ceiling left. I'll be curious to see if his splitter develops into anything useful. Whitenack was pretty promising. I trust that the team rostered him because he was flashing some real promise in Arizona this fall.

Amaya. Sure, when in doubt, pick the SS. But slugging, HR's, getting on base, and scoring runs is part of baseball. I'm not doubting in taking: .502 slugging versus .373 .885 OPS versus .660 .383 OBP versus .287 8HR/272 AB versus 7HR/426 AB. (80% higher HR rate for Amaya) 33BB/272 AB versus 19BB/426 AB. (172% higher walk rate for Amaya) 1.103 OPS versus .487 OPS versus LHP. (Amaya's OPS versus RHP was also higher.) Amaya had 9 errors versus 32 for Hernandez. The present offensive profile for the two guys is not really close. Marco is an excellent prospect, but there's quite a bit of projection/imagination required to transform a .287OBP/.373 slugger with .487OPS-vs-LHP into a top-50 prospect. As a good-fielding 2B with who can hit, I'm going with Amaya. My understanding is that Amaya also scouts really favorably as a hitter, and that he is viewed as being really good as a bat-handler. It will be great if hernandez breaks out as a hitter this year, and starts to show some hint that he'll be able to do at least a little something versus LHP.

Sure, but sometimes replacement-level spots perform BELOW replacement-level, as was obviously true last year at C and CF. And at present, it looks to me like we've got five such lineup spots. Catcher: Castillo, Navarro, and Clevenger; 3B: Stewart/Valbuena/Vitters; CF: DeJesus/Jackson/Campana/Sappelt; RF: Schierholz/DeJesus/Sappelt 2B: Barney. Maybe that's exaggerating hyperbole or overly unappreciative, or DeJesus shouldn't be included. But it seems we're flipping a coin on a bunch of positions to get respectable replacement-level output. With that many coin flips, there's a good chance we'll lose a few and get sub-replacement output. We'll see. I hope you're right, and that we'll be .500 or better when August rolls in. You'll certainly be entitled to give me an "I told you so" if that happens with the present roster. And certainly if, as Dave was hoping, we'll be pulling in Bourn, Upton, and Olt before the year begins, that could also boost the shot at .500+.

Thanks. That would seem to fit with the hypothesis that Whitenack was flashing some serious velocity at times in instrux, and that's why the Cubs protected him. Because they knew other scouts had seen it too. And because with serious velocity coming back, he might become a good prospect again if both the good velocity became relatively normal rather than exceptional, and if command returns. My understanding is that it's easier to do the surgery such that the strength/velocity come back, but it's much less routine for the fine "feel" to come back that is integral to big-league command. So it's maybe one thing to get nice velocity reports on Vizcaino or Whitenack or Rondon or Ryu, but it's another to see whether the touch ever comes back. For Ryu, that seems to have never happened.

I don't think we should be shocked if, again, some of the guys we're hoping for end up playing pretty bad, though. Sure, the cliff-fall for Byrd and Soto was pretty extreme. But until Garza got hurt, weren't we actually pretty lucky health-wise? Garza out, stewart of course, and Dempster missed some starts? Stewart, Castillo, Navarro, Barney, Valbuena, any of those kinds of guys could go sub-.600 without it being much of a shock. DeJesus, Soriano, Schierholz, no surprise if any or all of our outfielders were to go sub-.700. When looking at this roster, Garza and Baker are obviously at risk. Will they be healthy? If/when they are pitching, how effective will they be? And certainly any pitcher is a health risk, so if Samardz or Villa or wood show up with a sore arm, hardly a shock. Of the 7 "starters", the odds are probably low than all 7 will ever be healthy at any one time. Which could also reduce how many leftovers are there for the pen.

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.