craig

...I'm a big, big Bruno fan. ... This isn't ... Theriot, IMO. That said, his bat is intriguing. On the surface, he should offer a good approach, hit for average, show average, if not more, power. It's a nice, all-around package - think ... uh ... Adrian Cardenas' offensive potential with a touch more power potential perhaps. Or if we want to stick to an undersized white guy comp, perhaps Mike Fontenot with a better potential to hit for average. Again ... on paper, he has this potential. He may not get there, but it's a fascinating package. I don't see the above average power projection, but hope you're right. Seems unlikely for so short a guy and having hit only 6 college HR's this year. He doesn't walk at all, so I'm guessing he'll be heavily a batting average guy, with low IsoD and limited IsoP. But guys who can hit the ball on the nose, and have good hands/arm/quickness, they've got a chance. Cerda, Clevenger, Chirinos, etc.. He sounds like the kind of smaller athlete who they routinely try at catcher. I wonder how long it will be before they do that with him? I'd like to see them do it fast. His bat has a better chance at catcher.

40% rule: I've got it in my head that you can't sign a draftee for less than 40% of slot value. But I don't know where I got that idea from, whether from nsbb or psd or somewhere else. Q1: Is that 40% limit true? Q2: If so, is that common knowledge here? Did I find about that here or somewhere else? Q3: Any link or place to confirm? Thanks in advance.

Don't see why. 1. It seems it will be very effective at capping spending. 2. It seems it will be very effective at keeping some teams from superslotting like mad. 3. Because some teams can't superslot like crazy, they won't be able to drive up the prices so much. 4. It will make it more a game of scouting smarts and less a game of $$$. The fact that some guys at the back of 1-10 are being drafted for the 40% minimum is just part of it. So what. I'm not so sure it's that bad for the game for guys to go to college. Is college that bad? If the only HS kids who sign are top-200 guys, that's fine. Let the norm be to go to college. I've actually been pretty impressed with how well structured the rules are, and how leak-proof they appear to be. If there's some loophole, I haven't heard it yet. I think the loss of future 1st round pick, singular or plural, is huge. I don't think teams will go there. That will probably be a safe and sure protection, kind of like teams signing NFL free agents at the cost of 1st round picks. It never happens.

If I'm understanding it correctly, slot for round 10 is $125K, and for eleven-forty it's $100K. Anything over $100 comes out of your budget for rounds 1-10. But, the talent should go up a little for two reasons. 1. In round 10, you're trying to draft a guy who'll be happy to sign for $40K. That way you can free up $75K to spend. But I don't think paying $40K in round eleven adds any cash to your spending pool. So from now on, you can draft guys who you really would be willing to spend $100K on. 2. Suppose we want to sign Underwood, for example, but anticipate that he's going to cost $300K overslot. So we have $300K discretionary kind of "budgeted" for him. But, what if he demands a million, and we don't have enough overslot to sign him? We'd lose his "slot" money, but we'd still have the $300K discretionary. So that could now be applied to guys in rounds 11-40. Maybe you've got a couple who will sign for $150 or whatever. 3. We can't have the budget exactly. If we're able to get all of our guys in rounds 1-10 signed, and are still $250K underneath our cap, then we can use that on guys in rounds 11-40. This could be kind of tricky. From the club's perspective, I'd think they'd want to really hammer things out with the 10-round guys a few days prior to the deadline. Then quick use whatever might be left to snag one or two of the later picks.

Whitenack hasn't pitched in at least a week. Anybody know what's up? Anybody hear anything about what's wrong with szczur and how long he'll be out? Any updates on Wells?

Agree. I'm pretty confident they've got an idea on signability for everybody they've taken and are taking now. I'm thrilled that they've had the signability confidence to take HS guys in 2nd and 3rd. That suggests they aren't concerned that Almora is going to kill the budget, or that any of these three HS picks are going to require prohibitive superslots. Maybe they're ready to try get replacement picks next year instead, but I doubt scouting directors really like that. I don't think it's smart to focus it all on one big superslot, and then be going at 40% the rest of the draft. Pitchers are hard to project. Hard to know which 17 or 18-year-old is going to get stronger and faster and get command. And even once we get to rounds 4-10, there are still a lot of college pitchers with 90's velocity and some version of a breaking ball, or like conway have had their clock impacted by surgery.

http://web.usabaseball.com/news/stats.jsp?eid=26043214 15 G, 68 PA, .365/.392/.492/.884, 6 2B, 1 3B, 3 BB, 6 K, 10/13 SB, 20 Putouts, 3 Assists, 0 Errors 3 walks in 68 PA? Yes, sounds like the Cubs we know and love.

I expect Blackburn should be pretty signable. There were indications that he was, and he's not a guy who's been ranked as a first-rounder for the last 12 months and will be disappointed to be "only" picked in the 50's and getting "only" a million. Plus they research all this stuff. I'd like for him to be so superior to the others that he's worth big superslot. But my guess is that he wasn't that superior a prospect to other guys, and that if he projected as a big signability problem, they'd have just taken somebody else who would sign at or near slot. I expect that Johnson will be around slot. He's pretty talented, and was discussed as having mid-1st round talent. When he's on, he's very good. And players typically don't expect to get injured. He's also young; just turned 21 last month. So if he doesn't get a legit slot offer, he may not sign sub-slot. May figure that he knows he's fine health-wise, and that if he pitches to his ability he can be one of the best in the country and earn a top-20 selection next year, and he still won't be that old or anything. Of course he'll be signable, but I don't anticipate any major sub-slot bargain there. And again, perhaps if there had been indication that he was willing to go seriously sub-slot, probably he'd have gone even sooner. Unfortunately I expect that Almora will be expensive. He's a Boras guy, and Boras always gets a bunch. It's the first Theo draft, and I assume there is pressure to not come out empty with the top pick. Cubs have said Almora was top on their board, so I think Boras will be able to leverage them into some overslot. I'm hoping that they'd already pre-arranged all this, and talked it out in advance, and gotten some assurances. Per dollar, I think in past traditionally slot picks give the best value. Teams have had to pay superslot to get extra talent later. But this year with no extra money to spend, I suspect that you'll get the best value in the draft if you basically work within the pool of guys who like baseball enough that they are fine to sign at or around slot. I think that's probably what's happened thus far. I expect a LOT of college pitchers taken today by the Cubs. By the 4th round, I doubt there are a lot of smart high-ceiling HS pitchers who will want to sign for slot.

Almora is relatively young. His birthday was in April. So if he's good enough to make full-season out of camp next year, he could get some AB's in Peoria when he's still only 18. I'd wondered if he wasn't one of these almost-19-year-old guys.

Almora has good reports on his plate discipline. I think by that they may mean that he can recognize breaking balls and doesn't look bad or swing at a lot of junk. I don't think it means he takes many walks, though. I believe he doesn't. As a senior, he took only 13 walks in like 78 AB. Great for a pro, but not great in HS when you're the Barry Bonds of your conference. I think Baez's walk rate was at least double that last year as a senior. And I don't think Almora played in a super big-school power conference did he? So I'm not expecting Almora to be an IsoD monster or anything like that.

I find it hard to believe that the front office that has been mostly silent and difficult for any reporter to get information from, would all of the sudden be telegraphing what their first draft pick is going to be. I'm guessing this Almora talk is simply posturing hoping that someone they like better falls to them. The baseball scouting community is pretty small. McLeod, Wilken, Hoyer can't go to an Almora game without being seen and recognized. And I'm sure other 15 other Cub scouts whose names mean nothing to us would be recognized by other scouts, too. So I think the "telegraphing" is simply showing up at Almora games to watch. Hard to hide that. I suspect the "might draft him even if they had the first pick" is not coming from Wilken or McLeod, but is coming from some scout from a different org who sees Cubs at all of Almora's games. At the top of the draft, where no teams will pick again until the 30's and trades aren't allowed, there isn't much purpose in "smokescreens" and subterfuge and all that. Each organization has a large pool of scouts and comes to it's own internal decision. I may be wrong, but I doubt that Twins are coming in with Buxton-Correa-Almora 1-2-3 on their HS list, but then some Twin scout calls in, "Hey, I just read a twitter where somebody said the Cubs might actually like Almora better than Buxton! Lets jump Almora up to the top, and pass on Buxton and Correa!" If the Cubs like Buxton and Correa better than Almora, I hardly think they've playing some grant conspiracy program thinking that they're going to somehow trick the five teams above them into taking Almore first. I think it's part of the recognition of other scouts that may have factored in the Simpson pick. Wilken saw him at the late tournament weekend, and thought he looked like one of the 14 best prospects. And he recognized other scouts at the same tournament, so he knew he wasn't the only guy who saw how good Simpson was at that point in time. I think it's maybe different in the sandwich round area. Cardinals 36, Cubs 43, Cardinals 52, Cubs 56, Cardinals 59, Cubs 67, Cardinals 86, Cubs 101. If there's an under-the-radar kid we love, and just can't let slip away, best not make that obvious or St. Louis will have a chance to grab him first, if they also love him but are also assuming he'll last longer.

Heh heh. like you say, not much smoke-screen purpose, unless we think we're going to talk Minnesota into taking Almora because they heard we like him, or something. Not like the NFL, where a team might trade ahead of you and steal your guy if they actually knew you were going to take the guy they liked. People can says stuff, though. One guy can tell Goldstein that. Maybe it's a Cub insider. Maybe it's some Pirate scout who thinks he knows what the cubs want, but doesn't really. I have no question but that we've got some intelligent, capable scouts trying to figure this out, and that they'll have REALLY good scouting opinion of whomever we take. There's enough good prospects that probably at least a couple of management's favorite six will still be there. Almora does look to have a really nice stroke. Of course,the little youtube clips are usually 75-mph BP straightballs. Quite a bit different when it's 93-mph sinkers mixed with 82-mph sliders, 77mph curves, and changeups and cutters. Where's the reason for thinking that he's got patience and plate disciline? I thought I saw some stats from an international competition, and he had like 15 RBI to 3 walks.

Heh, all of these guys all sound so good. Fried, knockout curve already,control of three pitches, touches 95 already and projects great. Correa, future Arod. Buxton, the perfect 5-tooler. Zimmer, big-velocity, great curve, strike-throwing ace. Gioliti, the greatest pitcher in the history of baseball, Etc., etc., they all sound so good. One day Correa is the greatest thing, might go #1, no chance he gets past 3, no chance he gets to us. Next day six teams are passing on him. Funny. The Boras-Almora thing is kind of weird. Pre-discussed, all OK? Big problem? Almora is so BPA beyond the others that he's worth superslotting? Hard to figure. All about projection, though. Given how many good options there are, if we take Almora, it will speak to how highly and favorably our people scout him. There certainly will be other high-value big-name options.

Three of the hardest things to scout/project: 1. Pitcher control 2. Ability to recognize and hit breaking balls 3. Projected power. I've seen some Almora stuff suggesting he's not strong, and that it will take projection to become a 15-18 HR guy. But I don't think Cubs would take him at #6 if his ceiling is to become DeJesus. Wilken has been a projection guy. Nobody else seemed to project Colvin's big power. But, he projected that Darvill and Lemahieu would grow into power, too. My guess is that IF Cubs take Almora, they forsee more serious HR power than 15-18 down the road for him. Lots of other guys have big BP power, but don't hit that many in games. If you can't hit the ball on the nose, you don't hit that many HR's. The ability to just hit moving pitches is probably more important that BP strength. I can't imagine you take Almora that high unless you think he's got just the gift to see, recognize, and hit moving pitches, AND you think that he'll become strong enough to hit 25 HR's.

Keith Law mocks Almora to the Cubs, as "the closest thing we have to a lock in the top 10".

Yes. He had nothing to say in terms of specific targets, or about the Cubs. Other than the obvious that they can't overspend like last year, and that with a chance to get the #1 pick next year, no way they're going to break the limit this year. The one comment I'd heard but forgotten was that the draft slots are NOT comparable to what mlb used to specify. They are significantly higher, perhaps more guided by what actual spending has been like recently. (Definitely true; this year they slot for $2 through like #17, and for $1 or more through the first 50 picks. No way that they were "recommended" that high last year....) Callis said that a lot of teams think they're actually too high for the talent available this year, that last year might have been one of the greatest classes ever and teams spent for that. He suggested that maybe a guy at #6 should and would really sign for $2.5, then that would give a bunch of discretionary cash for later picks. I'm so accustomed to "slot" being the floor, that the concept that "slot" may be too high and a responsible team really might sign a good-value for below slot is hard to wrap my mind around. He didn't think the reduction in HS signings would be as dramatic as some have suggested. He kind of thought that kids who want to play want to play, and if HSer who could get $1.2 last year now will have to settle for $750, that many/most will do that. I suspect there's much to that. Dunston signed for what, $1.2 last summer? Would he have really gone to Vandy this year if a a team picked him in the 2nd round but had to stick to slot and it was $800? If Vogelbach had been as sandwich pick this summer and offered $1.1 slot, would he have really gone to college? (Given that he's a power guy who hasn't hit HR's even in Mesa, he's probably very fortunate that he took the money....)

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/fangraphs-2012-amateur-draft-selections/ Marc Hulet of Fangraphs on his valuations. Doesn't factor in price/solubility at all. Has 5 Zunino-6 Almora-7 Fried-8 Zimmer -9 Giolito

Another note on HS signability. With the spending caps, it's a given that a LOT more HS players will choose for college. At least, that's the expectation. But, colleges won't actually have any more scholarships to offer. Is it possible that there will be a lot of HS kids who in past could choose between pro money and half- or full-scholarship at a big school, who will now be getting only a quarter- or half-scholarship? And, down the road, if there are tons more kids going to college, might that also make it a lot harder for a HS kid to start as a college freshman, or to become a weekend starter as a pitcher? There may be some supply-and-demand issues which will make big-conference colleges less attractive for a lot of kids. Could be a huge boon for junior college programs. But it may also make the dollar differential between pros and college not quite as hard to win for a pro team.

Thanks. That's important and interesting. Not surprising, since I think I read he's coming to Wrigley for an interview this weekend. (maybe from same poster?)

Yes. Under the new deal, there are only seven slots at $3 or more, and only ten more at $2. If you can offer a kid over a million, he's got to be very, very confident to assume that 3 years later he's going to be one of the top 17 picks who makes $2+. It may actually be easier to get some kids at modest superslot than was true in past. And, there may be less competition. Just like we're scared to superslot on our first pick and kill the rest of our draft, that's probably true also of other teams. So HS kids who were through to belong in the 15-20 range but get skipped there for scouting or signability reasons, perhaps nobody in the 20's or 30's will want to pay them either. It's also true that all of the supplemental teams will have already drafted. Those who expect to overpay on their first pick may be planning on underslotting on their supplemental pick, so perhaps some guys who'd be fine just with 30-35 slot will slide to us. So having some extra funds when many teams won't or will be scared to risk any, could give us some opportunity.

What do you think about Fried? He must be under consideration for pick 6. If the wrigley visit with top guys are for face-to-face and asking pointed questions rather than baseball scouting, no point in facing him unless he's a possibility. He's obviously not going to last to 43. Cubs really need to only identify their top 6, and rank them. That scouting should be done, for top 6 and beyond. I assume that some of the "ask pointed questions" relates to personality or problems, but probably it also relates to $$$. Fried must be under consideration for #6. That's pretty interesting, and means there's a serious chance we'll take him, since many of the Cubs favorite 5 will probable be taken before #6. What do you guys know about him, and do you like him? I suspect that while the talent evaluation is done for first-round candidates, that dollar talk remains very much active. So while Fried must be under consideration, that consideration may be due-diligence contingency in case higher-rated talents price themselves out of pick 6.

I think I'd like Correa/Buxton or one of the three college pitchers. So my worst-case, I think, is choosing between Zunino, Almora, Fried, or Giolito. That's a pretty nice four names to be choosing from. And if one of the top five teams takes one of them, that would probably push one of the college pitchers into the pool at 6. I think it's looking pretty good.

I can't see much point in spending $5M on a kid with a bad elbow. There are some *very* good prospects who will be signable at or below slot and who are healthy. I'd be pretty reluctant to pretty much blow the draft on a HS pitcher with arm questions. Guys who have elbow problems at one point often seem to have them again later. That said, it does perhaps speak to how confident he must be in his health if he were to be still demanding superslot. To push back his pro earnings by 3 years, when he could perhaps have $3 million in the bank, pretty dumb to do that unless you're VERY confident that you'll be able to stay healthy for your next shot at the draft. A rather poor business decision, I'd say, but that's for him and his family and advisor to determine.

Good observation. Seems very routine that a hacker will take some walks early, then give it up quickly enough. Vitters, Colvin, Patterson, Barney, etc. etc..

Good point. I've been surprised that Vitters hasn't played more OF in recent years. I wonder how bad he'd be in left, and how much practice it would take him to become anti-awful there. His lack of speed would obviously be a liability there, and I'm guessing he probably never played much OF even as a kid. But I've always thought that if his bat was good enough but his 3B defense was not, that LF was an obvious eventual possibility for him. His arm would certainly be a plus there.