craig

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.

If he's 18, he's great, he's interested in signing American, and there's an October date where he'll become unavailable, then: a. Why didn't he sign back in May or June before the cap began? b. Why didn't he sign in July back when bidders still had money? Did he just turn 18 and Japanese rules hadn't allowed him to be signable back in June or July? If he was signable back then and he didn't sign when Soler cash was available, or when there were 30 teams with at least a few million to spend, then it's either because a) he didn't want to sign, or b) teams didn't actually think he was worth signing.

So what will be the Cubs international signing cap next summer? $4.4? It will be interesting to see how that works. Spend it all on one signature prospect, such that you can outbid everybody but Houston? Or try for a couple of high-dollar guys? More new landscape for mlb. How sharply does it drop from the Cubs to the 3rd, 4th, 5th teams? Like $0.1 million each? Or more sharply than that?

How you project Villanueva depends on how you scout the stuff in red. He's hit 17 and 14 HR's the last two seasons, this one in two strong pitchers-leagues, and while playing this season in an especially pitcher-friendly stadium. So as a youngish prospect, the HR stuff seems reasonably promising. If I bought the "short, compact stroke to hit line drives to all fields. He understands the strike zone" part, I'd be very optimistic. That sounds like a high-average/high-OBP contact hitter. A high-average contact hitter who's hitting mid-teens HR's already would seem like a very nice prospect. Except, he's not been a high-average/high-OBP guy to date. He's instead been a .279 and .278 guy the last two seasons, and hit .250 at Daytona. With quite a few K's and not that many BB's at Myrtle Beach. (83K/24BB/375AB, doesn't seem that high-average/high-OBP-knows-the-strike-zone-and-is-hitting-short-compact-swing line drives all over the place to me. I hope he becomes that, but I wonder.

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=g_box&gid=2012_08_12_cubrok_royrok_1 Now lists McNeil with 2 innings, 2-2-1-1-2 line.

Good points. One difference for Watkins versus Theriot and Barney is that they were contact hitters. He whiffs quite a lot. Sometimes guys who are K'ing that often in AA have more issues stepping up to better breaking balls. But it's possible that he'll adapt well. I don't view Watkins as anything comparable to Szczur as a prospect. But they are basically the same age and have almost interchangeable stats (BA, OBP, slugging, OPS, are almost the same.) With Watkins having played at a higher league most of the year. And with middle infield being as or perhaps more valuable defensively. Obviously Szczur is perceived as having more improvement potential, given his smaller volume of pro AB's.

milb doesn't have any action in Arizona yet, but it has lineups for tonight's game posted. The listed starting pitcher is named Maples.

I'm not a fan of reputation pushing prospect up lists. One reason Alcantara flew under the radar was that he was promoted more aggressively than Amaya and understandably didn't do as well the past two years (at 18, Amaya made his US debut in the AZL while Alcantara made his US debut at age 18 in Boise; in their age 19 years, Amaya is in Boise while Alcantara was in Peoria). Alcantara plays a much tougher position defensively, is still young for his level and is (apparently also) doing well in a pitcher's league. Alcantara and Candelario are the only two Latin Americans I can think of in recent years who made their age 18 US debut in Boise and not Mesa. Yes. Guys straight to Boise are extremely rare, and that only happens when they are rather impressive in some way. Alcantara has defensive tools that are in a different world from Amaya. He's got range and arm that Amaya will never have. That said, tools are one thing, consistency on regular plays is another. If you make two errors on routine plays for every "extra" play that your tools enable you to make, where's the gain? Alcantara is also faster. I don't really get the thing that Amaya has more reputation or has been rated more highly. His non-hitting tools have been rated way lower than Alcantara's. That said, I do kind of think that "reputation" does factor to me. Because to me, "reputation" is built on either or both of two things: tools, and/or actual performance. Alcantara has a bigger reputation I think for good reason, because his "athletic" tools are much better. But Amaya had some reputation of his own because he's OPS'ing .950 and hitting .330 this year, and hit .378 last year. If his reputation is based on being a gifted hitter and he's a gifted productive hitter now, the same things that created some reputation will factor into his ranking on my list. If he hits like a hitter this year, and he hit like a hitter last year, and he scouts like a hitter every year, maybe he is a hitter? HItting is a valuable tool, and can get some guys onto prospect lists.

http://yfrog.com/5es72z Nice catch by Szczur.

A friend mentioned how hot Szczur has been post-break: Szczur since the break: .337, 22 BB, 17 K, 19 SB in 104 AB's .907 OPS, .445 OBP. 27 games. 22 walks and 19 steals in 27 games, that it pretty amazing. His BABIP has been high (hard to hit .337 when you're K'ing 16% of AB and have no over-the-wall HR's....) But the base-stealing volume is pretty interesting. I'm pretty interested in Amaya. Seems we've got some numbers of non-power-hitting non-super-stud 2B prospects. Lockhart, Amaya, Torreyes, Watkins, delaRosa, I'm not sure which will end up best. But there are some possibilities, and perhaps one of them will emerge as a capable OBP-style 2b. I'm surprised Amaya has K'd as much as he has. But I'm under the impression that he scouts as a very gifted bat-handler, and is an alert, smart, coachable kid. I haven't gotten the idea that scouts project power for him, though. My sense is that his 4 HR's this summer are maybe more a surprise than the tip of the iceberg. I'm much less buzzed about Alcantara than some of you guys. He's got some qualities. But I'm skeptical of utility-prospects who are massive error-makers. My sense is that to be a real high-use utility guy, you need to be kind of a naturally reliable glove-man. I think managers want to trust a utility guy, so Alcantara's prolific error-rate makes me skeptical. As a no-walk hacker with somewhat limited power-projection, I just don't see the ceiling being that high or that reachable. Certainly won't be in my top-10.

iirc, he said he'd be pitching in games in july. not a good sign I thought I read something somewhere (16th hand, of course) that July 29th might be the date.

I think he's pretty underrated, but Raisin brought up a great point with him probably getting a shot in the AFL this fall. That'll probably help dictate what our plans are for him. My guess is most see him as a utility type, but I can see him as a starter, since he's showing a bit more pop than previously. Player A: .290BA/.386OBP/.406SLG/.793 OPS. 25 XBH. 33 SB. 7/29/1989 Player B: .287BA/.374OBP/.403SLG/.777 OPS. 24XBH. 19 SB. 8/29/1989 Player B is in AA, while Player A is in A+. Given the difference in level, which guy looks better? The lines are so close, I might almost prefer Guy B's numbers at the higher level, if I didn't know anything better. Obviously Guy A is Szczur and Guy B is Watkins. I like Szczur better, and as a less experienced guy I think he's got more likelihood of changing his game more future. Plus he seems to be a little bigger, and there were originally some scouting reports of power, and he hit 10 HR last year, and he K's a little less than Watkins, and steals more. So I think his chance of improving his numbers future, or of sustaining his current numbers against higher level is better. But it's possible that Watkins could end up being a good-fielding 2B who has a good OBP and could be a nice leadoff guy.