craig

Vitters OPS is at .798. He's never had a full-season over .770. His last stop over .800 was his half-season at Peoria in 2009, when he also had a HR-binge in May. IIRC, he then went in to a slump at Peoria in June, got promoted to Daytona while in that slump, and slumped the rest of the summer at Daytona, with a bad wrist involved or something. Good hitters figure out ways to shorten the damage when they go into slumps, and how to extend the good times when they're hot. Hopefully Vitters will show some of that over the next month and beyond.

What was so good about Baez going 0-4 with 2 K's? SS, 2B, 3B, RF, and LF are all possibilities for Baez, if he hits. I agree with Duderino, nobody's arm is too strong for 2b. You can make DP's and plays up the middle with a strong arm that most 2B's can't. It's an asset. If we had real good hitters at SS and 2B, that would be a nice way to get started on a really good lineup. That's if Baez can hit, though. No guarantee of that, of course.

Signability scouting has been a huge component of the draft for years. I think that must be even more true to the max now under the new CBA. I think kids submit something to mlb that all teams see about their $$ expectations/demands, but I suspect a lot of kids don't know and that when it comes to cases in June, it's often different from what they listed in April or whatever. I suspect the ability for scouts to get a better read on what the kid would really sign for is more critical than ever. Much more. Can't take a 6th-round kid thinking he'll come to terms, and if he doesn't just spread the money over three guys you took in the 20's. You've really got to know. Probably changes what scouts have to do. Question: In past, teams routinely included college scholarships in their offers. How are those allowed/treated in the new rules? Banned? They count as full price, even if the kid never actually uses/accepts that money? Question: What do you think of the following rationale? Team/Cubs: BPA for signable guys should apply, no question. But price has to enter. Suppose the guys you really love a ton are taken, and a college and HS guy are ranked exactly equal BPA. (I'll just use Zimmer and Almora as names...) Wouldn't you for sure choose Zimmer, and then stick to a modest sub-slot offer? (Say $3.0 versus 3.25?) Under the new system, he'd need to go in the top 4 next year to beat $3.0. How likely is that he'd turn down a modest subslot? But by saving $250K, couldn't that really help you out with some of your other picks early? Related, but what if you like Almora just a little bit more, but it's not clear. You know, four of the top seven voices in the room argue for Almora, three for Zimmer, but even the Almora proponents aren't sure. If Zimmer will sign for $3.0, and Almora will require full $3.25, is Almora preferred enough to pay the extra $250K? Player: Zimmer: "Hi, Kyle, this is Theo Epstein calling. Say, we've got you real close to another guy on our board, but my scouting director Jason McLeod is going to take the other guy cost being equal. But if you're willing to sign just a hair under slot, at $3.0 instead of $3.25, we'll pick you. If you say no, we'll pick the other guy, and the $3.0 we'd pay is right on slot for pick 7. If we don't take you, slot for pick 7 is $3.0, same as what we're offering. So if we don't pick you, you'll probably get at best equal to what we're offering, and maybe less. What do you thing?" Wouldn't he pretty much have to take it?

I've been distracted and have had less time than ever to read/track for draft. And moving it up puts it ahead of my normal schedule, too. So I don't feel like I know much. Q1: Bruxton has been a long-term premise as going 1 or 2, or at lowest 3. Is that still true? Is there a chance that he'll slip down to us? If so, would that be a good thing and you'd want us to pick him? Or at this point is he a guy you'd not want to touch? Q2: I get the sense the board isn't very interested in Zimmer. Some of the earlier reports this spring I thought he was being buzzed as perhaps the 1st or 2nd pitcher taken. He had some hamstring injury or something lately? Is the disinterest in him simply that he's a pitcher, or that his stuff isn't really quite that good, doesn't have enough movement on his fastball? If he goes before us, will you be thrilled, because that's a guy you didn't want taken, and one you hope lasts that's gotten past one more team? Or would you be happy if he got to us and we took him? Or happy that he lasted to us but then angry if we passed on him? Any sense on his signability? I'd think he won't want to go back for his senior year, because you can't go much higher, and he'd have zero leverage if he did. If he lasts to 6, and he's even-on-your-BPA board with a HS player, might it be smart to take the college guy who might sign one or two hundred K underslot, and then have a little more to overslot down the line? Q3: I thought when I browsed this forum early in spring there was enthusiasm for Zinino. Would you now be disappointed if he lasted to us and we ended up picking him?

Interesting. I didn't realize Correa was clearly better/BPA. I'd gotten the impression the Cubs perhaps thought otherwise. I admit from just watching a couple of little Youtubes, I hadn't gotten that impression myself; my first impression was that Correa might be completely helpless against anything down and especially any breaking stuff down. Hopefully that's wrong, and of course I'm no scout and 8 youtube pitches don't do much. So hopefully Correa is a great prospect star, and Almoro too. Would be nice to have a great-great choice, or a great-good choice.

Prior, what's Correa expected to move to? 3B/RF?

We understand that he's better lefty versus RHP. But pro teams use LHP, especially in the majors. So if he's ever going to have any shot at more than a platoon boy, he's going to need to come up with some anti-awful approach versus LHP. Small sample, but hitting left handed his OPS this year is .182. That's OPS, not OBP. And it was in the .500's last year versus rookie-league level pitching. His splits last year were like 400 points better versus RHP than LHP. I assume that if he settles for RH versus lefties, that he's not going to have the quality or the authority that he has LH versus righties. But it appears that hitting lefty, he simply has no chance whatsoever versus LHP. It's one thing to have a switch-hitter who's good his good way and hit's like Paul Bako against lefties. It's another to have a guy who's like Garza or Frank Castillo against lefties.

http://www.thecubreporter.com/2012/05/26/bogaerts-knows-how-whistle-blows-out-three-run-blast-fitch-park

toonster and others, what do you know about Hernandez's deal versus LHP. He was switch when signed and that's what he did in DR; that was going badly so they decided to go straight lefty; then this year he got off to such a horrible start that he decided to go back to switch-hitting again? Or what? Or was he all-lefty last year, then he started all lefty again this April and was getting buried; and then at some point decided to pick up switch-hitting again? Also, toonster, did you read AzPhil's gusharoo on Baez yesterday? I'll post it in the next post. He basically says that he totally doesn't understand he Baez-to-3B anticipation, that he's got all the range and arm and tools for SS, that his errors are careless/plays-too-fast. He opines that having seen Castro a lot in Mesa, and Baez, that while Castro can play SS, he's better and would be better at 2B, and basically thinks that Baez is better suited for SS and Castro for 2B than vice-versa. Or than using either one at 3B. He's pretty gushy-to-the-max on Baez, both as a hitter, as a potential fielder, and as a work-hard-personality. Of course, we know that Phil is no scout, so his opinion may be baloney. It may also be that he talks to some Cubs scouts, and gets influenced by what they think, so that there is natural consensus that Cubs scouts think Baez is plenty-well tooled for SS and Phil seems to think so also.

Lord Vitters is rising! For the moment, the Vitters HR jumps his season OPS over .750; his OPS versus RHP over .650; and his May OPS over .850. Funny how 0 HR in April and 6 in May give different OPS's. His highest full-season OPS has been .770. So he's got a shot at that this season. But, he's been a hot-and-cold guy all his career. There have been many times before when he got hot and I thought maybe it will be all up-and-up from here, without that happening. Hopefully this time it will. But he's probably due for another slump. It's kind of interesting that his better month corresponds to both a reduced walk rate, and a higher K-rate. For years, his low K's, and gift for contact, has drawn notice. This month he's K'd 20 times in less than 100 AB. The K-rate over 20% seems pretty high. But when you hit a bunch of HR's, who cares? Who cares how high your K-rate is if your K/HR rate is only 10/3? Hit lots of HR's, and Vitters will make it. Not enough HR's, and his OBP/slugging/OPS will be inadequate. Not sure where the over/under is for being enough. But it's nice to see him on a HR-month.

I know but both Baez and Hernandez deserve and need daily SS reps. Another factor as to why I think the timing of this sucks for Marco is because we don't really get a good gauge as to whether or not his improved plate discipline in May was a sign of things to come. I expect his plate discipline to be fairly solid in Boise, which will be somewhat meaningless until we see how he is in Peoria, if not Daytona. Add in that most of the reports had him as showing real well as a defensive player, and I'm still a bit annoyed with the timing of this. Don't get me wrong ... Baez should take precedence over Marco, much as I like Marco, because his offensive upside is that much better, and the reports on his work at short this spring has been that positive. Still ... you wait till Memorial Day, after Marco has turned it around? Again, a month ago, no one would've blinked had this happened. But now? Seems to me that you might as well give Baez some "earn it" time in Boise, see if Alcantara falls off, see if Marco can keep it up beyond this month? Oh well. It's just odd timing. Too bad for Marco. He's jumped his walk-rate up to 6% for May, BABIP near .400 for May, and May OPS up to .777. HIs seasonal OPS is up near .550 now, and his seasonal OBP versus lefties is .224, so progress. Still, when you're 43 games in with a .224 OBP versus lefties and your composite OPS below .550, you're not grossly overqualified for the next lower level, and it's not like you don't have plenty of stuff that you can work on at the lower level. Also, the time delay till Boise actually starts is what it is; if it's insignificant for Baez, it's the same for Marco. If the April/LHP badness is fluke, and May is the real/current Marco, in due time the fluke will get flooded by the ongoing real. What improved about his plate discipline this month? That's scouting info you've been told? Or just inferring from the fact that he hit .105 then and is BABIPing .380 in May? His walk-rate of 6% is still very low. I agree that switching levels complicates progress assessment. If his numbers at Boise are modestly improved relative to Peoria but not great, it's unclear what to conclude. Still, the purpose isn't to gauge improvement, it's to actually have improvement. And I don't think that playing at Boise will impede that. He'll get his SS action in defensively, he'll be plenty challenged offensively. Better than sitting at Peoria; being overmatched at Daytona. I'd thought he could just play utility 2B/3B/1b/DH/LF at Peoria, since good chance that if he ever reaches the majors with the Cubs it will be utility. But I can't argue with being a focused SS still at Boise. I wonder if there might be two issues/advantages with sending him down. 1. LHP and switch-hitting. Marco didn't switch hit last year, batting lefty with a .528 OPS versus LHP. This year, he's sometimes hit lefty versus LHP (.182 OPS), and sometimes he's hit right-handed (.541 OPS). What seems certain is that LHP have killed him. I'm speculating that the Boise "demotion" will coincide with a commitment to trying to switch hit. At Peoria, they don't practice much. At Mesa they do; I suspect this will give him a couple of weeks to take a LOT of batting practice RH, and then when Boise starts he can give it a shot. (Or, maybe I've got it backwards, and he's recently decided to give up with switching? Do you know?) At Peoria, he probably can get two games a week versus lefty starters. So it's hard to much practice at the thing he stinks most at. At Mesa, they could have him batting every morning versus a LHP. 2. Baez is a better prospect, and was going to pass him sooner or later. Marco's a defensive prospect, but offensively he's a singles-hitter versus RHP. Power, walks, ability to hit LHP, those are all projections that will at best take time. This way, Baez will have enough time to produce at Peoria, and move up to Daytona next spring or perhaps even later this summer if things go unexpectedly well. So, Baez will be out of the way, and then Marco can follow behind as quickly as is good for him. In the unlikely event that Marco so dominates Boise this summer that he's bored and unchallenged (fat chance), he'll be able to pick up at Peoria next spring (or perhaps sooner), and still be in a very good place per his age. So might be two advantages for Marco. And I don't think it does him any harm, he's not a fast-track guy anyway and he can work on what needs work pretty much as well in Boise as in Peoria.

toonster, thanks for update on Loosen's stuff. I hadn't given him a thought entering this season, but he's been really good after his DL. So, what was his injury that kept him out for 17 days in April? He's been 31K/9BB/31IP/19H, a WHIP under 1. Those are very good numbers. 15K/1BB over his last two starts. Probably flukey and all that, and non-sustainable. But if he can/does sustain that, he sounbds pretty interesting. If he's really consistantly 89-92, and sometimes 93-94, that's not too slow to be good, if you're locating that and obviously dependingon the movement. A well-controled 90-94 fastball and a good slider can get a guy pretty far.

He can't walk if they roster him. If they don't like him enough to roster him, it probably means he isn't looking that promising. But I think he clearly does look promising, so I think it's a no-brainer that he gets rostered and will then have up to three more options years to polish his craft. Or am I missing something, such that the normal three years of options control doesn't apply to a player with 6 years of minor-league experience beforehand?

Both of Jackson's hits were infield hits.

Cates got sent down from Daytona to XST.

Those numbers are per PA, right? I know he was at around 35% per AB at Iowa last year. Those numbers suggest what's probably typical for the vast majority of baseball players: K's usually go up with level. As he's worked from A- to A+ to AA to AAA, the K-rate continues to grow. And 23-25% is very high to start with, especially relative to PA rather than AB. But the jump to AAA has been pretty severe. Too many breaking balls? He's something of a guess-hitter, and it's harder to guess right against more experienced multi-pitch junkballing AAA guys? It's just gone to his head and he's just a mess now?

Antigua does settle down, and ends up with only the two runs over 4 innings. Lake turned a sacrifice into a bunt single, for the moment gets his average up over .300 and his OBP over .400. He's never before gone 50 AB into a league with a K-rate below 20%. Would sure be fun if that proved to be more than a small-sample fluke. Probably he'll rack up 8 new K's by Sunday night, now.

Antigua laboring in his rotation debut. 5 hits and 2runs in first two innings, four of the first six guys got hits, two of them doubles, and one of the outs the guy lined to third and the baserunner at 3rd was doubled off, so fair chance that was hit hard too. Hopefully he settles down.

I'm guessing Raley is going up to Iowa to take Jay Jackson's spot? Volstad, Rusin, DeLaCruz, Lopez, and Raley/Jackson? AJ Morris has been good lately. Two more perfect innings. Alcantara made two more errors, he's up to 19 already. Szczur two hits, a walk leading to the winning run, and a SB. He's up to .270 with OBP in .360's. I hope they leave him alone, though, rather than rushing him up to AA. He's due for some slump.

The recent 40%+ rate is probably a slump that won't last forever. But he's been consistently 35% or worse for over 300 Iowa AB's. He was 35% k-rate last summer there, he was up in that neighborhood in April, now it's accelerated some.

No. I'm sure he primarily played OF in Korea. My recall is that the standout tool when he signed was the arm, which fit for RF/C, or for CF. I think he was projected for RF when he signed because he wasn't stop-watch fast then, just as he isn't now. Lee and Ha were the speedsters, Kim was the serious power prospect, Na was the supposedly gold-glove CF, and Ha was the other guy with the good arm. Most American HSers played SS or CF in HS because that's where the best athletes/prospects usually go, and anybody who's good enough to be a decent pro prospect was probably the best athlete/prospect on his HS team. I suspect the same principle might apply in Korea. So my guess is that Ha played CF in Korea, but BA/scouts just didn't expect him to play there in the pros.

Jackson scatters 9 hits and 6 runs over his 3 innings. On Raley and Ha, I don't think I agree strongly with either of you. prior: the idea on excellent athletes is that in time they're more likely to play up to their tools, and they may be playing below their potential because they haven't focused. Samardz had obvious big tools as a pitcher, but it took him many years to play up to them. I think the others feel that Ralay may already be playing up to his tools, but he just doesn't have that many. So more time won't help him. I think they are probably right, but I hope you're right. Sometimes breaking balls change, and guys do learn them. Samardz at first was a power guy, but he fiddled around with different breaking balls for years. Now suddenly this year he's a 4-pitch guy. So I suppose the analogy is there that even though Raley is never going to add velocity, that in time he might be improving and commanding three several non-fastball pitches that he can't command now. If so, he could strike more guys out, and become better than he is now. I hope so, but don't expect it. On Ha, the Cubs tried him at catcher, and in corner OF before moving him to CF. But my understanding is that he played lots of CF in Korea. So that it's not really a new spot for him that he's only played for 14 months. I don't imagine his future will be so much dictated by his CF defense as by his bat. If he hits HR's, he'll have a shot to be a good regular. If he doesn't, he won't. He hit 11 last year at age 20, so you'd think there must be some potential there. But not going to be more than a 4th OF at that with no HR's. At last year's HR pace, he should have 3 (or more) by now. Pop 3 HR's into his stats, and he'd be hitting .280, with a .350 OBP, and a .760 OPS, and that would look not bad for a 21-year-old CFer. Loosen is ruining his 0.33 GO/AO ratio.

About time ... I imagine Burke or Jensen have next man up rights ... Wonder who is next guy up from XST - Peralta or Cruz would be the guess if they wanted a possible starter. Wells is 10K/0BB/7 hits/8IP over this last two outings. 29K/7BB/35IP/0HR on the season looks like very nice splits. So there is good reason to be encouraged and hopeful. So I'm feeling optimistic. Not sure any other promotions are very urgent. Burke could at any point, probably. And who knows how long they want to stick with him in rotation, or whether they kind of figure that it's just a matter of time before they move him to relief. Jensen I'd think should stay put for a while. First year pro, not a rush. He's allowed 15 runs over his last four starts (20 innings), so for the moment it seems he's well challenged at the level he's at.

They do - they have HS baseball but don't have travel leagues like we do in the U.S. and Canada. My ignorant impression was that Koreans might tend to work very hard at the game, and that the number of hours of practice/drill/coaching/practice is very high. This may be cultural bias/ignorance. But in a country where kids do 12 months of school and study obsessively to prepare for ACT tests and the like, baseball coaches and prospects might likewise be somewhat obsessive about preparing for baseball.

If Wang was 92-95 last night with a 78-80 good curve last night, that sounds pretty good. And would seem to fit with his good results thus far this spring. That sounds like a guy who's got a chance. As we've seen with the big-league Cubs this spring, it's not like competent relievers are easy to find or are easily replaced. So thanks for that info, iowa. As for Rhee, If Wang is 92-95 with a good curve, and Rhee has three pitches that are better, that sounds really good for Rhee. But if Rhee has a fast fastball with good movement, a good curve, and a premium change/split, why don't the hitters notice? 90-94 with movement, top change, and a solid breaking ball, those sound like good big-league pitches and that he'd have good success in minors. But it seems he's been consistently mediocre, and his early results this spring are as or more mediocre than before. High HR rate, low K-rate, modest K/BB ratio, mediocre WHIP, ERA's always over 4. Somehow the actual results don't seem to match the alleged quality stuff. High-HR/low-K is a pretty shaky foundation. Hopefully he's just ready to kick it in. He did show some hints of more K's last year, and he's wiggled through 2 starts and 11 innings now without a HR now, so maybe he's ready to take off. Would sure be nice.