craig

Why are you thinking there won't be another Paul Maholm on the market this winter? Good point, Tim. The Cubs are going to have gobs of money this winter. Maholm-type guys don't have all the top teams chasing them and don't cost zillions in dollars or years. So if you take a swing-and-a-miss, little lost. And if you take a shot and they turn out, modest-dollar-short-years pitchers are assets that can be turned into young talent that might last into the contending years. Sign em in January, trade em in July. A good way to use money to create long-term young talent from nothing. All that said, Theo does need to field a team. I'd be shocked beyond belief to see him trade all three guys.

.... I knew the original report that cal shared, the low-90's fastball plus otherwise bad/blah offspeed. But I'd not seen the Rogers eye-ball report, so thanks for sharing that. I know Phil doesn't get a lot of respect, and for good reason. But if he saw mid-90's, he saw mid-90's. And if he was seeing gobs of kids and Martinez stood out above the others, I see no reason to belittle that. And 13K/2BB/2H/11P are some rather nice numbers lately. Anyway, I'm encouraged to read that there may be noteworthy velocity in the big guy.

I'm guessing there are enough offers on the table that even if Dempster goes out and gives up four runs in five innings, it's not like all those offers are going to suddenly get pulled. If he strains his oblique, different story. So I'm not super worried about a bad outing, but I am worried about an injury. Not sure that's a huge concern, though. You're putting a guy up for bid, and somewhat silent bid. If somebody else might still bid higher, wait. If the current top bidder isn't sure his bid is going to win, perhaps by waiting he'll raise that bid. So if a team has made a bid but it's not compelling, it certainly makes sense to give the opportunity to raise it. But at some point the auctioneer has to decide he's waited as long as he wants to wait and is going to call in the highest bid. I hope that's today. But if Hoyer thinks a bid might improve significantly enough that it's worth the small risk that Dempster gets hurt tonight, that's his call and I'll assume they know what they're doing. But I do kinda feel like this has been going on long enough. Shouldn't they have had opportunity to submit their best offers? Shouldn't Theo/Hoyer/McLeod have had opportunity to evaluate those? Shouldn't they have had plenty of time to call the other guys back andn give them the opportunity to improve their offers? I kind of hope they make a decision and get it done.

CubsInNC posted in the minor-league forum yesterday, was at the Peoria game, said there were Dodgers scouts there. Rosario was pitching, so he could have been viewed as a significant piece. Although he wrecked his arm in the game, so he's almost certainly out of the equation now. Although CubsinNC said

Interesting. Given the spending cap, that is a BIG bonus. Bader hadn't included him in his top-20 international prospects that he listed on July 2 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2012/07/top-20-international-prospects-tracker/), but BA's list shows only two guys with bonuses bigger than $1.5, a LHP at 1.55 to Toronto and 1.75 for a Mets SS. I hope Paniagua's slider is good, or his fastball movement is exceptional. 93-95 sounds fairly good, but if a guy spends all month gearing up for a well-publicized showcase, and has the adrenalin pumping, that really isn't very impressive. Might be a guy who's mostly throwing 88-92 when he's 50+ innings into a season and he's pitching in Beloit or Jupiter. But, the Cub scouts know all that. So they must have liked what they've seen. Hope he plays out better than Concepcion.

Do you think that was real, or a gun fluke? Did Reed "look" that fast? Did he have several other mid-upper 90's clocks? Or eight 90-94's and then 100? The Rosario readings, sitting 91-94, didn't sound particularly out of line. Reed's still only 20. Blah stats (lots of walks, lots of HR's, lots of hits, WHIP 1.5). But if he's extremely fast, who knows with time.

It may be that players have much, much greater opportunity to work on skills at Mesa than they do in higher leagues. I'm not sure how much practice drill there actually is when you're with Boise or Peoria. A lot of the work requirements for the players are eaten up by the games themselves combined with travel, figuring out how to get places on the road, time spent finding places to eat on the road, etc. The Cubs didn't invest multiple millions of dollars in a huge training complex in Boise, or in Eugene, etc.. At Mesa, they've got a fabulous complex with tons of fields, and all of the games are very close so that very little of the work-week is spent on the bus. I believe they have hours of drill/practice, in addition to the games. I'm not sure that's at all comparable at Boise or Peoria. So it may be that while the balls don't come any differently during the Boise games, that a guy is getting way more practice balls in Mesa? May be similar for hitting. They've got so many pitchers in Mesa, there aren't enough game innings to keep them all busy. So I think there is a lot of pitching/batting practice that goes on in which real professional pitchers are throwing to hitters, BP that doesn't show up in the box scores. But which can benefit the pitcher and benefit the hitters. But with a limited Boise roster, and basically one field and one mound to share between the home team and road team, how much fast professional-pitching BP does a guy get? Or is the sum of batting practice one hour for the whole team, as thrown by a 50-year-old ex-position player like Bill Buckner? There might be a whole lot more productive BP in Mesa? Who knows, there may also be better video-and-charting technology in Mesa? For all I know, maybe they've got an electronic strike zone detector or something to help hitters learn the strike zone. Or permanent video equipment to record BP as well as game AB for analysis? Perhaps they have much better rooms and monitors for doing the video study? I have no idea. But I'm thinking there may actually be more advantages than we can even dream of for doing as much of the training/development as possible in Mesa. I'm just guessing, of course, I have no idea.

I haven't heard much of anything, actually. But two years ago there was talk of 95-96, and almost with the sense that he was a big horse where that and more could become routine. Last year I was hearing 88-92 with an occasional 4-seam 94. This year I've heard very little, maybe the most enthusiastic being a game where he topped in the 92-94 range. But there are many hundreds of prospects who top in that range or higher, so if that's his fastest stuff on his best day, that's pretty unexciting.

Is there reason to think that McNutt has any stuff that's still worth being interested in? Two years ago he was a rising prospect who was supposedly throwing mid-90's, and doing so consistently, while also throwing a promising developing breaking pitch. But at this point, his velocity has gone backward and neither his movement nor command have improved. At this point, isn't he basically a former prospect with fairly average velocity and nothing much in terms of command, breaking ball, or movement? Why is it that we still think he's a meaningful prospect?

Olt has a K-rate of over 29%, and is only in AA. So he's worse than what Brett Jackson was prior to the more challenging breaking stuff of AAA. So he's basically a good-fielding 3B version of Jackson? Are you intentionally leaving out the part where Mike Olt has a slash line of .292/.403/.574/.977 with 22 homers, 63RBI, and 51BB in 76 games? And a 14.7% walk rate vs. Jackson's 10.1%? Or an ISO of .282 vs. Jackson .226? Or a wOBA of .428 vs. Jackson's .366? Yes. :Dposting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=2830374# posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=2830374# K rates are sometimes listed per PA, others per AB. 29.2% relative to AB's is really high. 24% per PA is also really high. And as was mentioned, it's not a fluke. He's been consistently a massive K-guy. I was thinking that Olt's rates seemed pretty similar to Jackson as an AA player. Per AB, Olt is 29.2% this year, Jackson was 30.1 Per PA, Jackson was 24.9%, Old is 24.4%. So the K-rates seem pretty similar as AA players in their 20's. Obviously no two players develop the same. So while Jackson's K-rate has gotten much worse in AAA, perhaps Olt's will hold fairly steady. I'm just suggesting that K-wise he's pretty much what Jackson was a year ago in AA. So while there may be good scouting reason to think that he'll handle the promotion to AAA better than did Jackson, we probably shouldn't be shocked if we get Olt and he K's almost like a Jackson. which may be fine, many posters like Jackson's future a lot. So whiffing like a Jackson may be no reason to temper enthusiasm. Or the superior power numbers for Olt, while playing a good 3b defensively, might also more than negate any concerns with K's. But just kind of interesting that thus far he's been very much in the Jackson-track in terms of a K-guy.

Marco Hernandez has been on a bit of a hitting binge. He's got his seasonal OBP past .250 now, and he's a robust .263 OBP now in Boise. He's lifted his Boise batting average up over .250, and his OPS over .650. Small steps, but getting past some of those nice round .250 and .650 numbers is refreshing progress. 8 errors in his 24 games, he's gotten some DH games so not sure how many he's defended, but his 8-errors reflects a reduced rate.

Interesting and unexpected selections. Sometimes selections aren't all made based on stats. I wonder if Caro looks better in person than we'd guess based from his stats. Stats alone, he seems like a no-power guy. And he's almost 19 and has only just begun his career, so he obviously wasn't some guy that scouts were itching to sign the minute he turned 16. But I wonder if he looks like a serious defensive CFer or something?

Olt has a K-rate of over 29%, and is only in AA. So he's worse than what Brett Jackson was prior to the more challenging breaking stuff of AAA. So he's basically a good-fielding 3B version of Jackson?

Lockhart has six consecutive multi-hit games, is momentarily hitting .333, and his OBP must be up near .400. Has only 4 K's in 60+ AB's I think. 6BB/4K. Vogelbach has 10K, so he's looking like a hitter who happens to have real power, rather than the prototype high-K slugger.

I don't see much in common between Rhee and Berg, other than being pitchers who aren't very good. Berg threw fast and hard and had a hard sinker. Too little command, and no breaking pitch. One really good pitch, but that wasn't quite good enough. Rhee seems almost the anti-Berg profile wise. A multi-pitch 3-pitch finesse guy, trying to mix and spot his two bad pitches (really bad fastball, slow and no movement; and rather bad curve) with his one average pitch (change). Maybe they should send him to Boise and he and Simpson can try to find something down there? Or maybe he's injured. I know when he had his decent stretch last year his 4-seamer was getting up into the 91-93 zone, but you don't go super far with a low-90's 4-seam straightball. The 2-seamer that he tried to use to get outs is naturally slower and decidedly below-average most of the time, average on a good day. Is my info all wrong? I'd like it to be, but I admit it seems much more consistent with the actual ineffectual pitching than this fantasy that he's got a good fastball, good movement, and a signature changeup. If he had those kinds of things, he'd probably get more outs, get an occasional K, and allow not so many HR's.

Interesting that Rosscup is starting. He's been a rather effective pitcher as a pro. His career ERA is 2.45, with 134K/34BB. A K/BB of 3.94 is pretty nice, no? He's allowed only 4 HR in his career, and IIRC 2 or 3 of those came when he was pitching hurt last year, right before he got shut down. 134K/143 IP, but if you substract his draft summer, he's had more K's than IP. Obviously tiny sample (143 innings total), all in A-ball or below, and I have no idea how serious his injury was. Was it TJ? But if he was to suddenly start reproducing at AA the success he had in his 7 Peoria innings or that he showed pre-injury, he might justify some interest. OK, now I've jinxed him, he'll probably give up 2HR and get shelled.

That's probably undesirable even in Rademacher's case. I'd read that a lot of scouts thought his chances were better as a LHP (hit 95) than as a hitter. He's hitting .406, but no walks and only 3 of his hits for XB. It might be that hitting for high average will just extend his career a utility OFer in the minors, and delay his conversion to pitching.

Malave has blah numbers, largely because he's shown little power and has a mediocre BABIP. But he's not K'ing a ton, and his walk-rate is fine. So if he added some power to his game, as often does happen with 17-year olds, he might still work out. But I agree with you, Cal, if Acosta can't make contact with DSL pitching, that probably reflects a flaw that will never change. If you don't have the vision/recognition/response skills to hit DSL stuff at 17, not likely to grow into those with age..... Two other bad things with Malave: My understanding is that he hasn't looked at all good as a catcher, and isn't super quick as a 3B either. So while he may become OK at one of those positions, it will probably need to be his bat that would need to carry him. Second, many of the scouting reports questioned his bat speed, and suggested that he was already pretty filled out, so he probably doesn't have tons of physical maturation left for him with which to grow into power. It may be that if he doesn't have power now, maybe it's kind of iffy that it will ever come later. But, we'll see. Awfully young, so sometimes power grows even if the upper body isn't adding much weight.

Heh heh, sure sounds like he would have said no at $3.5, eh? Heh.

I'm going to randomly guess that the Cubs will still sign two more players before the deadline strikes. (I'm just an optimist, what can I say.) Anybody else want to throw out a number for a guess, and anybody else guess the number will exceed zero?

I kind of get the feeling we're going to be saying that a lot (with "last year" being replaced by however many years ago it is appropriate to refer to the 2011 draft). Right idea, wrong people in charge. No matter who is in charge, you're going to end up saying that about a lot of overslotted picks. That's just how it works. Exactly. When a guy is a free agent (Concepcion, Suarez, Malava, the Koreans...) or doesn't particularly want to sign with you (Maples, Shoulders, etc.), you overpay to get the player. Often by a lot. We shouldn't be surprised when most of the overslot guys don't end up looking as good as you'd expect for the same dollars spent on a slot pick. Shoulders got what, $175 plus scholarship or something? Market-wise, that's really no more overslot, or barely so, than any 11-40 HS/JC this year who gets the $100 slot plus college.

On Geiger, with 8 HR in 25 games, that's 8 hits. I don't think his BABIP can be exceptionally when he's got so much HR-based BA. My understanding is that he hits them as long as Baez does, sometimes. So he's plenty strong. I'm less buzzed on Alcantara, or Lake, than some of you. Alcantara seems fun as a toolsy SS. But so many errors. I'm not very confident that a guy who makes so many errors now will ever have the reliability that a big-league SS requires. The same goes for Lake. So do I want to put Alcantara into top-15 as an outfielder? I'm not sure the bat looks that compelling as an outfielder. Lake is OPSing at .743, and barely slugging .400, much of that IsoP having been produced during his first week. Not sure it's that super promising as a RFer, Maybe the system is so weak that guys like that have to fit into top 10, but not super compelling candidates. I'd definitely put Pierce Johnson ahead of either of them. Maybe that's going too much with ceiling, but until he's injured his outstanding stuff certainly puts him ahead of guys who look more like bench prospects. He's got a chance to be perhaps an excellent rotation starter or else a late-inning guy, perhaps a good closer. I'd prefer that to two SS's who don't seem likely to play big-league SS very often.

Hunter Ackerman is still only 21, 4th round pick based on a promising lefty curveball. He was horribly wild two years back, somewhat wild last year, now after 7 innings he's 8K/0BB. He's got more K's than IP in his brief career, so I assume there is something to the curveball. Anybody know what his injury was that kept him out for the first several months this season?

Marco Hernandez: Interesting on Scott. Clearly a very long-term project. He's going to take some patience. The note on mechanics and teachability/work ethic, though, those are pretty encouraging. Heh, funny on Marco. Kind of sad when supposedly our best defensive infielder has 8 errors in a couple weeks in Boise. AFter all the angst about him getting send down from Peoria and how good he'd been doing recently and how unfair/regrettable it is, it's certainly been clear that he doesn't lack for challenge at Boise. He's clearly not been overqualified or under-challenged there, that's for sure.

Good points all. All else equal, to save money and be able to buy an extra good prospect would be preferable. And even if two guys aren't exactly equal, if the difference is modest enough, the money saved with the cheaper guy might buy you an extra prospect whose value more than makes up the difference. But I agree with the quality-over-quantity preference. And I don't get the idea that this was close in the Cubs minds. I get the sense they really liked Almora, a lot, and that Almora/Fried weren't that close. I feel that way myself, actually. For a top-six pick, you should be a pretty great pitching prospect in order to be selected ahead of a very good position prospect that your scouts really believe in. A player who is what you think he is, he can be that for a long time. Even if a pitcher is what you think he is, how long is he likely to stay that way? Johnson, Blackburn, Underwood, those were great places to pick pitchers. But Top-6? Get a really good position player if you can. And if you do go pitching that high, he better either be pretty incredible HS prospect or else be a pretty safe ready-now college stud. I feel that way for next year, too. I know we feel weaker at pitching. So if there's a college stud pitcher who'll be almost a sure thing and ready soon, it makes sense. But even those don't stay studs necessarily (Prior, Mulder, Brownlie, Blasko, Hagerty, Christenson, etc.) I'd still rather take a stud player who might be a franchise guy for twelve years. Question will be whether Almora is really as good as the Cubs seem to think he is.