craig

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.

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.