craig

Did Callis say that? That's really surprising, if true. I didn't think he'd be remotely close to making any top-100 list, or top ten outfielder lists. I wouldn't have been sure he'd make a top-30 outfielder list. I'm still hopeful that he'll work out. But I wouldn't have thought many people liked him as a top-100 guy.

thanks, David. Interesting and that's good news, to me. It's common for simpletons like me to like walks in and of themselves, but for more sophisticated people to emphasize that it's a matter of pitch selection and being more selective for pitches you can drive hard. That hitters shouldn't be actually trying for walks, they are more just an accidental result. If walks aren't a target, then it may be that a good hitter who's good at hitting strikes might perhaps have good plate discipline even without many walks, and you can't necessarily judge a guy's discipline as poor based on a lowish walk rate. I think that walks in and of themselves are a very valuable tool and goal, that guys should at times be looking to work for a walk, and that a low walk rate is a problem in and of itself. So I'm very glad to see Theo articulating that walks are a value.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/post/_/id/8422/cespedes-soler-on-cubs-white-sox-radar Weird, McLeod talking about Cespedes and Soler. Surprised he'd share any scouting info if he planned to pursue either of them. Here's the last line of the article, which was written by Bruce Levine: I'd read about OF Yasiel Balaguert and RHP Carlos Martinez; but had we known about two others? If, in fact, Bruce has it correct and we really did sign two other guys besides Balaguert and Martinez?

Lake has some really noteworthy tools, and an exciting combo of power, speed, and arm. Rob's BB and K improvement graph shows typical walk-rate improvements on the order of 2%. If Lake improves his 2011 walk rate (19W/445AB) by 2%, a 2% improvement on awful will still be awful. A 3% improvement on his K-rate will still be awful. He'll have to improve way more than normal to blossom into a bad K/BB guy rather than the awful we've seen. (Merely bad would be a big improvement.) Interestingly, in 2010 he walked 35 times, poor but hardly awful. His K-rate has improved in each of the last two seasons, despite promotions. Lake is almost certain to always have ugly K/BB profiles. To me his question is whether he can improve them enough in the anti-awful direction, and can do enough good things to counterbalance the bad stuff and justify himself as a big-league player. From my rankings writeup (I'm not done, but currently I've got Lake around 14 or 15 on my list...): 'As with Vitters, future depends heavily on HR output. His awful K/BB profile show tons of holes, and promise a future with low average and low IsoD. At 25 HR, that could add enough hits and slugging to float an anti-awful BA and to perhaps offset the bad K’s and low walks. Seems very unsuited for the alleged “culture shift” that Hoyer supposedly wants, given his reputation as a “play the wrong way” slacker, non-hustler, and ignore-coaches guy. But perhaps a new regime will institute some changes at the minor-league level that will help him. The other big question is his position, obviously he can’t play SS.'

Thanks for more elaboration on Wells, cal and toonster. Absolutely, toonster, a quality sinker at 91-93 is very, very good if it has control, probably a lot better than a 94-95 four-seamer. With sinker like any pitch, control is still essential. Sounds like Wells has strike-throwing control, but he's got a ways to go on his other stuff. Question: What do you guys know about Rhee's fastball? Is he a 4-seam or a 2-seam guy? Or does he work 89-90 with his 2-seam, and touch 93-95 on occasion with 4-seam? How heavy/sinky is Beeler, actually? And does he have much prospect of developing a good breaking pitch?

The scouts have seen him for more than a week, they've had fall instrux and his HS games too. But yes, if they can't really tell yet, then it's fine to try until he proves inadequate. Fleita is still the boss of the farm. fleita and his staff IMO have consistently been overly slow to make changes. Jake Fox catcher; Lemahieu and Flaherty at SS; Lake at SS. (I also wonder about Vitters at 3B....) Big-league defense is hard at any position. Waiting till AA or AAA to finally start practicing a guy at the spot he'll likely spend his career, not sure that's soon enough. Other thing, minor-leaguers have a grueling schedule and I'm not sure how much they practice once the season starts. So if a guy is going to move, I think it would help to be spending fall instrux and spring training working and practicing at a new spot, and then start a new year at the new spot(s). If a kid has spent all his life and all of his pro career at SS, to suddenly switch him to 2B or 3B in the middle of a week in June, that might be kind of disrupting.

3B and SS both demand super-strong arms. SS and 2B both benefit from extreme range. 3B requires some real quickness, because the ball is past you so fast; more time to see and react up the middle. A 2B typically participates in more outs than a SS, and much more than a 3B. It may be that 2B defense is undervalued, and that "settling" there is more problematic than compromising at some other spots. A SS with range, hands or bad mechanics problems at SS will probably have those same problems at 2B. I expect that Lake will be bad at 2B like he's bad at SS, although perhaps he won't make as many wild throws. At the same time, his quick reactions and his big arm might be better utilized at 3B. It may be that if Baez has quick but just isn't that rangy, that he'd be better suited at 3B also, certainly his arm is good for 3B. But if he's actually pretty good at SS, just not quite as rangy as the elite norm for big-league SS, perhaps his range at 2B will be fine. And his arm at 2B will be quite good, even if it's perhaps not quite as amazing as most regular SS's display. I don't think there is any overload of real 2B prospects. So if Baez ends up being only slightly underqualified for SS, but would be qualified at 2B, that might be a great advantage spot to put his bat. I'm hopeful for all of our prospects. But I don't think Cerda is really going to defend adequately, or have the power, to be a real factor. Watkins is too feeble offensively, and strikes out so much for a singles hitter, that he's a non-factor. My little-informed and admittedly premature understanding is that Devoss really has little aptitude for 2B, and is a remotely long shot to play big-league defensive 2b. Not counting the currrent SS's and Watkins, Torreyes is probably the one and only guy we've got who projects as a serious defensive 2B. So in a sense if Vitters is the only 3B, and Torreyes is the only real 2B, if Baez could handle 2B at a high level, I'm not sure that would be talent wasted or blocked. Plus, there's also the question of Castro himself. How likely that he stays at SS, and if he moves I wonder which way he'd more likely go? I guess to me it seems so unlikely that Baez will actually stay at SS, I'd really kind of rather he got practicing at his real big-league position(s) sooner rather than later.

Theo might be misguided (I think that he is on this point, because I think walks in themselves are both a valuable target and a good manifestation of plate discipline). But I think he was quoted as saying that plate discipline isn't about taking walks, that it's about swinging at good pitches. It may be that Vitters reduction of K's reflects that by the Theo or Mark-Peel definition, that he was indeed more disciplined and was swinging at fewer bad balls, even if he didn't actually take enough strikes to get into walk-counts. I'm not arguing the importance or walks and IsoD, I think it's huge myself. But I think there's a real possibility that we'll be very disappointed in finding that Theo's guys don't actually value or teach or coach our guys into taking significantly more walks.

That is pretty encouraging and exciting. Glad to hear some good encouragement on Malave; and about Candelario apart from just the DSL stats which are available to everybody, but which don't mean the when a scouting guy like Wilken watches the guy that he'll be equally impressed. And the continued enthusiasm for Hernandez. Would sure be sweet if those guys pan out as real prospects. Too bad that the there is no indication that the cba constraints aren't real.

Laura or Maddux, other than the comments on Rhee, Beliveau's control and body fat, and Baez, was there any other actual scouting comments made by management guys about specific players? Ha? Szczur? Antigua? McNutt? Castillo? Jensen? Golden? Wells? Dunston? Rosario?

Thanks much, maddux. Very interesting. Sounds like not much scouting info in the actual DOF session.

I'm glad to hear he was that fast. I hadn't gotten that impression from what I'd been told or read. Weren't some of the Boise games on internet broadcasts? I thought some of my friends said he was more like 89-93 when they were watching, or maybe that was listening to the radio or something. His stats didn't suggest he was overwhelmingly fast (low K, high hits, high ERA). Weird. I suppose 94-95 isn't really fast, although it isn't slow obviously. I'd guess that every org has a dozen guys who can hit 95. On Whitenack, I don't think anybody was spinning him as overwhelmingly fast, just as being no longer prohibitively slow. I think Whitenack was working because he had really good command, really good movement, and a really good offspeed pitch. Good command with a bad fastball gets you only so far, but good command with an average fastball adds up to an above-average guy.

I think we probably don't really have any right now, depending on how good we define "TOR" to be. McNutt I think is a longshot, although longshot is better than no shot and he's the best candidate in the full minors. I’m concerned that none of his individual pitches are special enough and that his control isn’t either, even when healthy. Pre-injury he was pretty fast, but he wasn't like Cashner/Z/Prior/Cruz/Wood/Guzman/Farnsworth in terms of velocity. His control was better than Archer, but it's not like Mike Mussina or one of these guys who's an ace at 91-94 velocity by virtue of command. I think he's got a chance to be very solid, and perhaps a if everything goes well a #2 type guy, but not really an elite #1 unless something changes radically for the better. For the low minors guys, I think Simpson and Maples. I know the board generally disliked Simpson's pick, and obviously he was awful last year. And even at draft time before the series of bad news-worse news since, his stuff wasn't touted as elite #1, more like good-but-not-great #3-#2 type. So as with McNutt, I'm probably hoping against the odds that he ends up being a good #2 rather than an overpowering dazzling #1. But I've still got him pretty high on my ranking list (relative to other lists I've seen). I was told that he was throwing 95 easily in Mesa recently, so I'm hopeful that he's going to have his arm back. No surprise that he wasn't good while pitching with a fractured elbow last year. Little can be evaluated when a guy is pitching hurt with 10-15 mph missing, so if in fact he's back 100%, I don't think last year's stuff really tells anything about his future. (I'm hoping that McNutt's struggles in spring, summer, and fall can likewise be dismissed based on a serious but completely recoverable injury. But his velocity was poor in spring training pre-blister; I don't think a blister last from April through AFL; and I'm not sure bruised ribs in May should have still been crippling him in October AFL. So I'm kinda worried that either he's just not very good even when healthy, or else that he's got arm problems that go beyond a blister and some bruised ribs, both of which seem like they should be injuries of limited duration). Maples sounds like he could have electric stuff. So in terms of TOR potential, he's the one guy in the system who seems to qualify. But, he's way distant and I think his control is lousy, much less his command. IF he can stay healthy, and somehow transforms into a coordinated athlete with good command, I think the sky is the limit. That's a remote IF, and it's not that often even for teenagers that wildmen end up transforming into TOR command. But a slim chance is better than no chance. Note: The good thing with pitchers is that they can develop in unpredictable ways. Some very good pitchers do it without being extraordinarily fast (Webb, Musina, Maddux, Glavine, etc..) And some guys who didn't look that overwhelming early can add velocity or add offspeed pitches over time that very much change their original profile. Dontrelle willis, who knew that he'd almost win the Cy Young award or finish near the top in ERA? Angel Guzman never actually made it as a starter, but neither his 7K/9IP as a 19 and 20-year old nor his velocity reports (good but not super-fast) really portended what he was later on, when he did become very fast and after he developed a good strikeout-inducing curveball. So maybe Ben Wells will end up faster, and will develop a strikeout-inducing breaking ball, even if neither his offspeed stuff nor his velocity was especially notable last summer. Maybe Willengton Cruz will still add a couple mph and become more consistently excellent. I had Whitenack at 15 on my list (post-Garza) last winter, but that was a reach and few others shared that; but with several extra mph that turned up over the offseason, he was a different guy. so maybe somebody who I don't recognize as being talented enough to be a TOR guy will surprise me.

Most of the thread has focused on trade possibilities that we'd like or dislike. My thinking is that Theo wants more than 2 years of control, whether that be with prospects or with a Garza extension. So I totally assume that they have worked hard for an extension, and have either been rebuffed or perhaps continue to work towards a resolution. It may be that trade talk has subdued because Hoyer is getting closer to an extension that he can live with. What do you guys think would be an over-under on an extension deal? Anything less is a good deal, but this is as far as I'd go, and anything over is worse than no deal at all? $60/5? $65/5? $75/6? $56/4? I think there are 5 basic outcomes possible: 1. A good trade for really good value. 2. A good extension for good value. 3. No trade, no extension, nothing at all. 4. A bad trade for poor value 5. A bad-value, bad-risk extension My preferences are 1 > 2 > 3. Clearly to date Hoyer has felt that options 1 and 2 haven't been available, so he's been choosing 3 over 4 +5.

That's interesting. You seem to have gotten some much more favorable buzz on Beeler's stuff than anything I've read. I think the 3 vs 2.5 pitches argument for Beeler over Cates is good, but it depends on how good the pitches are. I wasn't under the impression that Beeler had any signature good pitch. Whereas I get the impression that Cates's changeup might be quite good. And I also had the impression that Cates's fastball might be better, in terms of velocity and perhaps also movement. I may be wrong for sure. But Cates would be ahead of Beeler on my list too. Not sure how much McLeod likes Beeler, but I wouldn't be surprised if he went after Cates because he too thinks his potential is pretty good.

I think the Cub prospects are so bunched that it's hard to really organize, so I can't much fault Sickels a whole lot. Plus it's hard to know where to rank so many of the guys who haven't played above Rookie ball. Of his front 24, Baez, Maples Vogelbach, candelareo, Hernandez, Amaya, Zych, and Dunston have at best rookie league experience, and really Hernandez and Amaya are the only ones who even have any positive rookie-league performance. Add in Wells and Golden, and basically half of the list aren't full-season. So it's really tough (as we all understand), and I can't fault Sickels for maybe having some that will look goofy later. Given those factors, and given the usual issues of hitters vs pitchers, and where to put guys with more physical gifts but poorer performance or control, I don't have too much fuss with his list. But things I definitely disagree with: 1. Torreyes not being higher. I'm almost certain from comments from Cub personnel and scouts that they value Torreyes more highly than Sappelt. I have no reason not to go with the Cubs view and to have torreyes higher. I'd certainly put him ahead of Hernandez (as well as Amaya.) 2. Dunston being listed. Several of you have fussed about Ha not being higher and being viewed as a tweener. Given all the other CFers in the system (Jackson ahead, Szczur behind, and others further behind...), I have serious doubts that Ha is going to play much CF for the Cubs. And the doubts about his ability to hit for RF power for the Cubs is more than fair. But, jsut as a pure prospect, he's a mile ahead of Dunston on my list. 3. Reggie Golden. When you have so much trouble hitting the ball, and has other problems (defensive issues, perhaps weight control), I'm not putting you ahead of Ha or Beliveau. I don't think Sickels's lists are that great; I don't think he knows a whole lot of scouts. So to some degree, I get the feeling his lists are n't really any more authoritative than any of us could create. I think he has his age/stats saber stuff, and he reads some scouting stuff, and makes his list. Not much different than what I might do, except that I probably follow Cubs prospects closer than he does. And while he may not have tons of scouts, he probably has at least some, unlike me.

No to Porcello. Hasn't improved at all. High HR's, low K's, not a good profile.

Wilken was running the draft room, and Ricketts seemed to build a strong rapport with Wilken. Despite his history in scouting, I've been under the impression that Hendry, during his tenure as GM, has largely let his scouting directors run the draft, and particularly in recent years, due to Wilken's stature in the industry. It also might give us insight as to why Ricketts was in the war room with Wilken. I think Hendry has always been very good at letting people he hires have full authority in their domain. So I have no doubt but that Wilken was running the draft room, just as Fleita has been given full authority to run the farm, etc. Hendry has been very empowering to those guys and to his managers as well. I think Hendry has been so non-obnoxious that his involvements in those areas are non-interfering and non-threatening. And from that standpoint I think he has been somewhat involved with the draft at two levels. I know that he has sometimes scouted draft prospects and submitted scouting reports, just like an area scout or crosschecker would. Not sure how many, or whether those are very intentional or targeted. For all I know could be a case where he's visiting a friend, or where he's on a trip someplace for some reason, and if there happens to be a draftable prospect who's playing somewhere he goes to watch the kid and files a report. But I do know that he has filed reports that go into the data bank just like any other scout. I believe that he has been heavily involved in the signing process. I've been surprised, he's a main guy in the signing negotiations with many of the draftees. Certainly with the big tickets. I thought it interesting that Wilken said on Monday night that Hendry had told him things were looking very much at risk with Vogelbach's signing. It wan't Wilken negotiating and telling Hendry, it was Hendry negotiating and keeping Wilken updated. I expect that Hendry has been pretty good at this. He knows all the agents, and he's always been great at making players feel wanted and making them feel like they'll be taken care of well. It's not just the big tickets, either, Vogelbach and Szczur. An 8th rounder like Dugas was interacting with Hendry, not just an area scout, about his deal. So I think he has been a major player in the process, and was still almost certainly a major player in the Maples/Dunston/Baez/Vogelbach signings last weekend. I do wonder to some degree whether Hendry might not have established a reputation as a dealmaker who will always pay whatever he needs to to get what he wants. If you push him to the limit, he'll pay what you want for a draft pick, for a free agent, or for a Garza or Pierre. Don't know, but I guess I wonder whether he hasn't been quite as tough as perhaps some GM's and has tended to be willing to be a little generous, and perhaps some agents have taken advantage a little.

http://networkedblogs.com/kzUJf Cubs sign Curacuo lefty Christian Pieters, 16. Phil Rogers said it was $350.

Tim, where did you get the official list? It includes Elias, whose agreement was reported some time ago. And who was listing on BA's list for some time. But now today BA has un-bolded him. I wonder if that's a mistake, or if something is really up and he's unsigned?

He's tall, 20, throws hard, mid 90's, not sure about health history, and his mechanics are wildly inconsistent. Some guys can never get control, but sometimes if the mechanics get cleaned up and become consistent, who knows.

isn't his ceiling basically his dad? I think it's higher. Daniel lists a little taller, and my understanding is that he might be a stronger hitter than his father, with more power and a chance to hit for higher average. And I'm not sure, but it may be envisioned that he might be able to play SS. A .260 BA-.700 OPS 2B is one thing. A .280 BA-.780 OPS SS is quite another. We'll see, of course. But I think he's got a chance to be a much better offensive guy than his dad.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20110816&content_id=23279900&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc Wilken press release. There is a LOT of good stuff in there, I encourage you to read it. Some notes: 1. Says 34 signings. We've got 34 accounted for. So apparently no unknown low-profile signings that we hadn't hear about. 2. Makes reference to three first round talents, Baez, Maples, and Vogelbach. Dunston not included. 3. Says the spending this year was more than last two years combined. 4. Wilken sees this as one of the most talented draft classes he's ever seen signed, and speaks to it's depth. 5. Says that they invested in added scouts. I like that very much. 6. Says that this year's draft class as a whole was regarded as being really good and really deep, so that this was an ideal year to be able to spend.

Thanks, cal, very interesting. Speaks to how favorably the Cubs must have scouted him. I think he may be a somewhat undervalued prospect. I'll be curious to see how his career goes, defense-wise. If he's really a true SS in the pros, he's got a shot to be a very good-hitting SS. If he's a 2B, then maybe the bar needs to be a little higher for acceptable hitting.

You're right, it's possible someone small has slipped through the cracks. BA does now list Lockhart but without a bonus. It still doesn't have Andreoli signed, either. So while it's doubtful that we signed anybody else, I'm still vaguely hoping that a Struck or Rhoderick secret signing might still emerge.