Scotti

Good news but guys who have their velocity pop in such a short period like that often develop physical difficulties since the surrounding structure is not conditioned to the extra velocity. The velocity difference could just be more of him using the four seam fastball more than he used to rather than a spurt. As with Craig and others I have no problem putting him in my top ten. A couple more weeks of him performing at this level and he'll be in the top five. A few more and he'll be top two with a chance at number one overall. It isn't like he came out of nowhere. Ok, North Massapequa, NY is literally nowhere but he is an 8th round pick who really turned it on during the second half of his first full year. Good size, good stuff, good command and tremendous numbers. I expect he'll drop off a bit (quite a bit given how goofy his numbers have been) but he's been excellent for 12 straight starts (and probably more given his promotion to Daytona from Peoria last year). Anyone know how he did at the end of his Peoria run?

Craig, if hitting happened in a vacuum then adding HR would mean added batting average but that isn't always the case. A guy who discovers that he can hit HR will often alter his swing in order to hit the ball harder. A career .316 hitter like Lemahieu (with only 2 HR, 8 3B and 30 2B in 731 AB) who starts swinging for the fences could wind up hitting 20 HR (or more) if he continued to add strength and bulk but, in the process, hit plenty more fly balls outs than he has done historically as a Punch-and-Judy/groundball hitter. Look at what happened to Theriot. .300 hitter by hitting the ball to right field. Uncle Lou talked to him about hitting the ball harder and using the whole field and he's a .270-.280 hitter. Now, with the Theriot issue, everyone has an opinion so, hopefully, my main point won't get lost: When a Type X hitter attempts to be a Type Y hitter the end result is usually bad. In the days of Free Preservatives a guy could take a little of this and a little of that and add 30-40 pounds of lean muscle and become a much better hitter but those guys were not changing their STYLE of hitting. None of the big roid guys were ever slap hitters. They just got better at doing what they had been doing (20 HR became 30 or 40+). Even Colvin, who by all accounts has developed naturally, just added more power to a stroke that was already suited for power. Lemahieu all of a sudden pulling the inside pitch would be a huge point of departure for him. All of that said, there are occasions where someone does change their style of hitting with success (Sandberg)--but those changes are rare. Certainly something needs to happen for Lemahieu because, .316 or no, .070 isolated power is awful for a guy who doesn't add OBP, speed and/or defense. But that something could just be a guy who still uses the stroke that got him to where he is but just with some more solid line drives (leading to more 2B, 3B and a small handful of "accidental" HR). If Lemahieu does go all Sandberg on us (or Sandberg Jr. with, say, 16-18 HR) then that is great but highly unlikely. Far more likely in a scenario where Lemahieu is pulling the ball is that he starts pulling outside pitches to the SS (the ones that he used to hit to RF to get his .316 BA) thus lowering his batting average while hitting a few more balls to where the outfielders can't catch them.

As I said, always go BPA and never tie a great talent evaluator's hands. But, when there is a tie, go with the pitcher. You have long stated that drafting pitchers really cost more than drafting hitters because pitchers break down more frequently (leaving the drafting team holding the bag). However, the same applies to free agents and trades--those pitchers break down as well and at the MLB level it cost MUCH more. CC Sabathia is far more likely to break down and give the Yankees nothing for a good portion of his guaranteed contract than Teixeira (and, as discussed, you can't insure a deal like Sabathia's where you can insure a deal like Teixeira's). Losing out on 2-3 $20M seasons from a free agent is FAR more costly than losing out on a $1-5M one-time bonus to a draftee. And, in terms of trades, losing out on a draftee due to injury (say Cashner who signed for $1.54M) cost MUCH less than losing out on a guy you trade for (say Garza). Garza will cost the Cubs $5.95M this season--that's nearly four Cashners. Before being paid a dime by the Cubs, Garza already has cost Hak-Ju Lee, Chris Archer, Brandon Guyer and Robinson Chirinos (who all cost the club bonus money or talent themselves). I am not saying that teams shouldn't trade for pitching or that Garza was a bad deal (that's a different discussion). What I am saying is that the best value for your buck in the draft is pitching BECAUSE of the inherent nature for ALL pitchers to get hurt and lose seasons. One thing you know about a pitching prospect is that if you have a full five-man rotation, a closer and two set up guys already in place then, with a 12-man staff, you definitely STILL have room for your pitching prospect. Part of the Cubs moving Lee was that he has less value to a team with a young, talented SS already in place (Castro). When Colvin proved he was ready in spring training last year he had to be shoehorned into the OF picture. And if Hendry's recruiting pitch of Jackson, Szczur and Colvin is to take place in that time frame you have to find a taker for Soriano in his last year. What if the Cubs sign a Big Bopper for 1B next year? That means that Vitters is 3B or trade bait for the Cubs. Again, none of that is an issue for a pitching prospect because there is always room for a guy when he is ready. That said, a Scouting Director isn't publicly rated on how his system integrates with his team's goals. He is generally rated on how many dudes (and of what quality) he gets to the majors even if the team doesn't have the room to play them (too many 1B, corner OF, etc. at the same time). Again, I am 100% BPA. I am a huge Tim Wilken fan. Never tie that guy's hands. But when you have a tie, draft the pitcher (and sign as many pitchers with superslot money as you can get away with).

Yes he is.

The problem was when Stockstill consistently gambled on known injury risks looking to hit it big. That turns the concept upside down.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but most of those big contracts come with insurance of some kind. Insurers will now only insure the first three, or so, years of a pitcher's contract (and even that far from 100%). Disabling injuries to pitchers are far too prevalent, and goof-ball contracts far too large, for insurers to have any apatite for the market. And it costs many times more to insure a pitcher over a hitter (adding to the disparity between, say, the 7-year 161M ($23M per) contract for CC Sabathia and the 8-year $180M ($22.5M per) contract for Teixeira. I doubt the Yankees have even an inning of Sabathia's contract insured but, if they did, it would make him much more expensive per year than Teixeira.

The A-Rod re-signing deal was worked out prior to his opting out (the Rangers were on the hook for $21.3M and they negotiated that down to $9M--the reason they had negotiating power was because their obligation would have otherwise voided when A-Rod voided his contract). Teams also now have less time for exclusive negotiations. And, seriously, the Cardinals need more time to evaluate what Pujols means to them? The major advantage that the Cardinals have in negotiations with Pujols is the fact that, by voiding 2011, they can offer him a 10-year deal that lasts till he's 41 where other 10-year deals will expire when he is 42. If the Cards cave-in to his demands AFTER the season is over then they just cost them selves a season of $30M to a 42-year old. The one-day extension may be in order to work on a deal or it just might be to keep the press on Stan Musial for a day. But NOT extending him now and then doing so AFTER the season would be really dumb. Really, R_E_A_L_L_Y dumb.

This gives us all of 5 - and only 1 will mean anything after this season. Z has 10/5 rights anyway, Soriano will have 10/5 rights after this year and Kosuke and Shark's contracts are up after this year. So currently on the team we have 2 players with full no trade protection who don't have 10/5 rights - Sori and Shark. Kosuke and Marmol now have limited no trade protection and Z has 10/5 rights. I don't see an issue with NTCs. Exactly. And the INDUSTRY (and not just Hendry) give out NTC. If you draw a line in the sand on NTC then you aren't going to sign good players--especially good players to favorable deals (and this deal is VERY favorable). Hendry just locked up one of Marmol's free agent years for less than what he could have gotten in arb his final year and his second year is well south of what he could have gotten in arb too (Papelbon got 21.35M for his last two years of arb alone). The team could (and should) insure years 2-3. A very good deal.

I think the Cubs should emphasize obscure Division I-AA prospects from Arkansas schools. That way the Cubs can cull the fan base via "Internet related heart attacks" so I can have an easier go at getting tickets... Really, I believe they should just go BPA (with a guy like Tim Wilken you'd be crazy to tie his hands). That said, when there is a tie, always default to the pitcher. While a pitcher may be riskier to draft, they are also riskier to sign to free agent contracts and an injury there is FAR more costly. Drafting a top prospect costs $5-10 million max. That guy blows out his arm and you're out $5-10 million. CC Sabathia blows out his arm and you're out $161 million.

I'm guessing this is partly in response to that Tim Magazine article from a few months ago. My guess is that the Time article may have accelerated the process but that they were headed in this direction any way.

How often(if ever) do the July 2nd signees show up in the US immediately and make an appearance in rookie league ball before they turn 17? Does it ever happen? As for Toonster's question, I think the Cubs will become a bigger presence down there if they're going to spend that type of money on new facilities. I wouldn't really see the point in going this route if you don't honestly. I'm sure they'l still sign a bunch of lower priced guys too and having better facilities and instruction will certainly help with those guys too, but if you're going to spend lavishly on the new digs, you gotta have some bigtime boom or bust talents using them, to make it work, if you ask me. I see them doing the opposite. Their facility is planned to be one where they teach the kids and give them life skills in case they don't make it as pros. There's little advantage to doing that with 1M type guys (especially if they bypass the DSL). That type of facility is, however, perfect for the type of signings that they have been getting. Some kid signs for 25-200K. Teach him baseball, English, how to study and plumbing (or whatever) in case the baseball thing doesn't work out.

Not only did the vast majority of them sign in the past couple of years, they were nearly all around 16 or 17 years old when they signed. It's way too early to judge the impact of those signings. Most of those kids are still 21 or younger. Not vast majority. 14 of those players were signed 2007 or before and that has given them 3 or more seasons to demonstrate something at some level. And even some of the kids signed in 2008 are facing a miracle turnaround to make anything of their careers (much less become successful MLB players). Alvaro Aristy, Roberto De La Cruz, Jharmidy De Jesus and Juan Duran (all 2008 signings and each given first-round money) all need to resurrect their careers really soon. Cub fans get down on guys like Harvey, Pawelek, etc. but those guys were at least gave the Cubs some production. The excuse that these guys all signed young, well, the Cubs sign guys at 16 and 17 for 50-200k all the time and they put up good numbers in their first couple years at the same age (guys like Castro, Lake, Alcantra, Antigua, etc.). For what it's worth, the Cubs Korean kids are signed at 17 and they do far better in their first couple seasons than these much higher priced Latin kids do on the whole. Age is no excuse. When it comes to high priced Latin players the cake is a lie. You can get just as many, if not more, top Latin prospects by scouting well and not getting into bonus wars. The reasons are many but the big reason is that top Latin kids hardly ever play baseball. They run with running coaches, field with fielding coaches, throw with throwing coaches and hit with hitting coaches but they don't play. When the "winning" bidder finally gets them on the field these kids wash out far more than they used to. Gone are the days when Latin kids play all day long. Well, at least the top ones don't. They're too busy beefing up and trying to beef up their bonuses. And all of this throwing and running does nothing to lift their ceilings. It just brings them closer to it. There was a time when a kid down there throwing in the high eighties could be projected to throw harder once you fed him and got him into a program. Now the top guys are all fed (and some are fed steroids) and all in strength programs so they have less room to grow--they are nearer their peaks. The Asian kids? They play all of the time. In fact, they have to get used to playing LESS as pros. As such, they know how to play and they play well.

I think that those who "doubt" Brett Jackson do so because they see a ton of K's and think he has a low floor (ignoring his BB's) and/or they DON'T feel that he has "above average bat potential" because of the Reed Johnson comp. The "comp" to Johnson was, IMO, supposed to be about a guy who busts his but out there on the field and who plays above his speed but that got blown out of proportion into a "4th/5th OF" thing. That kind of thing can scare a guy like Law off... Some scout is comping Brett Jackson to a reserve OF? Time to back off BJ. This just illustrates the vagaries of the whole prospect business. One month Hak-Ju Lee is NOT a plus, plus runner and the next month--without Lee playing a single game anywhere--the same guy says that he is. Or somehow Szcuzr does have plus, plus speed because he is faster than Brian Westbrook (who has never been notably fast). Methinks there's a whole lot of "man behind the curtain" going on with BA, BP, Law, etc. As long as they maintain the mystique then they come off as credible pros. That's why you get couched answers like "every cross checker." How about "I've talked to two cross checkers and..." Given the above I don't doubt that someone like Brett Jackson will show plus power this year and it will get credited to some workout regimen when anyone who has seen video from college or even the minors could tell you that he has real plus power. Maintain the mystique and the man behind the curtain keeps his job.

Heh, so this is a testament to how much damage having a somewhat fast baserunner can have! Watkins' production is demolished because of Lee's speed! Well, Callis is back to Lee having plus, plus speed so you can take the "somewhat" off--it's official. The world can rest on that count. At least until Callis changes his mind again. Regarding the "damage"... The minors is for development. If Watkins is going to amount to anything then he needs to go deeper into counts. If he is going to amount to anything then he needs to learn to sacrifice bunt. If he is going to amount to anything then he needs to learn to hit-and-run. If he is going to amount to anything then he needs to learn to hit with two strikes. More importantly, if Hak-Ju Lee is going to develop into the best player that he can be then other players along the way will need to sacrifice their games. Some players may move off short because of Lee's development. Some players may not be advanced (or be advanced too quickly) because of Lee's development. Some may be asked to bunt a whole lot. Some may be asked to hit-and-run a whole lot. Whatever it takes to force learning to your top prospects. If I had Lee and Watkins at Peoria I would certainly do everything I needed to do to make sure that Lee had numerous opportunities to steal bases, double steal, advance on bunts, run on hit and runs, etc. Just sticking a guy out there for a season isn't sufficient. CREATE those situations. Even at the possible expense of a less valuable prospect (though, in this situation, Watkins learning those skills would be to Watkins' own advantage). This way, when your top prospect gets to Wrigley, he already knows how to play the game instead of bumbling and fumbling around--a novel idea, I know. From everything that I've heard that is what the Cubs love about Kopitzke--he's always teaching.

Craig mentioned the WOW factor in the Szczur write up by Callis. I agree but for a different reason. I expect that he will hit--his collegiate profile (high avg/low K's) followed up by the same for the Cubs means that he gets good, solid contact. I expect that he will have average to above average power--the guy has good size and is, for all intents and purposes, a RB at a major college. Given his ability to catch and track footballs very well I also expect that he will have the eye-brain-hand/foot coordination (kinesthetics) to be a good defender. For me the WOW is the claim of plus, plus speed. I know that there are claims of a 4.3 40 time in high school but, having watched him get caught from behind on several occasions by college DB's, I'm thinking that the 4.49 time that 40-yard-dash-times.com has listed for him is correct. Saying that he is faster than Westbrook was in college isn't an indicator that he is a burner, either. Westbrook ran a 4.57 at the combine. 4.49 speed is good but it isn't plus, plus speed. It's Earl Bennett speed. It's slower than Forte coming out of college (4.44). Maybe the 4.49 time was on an off day. Maybe the times I've seen him he was gimpy. I hope he does have plus, plus speed. But being faster than Westbrook out of college doesn't really say much. I'm hoping that Callis has some hard evidence to back the plus, plus stuff up. That would be awesome.

Second. Lee-Watkins was the regular top of the order. Watkins had more sacrifices than doubles. What really killed him was that his K's went up dramatically. At Boise I recall he had the best K-rate in the league, under 10%. With speed and no K's, you can hit .300 on BABIP alone even without and HR's. But this year his K-rate jumped to almost 19%. When you're whiffing that often, and have a 97K/1HR ratio, it's hard to support a good batting average. 11.2% of his PA were BB this year. That's way up from 8.6% last year. Could be that he figured out that guys who don't hit with power need to get on base. Or perhaps the Cubs told him that they wanted him to take more pitches in front of Lee. Some of his other peripherals have improved along with the BB%. LD% is up significantly (from 9% to 14%) and isolated power is up to .078 from .064. I think rating him so high last year was a mistake, and I hate when BA hangs on to a guy just so they don't look bad, but I agree with keeping him in the top 30. With 18 sacs behind Lee, it looks like Kopitzke was taking matters into his own hands. I wouldn't doubt there were some failed bunts (bad for batting average) and a bit of hit-and-run action to go along with taking more pitches than he was used to.

Does anyone know where Watkins batted in the order for most of last year (or did he move around in the order)?

Baseball America isn't geared towards the common fan. People who suscribe to the magazine already have a great deal of interest in the minor leagues.... How does one become a person with great interest in the minor leagues? You start by being a common fan. Then you read something on the Internet or pick up a baseball magazine geared toward prospects. BA has always been more than just for the hardcore prospect fan. BA tries to build its base by CREATING hardcore prospect fans. If a newby grabs a magazine and sees something that he is somewhat familiar with yet still interested in learning more about (like a first round pick who already has had lots of local press) then he is more likely to buy the magazine. If it is all Greek to him then he reads Maxim. The first round pick is someone that a fan wants to know more about. Both a newby and a hardcore fan have an interest in the first round pick. The fan may already know about the prospects that have been around the block (if he/she is already hardcore) but he/she wants to know even more about this top pick that everyone keeps talking about. BA promises that they have "inside info" if I pay for the subscription, so... That is why the top ten list always gets the first rounder--he's free press for BA. I've been reading BA for nearly 30 years. The editors are not swayed every time some failing Scouting Director says, "No, really, this draft pick is actually good" unless other scouts from other teams agree (and even then it isn't the Director's gush but the other scouts opinions that rule). Simply put, based on virtually all the other things that the BA staff heard, they could have written WTF over Simpson's name. That would have sold a few papers but it would have lost BA all access to all Cub scouts, managers and front office personnel. Given that they depend on those people for "insight" into the Cubs, Baseball America made the right move in playing down the middle: "They project him as a No. 2 or 3 starter with four average or better pitches, including a knee-buckling curveball, hard slider and effective changeup, not to mention plus control and command. Other teams don't rate his stuff quite as highly and think he'll have to add life to his fastball and work lower in the strike zone. They also wonder if he has the size to hold up as a starter, though Chicago thinks his athleticism will help in that regard." So, Chicago really likes him/other teams think they pulled a boner. "We put him in the top ten" so, if he is a success then we don't look stupid. But we also said that other teams don't like him so we can point out that we said other teams don't like him if he falters. Typical CYA. Craig suggested that it is good and refreshing to see that the BA staff can learn/change positions. Did they? Where is the "We really missed on this one?" Nowhere to be found. Again, just CYA. Two things you don't hear from BA--"We were wrong" and "X team is wrong." Take CNBC or Fox Business. They have reputations to uphold in regard to the markets but they also are in the broadcast business and their shows had better draw viewers or they're out of business. Sometimes they cover things for their reputation's sake (good solid financial reporting) and sometimes they cover things for their ratings (let's work this missing Natalee Holloway girl into a story about slowing tourism in Aruba). Sometimes you just can't do both very well. BA is the same way. Sometimes they may run something for their street cred and sometimes they push Matt Bush as a legitimate number one overall pick (over Jeff Niemann, Stephen Drew, and Jered Weaver) to sell magazines.

I think it's partly just a reflection of what BA is. It isn't a scouting org, it's basically a go-between that has access to scouts and passes on what scouts tell them. A guy doesn't make #1 pick without the scouts for that team believing. So when BA is reflecting what the scouts think, how can a 1st-round guy not make a top ten? BA talks to most managers who watch the players play, scouts from most teams and some front office people. As Callis said above, the list is BA's not the Cubs. If all of this was just 30 teams selling their guys to BA then, well, that would reflect even more poorly on BA. BA claims that they get input from outside sources. Folks who see a guy play. I believe them. Given that other teams see guys you'd have to figure that occasionally a team's top pick--even a second rounder--wouldn't be precisely in their top ten because other teams didn't like the guy that they all passed over until the second round. The cynic's theory just needs the top pick--the one with the local publicity--to make the top ten list. "Oooh, that guy is in the top ten? He was just drafted and in the news and I don't know enough about him. I'm gonna subscribe!" It's marketing pure and simple. Sell what is already hot. Top draft picks come with ready made publicity.

The Nomar deal took a month, if not more... the Harden deal was talked about for a couple weeks. Nomar was rumored as moving for about two weeks. He was traded July 31st and the original rumor had the Sox getting back Randy Johnson in mid-July. RJ is what held that up not what Hendry offered (RJ wasn't a final part of the deal). That wound up being a four-team deal--those take time--but what Hendry was paying for Nomar never seemed an issue. Harden went down the day after MIL got CC Sabathia (July 7th and 8th). Hendry was trying to get Sabathia as well and when that fell through he went to plan B--Harden. That's one day, not two weeks. Neither of those deals d r a g g e d on for months like Roberts and Peavy and, now, potentially Garza. Hendry will, and has, waited for free agents and even free agent managers. But if a potential trading partner is waiting on Hendry to sweeten the pot then he's likely not going to get it done.

Like Caesar as in Julius.

The cynic in me agrees. A given team's top pick always makes their list. Even when the Cubs didn't have a #1 pick in the 2004 draft, Grant Johnson still made the list. The cynic in me says that this helps sell subscriptions--a given team's fan wants to see his team's top pick in there. The cynic also tells me that this is a good way for BA to cover its behind (sure we were onto Simpson--we had him rated in the top 10 of the 8th rated team). The cynic also says that rating him ahead of Guyer is only because Guyer isn't that hyped at this point. They can be "on" both guys. The cynic in me thinks that the Szczur may have been a bit of quid pro quo (the Cubs need Szczur to see that he has a legit future in baseball to entice him to sign and a good ranking does that while BA really wants access to Tim Wilken, Jim Hendry, Marla Collins...). The non-cynic in me... Is rather quiet right now.

I am actually moving over here from another board that got kind of tired. I made up my mind last night when I read that some of the folks over here don't revere Steve Stone. :wink:

I agree. By far the most important tool is hitting for average. If a guy can bat .280-290 he can play any just about any position in MLB and start on a good team. If a guy can't hit for a decent average, he'll need some other really special tools to play. The second most important tool is defense (and, specifically, defense at key positions). Defense is, after all, half of the game. Power would be the third most important tool but guys don't hit 50-60 HR anymore so speed is more important relative to power than it used to be--especially useful speed. I disagree. Pierre had one total HR in 1,305 minor league AB. He was never anything but a slap hitter. Lee does slap at the ball in an Ichiro fashion (though not all of the time). Ichiro has averaged 9 HR. My guess for Lee is 5-10 HR a year with decent (30) doubles. It is telling that Lee's isolated power through his first two seasons (.076) is better than Pierre's in either of his first two seasons (.050 and .062) or in his minor league career overall (.070). Even though Lee is working out this off-season (and has added 10 pounds) power is not Lee's game but comps to Pierre undersell his current and future ability. A couple points, first, Pierre was a college draftee out of a four-year college. He played his first season at 20/21 (NWL) and his second at 21/22 (SAL). Lee played the same levels out of high school and less physically advanced (18 all year in the NWL and 19 all year in MWL). One would expect a college player to have a much better grasp of stealing bases and of being more physically mature than a kid straight of of high school. Second, SB is just one aspect of usable speed. Speed also plays a useful part in disrupting defenses (errors, fielders playing in, pitcher focus, making bunts easier, advancing extra bases when not bunted, etc.). This argument is used quite a bit. Not just for Lee, or even for SB, but in general ("if so-and-so can't do X in the minors..."). But it really doesn't comport with the development schedule of players. For instance, Hak-Ju Lee was comped to Jose Reyes (with less power) by Frankie Piliere (a former trained MLB scout). Now everyone knows that Jose Reyes had true plus, plus speed. Guess how many SB he was limited to "in a full minor league season by A-ball catchers and pitchers who haven't fully developed their ability to hold runners and deliver quickly to the plate"? Exactly 30. The year before in rookie ball he had only 10. So he had 40 SB (and 14 CS for a 70.7%) in his first two years. Lee has had 57 SB (and 15 CS for a 79.2%) in his first two years. Does this mean that Lee is faster? No. It means that you can make too much of the A-ball pitchers and catchers argument--it really doesn't tell us anything. Different development tracts take different guys in differing directions. Sometimes a guy just doesn't steal as much as he could because the team wants him to learn regular base running first, or he's batting ahead of a guy that they don't want being pitched around, or the team is cautious of him blowing out his hamstring, or his minor league manager isn't too keen on SB, he's shy, or whatever. If I had to guess I'd say the fact that Peoria is a cold-weather team and concerns of Lee going all Soriano and busting up his hammy played a part but that is just conjecture. Finally, no one scores a 36 on the ACT or a 2400 on the SAT by mistake. Those same people can have bad days and score 30 or 2100 (or even lower) but to score a 36 (or 35 or 34, etc.) on the ACT or a 2400 (or 2350 or 2300, etc.) means that you are that bright--you didn't "luck" into it. A similar thing happens with prospects. A scout for the Tigers sees a kid and he's a bit off. His FB is slower or he isn't as smooth around the bag or he can't hit the ball passed the warning track in BP or maybe he isn't running his best. But another scout sees him on a different day and, BAM!, he's got it all together. That scout saw the kid's real ability. The other guy just saw him on a bad day. This leads to Lee. An actual former scout saw Lee and he had a stop watch and knows what speed is. He saw him plenty and he liked his speed plenty (70-80). Just like the ACT you don't luck into speed. You can hit a mistake or dribble three "hits" passed the SS but you can't luck into being faster. http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/10/full-scouting-report-cubs-prospect-hak-ju-lee/

My assumption with Lake is that he fixed the hitch in his swing (too much load) that the Cubs were working with him at least back to '09. Reports were that you could see both numbers on his back when he loaded up his swing. Brett Jackson had a similar (but not as drastic) hitch before he was drafted and he fixed it in a few weeks after he was told what to fix (the reason that Vitters is considered to have a great swing is that he has almost zero load and can still hit for power). Having such a long swing meant that Lake could hit a ball a country mile if he could ever connect but he rarely did. To compensate he had to swing earlier and that made him susceptible to breaking pitches thus the low BB's and high K's. The good thing is that Lake fixed the problem. The bad thing is that it took so long. Regardless, going into their Mesa years, Lake and Castro were both highly considered athletes with Lake edging Starlin out. That says a lot because Castro is a good athlete. But the two things that make Starlin a plus at SS are his ability to hit for high average and his defense (quickness, natural ability at SS and strong accurate arm). Lake is faster and likely has a stronger throwing arm but SS is about quickness not speed and, as Craig alluded to, strong arms need to be accurate and have a quick release to be effective. Lake has never been described as natural at SS (or any position). As such I really don't see Lake ever moving Starlin Castro off SS but there are credible observers who think that Lee has the potential to move Castro. Reports are that, at a minimum, Lee's defense is plus, his arm is plus and his speed is plus. Three of Lee's five traditional tools are not just MLB average (a five-tool player need only have 50's across the board) but at least plus. Frankie P (a trained scout) has Lee's defense at plus, plus and his speed at plus, plus. So, in a head-to-head comparison Lee is significantly better in defense and speed. (Lake may have potential in both but Lee is WAY ahead). For instance, in 1,025 AB, Lake has just a 35/18 (66.0%) SB record while Lee is 57/15 (79.2%) in 749 AB. In similar AB Lee would have 78 SB (more than double that of Lake and at a much higher percentage). Lee also is exceptionally quick to 1B per reports such that he disrupts defenses. He has very usable speed. Power would obviously go to Lake. Lee is reportedly working on strength this off-season but that won't add 10-15 HR. Lake isn't a thumper by any means but he has significantly more power than Lee who, while not a Juan Pierre-style pure slap hitter, just doesn't have power as a main feature to his game. That leaves hitting: When discussing Lee's potential to hit for high average many bring up his propensity to draw decent walks and, as a result, K more. However, his K rate has gone down from his first pro year (16.4%) to his second (15.7%). Neither is a high total. I'm not sure why Lee gets a rap as a high K guy--perhaps because he leads off and his K totals wind up being higher than if he batted 3rd or 6th or 8th. And a fast, left-handed batter will have more infield hits (resulting, if you're into that kind of thing, a higher BABIP). On the other hand, Lake, even in his good months of June, July and August, K'd at a 27.6%, 16.8% and 23.1% rates and those are serious improvements. Each significantly worse than either Lee season. I believe that not only is Lee more likely to hit at a good enough average to be a productive MLB player but I believe that Lee has MUCH more potential to hit for a high average than Lake. During his hot stretch in the second half, Lake's best monthly batting average was .302. Lee's best average was .345 and that on the heals of a .330 season in Boise. So for me, though I like Lake's potential, I still feel that Lee out paces him in terms of floor AND ceiling. As such I rank Lee much higher than Lake and wouldn't be interested in trading Lee unless I was blown away. Right now I'd score it DEFENSE: Lee (considerable advantage), SPEED: Lee (considerable advantage), BATTING AVERAGE: Lee (considerable advantage), ARM: Lee--but potential toss up, POWER: Lake (considerable advantage).