toonsterwu

Well, LaRoche is an ... interesting case. Before that, let me note, would I be disappointed if Rizzo became LaRoche-ish? Probably, even though my expectations for him have never been as high as others. I'm simply saying that, as a middle tier comp, I don't think LaRoche is that unrealistic. But in terms of LaRoche's WAR (fangraphs) - early in his career, UZR treated him very poorly, even though, to the best of my recollection, I think he was a better defensive player then than now, when UZR is treating him fairly well. But now that the defensive metrics have come around, he's also running into age. Last year, he was banged up and the offense never got going. Then, there was also the fact that, for awhile, LaRoche was a notorious 2nd half hitter (I think ...) who got off to slow starts, which impacted things. I think he's on pace for a 3 WAR season, but everyone expects him to cool off a bit in the 2nd half, so we'll have to wait and see where he lands on the WAR scale. Anyhow, the comparison wasn't made in respect to whether or not this would be disappointing. It was made in respect to what I think a possible middle-of-the-road comparison might be (and I did say he should be better than LaRoche).

I wouldn't call LaRoche the floor either. I'd call LaRoche a middle-of-the-road comp on what Rizzo might be. People seem to have this negative impression of LaRoche's career. It hasn't been a great career, but he's been a very productive first baseman, whose defensive UZR numbers would look a lot better if it wasn't for the 2005 stats.

Again ... I didn't say I expected that ... I said at the very least ... solid defensive first baseman, good power, solid disciplined approach at the plate. I sure hope I'm wrong, and Rizzo becomes an elite dominant slugger, but LaRoche still seems like a decently middle tier comp, albeit, 20 pounds or so lighter.

Off the top, I'd probably slap a top 10 (and this isn't one of my pre-typed posts, making this up as I go along) (agree with your top 4 davell) 1. Anthony Rizzo. Still not sure he's going to be this elite, dominant slugger ... but he should, at the very least, be Adam LaRoche-ish, and probably a tick better. He really has nothing left to prove in the PCL. 2. Javier Baez - More out of default (that said, he wouldn't fall below 3) because while I tend to think that this is a slump for Brett Jackson,it's been such a bad, bad streak that it's hard to justify him here. That said, Baez looks like, as of now, that he might be able to be at short, and his power may be the best of the top tier bats. 3. Brett Jackson - Still a likely decent-solid defensive CF for perhaps his cost-controlled/team-controlled years, and should get on base and hit for enough power. The K's have been ghastly during this poor run, though. Small Gap 4. Matt Szczur - Discipline improvements and readiness kick him up a notch. Will he be able to hit for more power? 5. Marco Hernandez - I had him high pre-season ... and his May was enough for me to not drop him as of now. Yes, there are some concerns, particularly on the discipline front, and some platoon issues. But this is still a kid with plus defensive potential, loads of bat speed, and raw tools that could develop. Another gap 6. Ben Wells - Perhaps a bit shocking, and admittedly, my personal bias may factor in (as it's been well known how high I've been on him). But ... he seems to be commanding things better. The breaking ball seems to be more consistent, although whether or not the quality is consistently better, I don't have enough to know about right now. The K rate is up, the BB rate is down. He's still getting a high clip of ground balls. 7. Welington Castillo - I don't think he's passed rookie limits just yet. If he has, then forget about it. If he hasn't reached it yet, he's still an upper level, close to ready catcher with some defensive ability and power. I'll tag an eleventh guy on in case I'm mistaken. 8. Dillon Maples - Gets some benefit of the doubt, partly because no one else has really stepped forward. Still ... would like to hear about him throwing sooner than later. 9. Trey McNutt - I defended him hard last year, but the pitch counts are still high and he ran into blister issues again this year. The consistency of stuff doesn't seem to be there to be a starter. 10. Junior Lake - I'm hesitant to raise him up a level (meaning, put him at 6 for me), for now, as I want to see if this newfound discipline can stick. If it does, and if he can still produce offensively, then sure, he's much higher, as the tools have always been there. 11. Josh Vitters - Could probably make a case for him at 6. The discipline is marginally improved. Can he finally have an extended hot streak? Let's see, what would go next 12. Jeimer Candelario - I contemplated him higher, but some positional uncertainty and the power probably still more projection kicks him down. 13. Dae-Eun Rhee - Is this ... 2010? Or is this ... 2011 Rhee, the one that was hot and cold early in the year? Too early to tell, but too early for me to kick him down too far. 14. Arismendy Alcantara - Has probably taken Rubi Silva's spot as the breakout guy in the first half. Is this a kid putting it together, learning to be more disciplined (K rate down, BB rate up in May), or is this just another of his hot streak (I recall a hot run for him last year as well, though I have to double-check the numbers)? Could make a case for him a few spots down as well. 15. Robert Whitenack - Bad first start aside, he's made it back sooner than expected, and the improved velocity of last year seems to still be there. Could make the case for him a few spots higher ... and maybe even lower ... so this seemed okay. 16. Jose Rosario - He's really had a superb May. I'm not sure he's definitely a starter, but there's every reason to be excited and intrigued with his raw stuff. 17. Alberto Cabrera - And my faith in Cabrera ... as a pen arm ... is ... sorta paying off. IMO, best late inning pen prospect (that is currently in the pen) in the system. 18. Jae-Hoon Ha - There are moments where I just want to bag on him. It's just frustrating sometimes. And then there's moments where I remind myself that it's his age 21 season in AA, that he's shown some ability/potential in CF, and that his BB rate has increased in May, power has increased in May, and K rate has declined a bit in May. 19. Dan Vogelbach - Could make a case for him a few spots higher ... 20. Gerardo Concepcion - Guess I'll give him a pedigree positioning in the top 20. 21. Michael Jensen - A few weeks ago, he would've been far higher for me. He isn't getting as many ground balls in May, and it's a significant enough drop to give me some pause. ____ That'd be a rough top 20. I'll give it some thoughts later. As I finish, I realize that Adrian Cardenas is probably still prospect eligible, but where do I place him? Probably somewhere in the top 20, but not sure. Will ponder later. I thought about Amaya, but right now, he seems to project like ... Adrian Cardenas ... and I'm not sure that gets him into the top 20 yet. Kyler Burke, Ronald Torreyes, and Rubi Silva were all probably "close". Torreyes' concern is clear as day - I mean, there's enough reasons to think he might turn it around, but you have to hit ... something, and I was never as high on him as others, so dropping him off the top 20 is fine for me. Is Kyler a starter? Is he a power lefty starter? Seems like a lot of gun readings this spring put him more in that 89-92 range. I gave long thought to putting Silva on, but the complete collapse in discipline, as evidenced by the bottoming out of the walk rate, was just too much. Chris Rusin was awfully close as well, but the BB rate has picked up enough to bother me, and BABIP suggests some level of luck so far. Let's see, who else. Beeler was in my top 20 pre-season ... but he hasn't generated a high enough GB rate to "Chien-Ming Wang" his way into the top 20 with a low K rate. Sliding Golden off for now because of the injury. Lost season. I can definitely understand Beliveau as top 20. He was top 20 on my winter list ... but I've never loved putting middle relievers in my top 20. And well, if I can't put Beliveau there, then Antigua (who was 23rd in the winter for me), isn't making it. Kirk/Raley are still a notch below Rusin on my totem pole, as soft-tossing lefties, so I left them off. Francescon, much as I've supported him, still isn't a lock to be a starter, so was tough for me to rationalize him as top 20. Matt Loosen probably enters in the discussion in the 21-30 rank. If he keeps up his velocity and shows well in Tennessee, he could go higher, but he could also slip down a bit if things falter. I can see a case for Rhoderick top 20, but I don't think he's a closer, and as such, it's hard for me, personally, to justify him up there. But sure, I can understand Rhoderick top 20. He's been that good to start the year, and has an outpitch, something too few of the guys in the big league pen have. That said, the gap from 6-30 isn't that wide for me. Just realized Clevenger might still be rookie eligible ... too lazy to check right now. Completely forgot about Concepcion. That's probably way too high for Alcantara as I take a look at it again. But ... I'm not sure who else to slide in there? Maybe Vogelbach on pedigree. Maybe Rosario on potential.

Let's wait and see on Baez's ability to stick at short, but one thing I would note is that, I'd potentially rather have Baez at 3rd and Vitters in LF. Much as Vitters has improved at the hot corner, he's still, at best, an average defender at 3rd, and probably a tick below average. Of course, Baez could go to 2nd (but there's a lot of system options there), and his arm should be good enough to be a stud in RF.

Interesting ... isn't Buxton viewed as having potential plus power? Are they projecting plus-plus power for Correa, or is this a case of, we like his power slightly better?

It's from May 18th. UK, is that your own mock, by any chance? davell, I think that was the perfectgame mock draft.

Rondon is flat out filthy. Best pitcher I saw in the college ranks this year. Honestly, if he was draft-eligible, I think he'd go 1-1. Here's hoping he stays healthy the next few years. Shame that he isn't eligible next year ... ______ As for me, the UVA regional looks decent for UVA (plus ... it wouldn't surprise me if Clemson knocked off South Carolina in their regional). As a UVA fan, my only concern is a big one, though. I feel fairly comfortable about our chances with Kline and Artie Lewicki, who has come on strong of late, but the Silverstein slot is troubling. I really wouldn't mind it if O'Connor and Co. moved Lewicki to Friday to set up Kline in a potentially pivotal game against Oklahoma, and then hope you can mix and match for one more win. The offense is going to have to come through, and Crockett/Thompson are going to have to be on top of their game.

I'm sort of leaning towards the Almora boat these days between the two. I don't mind Correa, and I tend to think that they'll likely take an arm if there's one that they like, but with Baez deserving time at short, Alcantara still hitting (but the power has dipped) in A+, Marco likely headed to Boise, and Carlos Penalver somewhere, the SS depth in the system is as good, if not better, than when Castro/Lee/Lake were working their way up. By the time Almora would be ready (and this is hoping he develops positively), Matt Szczur would be in his late 20's, along with Brett Jackson. Correa is clearly a better prospect than Almora, you have to go BPA. If he has moved that far ahead (and I have been too busy to follow) then sure, correa sounds great. Still cannot believe that appel could go 1-1.

All in all, if there is a pitcher with a close grade, or better, I get the feeling we may go that route. But sitting at where we pick, we're at the mercy of those ahead.

craig, I don't have an answer for you right now on the first part. Only thing I can say is that I think he's got more ability as a left-handed hitter, from what I've seen. And yes, I read the AzPhil stuff on Baez. I tend to think that AzPhil has talked to some Cubs folks before (based on some of his commentary in the past), although I don't know if he's ever explicitly said so). Like I said in the pm, I've come around on the idea that Baez has the raw tools to stay at short. I think we do have to wait and see how Baez develops physically and mentally, but there's no doubt he has the potential. And I don't think the Xander Boegaerts comp I made once is fair (although Boston fans are still gushing over Boegaerts potential to stay at short ... I saw Xander this year, and he's a big, big dude, I'm going to be surprised if Xander stays at short).

I'm sort of leaning towards the Almora boat these days between the two. I don't mind Correa, and I tend to think that they'll likely take an arm if there's one that they like, but with Baez deserving time at short, Alcantara still hitting (but the power has dipped) in A+, Marco likely headed to Boise, and Carlos Penalver somewhere, the SS depth in the system is as good, if not better, than when Castro/Lee/Lake were working their way up. By the time Almora would be ready (and this is hoping he develops positively), Matt Szczur would be in his late 20's, along with Brett Jackson. That sounds good, but that's not a real draft strategy when you're nowhere close to an elite team. That said, Correa becoming a top 4 guy as the draft process went on (and the draft got more exposed as mediocre at best) rather than starting off as one does have me a little leery. Sure, if Correa has a significantly higher grade than Almora, then no question about it ... he should be the pick if the Cubs choose between the two. If it's close, though, I'd rather go after a position with slightly more questions in the lower levels (granted, there's some promising CF ... raw talent ... in the lower levels as well).

I'm sort of leaning towards the Almora boat these days between the two. I don't mind Correa, and I tend to think that they'll likely take an arm if there's one that they like, but with Baez deserving time at short, Alcantara still hitting (but the power has dipped) in A+, Marco likely headed to Boise, and Carlos Penalver somewhere, the SS depth in the system is as good, if not better, than when Castro/Lee/Lake were working their way up. By the time Almora would be ready (and this is hoping he develops positively), Matt Szczur would be in his late 20's, along with Brett Jackson.

rather than a quote block, this is in reference to craig's post first off, i should be very clear. I just don't like the timing of it. By no means am I trying to suggest that Marco should have some priority over Javier. Though I still have some lingering doubts that Baez sticks at short long term, he's done enough to warrant sticking there for now and might have a bit of "starlin castro" in him (guy with all the tools to play short, but whether he develops the consistency, as Starlin has this year, is the question), and his offensive upside is that great. Anyhow, in regards to discipline, I was simply referring to the statistical numbers and some assessments about how he's settled down. Mostly the statistical side, though. He K'd 27.7% of the time in April ... in May, that number came down to 19.5%. The BB rate took a miniscule jump from 4.8% to 5.7%. I had heard that, in April, he was reaching for pitches and seeming a bit antsy and aggressive at the plate, and that of late, he was a lot more relaxed at the plate and not reaching as much. And yes, in the grand scheme of things, this isn't the biggest deal. Marco will still be playing short on a regular basis. He's still awfully young, so that if he reaches Peoria in 2013, he'd still be a bit young for the level. Perhaps those that are watching him daily have seen some things that could be corrected (for example, I think he has a better power approach as a lefty, but I also think that, when he swings as a lefty, the swing is a bit loopy). The fact that the organization wants to keep him at short is a big thing. Last year, I know there were some snippets of folks (azPhil comes to mind) that questioned his ability to stick there. It also really wouldn't surprise me if Marco is back at Peoria later this year.

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.

Phrasing it as a question simply made it the passive aggressive form of attack I think it was intended to be. Personally...and this is just me...I'm highly unlikeable...I think you've been passive aggressively attacking Concepcion in this therad since I stated my distaste for Loosen even being said to have the ceiling of a mid-rotation guy. I'm highly unlikeable so maybe I'm just imagining it...but that's totally how it reads to me. Then you are simply reading something that isn't there, and like you said, imagining something. Most of the time, I am fairly clear about what I am talking about. I may be wrong a lot, but I try to be clear on what I say. I don't get too emotional on sports forums - if you think I am passive aggressive now, it's more frustration with the fact that you didn't really read what I wrote, and assumed something was there that wasn't. Part of the reason I write so much is so that there won't be a misunderstanding on what I am saying. Doesn't always happen, and mistakes are made, but I've been fairly clear on several things in this thread a) I was talking about how scouts define a mid-rotation starter b) I never stated Loosen had a higher ceiling. In fact, early on in this thread, I said Concepcion probably had the higher ceiling. Furthermore, even as I argued the positives of Loosen, I also added that Concepcion had the higher ceiling, just that I didn't think the gap was that wide. c) I was not saying I expect them to reach the bigs, to dominate the upper levels, or whatever. Again ... just talking purely on scouting reports out there right now. Furthermore, I specifically stated we have to wait and see how Loosen's stuff plays up in AA. _____ I've never actually been against the Concepcion signing either. I wasn't in love with it, but from the Transactions thread, I wrote from the minor league forum on BA and BP top prospects, I wrote If I don't like something, I'm much more explicit about it. Off the top, from recent vintage, from the beginning, I said I wasn't as high on Torreyes. I also didn't love Travis Wood, and I made that clear (although, as a return for Sean Marshall, this trade was fine ... and I could be very wrong on that one, a lot of glowy stuff on Travis Wood these days ... another guy with a mid-rotation ceiling). _____ Again, you are reading something that isn't there. If I have an issue in this thread, it's that you are putting words in my mouth that I never stated at all. If you want to question what I've heard, fair game. If you want to question whether or not minor league radar guns are accurate, fair game. But I was fairly specific about what I was discussing in this thread, and where we diverged, for lack of a better term.

Uh, WSR, no way am I putting Loosen anywhere near Tommy Hanson category. Hanson always had some hype.

I don't think our scouts have done anything to warrant trust yet. I skeptical, but not doubtful, if that makes sense. Really as a total aside, but I think most of the scouting staff is probably still in place from the past. They've added to it, but I don't recall a wholesale changing of the scouting staff. Maybe I'm mistaken on this one. I think our FO deserves the benefit of the doubt (much as I've questioned McLeod's tenure as Padres Scouting Director), partly because they bring a new, much needed approach, and also because it's year 1. Benefit of the doubt obviously doesn't equate into trust, though.

Concepcion's pedigree, which I can pretty much trust to be real, blows Loosen's out of the water. To me, this kind of stuff matters. It matters alot. The fact that you're even putting them on the same plane is ridiculous to me. I'd like the reports of his mechanics being terrible...And again, reports were mighty positive about him until the second he inked that contract with the Cubs...so pardon me if I'm leery of what is essentially noise coming out of the first two months of his American pro career...noise from people who've been knocking his signing since he got the money, and who suddenly forgot that during the process there were reports of hitting 92-93...as a projectable teenager with no real weight training or MLB conditioning program of any kind...already holding his own as a pro in a county that is pretty good at playing baseball. All of a sudden he's getting money for the sake of spending money...and you wonder why I'm talking about a mini-leash? Again, really? Did you even read my entire comment on that one? Here Where the heck did I say they were spending money for spending money's sake? Furthermore, the 2nd part of the post was partially (admittedly, not wholeheartedly) defending him. Actually, if you read the Concepcion comments I've made before, I've consistently said that I imagine this to be akin to say ... the Hayden SImpson scenario ... where the Cubs saw Concepcion (and Simpson) on a really good day, and others perhaps saw him on his more mediocre days.

Already linked a pre-draft look...You would think for a guy you claim has #3 SP upside at the ML level that he'd be able to dominate A/A+ hitters with this slider. His K rates are nothing to brag about, and you would expect that from a 23 year old in High A for the second time with a supposed above average to plus ML pitch. Soooooo...I'm calling bs. Wait all you want, but I expect you'll be disappointed with your claims. It's not an aside. Yes, I would go with 93-96 which is not 93-94. That...person is very easily amused. I would say that about somebody in the majors, maybe, since 95+ consistently is no joke at that level (no innings limits, not as severe with the pitch counts, best competition, etc). I'm not defining anything, but I know a pitcher who can be a mid-rotation starter when I read/see one. Matt Loosen is not that. I have never lied to myself about Nick Struck either. OTOH, if I was to bet money on which one becomes a #3 starter at the highest level between Struck and Loosen, it would be Struck by miles and miles. Struck, to me, was a guy who they liked how he was throwing, saw him performing well, Cubs figured he could handle moves/had good makeup/maturity, and the Cubs also figured they could use the press of a 21 year old arm making it to AAA so quickly. Right place, right time, and the abilities to make the situation work out well enough that nobody complained. I have no clue what makes you think Concepcion needs his mechanics overhauled. The guy hasn't even been stateside for two full months yet. Is there just a thing for short RH starters pitching below their age level with what, in the majors, is non-exceptional stuff? Is this their weekend or something? Francescon is almost a non-entity to me as far as long term rotation options in this minor league systems go. a) What am I waiting on, exactly? I said that he had end of the rotation ability, with a mid-rotation ceiling. I didn't say he was going to reach the majors. I didn't say he would dominate the upper levels (and I was very specific on that one). Again ... I don't know what you are reading ... but what I am waiting on? b) So if 93-96 is mid-90's ... what I am wrong again? I got reports of 93/94, which ... and if I'm somehow mistaken here, please let me know ... falls between 93-96. If you want to challenge the people that I've heard from ... okay. That's fair game, and I don't comment on that. But strictly from uh ... counting perspective ... what I am wrong on again? c) Okay, so that's where we're running into issues. I'm talking about how scouts define a mid-rotation arm. I'm not saying Loosen or Concepcion will be a mid-rotation arm (or even Struck ... the one big plus in Struck's favor is his makeup). I'm talking about whether or not they fit what scouts define as a mid-rotation ceiling. Your talking ... gut feel, I guess. d) I can't share private emails, but I know there was an online report somewhere that said Concepcion's mechanics needed a lot of work. Maybe over-hauled was a bit harsh, but the mechanics are something that's been brought up. I'll try to dig around for it later. e) So ... at the end of the day, the big issue in this discussion is that I'm talking about what scouts define as a mid-rotation arm, and you're talking about gut feel on what a mid-rotation arm should be. And to be clear, I've repeatedly said ceiling. Like with the last discussion, few guys reach their ceilings, and I've specifically noted that in this discussion.

I wouldn't go that far. It might've been a factor, but I doubt they'd throw around that much money unless they saw something they liked. And I imagine that's what happened in this scenario - they saw Concepcion, perhaps on a really good day, while others perhaps saw him on his down days.

Did you even read my first comment? I said both seem like end of the rotation arms, with mid-rotation ceilings? How is that giving Concepcion a mini-leash? Hell ... I thought that was awfully nice of me, what with a) Reports that his mechanics are horrible b) Reports that he has no feel on his secondary stuff c) Reports that his fastball is only topping out at 90 ... and sits in the upper 80;s Really, how the heck do you read what I typed above as giving Concepcion a mini-leash compared to giving Loosen a big pat on the back? Read the first dang comment I typed ... I said I thought both were end of the rotation types with mid-rotation ceilings.

I don't know what reports you had on Loosen from the draft year, but the stuff from Jacksonville that year, and people that followed the team that year, said Loosen had an above average slider that showed well, and that it might get better as he got more work with it. The stuff I've heard in the past year and change suggest that the slider is still above average to plus, and that A/A+ hitters have had problems with his out-pitch. Like I noted above, I certainly think we have to wait and see how things play as he moves up another level, but I see no problems with calling the pitch an above-average to plus slider right now, as I've heard that consistently. As an aside, what exactly do you define as mid-90's? When I talk ... to people ... they always say 93-96, hence why I have no qualms in saying a guy hitting 93/94 is hitting mid-90's (as a breakdown, anything past 96, I've always associated with high 90's, but one ... person said to me once that he called 95+ as high 90's, and 90-92 would be low 90's). Also, what are you defining as mid-rotation upside? Classic mid-rotation upside, scouting report wise, is what, one plus pitch, 2 average pitches, average command? Now, if the slider is more average than above average, then no, Loosen doesn't have a mid-rotation ceiling. But, for now, I'll go with what I've heard so far. (as a comparison, much as I tooted Struck's horn in the past, Struck really doesn't have a mid-rotation ceiling ... he's just so young that I keep hoping something will turn, for the positive, for him, but the stuff doesn't really justify a mid-rotation ceiling label on Struck, which I've admittedly put on him in the past). That's all that I'm talking about when I say that Loosen has mid-rotation ceiling (if you note my first comment, I said both Loosen and Concepcion seem like end of the rotation arms ... and the more I hear about Concepcion, the more I think he should be in XST to get his mechanics overhauled). Now, I know some folks make adjustments on scouting reports at times - for example, if a guy has plus-plus command, they might bend the definition on a mid-rotation starter even if the stuff isn't there. I know some have said that plus makeup for them can help overcome concerns in other areas. For example, let's take a "hot" arm from this year in Francescon. I don't think anyone anticipates that he'll be a legitimate mid-rotation arm in the bigs unless everything clicks right. But if he does? Yeah, that's a possible mid-rotation ceiling, since the change is viewed as an above average to plus pitch, and there have been positive enough reports on the slider this year to go with the average fastball.

Still listed on the Daytona roster ... why? Is there some news on the wire/twitter?

Here's the thing - what if everyone was right ... and the Cubs simply over-sold Concepcion? Didn't BA say end of the rotation, at best? Fringe stuff, with some projection ( I mean, based on the reports of his stuff right now ... we aren't talking about a arm with good ML potential ... average fastball, below average curve/change, mechanical problems)? (too lazy to check right now, but that was loosely my recollection on what they said). Wasn't Concepcion's best asset supposed to be his "makeup", and not his "stuff"? Didn't a lot of people say this was spending money for spending money's sake, since the new rules were coming in? All that said, while I was never as enthused about the signing as some, I'll defend it some and say that I think I expect that he'll probably adjust some. I think it's a positive that his fastball is actually hitting 90 at times, not the 86-88 some had. I think it's a positive that Concepcion supposedly gets very good action on the 2-seamer (heard that somewhere). Now, supposedly, the breaking ball and changeup are junk right now, and there's been several reports that he has a lot of work to do mechanically, but there's some positives to think that he might be able to adjust and be somewhat productive at some point.