Two things excited me about DK's chat at BA
by Roberto on Jan 12, 2011 11:39 PM EST
Email
PrintFirst, when asked a question about Rudy Owens, Dejan replied that Owens was really hard to assess. In talking to scouts, Dejan got different perceptions from those who saw him early and from those who saw him late
For reasons no one seems to understand, Owens' velocity took a nice jump at midseason, and that made him look — finally — like something more than the next pitch-to-contact Zach Duke type.
Since we've all had our hearts broken by "crafty" lefties who can't fool MLB players, this was encouraging. Apparently Owens's fastball was ZD-like in the first half (87-90) but 90-93 in the second.
Dejan also confirmed that the Pirates were high on Jarek Cunningham, as many of us suspected. He also had some nice things to say about Jeremy Ferrell as a sleeper candidate:
He was batting .298/.369/.487 when he went down after 75 games, and the Pirates mention him in the same breath as some of their better guys.
So that wasn't what excited me. It was his confirmation that the system had a lot more depth than in previous years. So, BFD#, eat your heart out.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What has me less excited is when he talked about the lack of depth in the system, specifically with postion players. The glass half full aspect of that is that the young impact players at the MLB level are all position players with only 1 year of service time against them.
Good point
although the positional prospects will look a little better if we draft/sign Rendon. Plus, I feel like the combination of T. Sanchez, D’Arnaud, Grossman, Mel. Rojas, Latimore, Chambers, Holt, Cunningham, Lakind, Maggi, Cayonez, Bishop, Avila, Hanson, etc. (I’m sure I’m forgetting someone), while not awe-inspiring, is at least fairly interesting.
The key is definitely at the MLB level (Alvarez, Cutch, Tabata, and Walker).
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 13, 2011 9:13 AM EST up reply actions
I agree. The position prospects look a whole lot better if Rendon is the same player he was before the injury. Plus, with enough pitching depth, the team could trade for a hitter or two. The key is to simply stockpile as much talent as possible, regardless of position.
For some reason I have a feeling that NH had a plan to draft millions of HS pitchers last year knowing that this year was a deeper year. I feel that he will now load up early on College hitters, with some high end pitchers (if they fall to us like Allie did last year) mixed in. Then rounds 10-20 or so he loads up on HS pitchers again. Thats just my thoughts and hopes. It would make sense because we all know HS pitchers take longer so maybe he was drafting them first and then adding a wave of Hitters who are already a bit more advanced.
by Cainyoudigit on Jan 13, 2011 10:00 AM EST up reply actions
Owens
Fans tend to overrate their own players, and I believe that’s the case with several Pirate prospects. However, in my opinion, Rudy Owens doesn’t seem to get enough attention. If he throws 88-89, that’s fine velocity for a LHP. If he throws 90-93, that’s very good. His numbers at Double-A were awesome. He struck out 8 batters per nine innings and displayed incredible control. Everyone compares him to Duke, but Zach only fanned 6 batters per 9 innings in the upper minors.
Like all prospects, Owens could get injured or completely fall apart at any time, but my guess is that he will be a #2 or #3 starter for many years. I don’t care for rankings, but I think he’s a better prospect than Sanchez, Marte or Morris.
Also because Owens is left-handed he will hopefully excel at PNC
by Cainyoudigit on Jan 13, 2011 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
I think you’re right, for the most part. The refrain last year was “Let’s see if he adjusts to double-A”. Now that he’s carved up 2A, I guess skeptical fans like me are stuck, trying to make up reasons why he won’t be more than a back-end guy!
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 13, 2011 1:52 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The guy puts up good minor league numbers...
that doesn’t excite me as much as a guy with good stuff. If he holds the 90-93 velocity, I may start liking him more. What worries me the most is he won’t strike out 8 batters per 9 innings in the majors and he will be mainly a groundball pitcher pitching to what looks like it will be a below average defense. I would love to have an above average defense for him to pitch to so he can be that top end guy, but it doesn’t seem likely. What people don’t realize with pitchers like these is they don’t dominate without Cliff Lee-esque control. He doesn’t have that yet. He could still improve. I would love to have a Cliff Lee on the staff. I am just being realistic.
Now if someone like Bryan Morris or Stetson Allie dominates there should be reason for that kind of excitement. They have the stuff to do it. Owens has pretty good stuff, but not enough to truly dominate. Also, I won’t argue if you have him over Morris or Marte, but you must be severely underrating Sanchez if you have Owens ahead of him. The guy is going to be a darn good catcher he may end up being our most valuable player to the team. Good defense and a good bat don’t usually both come in a catcher. He is a rare player and I LOVE that we picked him.
ETHAN MARTIN!!!!
I may be underestimating Sanchez because I was so very much against his selection in the 2009 draft.
However, I still think he’s no more than a .245 hitter and I doubt he will hit more than 12 home runs in a typical season. As for his defense, I believe he’s an outstanding receiver, but I’m not convinced of his ability to throw out runners. I, of course, hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
As for Owens, that Double-A season is tough to ignore. If he were in the Yankees system, there would be an enormous amount of hype. A 22-year-old with a paltry ERA and an incredible K/BB ratio in Double-A is generally assumed to be a top 100 prospect. It’s funny that nobody seems to think he belongs in the top 100. I trust scouting reports much more than stats in rookie ball and low-A. Once a player hits Double-A, I tend to weigh scouting reports and stats 50-50.
Where are you getting that he’ll hit around .245? He was well over .300 in his first full season in Bradenton…
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 13, 2011 8:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
There are still scouts that believe Sanchez will hit between .250 and .270 in MLB because of hiles in his swing. We’ll probably start to get a better idea as he moves to AA.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 13, 2011 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
Well, .250-.270 is less extreme than “no more than .245”…
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 13, 2011 9:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It took me three minutes to figure out
what “hiles” were.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 14, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
You must be smoking something to say...
Sanchez is no better than a .245 hitter. Sanchez has much better contact skills than what thought when he came out of the draft. I see him as at least a .280 hitter. Watching him in the AFL would have been a bad indicator of his contact skills because his timing wa way off. He looked much better at Bradenton before he got hurt. His power is also ery underrated. I could see him hitting 15+ HRs a year. To go along with above average receiving skills and a very good arm(his shoulder has likely healed) you have a pretty amazing catcher.
On Owens, I don’t really care for stats until a player reaches the majors. Scouting reports and actually watching the pitcher is what I use. He does have amazing stats, but it is how I believe those stats will translate the the MLB level that I consider when ranking a player. I think Owens stats will look much worse if he doesn’t have an above average defense behind him. I doubt he keeps the stike out rate as high because he doesn’t really have that top notch out pitch. I wouldn’t argue with any ranking him in the top 100, I just think Morris needs to be a couple slots ahead. They are both decent enough pitchers, though I would advise against thinking we have a front end type in either. Sanchez will certainly help these guys feel confident in their catcher.
ETHAN MARTIN!!!!
Having never seen Sanchez play in person....
I have to rely on the eyes of others. But joegonzo, if you’re a really big fan of Sanchez, then you may want to stay away from Anap Sinha’s blogs at bucsprospects.com. Just for the record, Anap is a former major league scout and attends some of the Pirates minor league games (plus scouted a large number of these guys in HS & college when he was a scout) and talks to a bunch of scouts when he reports stuff. I love his writing, and he responds to just about every question posed in the comments, which is cool. It’s the place I always go to right after bucsdugout to start my daily Pirates fix.
Anyway, he’s stated on multiple occasions that he disagrees with the Pirates’ scout view of Sanchez’s ceiling. And he doesn’t do in a demeaning way, or take shots at the Pirates for selecting him. He just tells things from his perspective. He definitely thinks Sanchez can make the big leagues. And will be a back-up catcher (or a starter on a weak one). He also, has claimed that the holes in his swing can be remedied, but that he’s looking like a .250-.270 hitter in the bigs.
If you’re interested, here was one he did back in November on the Pirates catching prospects’ organizational depth, where he reiterates his view on Sanchez. http://bucsprospects.com/2010/11/06/how-strong-are-the-pirates-catching-prospects-all-depends-on-what-you-think-of-tony-sanchez/
I think it's a reasonable question.
We’re just going to have to wait to see if the Pirates FO was correct on Sanchez or if they were not.
The real question is still whether Tony Sanchez is going to be better than Grant Green, since that was the alternative. Green had an even better offensive year than Sanchez, with 20HR from the shortstop position in A+.
If Green can stay at short, then there’s a good chance the Pirates made a mistake in their evaluation, even if Sanchez hits very well.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 14, 2011 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Green vs. Sanchez is a reasonable question. I just don’t place a whole lot of weight on Anup Sinha’s opinion. Former scout writing for some obscure website compared to BA, which talks to scouts from all across MILB? I’ll go with BA’s take.
Regarding Green, his offensive performance at A+ last year was no more impressive than Sanchez’s, though he did manage to play the whole season. I’ll be interested to see how he does this year away from the crazy offensive environment of the California League.
It's important to remember in this case...
…that BA’s take may not be entirely impartial, in that the scout who pushed Sanchez in our draft room, Chris Kline, is a former BA staffer.
Which doesn’t make him wrong, of course. But it’s worth keeping in mind.
“Regarding Green, his offensive performance at A+ last year was no more impressive than Sanchez’s, though he did manage to play the whole season.”
Agreed. Green’s line was sexier because of the home runs, but the on-base advantage works in Sanchez’s favor. Sanchez showed much better strike zone discipline.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 14, 2011 10:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don't take Anup's opinion as gospel, but neither is there reason to dismiss it as not valuable.
You could indeed say Green and Sanchez had similarly good years. Initially I saw the main difference as the power from Green, but the walk rate Sanchez showed is in the very good range, whereas Green’s walk rate could cause problems if he did not improve that.
Although the K rates are similar, there is a rub there for me, which is that power hitters can have K rates of 20% in the minors, but hitters for average should have K rates closer to 10%, IMO.
So, Green has a K rate a tiny bit high for what he is, but Sanchez’s rate is fairly high for the power he was showing. I think Sanchez should develop more power, however, and as long as he can do that without harming the K rate, that’s great.
Green: 131 games, .318/.363/.520, 20HRs, 21% K/AB, 6% BB/PA
Sanchez: 59 games, .314/.416/.454, 4HRs, 20% K/AB, 11% BB/PA
Green: 1 HR per 27 ABs
Sanchez: 1 HR per 51ABs
by MarkInDallas on Jan 14, 2011 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
One thing to remember is park/league context. Green played at Stockton in the Cal League, which is one of the most HR-friendly parks in the minors. In general, the Cal League is very much a hitter’s league compared to the FSL.
That’s true, except the park in Bradenton is considered pretty hitter friendly, which goes against the rest of the parks there, and all 4 of Sanchez’s HRs came at home games.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 15, 2011 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Well, Bradenton is only a slight hitter’s park – The park factor for HRs was 1.09, for doubles 1.02 and for hits 1.01.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2010_minor_league_park_multipliers/
Stockton is a lot more HR-friendly, with a 3-year weighted average of 1.19.
Sanchez aside, the team didn’t exhibit any pronounced tendency to hit a lot of HRs at home. The Marauders top HR hitters were:
Latimore: 11 home/8 road
Anderson: 5 home/6 road
Farrell: 5 home/4 road
Fryer: 4 home/4 road
Overall, of course, the Cal League is a much better hitting league than the FSL and that would affect their road stats, too.
Yeah, I’m not saying that Stockton isn’t going to skew Green’s stats a bit. And I do think Sanchez is going to have some power, certainly.
My main concern is that Sanchez’s swing is a line drive producing swing (which I like), but for hitters like that, I like to see the K/AB rate under 15%.
Andrew McCutchen had a 20% K rate in A ball, but he was able to get it down to 12% in AAA. Of course, he was younger than Sanchez.
I’m not pointing it out to say it’s a huge red flag or that he’s destined to fail. It’s just something to keep an eye on.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 15, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
We’re just going to have to wait to see if the Pirates FO was correct on Sanchez or if they were not.
The real question is still whether Tony Sanchez is going to be better than Grant Green, since that was the alternative.
I agree with the first part, not the second. We are going to have to wait to see if they were right. There is, however, no reason Sanchez’ success should be measured against Green’s. That they were the Pirates’ finalists makes it a smaller evaluation segment, but in reality, the Pirates could have picked anyone including Shelby Miller and Jacob Turner.
I disagree with that because the goal of choosing players in the draft is to pick better players than your opponents.
Of course, you can’t always get the best player when you are picking from so many players, but it was pretty clear that if the Pirates were going to pick a position player (smart IMO considering the other prospects), then it was going to be either Green (the consensus pick and the the next position player taken) or Sanchez.
We’re all fairly happy with the way Alvarez is turning out, but let’s be honest. How much better would it have been to have picked Buster Posey instead of Alvarez?
Let’s go back to Littlefield’s drafts. The very next player chosen was the better choice every year.
Instead of Paul Maholm, Andrew McCutchen and Neil Walker, what if we had:
B.J. Upton, John Danks, Jered Weaver, Jay Bruce, Brandon Morrow, Matt Wieters
OK, now trade Wieters for a middle infielder and add Posey. That’s a pretty good team right there.
Now, I’m not saying Alvarez is going to be a bust like half the Littlefield picks. But even choices like Maholm over John Danks…making those types of choices over time is the difference between cellar dweller and contention.
Choosing a catcher who turns out to be another Chris Snyder instead of a shortstop who turns into a Hanley Ramirez would be a big mistake.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 15, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
not getting you
it was pretty clear that if the Pirates were going to pick a position player (smart IMO considering the other prospects), then it was going to be either Green (the consensus pick and the the next position player taken) or Sanchez
Fair enough, but what constrained the Pirates to pick a position player?
Huntington said in an interview with Rocco that the high percentage thing to do was to take a position player unless you saw one of the pitchers as being an ace type top of the rotation starter. He said the Pirates had gone down the other road before, and have seen the results (presumably with Maholm, etc).
Since they didn’t project any of the pitchers that year to be sure fire top of the rotation talents, they were going to get the position player they liked best and then stock up on 18 year old arms with projection so that in 3 years with the right training program, they might have several arms they like just as much or more as any one of the college pitchers available to them in that draft.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 15, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
regardless of the reason NH gave
I don’t see any reason to base the judgment of the draft on that. I mean, you could, but I wouldn’t. If his basic philosophy is flawed, then he doesn’t get a pass for doing well under the constraints of that philosophy.
by BurgherKing on Jan 16, 2011 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
I absolutely think it’s the correct philosophy to follow. The percentage of hitting prospects selected in the first round that succeed is far greater than that of pitching prospects.
First round college pitchers actually have the lowest percentage of turning into at least average MLB players, at only 25%. Hitting prospects are around 50%, so its a pretty significant difference.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 16, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
well, there you go then
that simply means NH gets a pass, as far as you are concerned. He certainly doesn’t get a pass from me, for not considering Shelby Miller, Jacob Turner and Tyler Matzek. If anything, it makes me a bit more wary about his abilities.
Of course, even if you do agree with his philosophy that you could eliminate half the prospects (pitching) in the 1st round pick, he still whiffed entirely on Mike Trout.
by BurgherKing on Jan 16, 2011 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
Trout is certainly an excellent prospect. Given his age, his performance was pretty impressive in 2010.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2011 2:26 AM EST up reply actions
22 other teams passed on trout
guess those GM’s stink too… im jest, i keeeeed… knowing what you know now, would you take strasburg or trout?
by white angus on Jan 17, 2011 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
The real question is still whether Tony Sanchez is going to be better than Grant Green, since that was the alternative.
There were other alternatives. Literally thousands of them, in fact.
The one I was pulling for, Shelby Miller, is looking pretty good so far, though it’s still very early.
Sorry, I’m with Huntington on this one. Going with a high school pitcher in round 1 unless he projects to be a sure fire #1 starter is a huge risk to take.
So, if you make that very smart decision, then there were two players to choose from if you were smart.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 16, 2011 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
also, as I pointed out above
there were two players to choose from if you were smart.
Apparently, the smart guys picked a kid called Mike Trout
by BurgherKing on Jan 16, 2011 11:58 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, is the reason for that known?
I remember reading it at the time a little bit, and not finding anything… I know v little about the Angels anyway, and hardly follow them, but what is Bane’s draft record? (Broadly, I mean, great/good/average/bad?)
by BurgherKing on Jan 17, 2011 10:14 AM EST up reply actions
The short version...
…is that he’s a scapegoat for the GM. There was a run of marginal drafts for a couple of years there, in large part because the GM gave away a bunch of the Angels’ high picks (no 1 in ‘08, no 2 in ’07, no 2 in ’06, no 1 in ’05, no 2 or 3 in ’04). A few high-profile failures to sign, too (Matusz and Harvey), and some high-profile player development failures, most notably Wood. They didn’t have much homegrown stuff on hand this year (in part because of Adenhart’s untimely death), and it kind of became a talking point, and then the GM canned Bane as a way of showing that he was “taking the problem seriously”.
Eddie Bane is a good baseball man, and he deserved better treatment. The Angels’ loss is the Tigers’ gain, though.
Going with a high school pitcher in round 1 unless he projects to be a sure fire #1 starter is a huge risk to take.
There is no such thing as a “sure-fire #1 starter”. Any pitcher can get hurt. If the decision to skip Miller in 2009 was wise and prudent, then the decision to take Taillon over Machado last year was rash and foolish.
I watched a hell of a lot of video on Miller leading up to that draft, and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he’d be a very good ML starter if he stayed healthy. Which is exactly what he looks like, at this point.
A little more on Miller:
Ranked #2 prospect in the MWL in BA’s rankings, between Mike Trout (probably the #1 prospect in all of baseball right now) and Wil Myers. Link. Here’s what BA had to say about him in their capsule scouting reports on the MWL top 20:
Miller arrived in the MWL as a promising but unrefined talent, and the Cardinals gave him most of June off to keep his innings down and work on his mechanics. He returned to post a 2.86 ERA and 84 strikeouts in 63 second-half innings, then was lights out in his sole playoff start. He fanned 13 and allowed just two hits in seven innings against an older Kane County club, hitting 95 mph in his final inning.
Hitters can’t catch up to Miller’s 94-98 mph fastball, which seems even quicker because it has explosive life and he throws it with little effort. When he stays on top of his curveball, it has tight downer action and gives him a second plus pitch, and his changeup has some nice sink. He throws strikes, and once he gets more consistent with his command and secondary pitches, he’ll be a frontline starter.
“He’s a real good combination of a raw physical frame along with raw physical stuff,” a National League scout said. “He might be the best combination of a strong body and strong stuff in this league since Clayton Kershaw. His stuff is big league-quality right now.”
BA also ranked him as the Cardinals’ #1 prospect for 2011. Link. The excerpt is too long for me to quote, but if anything, it’s even more complementary than the MWL writeup.
Why was it a “smart” decision to take a guy with that kind of talent and pre-emptively cross him off our list?
just for the heck of it, Taillion has been called the best high skool pitching prospect in a generation
and his upside could be clemens-like. thought of even more highly that miller… but i know what you are talking about, and it was a different draft
by white angus on Jan 17, 2011 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
To be fair to Huntington and the philosophy
He said at the time, “Now, if one of those pitchers we passed on does become a top of the rotation ace type starter, then our evaluations have been wrong and that was our mistake.”
Of course, because of injuries no prospect is a sure thing, and pitchers are riskier than others for that reason. But the point is, if you don’t feel there is enough of a chance that the prospect overcomes the high odds of becoming that top starter, then you go with a position player.
We’ll just have to see if the Pirates’ strategy actually does produce someone out of the bonus baby pitchers worth as much as Shelby Miller in 2 or 3 years.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
this
Miller was clearly a good pick, and I remember you picking him then. I hadn’t heard much about Miller, but that was back when I was just starting to learn about baseball. Miller actually went at 19th in the first round.
If he had gone quickly after, it would have lent more credence to the Huntington uses BA argument. Any idea why Miller dropped quite as far? Based on his performance so far, he seems like a better pick than all but Minor, Purke and Leake (and both are arguable – did Turner get a ML deal?)
by BurgherKing on Jan 17, 2011 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
Any idea why Miller dropped quite as far?
Signability concerns, same as a lot of guys that year (though not as significant as some of the others, which is part of why I liked him). He reportedly wanted $4M to sign, pre-draft. Settled for $2.875 (only a couple hundred K more than we paid Sanchez).
The draft order that year doesn’t reflect the pre-draft consensus on talent at all. Best high school pitcher by consensus was probably Matzek, who went at #11, behind six different easy signs (Sanchez, Hobgood, Wheeler, Minor, Leake, and Storen). Plus Purke going unsigned at #14, and Paxton dropping into the sandwich round and not signing.
Ask two scouts...
…and get three different opinions. Nobody’s right all the time.
It’s not out of the question that Sanchez could disappoint. Brent Mayne had a stronger offensive track record than Sanchez did, and look how he turned out.
We just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.
I know it sounds crazy now...
…but Mayne really was a strong hitter in his college days (at Cal State Fullerton). He was getting almost Wieters-level hype back then, and was in the majors for good a little over a year after being drafted.
The bat just never translated the way people expected.
if sanchez is a 250-270 hitter, for a catcher, thats not so bad
some still compare him to a molina which is not a bad thing at all.
To build on Rudy's increased velo...
Same thing happened with Banuelos on the Yanks. His velocity went up this year to like 93 I think, about the same. I don’t know enough about the rest of the pitchers to compare them (although Banuelos is less than 6 feet tall and has a devastating changeup). But a spike in velocity, if he can maintain it, should make everyone take notice…don’t mess with Big Bird Rudy.
Dude...
Banuelos has been clocked as high as 97. Not the best comparison. Banuelos also a better change. Some have even called it plus plus. Owens is a fine prospect, but I would trade him in a heartbeat for Banuelos and I usually hate Yankees prospects.
ETHAN MARTIN!!!!
I wasn't comparing them as prospects
Of course Owens isn’t as close to a prospect as Banuelos; I didn’t say that at all. I was merely using him as a reference to how a pitching prospect’s status can increase sharply if his velocity moves up during the year.
But...
I did muck up those velocity numbers somethin’ fierce, sorry bout that. Interesting you mention Yanks prospects…do you think many of their others are overrated right now? They actually seem to have a somewhat decent system.
Overrated would be the wrong word, but I don’t see Banuelos as a sure-fire top of the rotation starter. His size is a strike against him and he has yet to succeed in Double-A. From everything I’ve read, he’s got good stuff; however, a lot of pitchers with good stuff don’t make it.
Looking at their system...
They seem to have a lot of potential at the top (Montero, Sanchez, Banuelos, Betances) and a lot of question marks after that. Banuelos also missed a lot of time this past year…I think he had an appendectomy.
Interesting bizarre anecdote
I subscribe to Jake Zimmerman’s New Bucs blog for two reasons. One, I think it’s good to know what doom and gloom folks are saying so I can examine their arguments and make up my own mind on whether they are crazy or not, and two, when I do see something that is bizarre and crazy, it gives me a good laugh. So, despite the fact I consider it unproductive to discuss that craziness most of the time on here, I’m going to make an exception this time.
In his latest post about the BA list, he says…
In my humble opinion, the Pirates BA list for 2011 shows what happens when bias interfers with evaluations — common sense be damned. That was the very reason why I started Bucs Prospects and hired unbiased pro scouts to evaluate the Pirates system.. let the pros empower the fans not, seemingly, organizational PR-driven dribble.
Other questionable suggestions from the BA article were things like Sanchez being the best hitter for average in the system (WTF??), Quincy Latimore being the best power hitter (hilarious proposition plus they misspelled his name to boot), and that Owens had somehow found new velocity although Bucs Prospects scouts had guns on him several times last year and other scouts I spoke to that ran that circuit did too and none of them saw a consistent uptick in velocity.
Now, I went back and looked through the Bucs Prospects archives, and I found exactly two mentions of Rudy Owens’ velocity.
On May 5, his scout Bob Smith wrote…
Owens showed an above average fastball, 91-93 MPH through all six innings. He reached back in the 6th with a final flyout at 94 mph.
On May 17, Smith reported…
Rudy Owens once again had above-average stuff, sitting at a 90-93 MPH fastball, and touching 94 mph.
I really have to give Jake props for creating the Bucs Prospects site. But it is crazy bizarre that he accuses BA and DK for not being objective and somehow listening to the Pirates suits too much, and then turns around and shows his own bias by misrepresenting the scout that’s writing for his own site when that doesn’t jive with the picture he wants to paint.
There’s another interesting thing about the timing of these two scouting reports, and that is they were done in May, which is definitely still the first half of the season. So, maybe the other scouts that saw him when they said his fastball was in the 80’s just caught him on down days for whatever reason.
As I recall, “Jake Zimmerman” claims not to be the other Jake, i.e., Steve Conzett. Still looks to me like they’re the same guy, because Conzett/Jake always liked to try to get attention by dumping on Dejan whenever possible.
let the pros empower the fans not, seemingly, organizational PR-driven dribble
The problem with this is that BA requires its correspondents to talk to opposing teams’ scouts about all the players. Dejan flat-out said in the chat that opposing scouts aren’t as high on the Pirates’ prospects as team officials are. (I’ll bet that’s true of every team in MLB.) The stuff you see at BA never just comes from the player’s own team, as Jake implies. So if they’re two different Jakes, they share a tendency to try to mislead people.
One of the funniest things that Jake likes to imply is that the Pirates’ minor league system is near implosion and mutiny because of the military style discipline that Kyle Stark is imparting there.
This, despite the fact that we have numerous examples of attitude problem prospects that have improved their attitude and flourished under the system. Examples include: Lastings Milledge (regardless of his low performance ceiling, I think he’s maximized his with the Pirates), Jose Tabata, Bryan Morris, and even Neil Walker (although he was more just an underachiever).
I mean, this is our one pretty clear shining example of a successful strategy to this point, and Jake’s continually saying the sky is falling despite the mounting evidence.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 13, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, you opened my eyes to a whole new section of fans.
from that site, comments section
Jake, as I read the end of the article I couldn’t help but wonder if the pirates are just now emphasizing teaching the changeup because they want only the prospects they drafted to be very good with that pitch. It puts the newer prospects in the system a better opportunity to succeed. If these prospects turn out better than those previously on the system then the FO can tell everyone they made the right choices in trades and drafting. Seems to me like they were waiting for the old prospects to get out or get to old before they started their real instruction.
Wow
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 13, 2011 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
One of the funniest things that Jake likes to imply is that the Pirates’ minor league system is near implosion and mutiny because of the military style discipline that Kyle Stark is imparting there.
That was a constant theme of Conzett’s, always without any explicit facts. It’s pretty clear the two Jakes are the same.
Two of the guys at Pirates Prospects have interviewed a bunch of the players and this stuff never remotely comes across.
On WoW’s post . . . this is just NutHo, tinfoil hat stuff. There were virtually no pitching prospects anywhere in the system performing well when NH took over. Mike Crotta, who consistently sucked under the previous morons, is now on the 40-man. Owens was pitching poorly in short season ball, Ramon Aguero was going nowhere, Moskos was struggling. Even Jared Hughes and Derek Hankins pitched much better under the new guys. Stark and his staff inherited nothing and made something out of it.
I found an article attributed to both you and Conzett. Did you know him personally? What’s up with calling him “Jake”, was that a nickname or what?
As for the attitude adjustment of some of these prospects, I thought this clip of Bryan Morris was great:
Morris interviewed at mini camp. Listen about 2:10 into it…
He says,
“I changed my ways a little bit. I go about my business a little differently than I used to. I have one goal and that is to fulfill my dream of being a big league pitcher.”
We can argue all we want about whether signing Lyle Overbay is better than seeing if John Bowker can surprise people and show himself to be a valuable MLB player. But we should all know that the real way for the Pirates to become a good team is for the Pirates to acquire highly talented prospects and for the player development system to maximize the abilities of all its players.
The rest of the equation is really secondary, IMHO.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 13, 2011 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Also...
whether they are given the chance to succeed. I am not worried about that at all. And don’t forget Nutting has to not sell away players for scrubs like Morris!!!We could have been a championship team with players like Bay, Nady, and Oliver Perez!!!
ETHAN MARTIN!!!!
It's a long story
Conzett = Joliet Jake = sun-n-fun = 4seamer, among others. He used to rove around from one board to another until people got too sick of his BS. Now he sets up one blog after another, pretending to have insider knowledge and engaging in occasional theatrics. Don’t know whether he still does this, but he used to shut down his blog “forever” every now and then claiming the Pirates’ FO was out to get him, only to resume blogging a couple days later.
So
That would pretty much be in line with his latest thing where he’s going to shut down New Bucs and only run an email newsletter. He has given some very bizarre reason about blogs being out of style and his family needs forcing him to make that decision.
Funniest thing about the rationale is that he says email newsletters are the future because then you can read it at your convenience. Apparently he’s never heard of RSS, which his own blog has. But that’s pretty much par for the course with so many things he says. He gives a rationale for his opinions but so often reality and logic show his rationale to be an invention of the end result.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 13, 2011 8:46 PM EST up reply actions
I remember when my sister wrote an email newsletter.
She shut it down in 2001 when she started college.
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 13, 2011 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 13, 2011 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
The other problem with this
is he means “PR-driven drivel.” Unless for some reason he really means “PR-driven bouncing a basketball.”
i lol'd
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 14, 2011 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
When I watched Owens and Morris pitch in person...
They were throwing about the same speed…Owens actually was 1-2 MPH faster. The huge difference between the two is Owens is smooth…same delivery no matter what the pitch is or where the pitch is located. Morris on the other hand was quite inconsistent, he was hit hard when I saw him both times. To me, Owens looks like the much better pitcher in any/every sense of the word…and the numbers are telling the same tale.
The hitting prospects are relatively weak though…Marte’s a pure slap hitter w/ questionable discipline…most of the AA guys looked like organizational type talents…Latimore has alot of power but he’s a pure guess hitter, I feel he’ll have real issues as he moves up the chain…I’ve seen him swing at pitches 2 feet out of the zone…
Owens has a shot being a no 2 or so IMO…but as far as the rest of the group at Altoona, they are back enders…and it’s along ways from Tallion/Allie/Heredia…so eventually we’ll have to pony up and sign a top end guy if we really want to give our young prospects a shot at winning.
I feel atleast 1 if not more of our core position players will be traded prior to their arb years being depleted…arb raises are quite radical and if NH keeps signing garbage fillers…the same quote will be heard…WE CANT WIN WITH HIM so time to trade him and stock up for the future….
Interesting observation
Especially re Owens and Morris, and especially in conjunction with MarkInDallas’s comments.
I do have two quibbles, though. When you say that the hitting prospects are weak and the AA guys are organizational prospects, I think you’re overstating things. What makes Sanchez, Marte, and d’Arnaud prospects is the combination of excellent-to-very good defense with hitting approaches that seem as though they might work in the majors. Now, that’s “might work,” not “will be a star because of the bat.” And while it seems fair to question whether the rest of the AA players will improve enough to play any significant role in the majors, they were good enough to contribute to winning a couple of minor league championships. At least nine of the position players at Altoona merit some level of consideration as a prospect.
Viva Clemente!
I have seen Morris pitch twice and both times he looked very much the part of a major league pitchers. he turned in solid outings, had good velocity and control and won both games.
I only saw Morris at Altoona and later in the season
When seeing him…maybe I was expecting alot more but I was quite disappointed in what I saw…and while his numbers those games were horrible blow ups, he was hit very hard.
His fastball was mostly up and he couldn’t come close to throwing the curve over…plus his curveball is “winged” a bit…I could tell the pitch before he released it…he short arms it a bit…as you move up the ladder, batters and coaches will key on that.
Roberto, I didn’t see Sanchez in game action…I’m hoping he puts things together…he had a lousy winter hitting…D Arnaud looked like the best prospect going forward from what I saw though I expected a little bit more. I go down to flor and watch many other teams top prospects and our AA guys just dont compare IMHO…they just dont have that “wow”
Altoona won much like SD…they played enthusiastic, smart baseball…and they expected to win…every game…it was refreshing after watching our bucco’s play bad news bear baseball…many here underestimate clubhouse atmosphere and a coaches influence on bringing the best out of his players…and expecting to win.
He was said to have burned out a little...
and I am pretty sure he was told to hold back a little. He wasn’t the same pitcher late in the year.
Sanchez looked like he completely lost his timing in the AFL. He did look really slim and in very good shape though. His defense also looked better than it did at the beginning of the season. As for D’arnaud, he just has IT. Not many prospects have IT either. From everything I have seen and heard about him, I have no reason to believe he won’t be successfull. He had a down year because of some really bad luck. There is almost no way he repeats his performance from this past year.
ETHAN MARTIN!!!!
I completely agree with you on D’Arnaud and I’ll be shocked if he another blah season. Not sure if he’s a starter or a utility guy, but I think he’s definitely going to be a major leaguer.
I think he is definitly...
a starter. Not an all star type, but he will provide average to above average defense, hit around .290-.300 with a decent amount of steals, and a little power. He will also play the game the way I like. He is a tough guy who will play beyond his tools, much like Nate McLouth.
ETHAN MARTIN!!!!
d'arnaud will hit nearly .300?
thats impressive. the only perenial guy in our lineup whom i believe is capable of that is Tabata. but i hope youre right!!
by white angus on Jan 14, 2011 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
I mean
not playing baseball for however many months will do that to your timing. It was the first time Sanchez has swung a baseball bat in a competitive environment since I believe July
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Will Smith shows why making your big league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
- Something’s amiss at the Big 12 championship
