SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2017 14:40:34 GMT -5
Owens wasn't that great. He really fell off. But what was the reason of completely removing him from the 40 man? DD couldn't get something from a team that was pretty quick to claim him? Kind of crappy asset management. Even though he wasn't much of an asset anymore. Cash? Someone who was left unprotected in the Rule 5 draft? International Signing money? Why would any team give the Red Sox back anything for Owens? Don't blame Dombrowski for not getting anything back for Owens, blame Cherington for not selling high on Owens when he could have if you want to blame somebody. The blame is on the coach that tried to fix Owens after the 2015 season. Whatever they did destroyed him and they were never able to fix it. They took a guy with around 4 BB per 9 inning and doubled that. Made him completely useless, when he was a backend starter in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 8, 2017 14:47:29 GMT -5
Why would any team give the Red Sox back anything for Owens? Don't blame Dombrowski for not getting anything back for Owens, blame Cherington for not selling high on Owens when he could have if you want to blame somebody. The blame is on the coach that tried to fix Owens after the 2015 season. Whatever they did destroyed him and they were never able to fix it. They took a guy with around 4 BB per 9 inning and doubled that. Made him completely useless, when he was a backend starter in 2015. I don't really blame anyone in particular for Owens I just wanted to point out to KingFuizzy that I don't think Dombrowski should bare any of the blame. Some prospects pan out and some don't, that's the nature of the business. I hope Arizona can get him back on track and Henry Owens goes on to have a fruitful career.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofrussgibson on Dec 8, 2017 17:22:54 GMT -5
Between Owens and Trey Ball... a couple of tall lefties we'd had high hopes for earlier in their development. Not sure that their height necessarily has any correlation to their lack of breaking through, but could their height be something where it basically takes a "tall pitching coach" to know how to work with them? Just a random thought on this snowy evening in North Carolina...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2017 17:40:53 GMT -5
Some people have really unrealistic expectations about what a team can and should do. Some highly regarded prospects would bust even with the best possible coaching in the history of the world. I also don't blame Cherington for holding onto someone you could dream big on. His apparent upside was way more valuable than what they could have traded him for.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 8, 2017 17:49:33 GMT -5
Some people have really unrealistic expectations about what a team can and should do. Some highly regarded prospects would bust even with the best possible coaching in the history of the world. I also don't blame Cherington for holding onto someone you could dream big on. His apparent upside was way more valuable than what they could have traded him for. Very true....honestly, most of these pitching prospects tend to be "busts." The 2013 MLB top 10 LHP prospects included both Henry Owens and Trey Ball, now labeled as busts. Who were the other 8? Danny Hultzen, Max Fried, Jesse Biddle, Andrew Heaney, Justin Nicolino, Eduardo Rodriguez, Julio Urias, and David Holmberg. Not exactly an intimidating or accomplished group. Of course Urias has plenty of career ahead of him, and Fried is barely hanging onto his prospect status, but overall, its hard to say that Owens and Ball stand out as busts among that group. Heck, the most accomplished pitcher on that list plays for us.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 8, 2017 21:06:39 GMT -5
I also don't blame Cherington for holding onto someone you could dream big on. His apparent upside was way more valuable than what they could have traded him for. I agreed with you up until this point. The Sox could of gotten something really nice at the time and they would have had the known quantity.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 9, 2017 11:53:23 GMT -5
I also don't blame Cherington for holding onto someone you could dream big on. His apparent upside was way more valuable than what they could have traded him for. I agreed with you up until this point. The Sox could of gotten something really nice at the time and they would have had the known quantity. They could have "sold high" on Mookie too after 2013. Probably could have had the known quantity.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 9, 2017 12:15:02 GMT -5
It's the job of front offices to tell the difference between the Bettses and the Owenses, though. No front office gets it right anywher close to 100% of the time, but they're not immune from criticism for getting those decisions wrong.
More alarming is the fact that this organization hasn't been able to develop a starting pitching prospect in close to a decade (since the Buchholz/Masterson era). Eduardo Rodriguez looks like an exception, but he's yet to have a full healthy and productive season. Johnson is TBD but his star has dimmed considerably from his peak. Owens, De La Rosa, Webster, Ranaudo, Bowden, Ball, and the list goes on.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 9, 2017 12:56:04 GMT -5
I agreed with you up until this point. The Sox could of gotten something really nice at the time and they would have had the known quantity. They could have "sold high" on Mookie too after 2013. Probably could have had the known quantity. Mookie was pretty much a known quality once he reached AA. Not many players hit over .400 in a half season like Mookie did. Owens was always a gamble, especially with a fastball that couldn't reach the mid 90's.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 9, 2017 14:35:34 GMT -5
I don't blame the Red Sox for not trading Owens. He was our best starting pitching prospect in forever. Keith Law and MLB.com had him as a top 20 guy, everyone had him top 50. My issue is why after one of his best seasons in terms of walks did they try to overhaul his delivery ? He looked like a solid 4/5 in 2015 and instead of letting him enjoy that success, they basically said thats not good enough. Then when he was clearly not right they call him up in early 2016 and he gets destroyed. Game over they couldn't fix him after that. By farth the highest walk rate of his career and his confidence was most likely gone.
Walk rate per 9 innings
2012-4.2 2013-4.5 2014-3.3 2015-3.4 in majors, 4.1 in minors 2016-8.2 in majors, 5.3 in minors 2017-8.2
For me it seems like they killed his confidence by trying to overhaul his delivery to improve control after he just posted 3.4 walk rate in the majors. Owens was very wild in some starts in 2015, but overall he looked like a solid 4/5 starter. I would have waited before I tried to overhaul his delivery as to not kill his confidence. Then in 2016 when the changes you made clearly had a negative effect, I wouldn't have called him up till he was pitching well. They really mishandled him, in a Jackie Bradley type of way.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 11, 2017 8:49:35 GMT -5
Henry Owens couldn't command his fastball, and he couldn't throw his fastball hard enough for it to not matter. There are no non-knuckleballers who succeed with that profile. None. As a conventional pitcher you either need to either put the baseball where you want, or you need to throw so hard that the hitter is uncomfortable. Aroldis Chapman's fastball command is mediocre, but the velocity gives him margin of error. For Owens that was not the case.
I was pretty sparing in my criticism of him as a player the last few years because there's no reason to rip apart a guy who is working hard and trying to make it. And Owens was definitely working hard. He had a great reputation for his work ethic. The "remaking his delivery screwed him up" narrative is BS from people who didn't watch him, because they don't understand how much his delivery was ALWAYS a work in progress from the day they drafted him. His followthrough, for example, was non-existent back in 2012. The fact that he came as far as he did, that his change/curve combo played up in the high minors like it did, is a huge credit to him and the coaching staff. And he was a pretty fun pitcher to watch pitch in the minors. It's always cool to see a guy who can get swings and misses on a changeup, and he had good mound presence and poise, never seeming to get rattled when he did give up hits or walk a guy. So he was easy to root for, which is why I always stopped short of saying "I just don't think he's good enough" even when I thought it.
But somewhere in the last few years, my evaluation changed from "he needs to keep his fastball down" to "he can't keep the fastball down." He didn't make progress on that, and he didn't throw hard enough to overcome it.
Saying they should've sold high is always hindsight, because it's always impossible to tell when a player's improvements are going to stall out. And we have no idea what the market was for him, either. At some level, sure, that's baseball ops job - to properly identify players with room to improve and ones who have topped out and deal accordingly. But... other teams are doing the same thing! If a team calls looking to deal a prospect, a team will get suspicious. If you're overanxious to trade a guy in your own system, teams will think/know that the people who know a player best don't think he's good enough.
And the idea that they should've kept him because he has a path as a reliever if the new delivery is successful. Well, maybe the second part is true - I hope it is, because Owens deserves success for his hard work. But... you don't keep a guy on the 40-man during a roster crunch because there's a chance he'll put things together and become the next Tommy Layne.
|
|
|
Post by slam761 on Dec 22, 2017 19:57:25 GMT -5
Well, his time in Arizona is already over. Claimed by the Dodgers.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 22, 2017 21:33:28 GMT -5
Well, his time in Arizona is already over. Claimed by the Dodgers. I think Only two teams have the pitching instructors skilled enough to turn Owens around. The Dodgers and the rays. At the end of the day, I hope they do fix Owens and he goes on to have a productive career!
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 22, 2017 21:49:35 GMT -5
Does MLB still do waivers based on league first, or did Owens make it to the last team before he was claimed?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 22, 2017 22:05:33 GMT -5
Well, his time in Arizona is already over. Claimed by the Dodgers. I think Only two teams have the pitching instructors skilled enough to turn Owens around. The Dodgers and the rays. At the end of the day, I hope they do fix Owens and he goes on to have a productive career! Rich Hill is the perfect mentor for Owens.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 23, 2017 9:45:34 GMT -5
It's the job of front offices to tell the difference between the Bettses and the Owenses, though. No front office gets it right anywher close to 100% of the time, but they're not immune from criticism for getting those decisions wrong. More alarming is the fact that this organization hasn't been able to develop a starting pitching prospect in close to a decade (since the Buchholz/Masterson era). Eduardo Rodriguez looks like an exception, but he's yet to have a full healthy and productive season. Johnson is TBD but his star has dimmed considerably from his peak. Owens, De La Rosa, Webster, Ranaudo, Bowden, Ball, and the list goes on. Can the Sox really claim E-Rod as a pitcher they developed though? It's debatable.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 23, 2017 10:49:07 GMT -5
It's the job of front offices to tell the difference between the Bettses and the Owenses, though. No front office gets it right anywher close to 100% of the time, but they're not immune from criticism for getting those decisions wrong. More alarming is the fact that this organization hasn't been able to develop a starting pitching prospect in close to a decade (since the Buchholz/Masterson era). Eduardo Rodriguez looks like an exception, but he's yet to have a full healthy and productive season. Johnson is TBD but his star has dimmed considerably from his peak. Owens, De La Rosa, Webster, Ranaudo, Bowden, Ball, and the list goes on. Can the Sox really claim E-Rod as a pitcher they developed though? It's debatable. I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 23, 2017 11:14:12 GMT -5
He’s definitely a borderline case, but I included him because he made a notable jump while in Boston’s farm system. The last true homegrown (drafted/signed, developed and had sustained major league success in Boston) pitchers they’ve developed are Lester and Buchholz, who debuted 10+ years ago.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 23, 2017 13:05:42 GMT -5
He’s definitely a borderline case, but I included him because he made a notable jump while in Boston’s farm system. The last true homegrown (drafted/signed, developed and had sustained major league success in Boston) pitchers they’ve developed are Lester and Buchholz, who debuted 10+ years ago. While not originally signed or brought to the Majors by the Red Sox, I would include Andrew Miller who"came of age" while a Red Sock. I would not count ERod just yet.
|
|
|