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.
Ty Buttrey/Portland pitching staff
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 5, 2017 9:13:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure Buttrey's being "fast-tracked", to be honest. He'd thrown 100 innings at the level and had shown this year that he was ready for a new challenge. Pretty standard time for a promotion, IMO. Fast-tracked would be a promotion to Pawtucket after just 13 innings at the level (Callahan) or a promotion to the majors after 34 innings at the level and skipping Pawtucket entirely (Taylor). It's turning into a very interesting bullpen situation in Pawtucket. Workman, Taylor, and Ramirez are the up-and-down guys already. Martin's on the 40-man but looks like he's getting passed on the depth chart. Shepherd, Callahan, and Maddox were in that final group of NRI's with Taylor in camp. And now Buttrey has entered the conversation. Even Marcus Walden has quietly been very good in the swingman role I used to as a rule ignore until Robby Scott became a thing. As we knew entering the year, if this org is deep in one area, it's potential relief arms in the high minors. I'm not sure there's even necessarily a setup guy in there, but you can fill out the fifth through seventh with what's in Pawtucket right now, almost certainly. Well, yeah, I agree. But that's why I qualified it with "semi-", in that I could see him getting a quick bump to MLB even if he's just OK at Pawtucket, to see if he can help the big club. Fwiw, he wasn't exactly a world-beater at Portland this year, and his promotion was a little earlier than their usual mid-season (although kind of leading edge). Callahan was totally dominant in Portland, so I kind of see him as fast-tracking himself. I guess I'm saying Buttrey could've spent another six weeks pitching as he has and nobody would've batted an eye. It seems to me that they're actively seeking not just internal middle-innings options, but maybe to catch lightning in a bottle with one of these guys, Callahan and Buttrey being the most likely candidates. You make a great point (I hadn't stopped to consider the litany of names) about their MLB-ready, serviceable RP depth. It's actually pretty impressive, and they can't protect all of those guys on the 40. So maybe they're trying to sort through some debuts and see who they like, who they might be able to trade, and who they can stash? Yup, every single player I listed is either on the 40 already or Rule 5 eligible, as are the recently promoted Jalen Beeks and Yankory Pimentel. Also eligible are Trey Ball, Jake Cosart, and Teddy Stankiewicz. They're near-certain to try and move some of those guys, I'd think.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Jun 5, 2017 9:58:41 GMT -5
Yeah, like moving Ball to the outfield.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 11:25:40 GMT -5
Rule 5 and those players potentially being moved. As you can see Red Sox have a glut of middle relievers and something is going to happen. I've notice a couple of things. 1) Its interesting that the Sox gave up on Callahan, Maddox, Taylor, Buttrey and maybe Ball as a starter. Its easy to say, they are better suited for the pen, the other way of saying this is - the Sox did not do a good job of developing them as starters. You look at Owens, Johnson, Ball, Beeks and Stanky and I see guys who have to pick the corners and don't have a pitch to put advance hitters away. Therefore, they move the ball up and down, in and out (which is fine) but the walks rack up and then they get hit hard when they miss.
Where is the training program to help each of these pitchers with their fastball? It seems everyone is hurt or potentially getting hurt. Basically, these guys really too much on the slider and end of getting hurt. Workman for example, the two times I saw him pitch he threw all sliders w/a 88-90 fb. That will not play long term.
I'd package Martin, Sheppard, Workman, Jerez (all major league ready) for two lower level good starting pitchers or a power bat who can play infield. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 5, 2017 11:30:45 GMT -5
Rule 5 and those players potentially being moved. As you can see Red Sox have a glut of middle relievers and something is going to happen. I've notice a couple of things. 1) Its interesting that the Sox gave up on Callahan, Maddox, Taylor, Buttrey and maybe Ball as a starter. Its easy to say, they are better suited for the pen, the other way of saying this is - the Sox did not do a good job of developing them as starters. You look at Owens, Johnson, Ball, Beeks and Stanky and I see guys who have to pick the corners and don't have a pitch to put advance hitters away. Therefore, they move the ball up and down, in and out (which is fine) but the walks rack up and then they get hit hard when they miss.
Where is the training program to help each of these pitchers with their fastball? It seems everyone is hurt or potentially getting hurt. Basically, these guys really too much on the slider and end of getting hurt. Workman for example, the two times I saw him pitch he threw all sliders w/a 88-90 fb. That will not play long term.
I'd package Martin, Sheppard, Workman, Jerez (all major league ready) for two lower level good starting pitchers or a power bat who can play infield. Just my thoughts. It's even easier to say that they were not ever good enough to be major league starters.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 5, 2017 11:48:56 GMT -5
Historically, I'm of the opinion that the Red Sox front office has been too slow to move "tweener" starters to relievers. Of the recent close calls with that profile, the only guy I can remember ending up sticking in the rotation is Justin Masterson. The other guys of that ilk (think Workman, Barnes, Britton, Montas, Stolmy Pimentel, etc.) ended up either flaming out or converting to relief eventually, and I've always thought their development would have benefited from being shifted to relief earlier so that they could concentrate on maximizing their fastball velo/command and their one plus secondary pitch in short stints rather than trying to hone a third/fourth pitch and keep themselves stretched out.
This front office has been more aggressive about moving guys to relief, which I like. Callahan and Buttrey and the like were stalling out as starters, and moving to relief has given them a legit shot at being MLBers. They've struggled with developing starting pitching recently, but I'm not anywhere near close enough to the organization to have the first idea about whether to attribute that to the player development folks or the scouting folks.
Of course, the other hard part is now figuring out which ones to keep and which ones to risk losing in trades or Rule 5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 12:56:21 GMT -5
As a former Pro pitcher and coach, I am familiar with developing pitchers. And viewing the Sox developmental program, I have many concerns. Without going into every decision, there is one common trait many coaches possess. 1) Each coach carries a tool belt of skills/approaches, i.e., things that work for them. Its easier to teach from their tool belt, than do connect with each and every player?
Do they understand the mental and physical make up of an athlete? Do they have a good understand of their history? Its the old "cookie cutter" approach to coaching, i.e., do it my way and if it doesn't work, its the player's fault.
Some coaches who played Major league baseball think they have all the answers just because they were in the show! The fact is - a good coach who is a great communicator, builds strong relationships, understands the make up of a player and the direction of the game can make a real impact. These type of coaches may or may not have played at the highest level!
Plus players in baseball have that one moment when everything clicks (the big bang) where everything comes together and they are now major league ready. Although progress can be incremental, leaps can happen anytime during "development." Giving up on starters is costly to the player and the organization. Although the league is moving towards relief pitchers, starting pitching is still worth its weight in gold. Price/Sale.
I think the Red Sox are very arrogant and haven't changed in years. I think a cleaning out of old ways and bringing in new ideas or established old ideas is the direction they are heading. See Brian B comments below:
Bannister said. "We have so many conversations and try to personalize the pitching development to them, to their bodies, to how their arms work, to what they throw naturally. ... And I think you see guys, once they get into their natural role and throw the pitches that best suit their arm action, I think you see them take a step forward."
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 5, 2017 13:21:59 GMT -5
As a former Pro pitcher and coach, I am familiar with developing pitchers. And viewing the Sox developmental program, I have many concerns. Without going into every decision, there is one common trait many coaches possess. 1) Each coach carries a tool belt of skills/approaches, i.e., things that work for them. Its easier to teach from their tool belt, than do connect with each and every player?
Do they understand the mental and physical make up of an athlete? Do they have a good understand of their history? Its the old "cookie cutter" approach to coaching, i.e., do it my way and if it doesn't work, its the player's fault.
Some coaches who played Major league baseball think they have all the answers just because they were in the show! The fact is - a good coach who is a great communicator, builds strong relationships, understands the make up of a player and the direction of the game can make a real impact. These type of coaches may or may not have played at the highest level!
Plus players in baseball have that one moment when everything clicks (the big bang) where everything comes together and they are now major league ready. Although progress can be incremental, leaps can happen anytime during "development." Giving up on starters is costly to the player and the organization. Although the league is moving towards relief pitchers, starting pitching is still worth its weight in gold. Price/Sale.
I think the Red Sox are very arrogant and haven't changed in years. I think a cleaning out of old ways and bringing in new ideas or established old ideas is the direction they are heading. See Brian B comments below:
Bannister said. "We have so many conversations and try to personalize the pitching development to them, to their bodies, to how their arms work, to what they throw naturally. ... And I think you see guys, once they get into their natural role and throw the pitches that best suit their arm action, I think you see them take a step forward." What makes you think they haven't changed anything? Bannister is new, and considering kind of a cutting edge guy using both traditional pitching coach stuff along with advanced metrics. How are you qualified to say they are arrogant and need an overhaul when you aren't privy to the details. None of us here are. (Unless there are some disgruntled employees lurking). There was a recent article on Jalen Beeks. He praised the Sox staff and how they've worked with him. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/red-sox-prospect-jalen-beeks-is-breeding-contempt-in-the-eastern-league/ Seems like the Sox doing some pretty advanced work with their pitchers. Sometimes the development path is just dictated by the player and not the fault of the staff.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 5, 2017 13:24:54 GMT -5
The main factor for giving up on starters has to be mainly a result of them not having enough time to develop while they are under team control. Under DDo, that decision comes much more quickly and might have something to do with wanting/needing a dozen bullpen arms every season.
There's also nothing stopping a pitcher from converting back to a starter after being a reliever, though that happens less often.
I wonder what would have happened if pitchers like Webster, De La Rosa, Ranaudo, Owens, Barnes, Britton, Workman, etc. were moved to the bullpen earlier.
Also, with relief pitcher values shooting through the roof in the last two years, it's easy to see why teams would convert pitchers from starter to reliever earlier. I don't think it's possible for most teams to build a good bullpen without having a minor league pipeline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 13:43:34 GMT -5
What makes you think they haven't changed anything? Bannister is new, and considering kind of a cutting edge guy using both traditional pitching coach stuff along with advanced metrics. How are you qualified to say they are arrogant and need an overhaul when you aren't privy to the details. None of us here are. (Unless there are some disgruntled employees lurking).
There was a recent article on Jalen Beeks. He praised the Sox staff and how they've worked with him. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/red-sox-prospect-jalen-beeks-is-breeding-contempt-in-the-eastern-league/ Seems like the Sox doing some pretty advanced work with their pitchers. Sometimes the development path is just dictated by the player and not the fault of the staff.
Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/3908/ty-buttrey-portland-pitching-staff?page=2#ixzz4j9dNEGUQ
In a top down organization, if Bannister was in charge, yes, things would be getting better. But he is an advisory and all he can do is recommend, make suggestions, etc.... Old school coaches are afraid or can't change. Baseball on a whole have been going threw what I call "old school" vs. Ivy league transformation for years. The Red Sox are no different. I'd put Bannister on the IVY league side.
And to your point - Jalen Beek's praises Red Sox staff. Let me ask you, if someone asked you about your boss in an article, what would you do? What would be nice is if Sox Prospect could set up a "silent player survey" Ask them these type of questions? Quality input would be interesting for everyone, including the Red Sox.
And yes, players also contribute to the lack of development. Poor off season conditioning, inability to take instruction, but my point is lack of development can go both ways.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 5, 2017 14:28:55 GMT -5
What makes you think they haven't changed anything? Bannister is new, and considering kind of a cutting edge guy using both traditional pitching coach stuff along with advanced metrics. How are you qualified to say they are arrogant and need an overhaul when you aren't privy to the details. None of us here are. (Unless there are some disgruntled employees lurking).
There was a recent article on Jalen Beeks. He praised the Sox staff and how they've worked with him. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/red-sox-prospect-jalen-beeks-is-breeding-contempt-in-the-eastern-league/ Seems like the Sox doing some pretty advanced work with their pitchers. Sometimes the development path is just dictated by the player and not the fault of the staff.
Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/3908/ty-buttrey-portland-pitching-staff?page=2#ixzz4j9dNEGUQ
In a top down organization, if Bannister was in charge, yes, things would be getting better. But he is an advisory and all he can do is recommend, make suggestions, etc.... Old school coaches are afraid or can't change. Baseball on a whole have been going threw what I call "old school" vs. Ivy league transformation for years. The Red Sox are no different. I'd put Bannister on the IVY league side.
And to your point - Jalen Beek's praises Red Sox staff. Let me ask you, if someone asked you about your boss in an article, what would you do? What would be nice is if Sox Prospect could set up a "silent player survey" Ask them these type of questions? Quality input would be interesting for everyone, including the Red Sox.
And yes, players also contribute to the lack of development. Poor off season conditioning, inability to take instruction, but my point is lack of development can go both ways.
It absolutely can go both ways. No question. You just seem convinced it's all on the Sox. I just don't know. We don't have enough info. Maybe Buttrey went to the Sox and acknowledged he's stalling out a bit in AA and that he can dial it up more in the pen and he'd like to give it a shot. We just don't what happens behind the scenes. Even guys who want to start, often realize their best path to MLB success is in the pen. And as Beeks goes, he could have said nothing. He was very glowing of his opinion of the Sox pitching staff. I'm pretty sure that wasn't fluff just because they asked him. Fluff, is "they've worked with me and helped me recognize a few things." In any event, hard to say. Goes back to the discussion, with respect to pitching, do the Sox need better development or better scouting? Right now, I think Callahan and Buttrey can be a formidable duo in the back of Boston's bullpen at some point. We'll have to see how they continue to develop and what their respective roles would be.
|
|
Addam603
Veteran
Posts: 3,203
Member is Online
|
Post by Addam603 on Jun 10, 2017 13:16:20 GMT -5
Taking this thread in a different direction, but I've been impressed with what I've seen from Jake Cosart in the last few weeks. No control whatsoever to start the year. 21 BB in 9.1 innings, but since then he's only walked three in his last 9 innings (over 7 appearances) and hasn't given up a run during that stretch. The strikeouts still aren't what I'd expect from him, but the difference in control is astounding. Did he make a change in his delivery? Going from 21 to 3 is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 11, 2017 12:17:06 GMT -5
I think you jinxed him. Yesterday came in and got a strikeout and a flyout to end the sixth, then went flyout, walk, single, sac fly, walk, flyout in the seventh. 35 p, 18 strikes.
|
|
Addam603
Veteran
Posts: 3,203
Member is Online
|
Post by Addam603 on Jun 11, 2017 12:24:14 GMT -5
I think you jinxed him. Yesterday came in and got a strikeout and a flyout to end the sixth, then went flyout, walk, single, sac fly, walk, flyout in the seventh. 35 p, 18 strikes. Had the same thought when I saw his line.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 11, 2017 13:52:20 GMT -5
Reversing jinxing works really well in these threads. I think we've had a lot of successes with this line of thinking/posting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 20:46:41 GMT -5
As an x old school pitcher I cant watch Cosart or Ysla. I dont see the balance or ability to repeat. I did have the opportunity to watch Paw vs Buff AAA and checked out two of my southern boys. Callahan basically 92-94 t 95 and made a couple of mistake and the second HR was most troubling when he owned the clean up hitter who was in a slump and made him look terrible on two sliders and then threw a 93 mph cooky on the inside part of the plate. Buttrey was very effective 95-98 (3) on stadium but I was behind a scout who had him touch 99. The command was stellar and the final k on a bugs bunny change was awesome. Young guns who are learning quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 11, 2017 21:26:50 GMT -5
Ian was at the game.
For what it's worth, I asked him and he said he charted him and Buttrey never touched 98 or 99, on the gun he was looking at anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 5:56:59 GMT -5
Chris not sure why its important to you to down play velo? I was at the game and saw the velo! As for the last time you dismissed Buttreys 100 velo mark I asked you to contact anybody in the red sox system who could validate. And if I remember Brian B (the spin doctor) validated the sittings? Lets go this route again - email any player or coach in Paw and report if Buttrey touched 99 and if the staduim gun showed 98? Ask the pitcher himself? or a scout / player / etc? BTW Im done reporting velo at games for it seems if Ian didnt confirm it must not have happened? And for the record Callahan hit 99 last year! Lets update the profiles.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 12, 2017 7:24:54 GMT -5
I'm MUCH more impressed by reports from someone that he's throwing 97 and commanding than I am with hearing sporadic reports of him hitting 100 on a stadium gun. For one prominent example, I remember the organization clearly propping up Allen Webster's velocity numbers and the hype that started to build surrounding that. If someone is throwing, like, 103-104 as opposed to 97 then it makes a difference, but the difference between 97 and 100 is basically negligible. On the other hand, the difference in someone who can control 97 and mix in a plus secondary and one who throws that hard and can't? That's the difference between peak-era Jonathan Papelbon or Craig Kimbrel and Joe Kelly/Manny Delcarman types. So to me that's a glowing report on Buttrey.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 12, 2017 8:54:47 GMT -5
Chris not sure why its important to you to down play velo? I was at the game and saw the velo! As for the last time you dismissed Buttreys 100 velo mark I asked you to contact anybody in the red sox system who could validate. And if I remember Brian B (the spin doctor) validated the sittings? Lets go this route again - email any player or coach in Paw and report if Buttrey touched 99 and if the staduim gun showed 98? Ask the pitcher himself? or a scout / player / etc? BTW Im done reporting velo at games for it seems if Ian didnt confirm it must not have happened? And for the record Callahan hit 99 last year! Lets update the profiles. So actually, Ian was looking at the Pawtucket pitchers' gun. No reason to ask if that's literally what we're reporting, right? As for the other stuff, I'm not "downplaying" velocity at all. I'm interested in accurately reporting what we saw, at least, to contribute to the discussion. If someone was saying Buttrey was sitting 90-92, 95-97, or 99-101, I'd be saying the same thing - "here's what we saw." For what it's worth, Alex Speier, who is easily the most plugged-in reporter with the player dev staff, has said the following: I also don't get why you're upset about what was a pretty glowing report from Ian. Sorry if I sounded negative - I definitely wasn't. Buttrey has risen from unranked to #21 in the site rankings in two months, which is pretty unheard of, especially for a reliever and even in this thin system. He's put himself back on the map and that's great. But like I said, as impartial observers, our job is literally to report what we see, and that's what I'm doing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 28, 2017 17:03:59 GMT -5
|
|
|