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 iakovos11 on Apr 3, 2014 15:02:42 GMT -5
In that weaker draft, I prefer they take a shot with the risky prospect. If they think he's the guy that will develop into a #1/#2 pitcher, then you go for it. The Sox never draft this high - go for it.
Also, it seems they tend to ease their pitchers into things (ok, Owens started in Greenville the year after he was drafted, but so did Barnes, Johnson, and other top college pitchers). I thought Ian's write-up was helpful. He's got the body and the stuff to become a solid prospect. Just seems to need work on repeating his mechanics right now. I'm just not going to get worked up over this.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 3, 2014 16:08:01 GMT -5
They appear to have gambled on him filling out, which of course might very well will happen. It probably does happen. And he was reputed to be very athletic. He is excellent raw material but he is far, far away from being a finished product and that in itself is very risky. Add the extremely skinny body type and it increases the risk to me. What about strength and durability? And advanced skills already. Those things do not appear to be there or even close to there yet.
The whole thing with how he did against advanced competition is a very limited sample size in his regard if I remember correctly. A few all star games. Maybe some more with traveling teams...I'm not sure. He still played high school ball in Indiana. It's a factor.
I'm extremely impressed with his intangibles though. I think he is probably still the best guy from that class but it's nowhere near a slam dunk and one would hope for that from the #7 pick.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 3, 2014 16:08:43 GMT -5
We don't seem to have any real #1s or #2s in our system let alone ACE material. When I look at Tampa, Seattle, Miami, Detroit and other teams that, while perhaps devoid of our line-up, seem to have some high-powered arms, I am a bit envious. It's not that we haven't dipped into the pitching well but perhaps just haven't been lucky.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 4, 2014 7:18:04 GMT -5
You just know the Sox guys better and therefor know their shortcomings better. There are very few guys in baseball that are the type of arm you are referring to. There are a lot with the "potential", but very few who reach all of it. With other teams, you see the potential and not the shortcoming that will likely hold the guy back.
That being said, when I look at this Sox crop of pitching prospects, I can't help but think of Baltimore with Britton, Arrietta and Matusz or the Mets generation K group of Isringhausen, Pulsipher and Paul Wilson.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 4, 2014 7:57:09 GMT -5
We don't seem to have any real #1s or #2s in our system let alone ACE material. When I look at Tampa, Seattle, Miami, Detroit and other teams that, while perhaps devoid of our line-up, seem to have some high-powered arms, I am a bit envious. It's not that we haven't dipped into the pitching well but perhaps just haven't been lucky. Scherzer was never ranked higher than 66. Cliff Lee was never higher than 30. Sale peaked at 20. None of these guys were projected as aces. You usually don't get the projected guys unless you're picking at the very top of the draft.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 4, 2014 8:03:13 GMT -5
Sale and Scherzer were both projected to have #1 upsides, but graduated from prospect status before climbing up the ranking.
Lee is a better example. He was pegged as a #2/3 type but made the leap in 2008 when his control went from above average to outstanding. He was also 29 when he made that leap - his career arc wasn't normal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 4, 2014 8:11:14 GMT -5
Sale and Scherzer were both projected to have #1 upsides, but graduated from prospect status before climbing up the ranking. Lee is a better example. He was pegged as a #2/3 type but made the leap in 2008 when his control went from above average to outstanding. He was also 29 when he made that leap - his career arc wasn't normal. Scherzer took awhile too (to reach ace status). Webster has a similar upside, but are we going to wait until he's 27-28 to maybe figure it out?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 4, 2014 8:35:25 GMT -5
I really don't see Webster as having Scherzer's upside. You're not the first one to make that comparison so I don't blame you, but Scherzer's fastball is more consistent and his command of it was always leagues ahead of Webster. And while Websters minor league K rates are nice, Scherzer was unhittable in the minors.
I also have to emphasize again that Scherzer graduated very, very quickly. If he hadn't gone over the eligibility by six innings in 2008 (his second year as a pro), he'd have likely been a Top 10 prospect.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 4, 2014 9:41:17 GMT -5
Not to belabor the point much, as I agree that Scherzer was way ahead, but a few stats look favorable for Webster.
Scherzer did have walk rates higher than Webster in AA and AAA. And Webster's hit rate was pretty elite last season in AAA. I'm not sure if that's BABIP luck, but his stuff is very swing and miss when it's near the zone and the ground ball rate is great as well.
It makes no sense to me how he hits so many batters and throws so many wild pitches when he's only giving up 3.69 BB/9 which isn't actually terrible.
For me, he's completely hit and miss. He's either a top starter or not a major leaguer. I can't even see him in the bullpen (ours anyway) if he can't get his control managed. And that control is probably more about not locating pitches right down the middle when he misses than it is about walks.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Apr 4, 2014 9:53:17 GMT -5
With the understanding that Ball is "raw" and that he cannot yet repeat his delivery (impacting his command), what gives him tools to have a great upside? He is tall, and thows 92-93. Its not like the throws mid-90s and need to learn to harness it (e.g., Randy Johnson). If his speed isn't overwhelming, and it doesn't sound like he has great feel for his pitches, what was the "upside" that the Sox got for the significant risk of his unrefined skills -- a risk I'm not sure I fully understood at the time of the draft but which a lot of people are now saying was manifest.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 4, 2014 9:57:21 GMT -5
With the understanding that Ball is "raw" and that he cannot yet repeat his delivery (impacting his command), what gives him tools to have a great upside? He is tall, and thows 92-93. Its not like the throws mid-90s and need to learn to harness it (e.g., Randy Johnson). If his speed isn't overwhelming, and it doesn't sound like he has great feel for his pitches, what was the "upside" that the Sox got for the significant risk of his unrefined skills -- a risk I'm not sure I fully understood at the time of the draft but which a lot of people are now saying was manifest. 1. lefty 2. projected increase in velocity 3. projected durability because of body type/frame 4. projected command due to athleticism which usually indicates the ability to repeat delivery 5. 3 potential plus pitches
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 4, 2014 10:50:24 GMT -5
You just know the Sox guys better and therefor know their shortcomings better. There are very few guys in baseball that are the type of arm you are referring to. There are a lot with the "potential", but very few who reach all of it. With other teams, you see the potential and not the shortcoming that will likely hold the guy back. That being said, when I look at this Sox crop of pitching prospects, I can't help but think of Baltimore with Britton, Arrietta and Matusz or the Mets generation K group of Isringhausen, Pulsipher and Paul Wilson. Well, it doesn't look like we have a Cobb, Price, Moore, Scherzer, Fernandez, Sanchez (oh, yeah we did have him) yada, yada, yada on the horizon. And it is not just my 'gut'. Check out Baseball America's Prospect Handbook assessment of our minor league guys. They are all looked at as 3-5s with one possible #2 as a ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 4, 2014 14:43:07 GMT -5
FWIW, there are, at best, 10 guys in the minor leagues with the upside you're describing. Plus, I think you are really overrating a few of those guys. I'd take Lester over Cobb and Moore, for example.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 4, 2014 17:20:26 GMT -5
I do t think he was talking about guys in the majors like Lester and Buchholz. And for what it's worth I would trade Lester for Cobb in a heartbeat. They are comparable now and Lester is older. Cobb is very good.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Apr 4, 2014 19:06:28 GMT -5
Let's keep this thread to Ball, please.
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Apr 10, 2014 22:40:53 GMT -5
Being as raw as described (and having tossed relatively few innings in a weak baseball state), shouldn't we be happy to send Ball to the GCL for his first season in pro ball just to get things rolling a bit? I think we have to completely toss out the no. 7 overall tag on him and really work with what we have at this point in time, which is a pitcher who is pretty much all projection at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 11, 2014 12:30:07 GMT -5
I'm kind of concerned about Ball. I'd hate to think the Sox took on a big project with their 7th pick instead of more sure thing like Austin Meadows. It's extremely early with Ball so I'm not saying that he's a bust or anything like that, and hopefully he develops eventually into what the Sox think he can be - they certainly know better than I do. Just a little concern that two of their top three picks could very well wind up busts during a rare (thankfully) year the Sox actually got to select high in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Apr 11, 2014 13:52:12 GMT -5
Wait, people are already concerned over him?
He has pitched 7 innings of pro ball.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Apr 11, 2014 13:56:49 GMT -5
All high school pitchers are raw. No. 1/2 starters reveal themselves in the majors by performance.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 11, 2014 14:05:38 GMT -5
Wait, people are already concerned over him? He has pitched 7 innings of pro ball. It's more that people are concerned about how the Sox used their 7th pick in the draft... on a guy who hasn't shown himself able to play in a full season league out of the gate... which as I've said before is a big concern for me.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Apr 11, 2014 14:12:38 GMT -5
Trey Ball is almost like Play Ball. How could they go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 11, 2014 14:32:59 GMT -5
Wait, people are already concerned over him? He has pitched 7 innings of pro ball. It's more that people are concerned about how the Sox used their 7th pick in the draft... on a guy who hasn't shown himself able to play in a full season league out of the gate... which as I've said before is a big concern for me. I thought he was the best HS pitcher in that draft?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 11, 2014 14:35:13 GMT -5
I'd hate to think the Sox took on a big project with their 7th pick instead of more sure thing like Austin Meadows. Austin Meadows was no sure thing at the time of the draft, by the way. Sickles had him dropping to 13, Callis said he might drop past the top 10, and Kiley McDaniel had him going 10th. He was definitely a guy who had dropped as the scouting process went on, and though there were plenty of folks who liked him (like Keith Law), to call him a "sure thing" is mostly revisionist history, I think.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 11, 2014 14:35:56 GMT -5
It's more that people are concerned about how the Sox used their 7th pick in the draft... on a guy who hasn't shown himself able to play in a full season league out of the gate... which as I've said before is a big concern for me. I thought he was the best HS pitcher in that draft? That was Kohl Stewart. Ball was widely regarded as the second-best guy, though, and the best lefty in the draft (HS or college).
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 11, 2014 15:09:18 GMT -5
I thought he was the best HS pitcher in that draft? That was Kohl Stewart. Ball was widely regarded as the second-best guy, though, and the best lefty in the draft (HS or college). Then why are people so against the pick now, if when we picked him he was that higlhly regarded… Its not like we picked some random player. Im guessing HS players take time, and also given the fact he was a Postion player and a pitcher and not just a pitcher
|
|
|