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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 5, 2016 15:58:55 GMT -5
I would like for you to point out to me what was wrong with anything a I said in the context of when I made those comments. Eric, in June of last year he was in the freaking DSL. Cut the crap. Also, don't be modest - go ahead and point out the post you made at that time in which you said he'd be in Greenville to start this season. There was very little wrong with what anyone said that that point. The only point I was trying to make now was that the guys who had him being very fast-tracked were right in the past, and that very likely means that they have a greater chance of being right now, about further fast-tracking. I think we've all still got the same sense of how good he is and what his timetable might be. Now, " talking about him opening next season in Low-A is too premature" was wrong. The fact that reasonable people thought it was a worthwhile speculation, and the fact that it actually happened, contradicts the notion that we shouldn't have been talking about the possibility. (If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but I can't think of what else you might have meant instead.) My reply to that in short: "The last guy I remember throwing this hard this young did in fact open his age 18 season in low-A. ... The proper attitude towards Espinoza's timetable is complete agnosticism. It's very easy to see him flying through the system a la Mookie and being in the Sox rotation at age 19, like Doc and Felix before him. It's just as easy to see him take a more normal course and arrive at 22 or 23 ... With that arm and his exceptional mechanics, ordinary progress in acquiring muscle memory and consistent mechanics, and hence good command, is going to get you to MLB very quickly. I wouldn't put the brakes on anyone dreaming about a rapid ascent, as long as they recognize that it remains merely a distinct possibility." telson: "I have to think that if he keeps pitching well, he'll go to the GCL in a month [it turned out to be two weeks exactly]. ... a few piggyback starts in SS ball ought to clarify where he goes next year. Tough to imagine anything but full-season ball if he has some GCL success."
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Apr 5, 2016 16:06:17 GMT -5
There was very little wrong with what anyone said that that point. T he only point I was trying to make now was that the guys who had him being very fast-tracked were right in the past, and that very likely means that they have a greater chance of being right now, about further fast-tracking. I think we've all still got the same sense of how good he is and what his timetable might be. Now, " talking about him opening next season in Low-A is too premature" was wrong. The fact that reasonable people thought it was a worthwhile speculation, and the fact that it actually happened, contradicts the notion that we shouldn't have been talking about the possibility. (If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but I can't think of what else you might have meant instead.) The ultimate small sample size of 1 - that's small even for you, the King of small sample sizes.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 5, 2016 16:08:27 GMT -5
The only point I was trying to make now was that the guys who had him being very fast-tracked were right in the past, and that very likely means that they have a greater chance of being right now, about further fast-tracking I don't know what's more amazing, that you think about things like this or that you actually believe it.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Apr 5, 2016 16:08:57 GMT -5
Let me add - there's no way Neo pitches in Portland this year. That's 3 levels in one year. It's completely unnecessary. He'll need some years to build up his arm strength and innings limit. I know we're all excited about him - me too. But let's not pretend he's the next Sidd Finch. He'll get to Boston plenty young if continues to impress the way he has so far.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 5, 2016 16:11:46 GMT -5
I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but technically he pitched at three levels last year. In half a season.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 5, 2016 16:14:22 GMT -5
There was very little wrong with what anyone said that that point. T he only point I was trying to make now was that the guys who had him being very fast-tracked were right in the past, and that very likely means that they have a greater chance of being right now, about further fast-tracking. I think we've all still got the same sense of how good he is and what his timetable might be. Now, " talking about him opening next season in Low-A is too premature" was wrong. The fact that reasonable people thought it was a worthwhile speculation, and the fact that it actually happened, contradicts the notion that we shouldn't have been talking about the possibility. (If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but I can't think of what else you might have meant instead.) The ultimate small sample size of 1 - that's small even for you, the King of small sample sizes. You know, I did the math, and there's actually a 1 in 15 million chance that his correct prediction on this issue was random, so...
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 7, 2016 3:23:16 GMT -5
There was very little wrong with what anyone said that that point. T he only point I was trying to make now was that the guys who had him being very fast-tracked were right in the past, and that very likely means that they have a greater chance of being right now, about further fast-tracking. I think we've all still got the same sense of how good he is and what his timetable might be. Now, " talking about him opening next season in Low-A is too premature" was wrong. The fact that reasonable people thought it was a worthwhile speculation, and the fact that it actually happened, contradicts the notion that we shouldn't have been talking about the possibility. (If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but I can't think of what else you might have meant instead.) The ultimate small sample size of 1 - that's small even for you, the King of small sample sizes. The actual sample size here is all of human psychology. I mean, the conservatives of the world, if pressed, will probably admit that their ilk were wrong about getting rid of slavery, giving women the vote, Social Security, etc., etc. (in fact, conservatives are almost always wrong about any issue, since their job is not to be right but to prevent the liberals from changing things too quickly and rashly), but they'll absolutely swear up and down that this time, say, about gay marriage, they're correct. People think the way they think. If you're really damn sure that trend X is unlikely, and some reasonable people give solid counter-arguments, and trend X happens, you can damn well bet that it is likelier that trend X will continue than not. And that you will still be convinced that it won't. You said it yourself: you have a fixed idea, and you have a small amount of evidence that contradicts it. Of course you're not going to change your mind, even though the contradiction was extreme. I mean, really. We're having a debate as to whether 2016 will be a bull or bear market, and you argue bear, and two guys who have reputations for being savvy argue bull. 2016 dawns, and it's a big bull market. And you come back and, without offering any new reasons, say, hey, now we have a bear market coming up. And when I point out that the bulls were right and (since no one has mentioned any change in economic indicators) that means that in the near future a bull market is in plain fact likelier than a bear, you pronounce that the bulls being right was a sample size of 1. Really. The only point I was trying to make now was that the guys who had him being very fast-tracked were right in the past, and that very likely means that they have a greater chance of being right now, about further fast-tracking I don't know what's more amazing, that you think about things like this or that you actually believe it. Man oh man, is that a straight line. But I resist. I will say this, though: one of my favorite points to make about the brain is that people grossly underestimate the differences between them, in terms of thinking styles, perception, and so on. If any one of us could be in someone else's brain for just a bit, we'd crap our pants at the alienness of the experience. (And if you don't get that, it proves the point.)
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 7, 2016 5:14:07 GMT -5
Oh there's some big bull going on here, that we agree on.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 7, 2016 6:55:25 GMT -5
Back to Espinoza.... I'm as high on him as anyone but I didn't want that video and get all giddy. I saw what I already knew but also saw a guy making the catcher move his glove a lot. He will dominate and demolish lower levels because of his pure stuff. They will need to move him up to keep him challenged so he can clean up his command.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Apr 7, 2016 7:02:55 GMT -5
Well Eric, you've truly missed your calling. You'd fit right in on Wall Street
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 7, 2016 8:42:57 GMT -5
Back to Espinoza.... I'm as high on him as anyone but I didn't want that video and get all giddy. I saw what I already knew but also saw a guy making the catcher move his glove a lot. He will dominate and demolish lower levels because of his pure stuff. They will need to move him up to keep him challenged so he can clean up his command. I watched that video and also his game last year at Greenville. Peeps should take into consideration the fact that the video was shot of two innings that were his first innings of the spring. From what I saw at Greenville, his command matches his numbers. Look at the scouting grades, 60 control from BA, 55 from MLB pipeline. That was as a 17 year old, you see that often ?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 7, 2016 10:43:04 GMT -5
Let me add - there's no way Neo pitches in Portland this year. That's 3 levels in one year. It's completely unnecessary. He'll need some years to build up his arm strength and innings limit. I know we're all excited about him - me too. But let's not pretend he's the next Sidd Finch. He'll get to Boston plenty young if continues to impress the way he has so far. Well, in 2012, Dylan Bunday absolutely destroyed low-A, moved up to high A for half a season, and then to AA Bowie for three starts before getting a cup of coffee in Baltimore. So "no way" is a patently incorrect statement. I don't think it's guaranteed by any stretch, or even "likely," but if he pitches extremely well, he'll get promoted. They'll test him in accordance with his performance. I happen to think that if he stays healthy and pitches well, he'll move up the two levels just like Bundy did. A ton of people (mods especially) waved their "be reasonable" flags when I made my timetable projection last year, too.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 7, 2016 11:06:17 GMT -5
Back to Espinoza.... I'm as high on him as anyone but I didn't want that video and get all giddy. I saw what I already knew but also saw a guy making the catcher move his glove a lot. He will dominate and demolish lower levels because of his pure stuff. They will need to move him up to keep him challenged so he can clean up his command. I watched that video and also his game last year at Greenville. Peeps should take into consideration the fact that the video was shot of two innings that were his first innings of the spring. From what I saw at Greenville, his command matches his numbers. Look at the scouting grades, 60 control from BA, 55 from MLB pipeline. That was as a 17 year old, you see that often ? I think rjp is right, in that Espinoza isn't a "finished" product, even if he's a "polished" one. I saw the same issue he did, particularly with the curve. It's the start of the season, so so winter rust is expected. But he's still got a ways to go before the consistency of his command/control is MLB-ready. That's part of why I think the Sox will aggressive promote him (just as they did last year): because they're not going to want him dominating hitters based on pure stuff. Stuff-wise, he's MLB caliber already. But it's mixing in his secondaries, refining (and learning ideal) location, experimenting with sequencing, etc. that he really needs work on. He's going to carve up the Sally league, in all likelihood. So I think they promote him to high A pretty quickly, where hitters are really going to be advanced enough to force him to develop in the areas where he needs more development. And I think he'll pitch well enough in Salem to get a AA promotion reward at year's end. As for the whole "he needs innings" argument some people are coming up with...please stop. He's going to get innings; level has no bearing on innings unless it's too easy (low pitch counts=less work) or too hard (high pitch counts=low innings). He's due for 110-130 or so innings this year, based on recent Sox history with pitchers at similar ages. That means about 140-160 in 2017 and 170-190 in 2018. He'll get innings because the Sox will keep him in the sweet spot of the development curve...where the porridge is just right.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Apr 7, 2016 14:01:24 GMT -5
Let me add - there's no way Neo pitches in Portland this year. That's 3 levels in one year. It's completely unnecessary. He'll need some years to build up his arm strength and innings limit. I know we're all excited about him - me too. But let's not pretend he's the next Sidd Finch. He'll get to Boston plenty young if continues to impress the way he has so far. Well, in 2012, Dylan Bunday absolutely destroyed low-A, moved up to high A for half a season, and then to AA Bowie for three starts before getting a cup of coffee in Baltimore. So "no way" is a patently incorrect statement. I don't think it's guaranteed by any stretch, or even "likely," but if he pitches extremely well, he'll get promoted. They'll test him in accordance with his performance. I happen to think that if he stays healthy and pitches well, he'll move up the two levels just like Bundy did. A ton of people (mods especially) waved their "be reasonable" flags when I made my timetable projection last year, too. Hyperbole. Of course it's possible. But the kid is still young and I think he'll have plenty to work on in Greenville and Salem. Maybe one start in Portland, but I'd surprised if he moved faster.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 7, 2016 14:59:59 GMT -5
Well, in 2012, Dylan Bunday absolutely destroyed low-A, moved up to high A for half a season, and then to AA Bowie for three starts before getting a cup of coffee in Baltimore. So "no way" is a patently incorrect statement. I don't think it's guaranteed by any stretch, or even "likely," but if he pitches extremely well, he'll get promoted. They'll test him in accordance with his performance. I happen to think that if he stays healthy and pitches well, he'll move up the two levels just like Bundy did. A ton of people (mods especially) waved their "be reasonable" flags when I made my timetable projection last year, too. Hyperbole. Of course it's possible. But the kid is still young and I think he'll have plenty to work on in Greenville and Salem. Maybe one start in Portland, but I'd surprised if he moved faster. We're probably in agreement then...I described a Portland cameo, even if only the playoffs. I don't think he spends any real development time in AA...it would just be essentially what Greenville was last year. Unless he somehow manages to exceed expectations again. I might just spontaneously combust if I dwell on that option, so let's keep it safe.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 7, 2016 15:28:47 GMT -5
He's going to move up when he's not being challenged, so that's anywhere between 0 and 2 levels. The bigger issue is going to be to bump him up to enough innings before he's ready for the majors. I'd guess he'd be around 100 IP this year and 130 the next, so that's pretty difficult to put him in the majors late next year unless he's in the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 7, 2016 15:38:57 GMT -5
He's going to move up when he's not being challenged, so that's anywhere between 0 and 2 levels. The bigger issue is going to be to bump him up to enough innings before he's ready for the majors. I'd guess he'd be around 100 IP this year and 130 the next, so that's pretty difficult to put him in the majors late next year unless he's in the bullpen. I would really like to see him get to 110-130 innings this year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 7, 2016 15:44:13 GMT -5
He's going to move up when he's not being challenged, so that's anywhere between 0 and 2 levels. The bigger issue is going to be to bump him up to enough innings before he's ready for the majors. I'd guess he'd be around 100 IP this year and 130 the next, so that's pretty difficult to put him in the majors late next year unless he's in the bullpen. I would really like to see him get to 110-130 innings this year. I think that's wishful thinking. Urias had 87 in his age 18 season.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 7, 2016 15:49:47 GMT -5
He pitched 58 official innings last year not counting whatever he did in pre season or at instructs which the organization probably keeps track of. I'd say between 100-110 innings will be his target this year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 7, 2016 16:00:52 GMT -5
I watched that video and also his game last year at Greenville. Peeps should take into consideration the fact that the video was shot of two innings that were his first innings of the spring. From what I saw at Greenville, his command matches his numbers. Look at the scouting grades, 60 control from BA, 55 from MLB pipeline. That was as a 17 year old, you see that often ? I think rjp is right, in that Espinoza isn't a "finished" product, even if he's a "polished" one. I saw the same issue he did, particularly with the curve. It's the start of the season, so so winter rust is expected. But he's still got a ways to go before the consistency of his command/control is MLB-ready. That's part of why I think the Sox will aggressive promote him (just as they did last year): because they're not going to want him dominating hitters based on pure stuff. Stuff-wise, he's MLB caliber already. But it's mixing in his secondaries, refining (and learning ideal) location, experimenting with sequencing, etc. that he really needs work on. He's going to carve up the Sally league, in all likelihood. So I think they promote him to high A pretty quickly, where hitters are really going to be advanced enough to force him to develop in the areas where he needs more development. And I think he'll pitch well enough in Salem to get a AA promotion reward at year's end. As for the whole "he needs innings" argument some people are coming up with...please stop. He's going to get innings; level has no bearing on innings unless it's too easy (low pitch counts=less work) or too hard (high pitch counts=low innings). He's due for 110-130 or so innings this year, based on recent Sox history with pitchers at similar ages. That means about 140-160 in 2017 and 170-190 in 2018. He'll get innings because the Sox will keep him in the sweet spot of the development curve...where the porridge is just right. Did somebody say he's a finished product ? Great argument against whoever is in your imagination that thinks he's a finished product. Of course he needs work but my point is that he's ahead of the development curve in command and control, not behind it. If you chose to base your opinion on watching video of his first two innings this year, that's your choice. I'd prefer to go with his season's stats, what I saw in an actual game and what scouts say.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 7, 2016 16:21:18 GMT -5
I would really like to see him get to 110-130 innings this year. I think that's wishful thinking. Urias had 87 in his age 18 season. Per Baseball-Reference it was his age 17 season at high A were he had 87 innings. He then had 80 innings last year mostly at AA at age 18.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 7, 2016 16:30:17 GMT -5
AE has stated that his goal is to pitch in the majors at age 19 like his countryman Felix Hernandez. It's somewhat of a long shot but I have no reason to believe that he won't be able to do that. Hernandez had more than a cup of coffee, Urias will get more than a cup of coffee this year at 19 and I'm hoping he accomplishes his goals.
He isn't going to be challenged until at least Portland.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 7, 2016 16:33:06 GMT -5
I think rjp is right, in that Espinoza isn't a "finished" product, even if he's a "polished" one. I saw the same issue he did, particularly with the curve. It's the start of the season, so so winter rust is expected. But he's still got a ways to go before the consistency of his command/control is MLB-ready. That's part of why I think the Sox will aggressive promote him (just as they did last year): because they're not going to want him dominating hitters based on pure stuff. Stuff-wise, he's MLB caliber already. But it's mixing in his secondaries, refining (and learning ideal) location, experimenting with sequencing, etc. that he really needs work on. He's going to carve up the Sally league, in all likelihood. So I think they promote him to high A pretty quickly, where hitters are really going to be advanced enough to force him to develop in the areas where he needs more development. And I think he'll pitch well enough in Salem to get a AA promotion reward at year's end. As for the whole "he needs innings" argument some people are coming up with...please stop. He's going to get innings; level has no bearing on innings unless it's too easy (low pitch counts=less work) or too hard (high pitch counts=low innings). He's due for 110-130 or so innings this year, based on recent Sox history with pitchers at similar ages. That means about 140-160 in 2017 and 170-190 in 2018. He'll get innings because the Sox will keep him in the sweet spot of the development curve...where the porridge is just right. Did somebody say he's a finished product ? Great argument against whoever is in your imagination that thinks he's a finished product. Of course he needs work but my point is that he's ahead of the development curve in command and control, not behind it. If you chose to base your opinion on watching video of his first two innings this year, that's your choice. I'd prefer to go with his season's stats, what I saw in an actual game and what scouts say. Settle down, Beavis. What are, you, ten? I never claimed anyone said he was a finished product. Way to get hyper-defensive, though.
|
|
|
Post by honestlyabe on Apr 7, 2016 16:43:09 GMT -5
Put me on the record for at least one Portland appearance this season! Gooooo [nickname you like]!
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 7, 2016 16:44:21 GMT -5
Butthead, 2 or 3 people have watched 2 innings of early spring training then come to conclusions which imply an AE deficiency based on that alone. That's just totally bogus, particularly since literally every pitcher in baseball is working on their command.
AE said he want to go by "the bull". I'm pretty sure he's never heard of The Matrix or Neo, and Neo's last name was Anderson, not his first. Interesting trivia though, Neo's passport expired on 9/11. His nickname will become whatever his teammates call him. Neo is close to a zero chance.
|
|
|