|
Post by Coreno on Aug 7, 2017 19:31:19 GMT -5
I think its important to point out that Houck is only 2 months younger than Kopech.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 8, 2017 6:10:14 GMT -5
Right, so I guess I still don't understand what you're saying. How do you feel he's "ahead" of other pitchers in the system? I guess I said it poorly. It took kopech a couple of years to get to Salem . Houck looks like he will get there to start next season. From the posts on this page it appears Houck has an advanced approach to pitching already. Groome and Mata are younger and appear to be just starting to understand. It does not mean that Houck will be better. just that he appears to be more advanced skill wise at this snapshot in time. From what I have pieced together on what has been said. The timeline for Houck looks like 2020 spring, and the other two are more like late 2020 or maybe 2021. So that would make Houck look like he is ahead of the other 2. Those 2 timelines put them in line with when porcello and Drew as free agents and would give the sox room to sign Sale. Projection here is also like projecting the weather this winter. Understand that it is a reach. As a college draftee, relative to when they were drafted, of course Houck is more advanced and is going to get to Salem faster than Kopech, a high school draftee.
|
|
|
Post by giatree12 on Aug 8, 2017 8:08:29 GMT -5
You also have to remember Kopech had off the field issues as well. Who knows, maybe he could have been in the bigs already without those issues.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 8, 2017 8:50:11 GMT -5
I think its important to point out that Houck is only 2 months younger than Kopech. And Kopech would be very likely to be in the majors (if only in a bullpen role) this September if he were on a playoff team.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Aug 8, 2017 9:49:06 GMT -5
Imagine where he could be if he hadn't missed almost a year of development combined between a suspension and a broken hand
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 8, 2017 11:24:58 GMT -5
Yeah, to me, for his age, Houck isn't particularly advanced for a first-round pick or anything. He doesn't strike me as a guy that's going to shoot through the system atypically fast for a college draftee.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Aug 8, 2017 11:28:30 GMT -5
Yeah, to me, for his age, Houck isn't particularly advanced for a first-round pick or anything. He doesn't strike me as a guy that's going to shoot through the system atypically fast for a college draftee. I agree, and there is plenty to work on regarding his secondaries. His ability to develop a changeup (and gain consistent feel for his slider) is extremely crucial if he is to develop as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 8, 2017 12:55:12 GMT -5
The main reason I asked about his fastball is because I have a feeling he ends up as a reliever. If he has a fastball that is close to as good as Paps he should be a good reliever. Paps would go a full inning throwing nothing but heat. It would drive me crazy, but his fastball was that good. Houcks fastball and slider combo could be awesome in the bullpen.
If he struggles developing a changeup, I would like to see them switch him from starter to reliever quickly. Something we never seem to do.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 8, 2017 13:21:15 GMT -5
Paps would go a full inning throwing nothing but heat. It would drive me crazy, but his fastball was that good. I think this is more common than you think. Doolittle does the same thing with his fastball. Jake McGee too. And then of course there's Mo Rivera and Kenley Jansen who did/do it with cutters. If you have a double-plus pitch, you can get by an inning at a time throwing it almost exclusively. Houck's fastball is not double-plus, but it's probably a plus pitch right now. We can wait and see how he develops, but right now, the focus should be on developing the rest of his pitches to see if he can start.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 8, 2017 14:13:52 GMT -5
If I remember right didn't Paps fastball go from plus to plus plus only after moving to bullpen? He was able to go full out and not pace himself.
With Houck I have no problem giving him two years as a starter. If his secondary pitches haven't advanced enough by then, I would move him to bullpen. No reason to wait 3 plus years like with Barnes.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 8, 2017 14:35:06 GMT -5
If I remember right didn't Paps fastball go from plus to plus plus only after moving to bullpen? He was able to go full out and not pace himself. With Houck I have no problem giving him two years as a starter. If his secondary pitches haven't advanced enough by then, I would move him to bullpen. No reason to wait 3 plus years like with Barnes. So you would've moved Barnes to the bullpen after he'd struck out 11.25 per nine in Portland and was still a top 100 prospect on both MLB.com and Baseball Prospectus? The walks were high, but it wasn't like this was Trey Ball where it was starting to get obvious that he needed to move. Developing players takes time. I don't understand the rush. Give Houck enough time to determine whether he's not a starter. Papelbon didn't even move to the bullpen until the middle of his third season, and that was probably more out of necessity in Boston than anything else, as the backbone of the 2004 bullpen of Foulke, Timlin, and Embree was toast and the team needed relief help in a bad way.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 8, 2017 14:45:58 GMT -5
If I remember right didn't Paps fastball go from plus to plus plus only after moving to bullpen? He was able to go full out and not pace himself. With Houck I have no problem giving him two years as a starter. If his secondary pitches haven't advanced enough by then, I would move him to bullpen. No reason to wait 3 plus years like with Barnes. So you would've moved Barnes to the bullpen after he'd struck out 11.25 per nine in Portland and was still a top 100 prospect on both MLB.com and Baseball Prospectus? The walks were high, but it wasn't like this was Trey Ball where it was starting to get obvious that he needed to move. Developing players takes time. I don't understand the rush. Give Houck enough time to determine whether he's not a starter. Papelbon didn't even move to the bullpen until the middle of his third season, and that was probably more out of necessity in Boston than anything else, as the backbone of the 2004 bullpen of Foulke, Timlin, and Embree was toast and the team needed relief help in a bad way. You mean the season when he had a 1.46 whip, 112 hits in 108.00 innings along with 46 walks. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 8, 2017 15:00:20 GMT -5
So you would've moved Barnes to the bullpen after he'd struck out 11.25 per nine in Portland and was still a top 100 prospect on both MLB.com and Baseball Prospectus? The walks were high, but it wasn't like this was Trey Ball where it was starting to get obvious that he needed to move. Developing players takes time. I don't understand the rush. Give Houck enough time to determine whether he's not a starter. Papelbon didn't even move to the bullpen until the middle of his third season, and that was probably more out of necessity in Boston than anything else, as the backbone of the 2004 bullpen of Foulke, Timlin, and Embree was toast and the team needed relief help in a bad way. You mean the season when he had a 1.46 whip, 112 hits in 108.00 innings along with 46 walks. Yes. Oh, you would have? forum.soxprospects.com/post/102765/thread
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 8, 2017 15:01:56 GMT -5
You guys are all over this one. Glad you could explain it for me. Houck's timeline to the majors appears 3 years down the road. Needs to develop secondary pitches to be a starter, but could easily end up as a relief guy. Both Groome and Mata have a much higher ceiling. The timeline for porcello, price and Drew possibly leaving are close to that window. It would be nice to have them fill the void and sign Sale long term to his big contract.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 8, 2017 15:03:10 GMT -5
How do you compare Groome, Mata, and Houck against Anderson E.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Aug 8, 2017 15:15:43 GMT -5
Theres not a whole lot of ambiguity in that statement.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2017 15:22:43 GMT -5
BURN There's a lesson to learn about always having to be right about everything...
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 8, 2017 15:29:43 GMT -5
I let our need for starters blind my judgement of what was crystal clear back then. Dreaming of a starter striking everyone out. I will never again make that mistake. The value of an impact reliever has sky rocketed since 2014. So we should make the same mistake with Houck? Houck has the look of a reliever more than Barnes at the same age. A College arm, with 3 years of playing College ball, shouldn't need more than two years to show you if he can start.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2017 15:34:00 GMT -5
I let our need for starters blind my judgement of what was crystal clear back then. Dreaming of a starter striking everyone out. I will never again make that mistake. The value of an impact reliever has sky rocketed since 2014. So we should make the same mistake with Houck? Houck has the look of a reliever more than Barnes at the same age. A College arm, with 3 years of playing College ball, shouldn't need more than two years to show you if he can start. 10.1 innings of pretty good pitching as a professional is plenty of evidence. I agree, move him to the bullpen. I think you meant to say you were wrong instead of twisting it to try to make everyone else seem wrong.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 8, 2017 15:48:29 GMT -5
I was wrong about Barnes and didn't try and twist anything. A bunch of people wanted to move him after 2014. I let our need for starters cloud my judgement. It's a big reason why I would handle Houck differently. It's called learning from your mistakes, so you don't repeat them.
Did you miss give him 2 years?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2017 15:51:42 GMT -5
I was wrong about Barnes and didn't try and twist anything. A bunch of people wanted to move him after 2014. I let our need for starters cloud my judgement. It's a big reason why I would handle Houck differently. It's called learning from your mistakes, so you don't repeat them. Did you miss give him 2 years? You're just making new mistakes if you pigeon hole yourself into thinking that way. What Barnes did/does has nothing to do with Houck. They aren't the same pitcher and you have no idea at all if he can develop a 3rd pitch. I'd give him more than 10 innings to figure out if he can. It's not like we need to rush him. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Barnes could go back to starting at some point anyway. His curve looks a lot better than it did.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 8, 2017 16:24:52 GMT -5
Yes, I would give him more than 10 innings, that's why I said two years. I had to say that 5 times now.
The facts right now are that Barnes had the look of a starter more than Houck does. There's a reason why most draft experts think Houck is a future reliever. There's a reason why guys a lot smarter than us ripped the pick live during the draft. They had spent a ton of time researching and studying these players.
Give him a couple years to prove people wrong. If he doesn't move him to the bullpen. At this point he's more of the prove he can be a starter, than fail at being a starter type player.
|
|
|
Post by a2sox on Aug 8, 2017 17:00:59 GMT -5
Wow. That was forum gold.
|
|
|
Post by bnich on Aug 8, 2017 18:02:59 GMT -5
Yes, I would give him more than 10 innings, that's why I said two years. I had to say that 5 times now.The facts right now are that Barnes had the look of a starter more than Houck does. There's a reason why most draft experts think Houck is a future reliever. There's a reason why guys a lot smarter than us ripped the pick live during the draft. They had spent a ton of time researching and studying these players. Give him a couple years to prove people wrong. If he doesn't move him to the bullpen. At this point he's more of the prove he can be a starter, than fail at being a starter type player.I've actually only seen you say it once and reference it in this post. And the second bolded statement has always been the intention since they announced the pick. Relax and let's see what happens. I think Houck has what it takes to be a MLB starting pitcher. Give him some time and let him develop. He hasn't even gone more than 3 innings yet.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 8, 2017 19:50:03 GMT -5
I was wrong about Barnes and didn't try and twist anything. A bunch of people wanted to move him after 2014. I let our need for starters cloud my judgement. It's a big reason why I would handle Houck differently. It's called learning from your mistakes, so you don't repeat them. Did you miss give him 2 years? It's also called fighting the last war.
|
|