Nate Gold. Are you kiddin?

by doolindalton on Sep 8, 2006 12:55 AM CDT

This quote from the director of personnel development from a story on the Rangers official web site about various farm prospects:

"Gold (.291, 34 HR, 103 RBIs). A 10th round pick in the 2002 First-Year Player Draft, Gold had the biggest breakout season in the Rangers' farm system. He'll likely play at Triple-A Oklahoma next year, but he'll get some Major League playing time in Spring Training. The question is if he'll go on the 40-man roster this winter."

Exactly how many guys do the Rangers have in their farm system capable of hitting 34 home runs, hitting .291 and driving in 103 rbis? Why wouldn't they put him on their major league roster? It's stupid to even ask the question.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nah

He's very far from a 40 man roster slam dunk. There will be several guys on the street this winter who are 26 and able to hit 30 HR in AA. Of course most of them were at a higher level.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 8, 2006 1:05 AM CDT reply actions

Several guys

Really. In the Texas League there was one other guy with over 30 (who played with Tulsa) and his age is 24. Alex Gordon, the Royals' hot shot who is supposed to be in the majors next season, hit 29. With Tex potentially gone in two seasons, why not attempt to develop and hang on to the power hitters in the system? Who cares if he's 28 when he reaches the majors? I wouldn't mind having 5 or 6 good years of a Travis H.

by doolindalton on Sep 8, 2006 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions

Higher level

I think you missed the last part of zywica's post.

by LoneStarBallUser on Sep 8, 2006 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions

I read the last part ,but

it is a vague conjecture. There are probably several guys in the majors or AAA who will be free agents this fall and who are capable of putting up the same numbers as Eric Hurley in AA, but that is not an argument for leaving him unprotected.

Comparing Gold's numbers to other minor league power hitters is a valid basis for comparison. If Gold's numbers were average, the argument for leaving him off the roster would be valid. But he had an extraordinary season by any standard. There shouldn't be a question about putting him on the 40-man roster.

by doolindalton on Sep 8, 2006 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't see

a really good player in Gold. I know you're just using Hafner as an example, not a direct comparison, but even a late bloomer like him played AA at 23/24. Longhorn's favorite late blooming big man played it at 24.

When Gold reached AA at age 25, he put up a 540 OPS in 79 AB. He had a really nice year this year, and I'll admit to not paying close attention to him at all both when I watched Frisco play and when I look at boxes, etc. But it is incredibly rare to have a guy who is having his first success at AA at age 26 be a really good player - so rare that my guess is that you wouldn't have any problem getting him through the rule five draft if you need to.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 8, 2006 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Also

the two prospects you invoked as comparisons for Gold in these responses are Eric Hurley and Alex Gordon. Hurley played this year at 20 years old, SIX years younger than Gold, and Gordon just hopped right into pro baseball at this level (and was FOUR years younger). The difference between those guys' experience/age and Gold's is just enormous. I take it that you think there is a good reason that he has developed slowly, but at least use guys who are somewhere near his age in performance comparisons.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 8, 2006 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Gold vs. Howard

Ryan Howard is a year older than Gold and spent most of 2004 in AA before being promoted to AAA on July 30, 2004. No, I am not saying Gold is as good as Howard, but Howard is a better player in the majors than he was in the minor leagues. It is obviously possible to become a productive player in the majors after the ripe old age of 25.

by doolindalton on Sep 8, 2006 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Ryan Howard's current age is irrellevant

He was two years younger than Gold when he last saw AA ball.

Howard also didn't break out in AA. He had been a great hitter ever since his debut.

by austintxhorn on Sep 8, 2006 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions

possible, but

extremely rare. Unfortunately, it's more likely that Nate Gold just had his career year. I'd be very happy to be wrong, but I'd be surprised if he did anything approaching this in the majors, or even in AAA next year.

by t ball on Sep 8, 2006 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions

I also wanted to

highlight the fact that I am not a Nate Gold expert, and I won't make any "he won't do" such and such type statements. That's why I bolded the one phrase above, because I don't want to come off as dismissive.

But I think that there has to be something compelling about Gold, besides his numbers from this year, for someone to logically think that he's going to be a good major league player. If you're going just off of his numbers and not some other meaningful information (epiphany, health stuff, etc.), my guess is that you're going to be disappointed by him - or at least disappointed by the lack of chance that he gets.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 8, 2006 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Disappointment...

is inherent in being a Rangers fan. I've grown accustomed to the sensation in relation to the franchise dating far back to when they were the Washington Senators.

On the other hand, I would rather be disappointed by Gold then take a risk of him being snatched by another team. After all, this is a group of personnel evaluators who gave Fabio Castro away so it could keep Bryan Corey and who didn't think Chris Young could be a consistent starter in the majors. In short, I think the Rangers' management is stupid, not unlucky, just stupid.

by doolindalton on Sep 8, 2006 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

I can certainly sympathize with an overreaction to the Rangers losing or potentially losing a player, as I've done that several times. Besides draft outbursts, I believe I told some people that after trading Fernando Tatis for a one year run a a division, that if they did deal Mateo for Clemens, I was done with them. Ugh, wouldn't have looked too good on that one.

I freaked out over Sosa/Alvarez, Hafner, even dumping Desi Wilson and Rich Aurilia for Burkett then cutting Burkett without him even playing for them - then giving up Ryan Dempster for him to get him back, that Tatis deal, Botts being unprotected (and as I mentioned, he then went undrafted, so you could definitely argue that it was a smart gamble - I wouldn't, but one could), and I'm sure some others. Of course I've worn people out over the Castro thing here. I still haven't been through as much as you apparently, but I know how you feel. I just don't see Gold in the same class as any of the players mentioned anywhere else in relation to Gold here, other than a couple that Adam mentioned.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 8, 2006 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh and by the way

I just looked it up, and we also sent them Helling in that second Burkett deal. Fortunately we got him back for Vosberg or someone like that, but what a waste, giving up Aurilia just to turn around and cut Burkett before the season started. That was one of Melvin's bigger gaffes.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 8, 2006 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't understand why he didn't get some AAA time

this year. Makes zero sense with Botts out.

I agree that he shouldn't be a 40-man slam dunk. I think it's 50/50. Even if someone does take him, I bet he gets returned halfway through the season.

by austintxhorn on Sep 8, 2006 2:57 AM CDT reply actions