Keith Law on Rangers Pitching Prospects

by M_Y_isDANK on Nov 29, 2007 2:09 PM CST Comment 51 comments

In the chat that is going on right now, this was posted at the begining. Interesting stuff. It is the insider portion though

John (Dallas): Since nobody cares about the Rangers, it can be slightly more difficult to find info on their pitching prospects without shelling out thirty bucks a year to baseball sites. I was wondering if I could get your takes on the ML potential of guys like McCarthy, Gabbard, Hurley, Volquez, and since the target date for legitimacy seems to be 2010, guys a couple of years away like Kiker, Beavan, and Michael Main. Thanks for your input on the most overlooked perennially suffering club in the Major League.

Keith Law: (1:06 PM ET ) Gabbard's a 4A guy. Volquez has a decent arm but little feel; he's young but I have a bad feeling about him. Hurley's a #2/3 type, fastball's a little true, but he's moved very quickly. I won't give up on McCarthy yet - guy had plus command, then goes to Texas and has minus command? Unless he's hurt, I'm betting on a bounceback. Kiker and Main are possible 1/2 types, Beavan's a 2/3, word is they've cleaned his delivery up a little bit so there's not so much recoil in it. Kiker's curveball is one of the best in the minors. So things are looking up, but it's going to take another two to three years before the Rangers can harvest this talent.

0 recs | Comment 51 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Eh

Sometimes being a Rangers fan feels like a jail sentence.

by hightowersmith on Nov 29, 2007 2:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

it's not about 2008!

by SteveP on Nov 29, 2007 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ha

so true...

I just keep wondering, Maybe we can win the AL West and go to the playoofs and win the ALCS.

by ghostofChrisYoungandJohnDanks on Nov 30, 2007 11:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd agree

with most of that. Volquez is probably going to be consistently inconsistent his entire career. The next few years should feature Ranger teams that have plenty of depth in starting pitching, with moderate quality now and hopefully rising quality as these prospects mature.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I've heard that tune

that description makes Volquez sounds a little like Benoit

by Brandon Wilson on Nov 29, 2007 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pitching Developments

The exciting part comes when we have more than just one prospect close to making the jump (i.e. Volquez 2 years ago, Danks before the trade last year, Hurley this year). When we have 2 or 3 guys per year close to coming up, like the Twins and A's seem to consistently have, we'll hit on a few more than we have in the past (which is actually zero...).

I can't wait...but I guess I'll have to

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Nov 29, 2007 2:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

right now

is that time. Harrison and Hurley are 2 players who should be kicking the door in soon. Mendoza, Galaragga, and Murray aren't A list prospects but aren't minor league fodder either. And Diamond could be ready for 09 or even a CoC. Its looking up for me, hopefully we'll see some brightness in ST

by bushe on Nov 29, 2007 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agreeable

I just want a taste of sustainable success before I go all in

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Nov 29, 2007 5:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Law

Pretty much just pulled down his pants and leaked all over the "Wait till 2010" argument.

by badradiorules on Nov 29, 2007 2:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

How so?

by Brett Perryman on Nov 29, 2007 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah,

it seems like he validated "wait til 2010."

by LukeR on Nov 29, 2007 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I've had reservations about the "wait til 2010" argument and it seemed to verify that. To me its more like "wait til 1012", wich is much more depressing.

According to Law, and if we stand pat like most people here believe, this is what the Rangers would look like.

Rotation:
Millwood at 35
Hurley a nice 2/3 acc. to Law who should be coming into his own.
McCarthy: a low stuff guy with good command
Volquez: "decent arm with little feel" doesn't really set my heart at ease
Harrison: another low stuff/good command
Gabbard: 4A guy
Kiker: maybe a mid-season call up
Main/Beaven/Reed/Jones/Poveda/Phillips/Latin Guys/etc. still in the minors

Bullpen:
Should be very good

Lineup:
C Salty/Teagarden
1B Davis
2B Kinsler
SS Young
3B Duran
LF ?
CF Boggs?/Borbon?
RF Mayberry?/Cruz?
DH Botts?/Salty/Teagarden

Andrus may be ready by then, Max Ram doesn't seem to fit a position. Obviously, there should be acquisitions to supplement in some places, but according to most people on here, we shouldn't trade any prospects for anything, period.

There seems to be this mentality that if we just hold strong and wait for our prospects to show up, we'll be able to really compete in 2010. I don't think that is a given by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, if we stand pretty pat and wait for 2012/2013, I think there is a good chance that they'll be very, very good. How do you sell that to a fan though? Why would you want to? What are the chances that he'll still be there?

by badradiorules on Nov 30, 2007 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

reading too much into that

I don't think you can assume that Daniels is not going to add any other players in the next couple years. There are better free agent classes coming up with real impact players, and he's shown he's not afraid to make a trade. As aggressive as he is in making moves it's safe to assume that there will be several new faces on the club by 2010.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Nov 30, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's true

However, what I keep reading on here is that we shouldn't trade any prospects because we have the pieces in place to REALLY compete in 2010 and that is just not the case.

I agree that JD should be working hard to find deals that make this team better for the short term and the long term. We have some leverage because we can be patient and don't have to jump at any deals, because there is no way that we are competitive next year without a lot of moves. However, we need to start getting some guys into place over the next calendar year that can contribute at the big league level if we are to truly be competitive in 2010.

My point is that there a lot of moves to be made. And if you are going to do it in the FA market, you are going to drastically overpay for decent-good players.

by badradiorules on Nov 30, 2007 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Prospects

I think the real reason JD's going to hold onto a lot of guys is they're not maxed out values yet, especially the low-A/Latin guys.

Really, anybody below the CA league, which is still the level a lot of talent's at...

by hightowersmith on Nov 30, 2007 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

MY won't be at SS in 2010...

I also believe our entire outfield will be newly signed FA's. Duran won't be at 3B, either Blalock is still here or another FA/trade.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Nov 30, 2007 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Have

you seen the price of FA outfielders lately. We are going to spend $40 million a year on an outfield? The rest is just semantics. Those people are still going to be here and will be all that we have.

by badradiorules on Nov 30, 2007 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Accept the losing

T.R. -- enough is enough.

by Chase Irwin on Nov 30, 2007 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kiker a possible 1/2?

Haven't seen that anywhere else...

Brett Gardner broke my heart...

by Brian Thomas on Nov 29, 2007 2:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

me

I've been saying it for 1-2 years, probably more. And no, I don't have a link.

But that river of tears has dried for all of us.

by trza on Nov 29, 2007 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh

the expert has spoken.

by brettgardner on Nov 29, 2007 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

uh

That was a joke. Oh never mind.

But that river of tears has dried for all of us.

by trza on Nov 29, 2007 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mi culpa.

Sorry.

by brettgardner on Nov 29, 2007 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The expression...

is "mea cuplpa."

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Nov 30, 2007 12:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

correction...

mea culpa

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Nov 30, 2007 12:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't be stupid

I was speaking Spanish, not Latin. Save your corrections for yourself.

by brettgardner on Nov 30, 2007 7:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

I just reread this and it reminded me of a similar exchange:

Tommy: R.T. I think I figured out the problem. This order's going to Columbus. Now that's a one-day delivery, but you've got it marked down for two.

R.T.: That's because it's going to Columbus, Georgia, not Columbus, Ohio. You see these letters by the city? That's called a state. What else you got, wonder boy?

Tommy: That's pretty much it for now.

R.T.: Hey Tommy maybe you should go back to college for another 7 years and study a globe.

by brettgardner on Nov 30, 2007 8:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

There is only 1 response worthy of such braggadocio:

Nah, noob...

Brett Gardner broke my heart...

by Brian Thomas on Nov 29, 2007 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kiker

is a stud. I really hope he is.

by the other dierk in dallas on Nov 29, 2007 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Did I really break your heart?

by brettgardner on Nov 29, 2007 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

It just took all the fun out our exchanges. I can't get into it knowing what I know now.

I'll probably change the sig soon, when I think of something.

Brett Gardner broke my heart...

by Brian Thomas on Nov 29, 2007 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

no matter what, I still think you're a creepy guy and blowhard. We'll always have Paris, Brian.

by brettgardner on Nov 29, 2007 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

Why can't we be friends?

by Agreen07 on Nov 29, 2007 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There's that Gardnerian charm we all love

Brett Gardner broke my heart...

by Brian Thomas on Nov 29, 2007 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kiker

Opinions are wildly diverse. He might sorta be the pitching version of the Arias Rorschach test. Nobody seems to doubt the stuff however.

Upside: Mike Hampton.
Likelihood of reaching upside: Average.

by mjh on Nov 30, 2007 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't put much stock

in comments like these. Why is Main a 1/2 but Beaven is a 2/3? In June most scouts considered Beaven the superior talent.

And as for Volquez, what was so inconsistent about him this year in the minors? He looks like a guy who was rushed initially, but who is now gaining a feel for pitching in the majors, mostly because of some confidence and maturity he gained over the last two years.

As for Gabbard, I find it a little premature to call him a 4A player so quickly. The main concern with him is not his stuff but rather his ability to stay healthy. Granted, he was a little lucky with the BABIP in Boston, but when he came here he reeled off a number of quality starts before nagging injuries ended his season and inflated his stats in the end. I still think he projects as a solid 4/5 guy, and not a 4A guy.

by clark on Nov 29, 2007 3:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Volquez

I can't figure out why he was called up in the first place in '06. He walked 72 in 120 IP in OKC yet we
figured he was ready to go?

As for Gabbard, Rheino and Koronka put up similarly nice numbers when they first got here, and then they got shelled as hitters figured them out just like they figured out Gabbard and smoked him his last 4 starts. Gabbard's control has never been that great either even through the minors and that's not a good thing when you don't have a fastball and rely on nibbling to get guys out ('07 WHIP: 1.56) a la Rheinecker and Koronka. BOS got lucky with a fringe prospect having a bit of success and being able to deal him for something good (at least as it was universally perceived at the time).

by Rangerchick on Nov 29, 2007 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

are you ignoring Beltre?

I thought he was the real meat and potatoes of the deal...he's been compared (maybe unfairly) to Bonds, Strawberry, etc.

David Murphy and Kason Gabbard are just two ML roster fillers that we took back because they had no place for them with Lester, Buchholz blocking Gabbard and Ellsbury/Crisp blocking Murphy and we could use them...Gabbard's never going to be confused with a staff ace, but he's good enough in my humble opinion to be our 4 for now and our 5 for the long haul. Murph's shown he can play if nothing else...he's got decent defense, decent offense, and should at worst be our 4th outfielder of the future

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Dec 1, 2007 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Two things

One, I was under the impression that Gabbard's health played quite a bit into his poor performances late. I'd like to see him stay healthy this year and see wehther he might be able to establish himself at the back of the rotation.

Two, as the poster just ahead said, it's pretty amazing, especially considering what has transpired since then, that you'd classify that deal as lucky for Boston. He mentioned Beltre, but if you're going to run Gabbard down based on a couple of bad starts, how about how Murphy performed?

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2007 7:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

Back in June most had Main as a potential #1/2 who could be an outfielder if he tanked as a starter. In fact, one of two guys had him going ahead of Beavan. Then again, some scouts had Beavan going top 5. Scouts were really split on Beavan. There were some that saw him as a clear future #1, but some who were very scared by the violent recoil and didn't paint as rosy a picture. I'm guessing that scouts are saying that the tweaks with his delivery might drop him a spot in the rotation. Still, until we actually see him pitch for awhile then who knows?

by rangeressary on Nov 29, 2007 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No coverage?!

This guy who asks this question is a freakin' idiot! Everyone who's a Rangers fan knows we have second-to-none coverage of our minor leaguers due to Jamey and blogs like this one and Scott Lucas's and others. In fact, I would go so far as to bet that Rangers fans know more about their minor leaguers than just about any other team out there. Whoever is paying $30 for something like this moron is wasting money with all of the free material we have access to.

by kentbenfer on Nov 29, 2007 3:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Law is going to be surprised.

Colbert/Colbert '08

by rooster on Nov 29, 2007 3:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not $30 a year!

by Brett Perryman on Nov 29, 2007 5:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Seriously guys, what did he say

that is all that controversial there, especially from a negative standpoint?

The biggest quarrel I'd probably have is minimalizing Volquez by saying that he has a "decent" arm. Volquez has more than a decent arm, and his changeup is a fine pitch. The feel part, I think that's viable though.

If I remember correctly, Keith is the guy who really didn't like Beavan's delivery, so I would expect a little lower estimation than some others might give.

Saying that Hurley and Beavan are 2/3, Main and Kiker are possible 1/2 and then what he said about the three major leaguers, I've really got no problem with that in terms of a net conclusion.

by Brett Perryman on Nov 29, 2007 5:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Hell, I'm just stoked that ...

an "expert" actually thinks we have some guys in our system that are #3 or better starters. When is the last time we could say that?

by Athos on Nov 29, 2007 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty happy about

the hurley comment. that guy isn't so far away!

I can't remember, before danks left, I think people had said he was a possible #2 - but if I remember correctly, they would always say "best case scenario."

by ab03 on Nov 29, 2007 6:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Beavan

I'm not a huge Beavan guy but there is no way this guy doesn't have ace potential. Mid 90's fastball with a good slider and already pretty good command.

by groundingout on Nov 29, 2007 5:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not just a good

slider.....the best slider Beaven has ever seen.

"On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

by jparks77 on Nov 29, 2007 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs