BP's top 11 Rangers prospects

Sorry Adam, Got to post it..............

Five-Star Prospects
1. Neftali Feliz, RHP
Four-Star Prospects

Eric Hurley, RHP
Elvis Andrus, SS
Engel Beltre, OF
Michael Main, RHP
Chris Davis, 3B

Three-Star Prospects

Taylor Teagarden, C
Blake Beavan, RHP
Matt Harrison, RHP
Max Ramirez, C
German Duran, 2B

Kiker missing the list really made me upset. I viewed him to be a potential four star player. Im sure some of the grand wizards on here will agree, right shroomer, Zywica, Adam?

I always viewed Perez to be the real steal in the trade. A player that will potentially be a dominant 1-2 starter or the next gagne-esque closer. Its up to Perez to continue his development and we could see him in three years. I view him as being better then Carmona.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Dec 23, 2007 10:56 AM CST reply actions

Who is Perez?

I assume you mean Feliz, but maybe we got a dude named Perez...

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions

My guess

Last year when he made the GCL top 20 list in BA (which was really the first time that his name was thrown around at a semi-mainstream level), they mistakenly called him Neftali Perez.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 12:36 PM CST up reply actions

Of course,

I meant Feliz and not Periz. I always get their names mixed.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Dec 23, 2007 3:35 PM CST up reply actions

Am I the only one

Who has issues with a top prospect list where 2 of the top 10, including the top player, hasn't sniffed A ball and another one hasn't even made his professional debut yet?

TINSTAAPP....especially not below A ball. How many times have we seen the list of the great "short season pitchers" who get hurt or traded before ever making it? I'm rooting really hard for Michael Main and Tommy Hunter (Roll Tide! :-) but I wouldn't place either in a Top 10 prospects list until they have spent a season in a full-season league...

http://www.mvn.com/milb-rangers

For old times sake...C'mon Kelly! :-)

by Beverly23 on Dec 24, 2007 3:45 PM CST up reply actions

Sigh

TINSTAAPP is dumb. So, very dumb.

Every single pitcher in the big leagues was once a "prospect" and at one time or another had never pitched in a level as high as A-ball.

To say that no one is a prospect until they hit A-ball is silly to me.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 24, 2007 5:04 PM CST up reply actions

TINSTAAPP dumb???

How dare you :)

Merry Christmas

by hurlerhurley on Dec 24, 2007 5:31 PM CST up reply actions

Okay, fine...

TINSTAATTPP (Top 10 pitching prospect) below A-ball.

Technically below A-ball every player is a "prospect". However, how many of them have gone on to have a successful ML career? Heck how many of them have had a cup of coffee?

I still remember when Ryan Dittfurth, Aaron Harang, Colby Lewis and Nick Regilio were the next "Appy League Rangers Heros." Only one can be argued to be an impact pitcher and the other 3 battled injuries (and 2 aren't even playing anymore).

Players below A ball (and to a certain extent even in A-ball) are too far away and anything can, and frequently does, happen...

http://www.mvn.com/milb-rangers

For old times sake...C'mon Kelly! :-)

by Beverly23 on Dec 24, 2007 6:27 PM CST up reply actions

Your point is well taken

about all these guys being years away. But the reason I'm so excited is there seem to be so many guys down there right now with potential, the odds of at least some of them being useful as players or trade chips down the road is good.

Most years the Rangers have needed to hit on every decent prospect because they didn't have enough. Now they have a lot of depth, especially in arms, so it seems like they have a better chance of hitting on some of these guys in the years to come.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Dec 24, 2007 7:06 PM CST up reply actions

Main, the biggest steal

from the 07 draft, anyone agree?

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Dec 23, 2007 10:58 AM CST reply actions

as far as non-signability draftees go?

yeah I'll agree

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

by Walter Sobchak on Dec 23, 2007 12:41 PM CST up reply actions

For the Rangers, or for everyone?

For the Rangers I might be tempted to say Evan Reed at this point. Though you could make a case for Main.

For the whole league, I'd say Michael Burgess. Everyone seems to really be loving them some Burgess this off season.

Zwyica's boy Noonan is also looking nice.

And Jason Heyward (sp?) for Atlanta has skyrocketed up the charts. He's getting some love in the top 40 of some lists I've seen, which is pretty crazy for a kid picked out of high school for slot money in the middle of the first round.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

Heyward

he's getting so much love it makes me not want to believe the hype.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Dec 23, 2007 12:51 PM CST up reply actions

He's my pick as well

He had no business whatsoever falling that far.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 12:56 PM CST up reply actions

Didn't you pan Heyward

in your pre-draft draft candidates posts?

Pages and Pages of Great Pics

by shroomer on Dec 23, 2007 1:07 PM CST up reply actions

Nope

Jason Heyward, OF, GA

Compared with the last handful of high school OF classes, this one disappoints. But that's not because of Heyward, the lone stud prospect at this position. He's got it all offensively as the prototype COF, with decent but not outstanding defensive ability. He's an advanced left-handed bat with power, patience and pitch recognition. The biggest question is whether he will bother to hit for huge power, since his smooth, relaxed approach lends itself more to line drives. Some reports suggest that he could be more of an asset at first base. He is consistently ranked in the top ten, but Callis' recent projection did have him slipping to 14, allowing for maybe a little daydreaming by Rangers fans.

http://www.lonestarball.com/story/2007/5/28/183325/203

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 1:10 PM CST up reply actions

The guy who I panned

and appear to be WAY off on is Burgess.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 1:18 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

Stunner on Feliz, even though we did know that Goldstein loves him (ranked him #3 on Atlanta last season, while BA ranked him #18).

Great sign that he gives us six 4/5 star guys, as that appears to be equivalent to six top 100 prospects.

Also for background (bias), here is his top ten from last season:

Excellent Prospects
1. Eric Hurley, RHP
Very Good Prospects
2. Edinson Volquez, RHP
Good Prospects

Thomas Diamond, RHP
Kasey Kiker, LHP

Average Prospects

John Mayberry, RF
Jason Botts, 1B/LF/DH
Marcus Lemon, SS
Taylor Teagarden, C
Joaquin Arias, SS
Chris Davis, 1B

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 11:06 AM CST reply actions

Z,

dont you find it wierd that Kiker didn't make the cut this year? It doesn't make sense. We are deep in good prospects so it wouldn't be hard to get lost in the shuffle, but Kiker is a 4-star right?

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Dec 23, 2007 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

Kiker

I'm not sure that he's a no-doubt four star right now, and with some talk that his stuff wasn't lights out this season, I'm really not very surprised at all that Goldstein doesn't have him as a top 100 player. I do think that he's one of our top ten prospects, though, and I'm hopeful that his stuff will continue to improve next season and that he will take a step forward on lists like this.

By the way, imo, just based on where he was picked and the level of development that he's approaching, he's going to be a pretty critical prospect for Texas. He should start in Bakersfield, which means that AA is always a possibility, which means that he'd be very much on the radar. And once he's on the radar, whether it's as a starter or reliever, he's got the stuff to make him a tempting addition.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 11:34 AM CST up reply actions

Kiker - agree with all that

You know, the same strong feeling washed over me a few days ago -> if Kiker's stuff has solidified and his control sharpens he could see Frisco next season. I like the way he ended the MWL in 2007. Yep, Kiker's importance could really leap next year if he's sharp and healthy.

I'm like the only dude in the world that likes Beaven over Main. I'm so lonely. :(

Glad to see some Neil Ramirez love - big fan here.

Neftali Feliz is an odd choice but he does have a chance at least to turn stud supreme over the next coupla summers.

Pages and Pages of Great Pics

by shroomer on Dec 23, 2007 11:59 AM CST up reply actions

No, you are not the only one that likes Beaven

However, Main is at least a half year ahead of Beaven. Main signed early, went to AZL and then got a few innings in at Spokane. Main could start next year ar Clinton while Beaven is in extended ST. All because Beaven wanted a few extra $$$.

The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws. ~Rick Wise, 1974

by RangerMad on Dec 23, 2007 12:09 PM CST up reply actions

Half a year

might be overstating the case a bit. They both have plenty of time being just out of high school.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Dec 23, 2007 12:57 PM CST up reply actions

Goldstein didn't give a real promising

report on Beavan's progress in fall instructs.

"The Rangers already raised his arm angle in instructional league in order to take more advantage of his height and give him more two-plane break on the slider...Beavan's instructional league showing was a bit on the disappointing side"

It probably follows if they were overhauling his delivery that he struggled. I worry about this stuff leading to injury almost as much as I do his natural, violent delivery.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

+1

I absolutely HATE to hear we're messing with a guy's mechanics.

I know it sometimes serves the greater good, but retooling the way a guy throws seems to cause problems just as often as it solves them. We drafted the guy for a reason, and that reason was the way he threw using his old delivery.

At least we know Camptain Wonderful isn't the type of guy to let the temporary struggles associated with augmenting a delivery undermine his confidence.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

Hah, good point

Doubtful that his confidence takes much of a hit from a few struggles.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 1:35 PM CST up reply actions

mechanics

i always hate hearing that too.
it seems usually when a guys mechanics get messed with everything gets outta whack and it takes a long time to get it all back.

i mean, the guy had the sickest slider he'd ever seen so why change the way he throws.

Can you please Look into getting a less funny signature? That's sarcasm, btw. - Sharky

by rentz on Dec 23, 2007 2:07 PM CST up reply actions

Not sure I buy the new arm angle comment

Can't imagine a team taking a pitcher in the first round and making an immediate mechanical adjustment without first watching him pitch. Guessing that's an inaccuracy.

by AZranger on Dec 23, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

Sounds alot like what they did with Chris Young.

Colbert/Colbert '08

by rooster on Dec 23, 2007 3:29 PM CST up reply actions

Difference between

...the 17th pick in the country who's never thrown a professional pitch, and a guy who at-the-time was a fringe prospect at best with several years of mediocre performance in the minor leagues.

by AZranger on Dec 23, 2007 4:01 PM CST up reply actions

the red flag

is that they're messing with his arm angle rather than how he's using his body to deliver the ball. Anytime I hear someone focusing on the arm when it comes to pitching, I cringe.

by SteveP on Dec 23, 2007 3:34 PM CST up reply actions

You change a guy's mechanics out of high school...

So he doesn't hurt himself. I believe Beaven had a recoil which will lead to injury in most cases because you are not correctly decelerating your arm. Most injuries occur because of incorrect follow through.
A lot of times incorrect mechanics lead to a lose in velocity. A simple change in maybe raising the elbow or changing your windup/leg kick will improve velocity and sometimes control.
He's young. He has plenty of time to correctly implement the changes against lesser competition.

Put it this way. The Rangers wouldn't have drafted Beaven if they didnt think they could tweak his mechanics successfully. It'll take some time but I don't think anyone should be discouraged by his showing thus far.

by slimshadty12 on Dec 24, 2007 3:45 AM CST up reply actions

Violent delivery

i keep hearing/reading about it, but i just don't see it. I don't like the fact that the Rangers are 'overhauling' his pitching mechanics...that's now what they drafted.

if you apologize for everything, you apologize for nothing...

by Longhorn on Dec 23, 2007 1:44 PM CST up reply actions

"Violent"

probably isn't the right word. He definitely throws across his body though.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 3:05 PM CST up reply actions

throwing across the body

I disagree that throwing across the body causes arm problems. If anything it saves the arm. It could decrease velocity however. Opening up is what causes arm problems. When I was younger I took pitching lessons from former Rangers pitching coach Oscar Acosta and had one lesson through him with Tom House. They both said that this is a common misconception about pitching. They want a pitcher to be somewhere in between, but it is not bad to have a pitcher throwing across his body.

by trgordon723 on Dec 23, 2007 7:30 PM CST up reply actions

+1

Nice post.

if you apologize for everything, you apologize for nothing...

by Longhorn on Dec 23, 2007 7:33 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks

I forgot who their examples of people that threw across their body but I think it might have been Ken Hill and Darryl Kyle

by trgordon723 on Dec 23, 2007 7:37 PM CST up reply actions

Cross body throwers

Joe Kennedy (RIP)
Scot Shields
Erasmo Ramirez

Had a bunch of other names, but drawing a blank.

by AZranger on Dec 23, 2007 8:15 PM CST up reply actions

Another name for that list

Roger Pavlik

I own a lot of Apple stock,so buy more iPhones!

by Ajax on Dec 23, 2007 8:35 PM CST up reply actions

You want to follow through with

a diagonal motion (finish at your opposite hip and then swing like a pendulum back and forth to decelerate). It is slightly across your body but my guess from what I've heard (not seen) is that Beavan goes completely horizontal in his follow through and finishes with his hand higher up more by his shoulder rather then hip. That will cause injuries because that angle will put an extreme amount of pressure on your shoulder.

As Zywica said, "violent" is probably an incorrect term because any pitcher that throws hard naturally is going to have a violent motion. That's what it takes to get the ball up to 95+ mph. What appears to stand out as violent though are guys who recoil because it's not a smooth follow through of the arm.

Just so you know I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I'm becoming a baseball trainer under Frozen Ropes which is a national leader in baseball/softball training. Rick Peterson (pitching coach) and Howard Johnson (hitting coach) of the Mets have implemented their philosophies into our teaching. I actually met Howard Johnson the other day, real cool guy.

by slimshadty12 on Dec 24, 2007 3:58 AM CST up reply actions

Arm

From the vidoes I saw before the draft, Beaven has zero stride. He only throws with his arm, which is a recipe for disaster. I didn't like that pick, because I don't think he'll stay healthy enough to pitch in the majors. Hopefully, they are lengthening his stride so he gets his velocity from his legs instead of his shoulder.

by BCanfield @ Lone Star Ball on Dec 24, 2007 4:08 AM CST up reply actions

Jim Callis likes Beavan better

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 12:13 PM CST up reply actions

So does you friendly neighborhood

Dirkatron.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 12:27 PM CST up reply actions

And me! I think Beavan will be a stud!

He has size (& strength) you can't coach....and not enough credit for his showing vs. Cuba....all this other stuff aside, those kids were basically pro's....you can scout all day, but results in pressure situations vs. top competition really matter.

I'm really happy we've got Main, too....just think Blake could be the real deal (assuming health, etc.)....Btw, on the attitude, in his defense....I met him at the golf course (just before he signed) and he couldn't have been any more polite.

by tklawless on Dec 23, 2007 7:25 PM CST up reply actions

His attitude

It's nice to hear he was polite in person.

I for one have no problem with his attitude. I think it's great. The whole "I could do as bad as them" thing was just a kid trying to be fun and engaging in an interview, and by all indications he learned his lesson.

I've got very high hopes for Captain Wonderful.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 8:51 PM CST up reply actions

Goldstein's sleeper, btw

Beau Jones

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 11:08 AM CST reply actions

ah

love that little last-minute throw in.

by SteveP on Dec 23, 2007 11:37 AM CST up reply actions

It makes you really admire the job

Johnny Boy did in snatching all those players from Atlanta.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Dec 23, 2007 11:15 AM CST reply actions

"Johnny Boy"

Isn't he twice your age?

by AZranger on Dec 23, 2007 12:18 PM CST up reply actions

Not twice my age, but yeah,

defenitly older. Oh well, thats his nickname from me and i'm keeping it.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Dec 23, 2007 3:34 PM CST up reply actions

ha ha good for you NYTXFAN !!

I'm keeping mine too! Since he kinda reminds me of pee wee herman...he's pee wee to me.
I do give him a big fat A for his grade this off-season though. It wasn't looking that good for a while there but he's rebounded nicely.

Josh Hamilton will become a superstar right before your eyes!

by LAMuscleFag on Dec 23, 2007 4:25 PM CST up reply actions

Huh?

Since he kinda reminds me of pee wee herman...

How?

He doesn't resemble him. He doesn't sound like him. He doesn't dress like him.

In what way could he remind anyone of Pee Wee Herman?

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 23, 2007 4:27 PM CST up reply actions

there is a resemblance

to a young pee wee..not the one that was drug out of a dirty bookstore with his d*ck in his hand.

Josh Hamilton will become a superstar right before your eyes!

by LAMuscleFag on Dec 23, 2007 4:33 PM CST up reply actions

the guy

touching himself in the backroom of a adult store is Paul Reubens, Pee Wee Herman is the character played by Reubens......Pee Wee didn't grow up to get arrested for what Reubens had done........but Daniels doesn't resemble either anyway.

by slash on Dec 23, 2007 8:49 PM CST up reply actions

gee...

thanks for informing me of what I already knew.
A young pee wee does resemble J D. I am not the first one on here who has made the comparison on here....but thanks anyways for telling me what I already knew about Paul Reubens being Pee Wee Herman...* snooooozzee *

Josh Hamilton will become a superstar right before your eyes!

by LAMuscleFag on Dec 23, 2007 9:38 PM CST up reply actions

I wonder if the Rangers will develop Neftali

as RP. He was far more dominant as RP than SP, and he did it in a more advanced league.

On that front, I've had a nagging thought about Diamond after watching Joba, and it might apply to Neftali. Is it possible the Rangers should've brought Diamond up as a reliever rather than spend all of 2006 in AA as a starter?

Joba has a better K/BB, which is a critical difference. Hard to know. Some guys with big fastballs never develop a breaking ball when rushed to the majors, Mike Pelfry, but others are really great RP with an average 2nd pitch and a great fastball.

Colbert/Colbert '08

by rooster on Dec 23, 2007 11:33 AM CST reply actions

I just don't think

that Diamond's FB (circa 2006 at least) deserved to be mentioned in the same post as Joba or even Pelfrey or Feliz.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 11:36 AM CST up reply actions

Good to know.

I've always read the "big fastball" reviews of Diamond as meaning he had a 70 fastball.

Why do scouts use an 80 rather than 100 scale?

Colbert/Colbert '08

by rooster on Dec 23, 2007 12:27 PM CST up reply actions

Well

like we've hashed out before, I really think his '06 struggles were due to the elbow problems that culminated in his Tommy John surgery.

Though you're probably right that he never deserved to mentioned with the Joba Chamberlains of the world. Joba is freaking crazy good.

I still think Diamond will end up as a good-but-not-great closer in the bigs at some point.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 12:42 PM CST up reply actions

We have been through it before

but I would reiterate that:

His FB was pretty mediocre in 2005 when I saw him too, as he hit 88 as many times as he hit 92 in one start. So was this elbow/forearm thing affecting him in 2005 too? Hopefully so, but the idea that it affected him for close to two years before they addressed it is pretty disturbing.
Even if his FB comes back to 94-95 range and is a very good pitch, how will he close if he has little else to pair it with, in terms of that second dominant pitch that closers need? His other solid pitch is a change that is nice but isn't a big strikeout pitch. And if he does develop his breaking ball much further than where he has so far, why not just keep him as a starter with that three pitch mix?

I have my fingers crossed that he's one of the real TJ success stories, but he also needs improvement in other areas besides arm strength to reach the level that we all hope for him.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 12:55 PM CST up reply actions

Yup

I still feel the way I did a few months ago, and so do you.

At least we're consistent;)

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

To rooster:

I'm pretty sure Feliz will go in the rotation as someone, possibly Rick Adair, said they want all their top young arms in a rotation.

I'm also another who is higher on Beaven than Main
and think Beaven could be our top prospect this team next year, if they can figure out his delivery.

by groundingout on Dec 23, 2007 2:02 PM CST reply actions

Hurley

Is anyone else disappointed that Goldstein has dismissed Hurley as nothing more than a #3 starter? He was our best hope for an internally-produced ace in the next couple of years.

I own a lot of Apple stock,so buy more iPhones!

by Ajax on Dec 23, 2007 2:49 PM CST reply actions

Hurley

I think the chances of him becoming an ace are slim to none. His realistic upside is probably #2 starter.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 23, 2007 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

Me too

If anyone above, like, short-season ball in our organization had ace potential it was Volquez. Maybe he didn't either, but if he didn't, no one did.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

Agree with both of you

I have not been as big on Hurley as some here. I do think that he has a pretty good chance to be successful in the majors, but having watched him pitch in OKC last year, I didn't see ace-type dominating stuff. Maybe just the result of a long season and being extended, but I just didn't see it. I thought Volquez was much more dominant with much better stuff.

by B_Black on Dec 23, 2007 3:37 PM CST up reply actions

Volquez.

I was just never that impressed with him. Nothing about his appearance, demeanor, or numbers ever suggested "ace" to me. I really don't see him as more than a Tejeda type that will give you reasons to be excited every once in awhile but will otherwise disappoint over the long term.

by Athos on Dec 23, 2007 5:44 PM CST up reply actions

To Adam & Zy.....

would we have been better off sending Hurley to te Reds?

I know some LSBer's would've jumped off a bridge, just wondering ya'lls opinions?

by tklawless on Dec 23, 2007 7:31 PM CST up reply actions

Probably would have been a little

less scary for me.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 7:35 PM CST up reply actions

Really?

I just have no confidence that Volquez is going to be anything more than a middle reliever or set-up man, while I think Hurley is good bet to be a good number two/three starter.

I think giving up Volquez to get someone like Hamilton is a move you make every time.

by Darrell McKown on Dec 24, 2007 5:12 PM CST up reply actions

Definitely

Hurley jsut doesn't have the numbers to justify the hype. I'd much rather have Volquez. Hurley is the safer choice, but doesn't have the upside.

Of course, if John Hart would've just listened to us and drafted Ellsbury instead of Mayberry, we'd still have both pitchers and be set in CF. Man, that was a stupid pick.

by BCanfield @ Lone Star Ball on Dec 24, 2007 4:11 AM CST up reply actions

I am

guessing you have never watched Hurley pitch in person...

"The only thing to be scared of is being scared itself." -Daxflame

by miles on Dec 24, 2007 8:53 PM CST up reply actions

I have.... I've watched Hurley pitch

so many times at Frisco and Oklahoma.

Looking forward to seeing him compete for a rotation spot this spring during spring training.

Hurley has a damn good chance to get a rotation spot

Merry Christmas

by hurlerhurley on Dec 24, 2007 9:05 PM CST up reply actions

Exactly.

I hate all tese people say "ohh, he's not that good, look at his ERA." Well, they need to go watch him in person and see how he overpowers almost everyone.

"The only thing to be scared of is being scared itself." -Daxflame

by miles on Dec 24, 2007 9:09 PM CST up reply actions

Not all that much

His numbers weren't bad but also weren't great in AAA, and he really needs his changeup to be more than a #3. So if you're an impartial evaluator and a guy has reached AAA and has pitched as much in pro ball as he has, you would take him at face value rather than assume that he's going to drastically improve his third pitch.

I think that Hurley can develop a change, and I still like him a lot. I think it's a similar case to Kiker. Neither was showing stuff that just blew people away late last year, so they aren't going to get incredible rankings. But they are by no means doomed to the level they're at currently, because both seemingly have aptitude.

I think we just have to let the season play out for Hurley.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 2:58 PM CST up reply actions

Hurley's numbers

I keep reading that the Rangers have their prospects work on weaknesses during games, thus skewing their numbers. If that is true, should we be changing Hurley solely on stats. For example, my understanding is that most of his home runs came on hanging sliders.

I own a lot of Apple stock,so buy more iPhones!

by Ajax on Dec 23, 2007 3:15 PM CST up reply actions

Hurley

It did seem to me watching him pitch that he was was working on his off speed pitches. He threw more change ups and especially sliders than you would normally expect see, so maybe the couple of times I watched him is not the same Hurley that we will see when he gets the call. That being said, the slider will have to get quite a bit better for him to be a top of the rotation guy.

by B_Black on Dec 23, 2007 3:44 PM CST up reply actions

Hurley

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I think if Hurley turns out to be a solid #2 or #3 type and holds down a spot in the rotation for several years in that way, you have to be very happy with that result.

Out of all the possible results for a pitching prospect, a solid #2 or #3 is definitely a good finish. Anyone that thought Hurley was an ace had unrealistic expectations. Those expectations might not be out of line for Beavan, Main, Kiker, Castillo...but we'll have to wait a couple of years to see.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Dec 23, 2007 10:05 PM CST up reply actions

hurley

i agree, if he turns into a 2 or 3 starter you've got to be happy with the result. i think 3 might be the most realistic spot.

i admit i got caught in the hurley hype early on but i came back down to earth on my expectations of him, but i still feel he will be a more solid pitcher than any of the "dvd"

Can you please Look into getting a less funny signature? That's sarcasm, btw. - Sharky

by rentz on Dec 24, 2007 6:29 AM CST up reply actions

I wasn't

all in the hype until I went to Frisco and was blown away by his stuff. I think he has fairly dominant stuff to translate into a number 2.

I think he should stay in AAA most of the year though, no need to rush him.

Don't worry Cheyenne Kimball, I still love you.

by miles on Dec 24, 2007 6:45 AM CST up reply actions

David Murphy

Goldstein seems to be higher on him than most are.

I own a lot of Apple stock,so buy more iPhones!

by Ajax on Dec 23, 2007 2:50 PM CST reply actions

Teagarden/Ramirez

They both need to catch everyday to maximize their value. However, both seem slated, ideally, for AA. They can't both catch everyday at AA, so where do you think each of them starts the season?

I own a lot of Apple stock,so buy more iPhones!

by Ajax on Dec 23, 2007 3:16 PM CST reply actions

I think

Tea starts the year in AAA.

Hop on the bandwagon while It's still fashionable: Rickey Henderson for Centerfield in '08!

by BudLight on Dec 23, 2007 4:10 PM CST up reply actions

Feliz Rating Context Question

How many 5 star prospects would there be in MLB? In other words, this puts him roughly top what according to Goldstein?

Thanks.

by atlantaranger on Dec 23, 2007 4:44 PM CST reply actions

I think about 33-40

He had 40 "excellent" prospects last season, and that aligns pretty closely so far with his five stars through the AL (minus Toronto) this year.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 5:16 PM CST up reply actions

Also

As I think I mentioned above, Texas had six 4/5 star, which appear to match top 100s. For a system whose strength is quality depth and whose weakness is true elite prospects, that's pretty nice. It's second most in the AL behind TB and could be about 2nd-4th most overall.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 5:19 PM CST up reply actions

For reference

TB and Col were the only orgs with as many as six last year (both had seven).

by Brett Perryman on Dec 23, 2007 5:21 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks Z

by atlantaranger on Dec 23, 2007 5:25 PM CST up reply actions

good stuff

In a few years, the Tex trade may be considered one of the best things that ever happened for this organization.

by Randy Richardson on Dec 23, 2007 7:38 PM CST reply actions

Felix

I like Feliz: he's got enormous upside and he's slid too far down a lot of prospect lists for no good reason.

That said, Harrison and Hurley are probably better prospects right now.

ScoutingBook: Top Prospects, Closer Updates and more!

by scoutingbook on Dec 23, 2007 10:34 PM CST reply actions

Your site

You have Tuglett as a better prospect than Volquez.

I find that... odd.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2007 11:05 PM CST up reply actions

i beg to differ

mjh has harrison as the #7 SP prospect on the rangers

hurley is probably at best at #2
harrison is at beast probably a #3

i think that font is a better prospect that harrison and i think that feliz is better than font...

and yea, hes fallen too way far.

by knockoutking24 on Dec 24, 2007 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

Rangers Prospects

It's really amazing how different the rankings of Rangers prospects are from the various "experts." I think that shows that we have a ton of good but not great prospects (but many that are young with the potential to become great) and a few (like Davis and Kinsler before him) that will always be undervalued by the scouting community. We just don't have any Teixeira/Blalock prospects in this system, although a few of our prospects could be in that category at this time next year.

by BCanfield @ Lone Star Ball on Dec 24, 2007 4:37 AM CST reply actions

rangers stuff from some BP chats

12/5

Or (Dallas): Pick one young, talented, inconsistent Rangers starter: McCarthy, Hurley, or Volquez?

Will Carroll: Eric Hurley. He's got more upside than any of them. I'm also very interested to see how Thomas Diamond comes back this season after missing 07 to TJS.
---
thoughts on josh hamilton:
Rob (Oakland): Will, Re: Lincecum - If he's the centerpiece of a trade that could net three postion players (I like Votto, Encarnacion & Hamilton), the Giants would have to deal, right?

Will Carroll: No, especially not for that package. Votto can't force himself into the Reds lineup, Hamilton's had about 200 ABs in four years (tho he's phenomenally talented), and Encarnacion is a good-not-great 3B. You'd trade an ace for that?

12/6

Or (Dallas): Due to the Rangers' depth of young catchers, should they consider moving Jarrod Saltalamacchia to first base?

Christina Kahrl: I don't agree with the initial proposition. Gerald Laird isn't that good, Max Ramirez is a ways off just yet, and Taylor Teagarden has to show that he's able to handle a season behind the plate. Salty's ready now, so I'd leave him be until there's a reason to see him as challenged. The Rangers have enough needs that if they have depth to deal from, having multiple catchers is probably the most precious commodity to be able to shop around

12/21

sean (jacksonville,fl): opinion on cueto?..big upside?..and should the redss trade griffey making a spot for bruce

Dan Fox: What's not to like with a 170/34 K/BB rate in three stops in 2007? Of course the knock on him is his size as a starter but he didn't appear to have any problems on that front in 2007. His homerun rate went up as he moved up in 2007 so that would be something to watch as he probably starts the season in Louisville in 2008.

In my opinion, if the Reds could trade Griffey to the Mariners or somewhere they should do it yesterday. Bruce progressed through three levels as well and although his plate discipline isn't where you want it, he certainly seems ready to take a starting job in the majors, a point on which KG seems to agree.

However, given that the Reds now employ Dusty Baker, letting Bruce earn a job in spring training seems like an iffy proposal even if space frees up in the outfield. If it's a choice between him making the roster and then getting benched at the first sign of struggles or starting the year in Louisville and taking over when Griffey get hurt, I'd go for the latter.

On the subject of Reds outfielders I was impressed that Josh Hamilton came out with a +3.9 EqThr (equivalent throwing runs) in centerfield in 2007 in just 62 adjusted games. His rate was actually higher in 9 adjusted games in right field. I also had him at a +4.7 in SFR in center field which, when combined, with his throwing put him in the upper quarter of centerfielders. He has certainly has the tools...

by knockoutking24 on Dec 24, 2007 3:41 PM CST reply actions

Very Nice Ranger Items

Thanks for the info!!!

by B_Black on Dec 24, 2007 4:16 PM CST up reply actions

At least Will Carroll is making sense

Damn right Hurley has more upside ( I've known this for years)than any of them. And damn right TD will be back in full force and be one of our top prospect pitchers.

Merry Christmas

by hurlerhurley on Dec 24, 2007 6:33 PM CST up reply actions

Hurley > McCarthy, Danks, Volquez

eom

Merry Christmas

by hurlerhurley on Dec 24, 2007 6:37 PM CST up reply actions

guess nobody

can argue that Hurley is > McCarthy, Danks, Volquez

Merry Christmas

by hurlerhurley on Dec 24, 2007 8:10 PM CST up reply actions

Yes

ignoring you is now the equivalent of admitting defeat. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Why am I the only guy who's got bio information on here? I mean shit where do you guys work anyway?" - BGL

by inactive lsb user on Dec 24, 2007 9:49 PM CST up reply actions

Like I said ... I'd rather have Hurley

If I had a choice over McCarthy, Danks, Volquez

McCarthy no telling when he's going to break down again. McCarthy is so brittle.

Danks ... damn I think I need to reboot. having problems

Merry Christmas

by hurlerhurley on Dec 24, 2007 11:46 PM CST up reply actions

Volquez>Hurley

I see Hurley as topping out as a #3 atm. I would have rather moved Hurley than Volquez in the Hamilton trade. I also don't see how anyone can say Hurley has more upside. If Volquez could just improve his fastball command a little bit I think he is an easily a solid #2 as his fastball/changeup combo would be even more deadly. From what I've read/seen Hurley throws a hard fastball and locates it pretty well, but his secondary stuff leaves alot to be desired. I've only seen Hurley a couple times though. I can understand if someone would rather have Hurley than Volquez, but I definately don't see how he has more upside.

by groundingout on Dec 25, 2007 9:23 AM CST reply actions

from what I've seen

Hurley's got the stuff, but the biggest difference is Hurley will never need to be sent down to A ball again, and is a hard worker that does what is asked of him. EV had a nice turn-around, but has had the maturity and focus issues in the past...you have to be worried that a player will regress. And Hurley's control is a lot better, too...give me Hurley + Hamilton, with our pitching depth, instead of Hurley + Volquez and a Mike Cameron/Corey Patterson-type

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

by Walter Sobchak on Dec 25, 2007 6:13 PM CST up reply actions

It's amazing

what 1/2 a bad season at AAA can do to someone's value. NEvermind that Hurley is 2 years younger and at this same arc in his development curve, Volquez couldn't spot any of his pitches for strikes, never mind that the AAA innings were largely skewed thanks to Hurley running out of gas at the end, and never mind that of all of us, maybe 2 have seen him pitch, we're suddenly ready to declare probably the best prospect we've developed in the last 10 years a #3 at best?

Hurley has a fastball which he can locate, a sliders that's good to great, and a changeup that's being worked on. So why is it that we see Volquez as a better prospect again? Is it because he had such good numbers in his 2nd run through AAA? Is it because his 2nd half was phenomenal while Hurley's was largely pedestrian? If a good 1/2 of a season is what it takes for some people to declare a prospect a #3 at best, I'm certainly glad that no one here is anywhere near the Rangers front office.

by FirebatM3 on Dec 25, 2007 2:55 PM CST reply actions

+1

Catch a Tiger by it's tail and slam it down!Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Dec 25, 2007 3:06 PM CST up reply actions

In 10 years?

Really? Have you seen him pitch?

"Why am I the only guy who's got bio information on here? I mean shit where do you guys work anyway?" - BGL

by inactive lsb user on Dec 25, 2007 5:04 PM CST up reply actions

I have

And he might be right, but I think that says more about the Rangers than Hurley. I suppose he meant the best pitching prospect also, and "developed" means from draft to the majors, because there have certainly been Rangers products who have gone on to great success elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong though--I think Hurley's a very good prospect.

by brettgardner on Dec 25, 2007 5:58 PM CST up reply actions

Volquez>Hurley

Like I said, all I can go off is what I've read and seen. I'm not down on Hurley because his struggles at AAA, and have mentioned a time or two that his last two starts at AA, which bumped his ERA over three, and his struggles at AAA will unfairly likely drop him down on top 100 prospect lists. I traded for Hurley in my fantasy league a short while ago.I'm not down on Hurley, I just think he will become a #3 starter in the majors, and I think that is his ceiling. For those of you looking for an ace out of Hurley, well if he becomes a solid #3 guy, that would likely be the ace of our rotation. As I've stated above, Volquez has true ace potential, he just isn't likely to reach it as his fastball command would have to improve to much. I think he has a decent chance to be a #2, and a good chance to be a #3. Again, I think Hurley has the better chance of being a succesful pitcher in the majors, I just think Volquez has the potential to be more towards the front of the rotation.

by groundingout on Dec 26, 2007 10:38 AM CST reply actions

Kiker vs Kershaw

Why is Clayton Kershaw considered one of the top prospects in all of baseball and Kasey Kiker is our #8 (according to Sickels)?

Last year in the MWL, both at the age of 19

Kershaw: 20 starts/ 97.1 IP/ 2.77 ERA/ 7-5 W-L/ 1.25 WHIP
Kiker: 20 starts/ 96.1 IP/ 2.90 ERA/ 7-4 W-L/ 1.30 WHIP

Is it because Kershaw went 2-0 in the GCL at 18 pitching against fellow 18 year olds while Kiker went 0-7 in the Northwest League while pitching against guys 3-4 years older than he was?

Or do an extra 2 Ks per 9 innings all of a sudden vault you into the stratosphere?

Or is it because the Dodgers moved him up to AA at the end of the year that he is viewed so highly? I just don't get it. Granted I haven't seen either one pitch but based solely on those numbers you would have to think these guys are pretty comparable. I know Kershaw is the more prototypical tall lefty while Kiker is a bit shorter and more of a uniqueness but stats wise they are pretty close.

Sorry if this has been discussed here before. New to this board.

by Steven on Dec 27, 2007 6:10 PM CST reply actions

Look at the

age of Kershaw, look how fast he is going through the minor leagues after coming out of high school.

I will pay someone 20 thousand dollars to show me the law that tells us that we have to pay taxes.

by miles on Dec 27, 2007 8:30 PM CST up reply actions

Yep

and Kershaw has struck out more and walked less than Kiker, with a K/BB ratio of 3 to 1 vs. Kiker's ratio of 2 to 1. And he's listed at 4 inches taller. Given the choice, I'd take the pitcher with a K rate that's almost 25% higher, a year younger, taller, better K/BB ratio, both lefties, etc.

Cranberry Sauce

by t ball on Dec 27, 2007 10:56 PM CST up reply actions

what

Kiker is all of exactly 4 months older than Kershaw. Yeah he is 4 inches shorter but who cares. Last time I checked pitchers weren't given strikes based on how tall they were. And where do you get a 3 to 1 ratio vs 2 to 1?

Kershaw had a K/9 ratio of 12.39 vs Kikers 10.46 while Kershaws walk ratio was 4.62 to Kikers 3.83

Again let me say I am not in anyway slamming Kershaw. I think he will be a great pitcher in this league but what is so special about him that Kiker hasn't done? I just want to hear someone who has watched each of them pitch tell me something. Because strictly looking at stats they are almost identical. Except one is considered one of the top 10 prospects in all of baseball and one is barely considered one of the top 10 in our system. Is our system that deep that Kiker is barely a top 10 guy?

Kershaw didn't exactly destroy AA after his promotion either. His walks were up dramtically and his Ks were down. Also he didn't go very far into starts averaging less than 5 innings per start.

All I am asking is what makes this guy so much more special than a guy like Kiker that one is considered a top 10 prospect in all of baseball and one is barely in the top 10 of his own organization? Because don't give me his stats. Those are practically identical. Please tell me something else.

by Steven on Dec 28, 2007 12:05 AM CST up reply actions

K/BB ratio

You cited only the 2007 numbers, I quoted the career minor league numbers.

In 2006 Kiker went 0-7, walked more than 6 batters per 9 innings, and had a WHIP of 1.59. These are not numbers that earn hot prospect status. Luckily for us as Rangers fans, he improved all of his numbers this year.

In 2006 Kershaw struck out 36% of the batters he faced and walked 1.22 batters per 9 (a mere 4% of batters faced). That will get you a lot of prospect buzz. This year both men pitched in A ball, and Kershaw was a tick better in most respects. Kiker really took a big step forward this year, but Kershaw is just a bit better in about every possible way.

And I don't know what database you're using, but Kiker is 8 months older than Kershaw, not 4. Not the most important point, but true nonetheless.

Look, I love Kiker, but if Kershaw were in the Rangers system he'd most likely be the hands down #1 prospect in everyone's minds, ahead of Hurley, Davis, and yes, Kiker.

Cranberry Sauce

by t ball on Dec 28, 2007 12:31 AM CST up reply actions

Kiker

Yeah Kiker walked more hitters his first year. He was pitching to guys 3-4 years older than he was. While Kershaw was basically in a high school all star league pitching against other 18 and some 19 year olds. The guy was a top 10 pick out of HS so it figures he would be striking guys his own age out more. But in the same league, pitching against the same batters this past year they had almost identical numbers

And I was getting my birthdates from baseballcube.com. It says Kiker is November 19 1987 while Kershaw is March 19 1988.

Look I don't mean to come on here and sound like a Kiker kiss ass or anything but I just don't get the rankings. Is it because the Rangers organization decided to challenge the guy coming out of high school by throwing him into a league where he was one of if not the youngest player by far? If we would have let him pitch in some rookie league with other 18 and 19 year olds and he dominated woul he be considered that much better? Frankly I like the philosophy we are using that says a guy who dominated in high school should go directly into better competition levels. Lets them experience defeat early and learn to build off it. Is the fact that Texas started his season a little late last year to not have so many innings on it mean Kershaw is that much better? If we would have been very aggressive and promoted him to AA last year would he be looked at as a stud? These are just things I wonder everytime I read something where Kershaw is considered this cant miss, prodigy type prospect and we have a guy who put up identical numbers in the exact same league at the exact same age and yet he is barely mentioned as one of our top guys. I know ouyr system is pretty loaded now but its not that loaded is it?

by Steven on Dec 28, 2007 8:54 AM CST up reply actions