Angel Guzman

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Especially to craig or mark or tim, but anyone else that wants to chime in of course....

 

What do you think/hope for Angel in 2006? I think it's safe to say this is a make-or-break year for the guy, but gee whiz, he has such monster stuff. IF he can just stay healthy....I think a lot of people have forgotten how talented this kid is, and he is still a kid for the most part. We hear a lot of talk about Francisco Liriano, Zach Duke, Chad Billingsley, Matt Cain, and Ervin Santana, and justifiably so, but I think Guzman deserves to be discussed in the same group. I like him SO much more than Rich Hill.

 

Comments??

[Tim]

I still have Angel as the #2 prospect in the system, so I'm still pretty high on him. I believe that if a pitcher's ceiling is going to be lowered by shoulder surgery, you'll see it by that guy not being able to reach the velocity he had pre-knife. Given the reports out of AZ, Angel should still have the same ceiling he had before.

 

Until he puts in a couple seasons of 30+ starts, he's going to be questioned about his durability. But I'm still hopeful that he can make an impact for the Cubs in the second half of this year. I just hope they hold back on his innings and give him extra recovery days whenever possible in the first half so that he has something in the tank for that time.

[rawaction]

I always describe Guzman like this.....if he's on the mound, he's gonna be good. There's no question in my mind that he's just as talented as that group, who are all a notch below King Felix. I don't think that this is a make or break year in that he has to become a major league regular this year. But obviously, he can't afford any more surgeries or extended shutdowns.

 

The AFL was encouraging. He was 3rd in the league with nearly 31 innings pitched. He still had a solid GB/FB ratio, IIRC. The K's were there.

 

I honestly think he can stay healthy this year. He's still behind guys like Williams, Rusch, and Hill for the 5th spot. But if he makes it into the major league rotation this year, he's probably not leaving unless he gets injured again.

[CubsMinorLeagueReport]

We hear a lot of talk about Francisco Liriano, Zach Duke, Chad Billingsley, Matt Cain, and Ervin Santana,

 

It just struck me as funny for some reason to see you put Ervin Santana in with this group of pitchers...Santana is nowhere near the others in this group in my book.

[Tim]

We hear a lot of talk about Francisco Liriano, Zach Duke, Chad Billingsley, Matt Cain, and Ervin Santana,

 

It just struck me as funny for some reason to see you put Ervin Santana in with this group of pitchers...Santana is nowhere near the others in this group in my book.

I'd drop Duke down a notch if we are talking about long-term expectations.

 

I'd probably list the top pitching "prospects":

 

Felix Hernandez

 

Cain

Billingsley

Liriano

Verlander

 

Duke

Zumaya

etc.

[CubsMinorLeagueReport]

The only difference I would have Tim, is switching Billingsley and Cain on your list...Cain simply walks a few too many batters for me to rate him above Billingsley

[craig]

Especially to craig or mark or tim, but anyone else that wants to chime in of course....

 

What do you think/hope for Angel in 2006? I think it's safe to say this is a make-or-break year for the guy, but gee whiz, he has such monster stuff. IF he can just stay healthy....I think a lot of people have forgotten how talented this kid is, and he is still a kid for the most part. We hear a lot of talk about Francisco Liriano, Zach Duke, Chad Billingsley, Matt Cain, and Ervin Santana, and justifiably so, but I think Guzman deserves to be discussed in the same group. I like him SO much more than Rich Hill.

 

Comments??

 

What one "hopes" for Guzman and what one can "expect" for him are two totally different issues. I have high hopes for him, and have him high on my prospect list. Like Tim, I believe I have him 2nd only to Pie? If he is healthy and stays healthy, he has a good chance to be a very good pitcher. There aren't that many guys who have both good stuff and good control and good brains, and Guzman has the chance for all of that.

 

That said, I do think that his stuff is routinely overrated by Cub people. "Monster" stuff? I don't think so, really. Good stuff, major league stuff, yes, I hope he still has that. But I don't think it's extraordinary.

 

My take before the injury is that he could throw his high, straight, HR-prone 4-seam fastball at the 94-96 that we've heard about, sometimes. And as Tim notes, it appears that he can again do that, so I agree with Tim that it's not clear that his arm is shot or his stuff necessarily compromised.

 

But I think his bread-and-butter fastball was not the mid-90's 4-seamer, but rather the 89-92 2-seamer that's better for the ground balls, but is hardly overpowering. If he tries to live in the majors on a low-mid-90's high 4-seamers, I expect he'll get pounded and give up lots of HR's. I expect he'll need to much more often be throwing a solid, low-in-strike zone 2-seamer that has more sink and action on it. But one which will not light up radar guns or seem like monster stuff or any of that.

 

If he's going to be really good, he's going to need to control his curveball and changeup. Those are two very, very, very, very, very difficult pitches to control. If he has extraordinary control of them, combined with his fastball, he'll be really good. If he has normal control of them, he'll be like a lot of big-league pitchers; look really sharp some days, look not so great on others.

 

Pre-injury it was projected that he might have exceptional control of the curve and change and fastball. I still think that's ppossible. I don't think the injury precludes that.

 

But at the same time, Guzman's control of his curveball/change/fastball was not consistent even before the surgery. Now it's three years later. I wouldn't expect his control of the curve to be all that hot right now. It might become excellent, and perhaps sooner rather than later. But it might take a while, or it might never be great.

 

I'm very, very optimistic about him. But I think it might take a while, and my interest is actually more for 2007, post-Maddux, than for 2006.

 

Second, I think we should beware of assuming that he has this monster stuff, and the only question is health. I believe it's entirely possible that he'll have decent health for a while, but will turn out to have stuff and control which is fine but is less than spectacular, and that he'll end up being a useful pitcher but much less than the superstar we'd like to see.

[rawaction]

 

But I think his bread-and-butter fastball was not the mid-90's 4-seamer, but rather the 89-92 2-seamer that's better for the ground balls, but is hardly overpowering. If he tries to live in the majors on a low-mid-90's high 4-seamers, I expect he'll get pounded and give up lots of HR's. I expect he'll need to much more often be throwing a solid, low-in-strike zone 2-seamer that has more sink and action on it. But one which will not light up radar guns or seem like monster stuff or any of that.

 

That's why I always look at his GB/FB ratio. It was 1.64 during the regular season in 05, and I believe it was pretty good in the AFL (though, I lost the exact numbers). When he was healthy, he was consistently getting twice as many GBs as flyouts. He's very similar to Zambrano in that the harder he throws (4-seamer) the more hittable he is, as the ball tends to straighten out.

[craig]

That's why I always look at his GB/FB ratio. It was 1.64 during the regular season in 05, and I believe it was pretty good in the AFL (though, I lost the exact numbers). When he was healthy, he was consistently getting twice as many GBs as flyouts. He's very similar to Zambrano in that the harder he throws (4-seamer) the more hittable he is, as the ball tends to straighten out.

 

Indeed. But it's often the 4-seamer velocity that people talk about, as if he has this overpowring fastball. And it's often the K's that are used to indicate monster stuff. Zambrano is perhaps a good analogy, in that if Guzman is to end up being successful, he will be like Z in having good GB ratio, in *not* throwing at his highest velocity most of the time, and in *not* having knockout K's. There have been days when Guzman K'd a lot of guys, in WTenn especially. But that was also the time when he gave up lots of HR's. My hypothesis has always been that throwing up-the-ladder 4-seamers at 95 mph is a very useful tool, gets the radar people excited, gets the K's, and gets the high-K's-means-great-stuff people excited. But it comes with a price: with more of those K's and high 4-seamers come more HR's. Again, I'm just repeating myself, but I expect that if/when he's actually pitching real effectively, he'll be mixing more 90-mph fastballs with curves and changes than blistering people with high-90's heat. And the 96-mph eye-high 4-seamers will be more effective as a surprise change of pace. But if he's throwing mostly 90 mph fastballs, I'm not sure he'll have as many people talking monster stuff.

 

Personally I think the healthis obviously crucial. But if he's healthy, I expect he'll be as good as his control. If he's good, he'll be more noteworthy for his unusually good control than for his unusually good stuff. But the combination of very good control with good-to-excellent stuff can make for a very, very, very productive pitcher, even if the stuff isn't quite Oswalt/Clemens caliber.

[rawaction]

Yeah, I don't see Guzman striking out a hitter/inning as he has in the minors. I see him closer to 7K/9 IP, with a GB/FB of about 1.5-.1.7.

[Tim]

I'd be perfectly happy if Guzman ends up a better control but slightly less stuff version of a guy like Z or Webb. Especially since I think he has a better change as a third look than either one of those guys.

 

BTW - Craig: My recollection is that the sinker sits a bit better than the 89-90 range. I recalled the sinker sitting in the 91-93 range with the 4 seamer in the mid-90's when he wanted to go up the ladder on a guy.

[craig]

Tim, I think it depended on the day. On a good day the 2-seamer might go 91-93, but not always. Of course, it could well be that without a sore shoulder, he might be able to sustain that *more* consistently, not less. To harken back to what a guy was pre-surgery is helpful, but often guys are compromised by sort arm for quite a while prior to the actual surgery, and Guzman's issues had arisen well before his AA season or else he wouldn't have needed to shut things down with sore shoulder in his Daytona season.

 

I agree that a guy with Z-lite stuff but much better control could be a tremendous pitcher. Heh, could be a Cy Young pitcher. And I hope that ends up being Guzman. But I think it's quite possible that Guzman's stuff might end up being more than "a little" less than Zambrano's.

 

Kessinger started this thread with the bottom line that he likes Guzman way better than Hill. All things considered, I don't know. In some ways, Guzman's potential seems considerably higher. Guzman's potential control seems so much better, and while stuff matters, control is really everything in pitching. So I think Guzman's potential control gives him a really excellent chance to be much the superior dude. On the other hand, Hill's stuff does seem awfully good, guys with curveballs like that don't grow on trees. And, it's hard to sustain good stuff and good control if your arm is always hurting, so the fact that Hill has a golden record for health, that means a lot to me.

 

It will be interesting to re-evaluate how I feel about them a month from now, after most of camp; and then again after a month or two of Iowa time.

[Diffusion]

On the other hand, Hill's stuff does seem awfully good, guys with curveballs like that don't grow on trees.

 

And besides the curveball?

[khufure]

On the other hand, Hill's stuff does seem awfully good, guys with curveballs like that don't grow on trees.

 

And besides the curveball?

 

Hill throws a 91-94 heater with ok movement. It was called a plus pitch by some. Remember that Hill also throws multiple curveballs at different speeds and angles.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

On the other hand, Hill's stuff does seem awfully good, guys with curveballs like that don't grow on trees.

 

And besides the curveball?

 

Hill throws a 91-94 heater with ok movement. It was called a plus pitch by some. Remember that Hill also throws multiple curveballs at different speeds and angles.

 

The velocity on that fastball has been up for debate. Some might tell you that 91 is max.

[imb]

If Hill ever hits 94 on a fastball it will be as a reliever

[Jehrico]

Any reports on how Angel has looked so far at Spring Training?

[Vinestal]

Any reports on how Angel has looked so far at Spring Training?

 

The only thing I have seen is this small blurb on the Cubs.com page about his recent bulpen sesion with Blanco.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060222&content_id=1319302&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

[khufure]

On the other hand, Hill's stuff does seem awfully good, guys with curveballs like that don't grow on trees.

 

And besides the curveball?

 

Hill throws a 91-94 heater with ok movement. It was called a plus pitch by some. Remember that Hill also throws multiple curveballs at different speeds and angles.

 

The velocity on that fastball has been up for debate. Some might tell you that 91 is max.

 

We've talked about this a few times now. Prior to dead arm syndrome last year, Hill regularly threw lowish 90's with his fastball. He threw around 150 innings last year, quite a step from the previous years. Hopefully he came to camp in shape.

[treebird]

If Hill ever hits 94 on a fastball it will be as a reliever

 

AGREED

[NorthsideAvenger]

If Hill ever hits 94 on a fastball it will be as a reliever

 

If Hill ever hits 94, shouldn't the Cubs consider him the next BJ Ryan, and groom him to take over the closer's role when Dempster's contract ends?