BA's Top 10 - Discussion

[Bull]

 

As you can see, along with the top 10 listings there is also a page long article on the rise and fall of the Cubs farm system. I haven't read the article yet but it looks interesting.

 

Picked up a copy today. The article is an update on the top 10 from 2002. It talks about how only Prior and Z have panned out. It goes on to tell "the rest of the story", about how Hill was turned into Ramirez and Choi was turned into Lee, and how the jury is still out on Patterson. Not much meat to the story. Surprise, surprise.

[abuck1220]

that BA's going to like sweet signed in silver sharpie.

[craig]

The chat helped to fill in some of the next section. Callis said he had Pinto 11. Sounded like Veal and Marmol were in the 11-15 range (I think he made reference to how one or both could move into top ten following trades, so with Nolasco and Pinto already gone, #12 becomes #10, and #13 moves up to #11... Sounded like Gallagher was also in the 11-15 range. Didn't really give away who the other guy would be in that range, perhaps one of Moore, Sing, or Ryu?

 

On Veal, I don't think they saw his ceiling as high as some do here, based on the probably typically inflated BA draft velocity. In the draft report there was reference to hitting 95 or 96 this spring, something like that. Callis alluded to that in chat. But suggested that at Boise, he actually was pitching at 88-91, which is nothing spectacular. A friend watched Veal's last game, though, in which he was pretty dominant. IN that game he said he was at 91-93 in the 4th inning, and that his fastball looked effortless and on that night was unhittable (by those crummy hitters.) He said Veal's deliver was extremely simple and repeatable, no flailing arms and legs or any of the Dontrelle herky jerk or any of that. But he said at least in that game, that Veal's delivery appeared to be deceptive, maybe the motion seemed too simple and the delivery too compact so that hitters were suprised at how fast the ball got to the plate.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The chat helped to fill in some of the next section. Callis said he had Pinto 11. Sounded like Veal and Marmol were in the 11-15 range (I think he made reference to how one or both could move into top ten following trades, so with Nolasco and Pinto already gone, #12 becomes #10, and #13 moves up to #11... Sounded like Gallagher was also in the 11-15 range. Didn't really give away who the other guy would be in that range, perhaps one of Moore, Sing, or Ryu?

 

On Veal, I don't think they saw his ceiling as high as some do here, based on the probably typically inflated BA draft velocity. In the draft report there was reference to hitting 95 or 96 this spring, something like that. Callis alluded to that in chat. But suggested that at Boise, he actually was pitching at 88-91, which is nothing spectacular. A friend watched Veal's last game, though, in which he was pretty dominant. IN that game he said he was at 91-93 in the 4th inning, and that his fastball looked effortless and on that night was unhittable (by those crummy hitters.) He said Veal's deliver was extremely simple and repeatable, no flailing arms and legs or any of the Dontrelle herky jerk or any of that. But he said at least in that game, that Veal's delivery appeared to be deceptive, maybe the motion seemed too simple and the delivery too compact so that hitters were suprised at how fast the ball got to the plate.

 

I believe Veal finished that game with 10 Ks. I watched the video on Boise's web site and he was dominant.

[Outshined_One]

On Veal, I don't think they saw his ceiling as high as some do here, based on the probably typically inflated BA draft velocity. In the draft report there was reference to hitting 95 or 96 this spring, something like that. Callis alluded to that in chat. But suggested that at Boise, he actually was pitching at 88-91, which is nothing spectacular. A friend watched Veal's last game, though, in which he was pretty dominant. IN that game he said he was at 91-93 in the 4th inning, and that his fastball looked effortless and on that night was unhittable (by those crummy hitters.) He said Veal's deliver was extremely simple and repeatable, no flailing arms and legs or any of the Dontrelle herky jerk or any of that. But he said at least in that game, that Veal's delivery appeared to be deceptive, maybe the motion seemed too simple and the delivery too compact so that hitters were suprised at how fast the ball got to the plate.

 

They referenced the fact that he hit the high 90s to start the season, but wore down as the season went on in his scouting report pre-draft.

[Scotti]

On Veal, I don't think they saw his ceiling as high as some do here, based on the probably typically inflated BA draft velocity.

 

Craig, I don't think the issue is that they don't see him with a very high ceiling. I think the probabilities factor here. When he was being scouted he was all over the place and more of a project. Until he slams the door on the probabilities issue with a solid season on a full season team they are going to hold off.

 

On a somewhat related note I think it takes BA a while to wake up to non-high draft pick pitchers. Guzman, Zambrano, Cruz (even after a heads up from the Cubs), Nolasco.

[rawaction]

On a somewhat related note I think it takes BA a while to wake up to non-high draft pick pitchers. Guzman, Zambrano, Cruz (even after a heads up from the Cubs), Nolasco.

 

I don't think so. Nolasco was a 4th round pick, I believe. But he was overshadowed by the fact he was in the same draft as Prior, and has been teammates with the likes of Sisco, Justin Jones, Guzman, Ryu, Blasko, Brownlie, Pinto, Hill, when they all were top 10 prospects. He has been overshadowed big time. It's hard to get in the top 10 when you are the 4th best starter on your team every year.

[craig]

Veal was a 2nd rounder, not like a round where BA tends to overlook you. They had no problem putting Grant Johnson into the top ten, or getting on the Justin Jones and Billy Petrick bandwagon pretty fast. I don't think Veal is being discriminated against because he's "just" a 2nd rounder. Nor because he hasn't hit full season. (Pawelek hasn't either, and BA didn't mind that much).

 

Perhaps Veal's ceiling is as high as Pawelek's, beats me, but neither BA nor draft scouts like him as much. But I think the fact that Callis reads Veal as throwing 88-91 while Pawelek as throwing 92-95 is a major reason why Callis doesn't see Veal as highly.

 

If Veal throws 91-95 consistently, his ranking will rise (and he'll do pretty well in full-season).

 

The issue of probability certainly factors. A guy who throws 92-95 consistently may not have a higher ceiling than a guy who throws 88-91 consistently but hit 96 in one spring outing; maybe with a mechanical tuneup he'll be hitting 93-96 routinely down the road. But the probability of which guy is likely to throw hard consistently in future probably lies against the guy who rarely throws exceptionally hard now.

[Scotti]

Veal was a 2nd rounder, not like a round where BA tends to overlook you. They had no problem putting Grant Johnson into the top ten, or getting on the Justin Jones and Billy Petrick bandwagon pretty fast. I don't think Veal is being discriminated against because he's "just" a 2nd rounder. Nor because he hasn't hit full season. (Pawelek hasn't either, and BA didn't mind that much).

 

Grant Johnson WAS the Cub's first pick in the draft and he was expected (and did) skip to Peoria, Pawelek WAS the Cub's 1st round pick, Petrick didn't get love (#5) until after his first FULL season. Justin Jones got love (#2), not after his rookie ball season, but after his LANSING season.

 

And all the Latino guys (Cruz, Zambrano, Guzman) didn't get the love until after their first full-seasons... When's the last time a Cub top pick didn't get top ten love? When has a Cub rookie ball pitcher gotten the love? Seems an exception was made for 6'9" Andy Sisco after his rookie (Boise) season. Still, he did mop up the competition (101 K's in 77 IP in his first peek at pro ball).

 

I think BA is very unlikely to give a 2nd round pitcher top ten love regardless of how well he does in rookie ball or how giddy the Cubs are about a kid--unless he's the (publicized) top pick.

 

One would have expected guys like Guzman, Jones and Petrick to start out lower in the top ten rankings and move up. Instead, after being in the system for some time BAM! 1st, 2nd, 5th. Like they were just discovered or something. I remember (back in the day) guys saying, “Guzman must be a soft-tosser because he has great #’s but no BA top ten love.” And, “Petrick isn’t really special or BA would have given him top ten love.”

 

As soon as BA gave them love everyone always knew these were quality, quality guys.

 

But BA is a magazine. Their base expects to see Team A’s top pick listed. Unless he Sox they’ll list him. There’s no pressure on BA to list the guys who don’t get the Tribune or SunTimes articles. If they’re still good next year you can list them then--if not, so what.