OT: Raise the Jolly Roger: Spring [training] is here!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scandale du Jour

JordanStaal#1Fan
Mar 11, 2002
62,002
28,719
Asbestos, Qc
www.angelfire.com
Last few posts:

Yeah it's probably not best to lump those three together, as Siani is a lot different of a prospect. Definitely fair to prefer Martin over Mitchell – I think so too, as there seem to be more standout tools with Martin. I like the video of Mitchell's swing that I've seen, but he needs to show something in 2021 with either cutting the Ks or getting on base a bit more. He might be more of a 4th OF or depth type of guy – I don't really know that his skillset works for a 4th OF spot over somebody like Oliva, for example.

Still, the power potential is nice, so maybe we'll see him added to the 40-man. We have to make a decision on that after this season, but right now he seemingly needs to do something to stand out a bit.

A final guy neither of us have mentioned who is probably somewhere in a similar category to these types is Max Kranick. He's already been added to the 40-man roster and has seemingly rebuilt himself a little bit after having some injuries and so-so results. The word is he's got a high spin, upper 90s fastball now to go with a solid slider. He's a lower hype guy to watch for 2021 as well, but IMO the 15 guys you listed are a fairly clear consensus. A handful more for the 15-20 or beyond range are guys from the recent deals like Cruz, Rodriguez, Smith-Njigba, Castro, and Nolasco.

But I think the top 10, 15 are fairly consensus. The only place our lists diverge a bit is Mlodzinski vs. Bolton, where I lean towards the closer guy with a solid track record. Barring a surprise, I don't think we're likely to add much more talent via trade, so it will be crucial to draft well and more crucial to develop well, as we all have probably heard or told ourselves a million times. In 2021, besides Cruz probably, my eye is most on Swaggerty, just as a kind of random, but still post-hype prospect who could surprise as an impact player if he can coax some pop from his swing in the upper minors.

I had a similar thought about Kranick. One of those guys that's post-hype or no-hype but no reason he can't be effective. Sometimes a guy just never gets on a 'prospect hype cycle' for some reason. Kuhl was a no-hype prospect who has become an effective player for us. So was Frazier. Even J-Hay was an odd duck where he never had any hype but hit .300 at every level with good defense.

The ultimate post-hype prospect at the MLB level though is Tucker. I still hold out a shred of hope that there's a 3-4 WAR player there.

Agreed, clearly the Pirates see something that's worth keeping around, since he's still going to need a full season of development at least before he's MLB ready. To some extent, he's probably in a similar situation as Brubaker and Bolton, except further behind. Guys with the tools to be solid bullpen options, who could also be useful backend guys or potentially a mid-rotation guy. I am pretty intrigued to see what Brubaker can do, though I also think that he could be a very devestating weapon as a multi-inning reliever.

I feel very much the same about Tucker and thus probably have him up there as the MLB storyline I am most in on for us. It's not based on anything other than the tools profile, but I think he's someone for whom it could all click, and he is still only 24. I really don't get how his season was handled last year, as you have to figure that his profile could have been a very light hitting but strong defensive SS. The logic of him exclusively being an OF seems to point towards management wanting to develop him as a utility player, but now that seems almost entirely off the table. I think he needs to earn starts, but I also think there's really nothing to see from others at SS, so I hope he's getting them unless he struggles. He's #1 on my list of guys who I hope have a torrid spring.

This is changing gears a bit from prospects and young players, but I actually think that Brault might be a decent post-hype player, and that Cherington keeping him around could be something that looks like a quite solid decision a few months into the season. It's not unusual for LHP to put things together somewhat gradually – Patrick Corbin is an example of this. Brault's continued to grow as a pitcher and has quietly put up extended runs of very solid performance. I don't know how much more of an additional gear he has, but I wouldn't be totally floored if he quietly goes about a nice 2.5 WAR season this year, which would pretty much prime him to be traded in a deal not too far off the pace of the Musgrove and Taillon deals.

Tucker and Keller are the two most important guys to get a look at on the mlb roster IMO. If they solidify themselves thats 2 spots that we don't have to worry about while we sort through these prospect waves.

And i agree that it was smart to keep guys like brault and kuhl around. First we need someone to throw innings. Second they have short enough track records that a good year could raise their value.

Yeah, agreed on Tucker and Keller, and I'd probably throw Reynolds in there as well, though with his previous success, I suppose he's in a slightly different category. I don't know if he's quite the 3 WAR player he showed in his rookie year, but getting him competent again will be a nice boost, especially in terms of Hayes actually seeing pitches to hit more than once a week.

In that regard I don't mind bringing Frazier in as a possible weak side platoon for Moran, as well as still having A. Frazier around. There's not a lot to love about the lineup, but if people perform to their abilities, it shouldn't be a total wasteland, which is something I think is important for Hayes further settling in (not to mention for having the games be watchable).

I would have been happy and still would be to have Porcello's veteran innings anchoring the rotation, but it does seem like the right offers weren't quite there for the SP, so there was no need to shuffle them off just to follow suit with the other trades. I think this entire time, I've had it in my head that Brault only has this year and next remaining, but he's arb eligible through 2023. A full, good year could very well be a kind of breakout for him, increasing his trade value by a lot, and if not, as you say, we need someone to throw innings, and Brault can at least shoulder some of that fairly well for a while

Kuhl's someone that maybe you hope pops up and becomes a sought after player at the deadline. It doesn't seem like he can consistently get lefties out enough to start, but I'm also not going to read a ton into his early comeback performance and I still like the stuff. He's honestly someone who I think it would be nice to keep around for a little while longer, but probably he just gets as much of a showcase as possible for a trade at the deadline or in the winter.

In terms of rotation / roster preview, here's my stab, trying to be more succinct than the prospect analysis. Could still be a trade or FA acquisition, but things look relatively straightforward to me so far:

Catcher - Jacob Stallings - no brainer, barring injury
Backup(s) - Michael Perez - less guarantees here, as Tony Wolters could also be in the mix.

First Base - Colin Moran + Todd Frazier - Bringing in Frazier is an interesting move, since without a DH, his playing time will come at 1B, and you figure he'll make the team. Moran's usefulness can probably be maximized in somewhat of a platoon situation, and I suspect that's the play here, coupled with the fact that the position is pretty thin after Moran anyways.

Second Base - Adam Frazier - People keep mentioning him as a trade possibility, but at this point my assumption is we're waiting for a team to get desperate and hoping his value remains high.

Shortstop - Competition between Cole Tucker, Kevin Newman, and Erik Gonzalez - I expect this to be one of the bigger stories heading into camp and don't really know how we'll play it out. Does one guy earn the lion's share of starts heading into the regular season, or is there somewhat of a time sharing situation that gets resolved after the season begins? With Frazier at second base, that leaves less time for one of Tucker and Newman, so it's hard not to see this question as tied up with whether there's a trade there as well.

Third Base - Ke'Bryan Hayes - Rookie of the year candidate and reasonably good bet for best player on the team. The only moderately interesting question is where you try to bat him and how much lineup protection you can give him.

Outfield - Bryan Reynolds, Anthony Alford, Brian Goodwin, Gregory Polanco, Jared Oliva - There figures to also be some competition here, with the likely but not guaranteed scenario of Reynolds and Polanco already holding down spots, and some competition for the other starting spot, and a question about how the bench will work and whether one spot will be platooned in some way. Specific spots seem TBD to me, with the only guarantee being that Polanco would be the RF. The rest of them can presumably line up in either LF or CF.

Bench: I've only given backups for some of the positions, which makes sorting this out a little more convoluted. If we assume 5 bench spots, then you have T. Frazier, Perez/Wolters, 2/3 of the SS candidates, and the 4th OF. I would also anticipate Phillip Evans being in the mix somehow, as he had a very good showing in a very small sample last year before getting hurt.

I won't predict the lineup yet or anything beyond that generic picture. Honestly, looking at it all at once, things become a lot more straightforward if Frazier is indeed traded. The only thing I'll say about the lineup is that I think hitting Hayes second makes a lot of sense generically, but it's hard to see who makes sense as a leadoff guy. There are too many unknowns to do much forecasting, though.

Rotation should be straightforward enough:
Mitch Keller - Lock, and I suspect somewhat for PR reasons, may have an edge for opening day starter. We clearly want him to step up and look like a leader for the next few years.
Steven Brault - Lock, and I assume the default opening day starter if Keller is only so-so in spring training.
Chad Kuhl - Lock, depending on performance I could see his rotation spot eventually being up for grabs, as his stuff figures to play up out of the bullpen, but I'd have him on a long leash before considering that and assume the Pirates will too.
Tyler Anderson - Figures to be a lock, since he was signed to a major league deal. Possible upside play with the baseballs being deflated again and his ability to avoid giving up hard contact. Also gives a lefty option, so should play up reasonably well in PNC Park.
Competition between JT Brubaker, Wil Crowe, Cody Ponce, and Miguel Yajure - Brubaker figures to have somewhat of an inside track here but I suspect this will be up for grabs in spring training. For control manipulation issues, I assume Yajure won't be the guy, as he's also younger and we'll be in no hurry with him. It's possible that one or two of the guys who doesn't get it go into the bullpen as swingmen, and/or that we run something of a six-man rotation or quasi-bullpenning thing, both to get looks at guys and to share the innings load a little bit.

I won't try to map out the bullpen other than to say that the locks figure to include Richard Rodriguez and Chris Stratton. Some jobs will be up for grabs, with RichRod having the best chance at closer heading into ST. I assume Luis Oviedo will be here since we need to protect him from the Rule 5. Beyond that, my best guess is the cliched one that it will come down to a combination of merit from ST looks and minor league options/future plans.

In Summary
There are a number of storylines to keep an eye on as spring training opens, and the general vibe from the team seems to be that competition will be open for a lot of spots and roles. The biggest "domino" question is probably whether or not Frazier will still be dealt. I lean towards no, unless it's this week as things only really get going in full swing, just because I presume that we want to build a relatively tightknit group. Frazier doesn't figure in the longterm plans, but it's very easy to see us relying on him as a competent starter in the hopes that we can flip him at the deadline for something valuable and then give a few months of ABs to someone like Newman.

I don't think there are really any big surprise possibilities among younger players that aren't listed here. You want to see Oneil Cruz and Mason Martin have good showings as backup ST players, but it would be a huge surprise if either makes the team at some point during the year, for service time reasons and readiness reasons combined. Maybe someone under the radar who is worth concluding the preview with is Rodolfo Castro, a switch hitting 2B with power and speed who some seem to really like, and who we probably shouldn't have left off the "other notables" in prospect discussions.

Castro obviously has several people in front of him for playing time, but I'll have an eye out for him in spring training and throughout the year. He's on the 40-man already and has the kind of profile that I think the front office likes. It's a bit of a stretch, but I think he's someone who could end up in the mix after the trade deadline if he puts together a pretty good season, Frazier is gone, and Newman isn't showing much in his ABs.

Continue! :)
 

Scandale du Jour

JordanStaal#1Fan
Mar 11, 2002
62,002
28,719
Asbestos, Qc
www.angelfire.com
Oh... and a friendly reminder:

Warning: If you do not want to discuss the Pirates, don't. Do not come in here and judge the people that do follow the team. Some of us still follow them even if ownership sucks... and we know it sucks. No need to discuss it ad nauseam.. especially if you do not follow the team. We respect your choice, respect ours.
 

Jacob

as seen on TV
Feb 27, 2002
49,342
24,740
Don’t follow baseball closely but didn’t they trade Bell a little prematurely evem for them?
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
I should have known better than to dump two long prospect / roster preview posts at the tail end of the other thread!

The Bell trade is a complex one, since his value was lower than it probably once was, but if we kept him and he struggled, even for just a month or so, his value probably tanks completely. If anything, the timing of the trade looks like we lucked out a bit, since there was still a guess that the NL would have a DH when we moved him.

It's possible that the trade could look bad if Bell rebounds, but his die seems to be cast as an MLB player at this point. He hasn't been able to consistently put hitting and power together, and definitely not enough to make up for what he subtracts defensively. Cynically, I think there was definitely a component of shedding his salary that factored in, but I also think from a baseball perspective, the chances of getting a better return on him at some point were very low.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
I forgot to mention a somewhat cynical thought I also had in relation to Bell, namely that his value might be even dicier given the likelihood of a lockout next year. I guess contracts could somehow be deferred or something in that case, but it also occurred to me when thinking about the timing. I think there's a pretty strong chance of serous work stoppage, though who knows. With how erratic things have become due to the pandemic, you'd like to think that they might want to get down to business and finally have a normal season by then.



This was also getting some attention, and while these platitudes are fine as they go (it's still GM-speak, and maybe more elaborate than usual and vaguely more direct), I still am not holding my breath. Step #1 would be investing in young core players, and I would really like to see him pressed on the timing of a payroll increase. It's one thing to say you need to add talent, but at some point you also have to be confident in the talent that you are developing and add to complement it, maybe prior to it fully showing up.

The comparison with the Padres is somewhat telling in this regard, since you'd be hard pressed to sell anyone on the idea that we'd make an investment in a deal similar to what Hosmer got. Cherington does still have a little bit of time, but after the dust settles one of the biggest questions I have is whether he'll add in anticipation of the 2022 or at least 2023 team, given that year as when the wave is anticipated to really arrive.
 

Scandale du Jour

JordanStaal#1Fan
Mar 11, 2002
62,002
28,719
Asbestos, Qc
www.angelfire.com
I forgot to mention a somewhat cynical thought I also had in relation to Bell, namely that his value might be even dicier given the likelihood of a lockout next year. I guess contracts could somehow be deferred or something in that case, but it also occurred to me when thinking about the timing. I think there's a pretty strong chance of serous work stoppage, though who knows. With how erratic things have become due to the pandemic, you'd like to think that they might want to get down to business and finally have a normal season by then.



This was also getting some attention, and while these platitudes are fine as they go (it's still GM-speak, and maybe more elaborate than usual and vaguely more direct), I still am not holding my breath. Step #1 would be investing in young core players, and I would really like to see him pressed on the timing of a payroll increase. It's one thing to say you need to add talent, but at some point you also have to be confident in the talent that you are developing and add to complement it, maybe prior to it fully showing up.

The comparison with the Padres is somewhat telling in this regard, since you'd be hard pressed to sell anyone on the idea that we'd make an investment in a deal similar to what Hosmer got. Cherington does still have a little bit of time, but after the dust settles one of the biggest questions I have is whether he'll add in anticipation of the 2022 or at least 2023 team, given that year as when the wave is anticipated to really arrive.


Well, it was GM speak, but it did have substance.... and most importantly it made total sense. He even said it might be oversimplifying things... but the best solutions/strategies are usually simple and success lies in the execution. I feel like Cherington said that too.

So, yeah, it is kinda cliché, but it is also true. Maybe I am naive, but it at least tells me they are trying to do the right things. Now, will they succeed... we'll see ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallatin

Gallatin

A Banksy of Goonism
Mar 4, 2010
2,951
541
Pittsburgh
Well, it was GM speak, but it did have substance.... and most importantly it made total sense. He even said it might be oversimplifying things... but the best solutions/strategies are usually simple and success lies in the execution. I feel like Cherington said that too.

So, yeah, it is kinda cliché, but it is also true. Maybe I am naive, but it at least tells me they are trying to do the right things. Now, will they succeed... we'll see ;)

He basically told the truth, right? I mean, isn't this exactly what we all want him to do? build a strong base of homegrown talent, and then make the moves necessary to develop a champion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scandale du Jour

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,407
78,003
Redmond, WA
Yeah, that's exactly what the Pirates SHOULD be doing. Don't waste money when your team sucks and then start investing in the team when they're good, and keep going in that kind of cycle. The issue is whether Nutting would actually spend enough money when they're competitive. He didn't really do that when they were competitive from 2013-2017, he did spend more (usually hovering between $80 and $95 million for payroll) but that wasn't to a level high enough for this team to be a contender.

I'd be completely happy with Nutting going for a bare bones salary structure when the team was bad if I was confident that he'd spend $150 million for 3 years when the team was good.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
The main reason I was poking at it is not really because I disagree with him, but more because all he is really saying is "get good players, make sure they are good players, and then we'll spend." But even the references to spending are pretty vague, so I'm just skeptical at this point. If you want to ready what he says really cynically, he doesn't even make a vague commitment to spending when the team is better - he keeps saying "add back" talent. That could easily translate into, "we have a good prospect system so we can trade for guys on affordable contracts."

I don't want to take it too far, even if I'm still very much in a wait and see mode. There's a whole can of worms about salary cap and floor that I don't mean to open up. Ultimately, my view is that you need to spend adequately in order to give yourself a sold chance to win. The winning teams that tore down and added/developed a bunch of value, namely Chicago and Houston, also spent, and the same will be said about San Diego if they are successful.

Concretely, I think the best we can probably hope for is that the payroll will go north of 100 million for a span of three or four years rather than just one or two, and ideally the system will be strong enough to sustain re-toolings without full tear downs. We don't quite know what sustained success looks like, outside of perhaps Houston and I suppose the Yankees and Dodgers. In Pittsburgh, winning it all or getting reasonably deep into the playoffs will probably go a long way. I think the structure of the baseball playoffs makes it such that you can't do any more than put a good team on the field and hope for the best come playoff time.

This will probably rub some people the wrong way, but I don't really think a team like Tampa Bay is a model to imitate. They produce good talent, but that organization is ultimately a shining example of a lot of what's wrong with MLB today: maximizing efficiency like a McKinsey consultant, and then not pushing the chips in due to a bottom line. They got really close and then spent the offseason tearing down their roster. They could have easily kept Morton and Snell and added a little bit in a down market to go for it again.

Obviously, continuing to produce cheap young players from within is a cornerstone to success in MLB, and a part of that story is indeed the kinds of trades that Tampa often pulls off best, where they turn their pitchers into more good young players. But I think at the end of the day, what the recent several years in baseball show is that you can't fully try to emulate and copy other teams. You have to do what others have done to have success and also put your own stamp and twist on it that's right for your situation, and plays to the strengths you develop. I'm probably no less guilty of oversimplifying or generalizing, so again I'll reiterate that I don't fully have a problem with what Cherington is saying, but I'm skeptical there will be a sustainable winner built that doesn't push the 2022 or 2023 payroll much higher than what I anticipate it being.
 

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,739
12,096
The main reason I was poking at it is not really because I disagree with him, but more because all he is really saying is "get good players, make sure they are good players, and then we'll spend." But even the references to spending are pretty vague, so I'm just skeptical at this point. If you want to ready what he says really cynically, he doesn't even make a vague commitment to spending when the team is better - he keeps saying "add back" talent. That could easily translate into, "we have a good prospect system so we can trade for guys on affordable contracts."

I don't want to take it too far, even if I'm still very much in a wait and see mode. There's a whole can of worms about salary cap and floor that I don't mean to open up. Ultimately, my view is that you need to spend adequately in order to give yourself a sold chance to win. The winning teams that tore down and added/developed a bunch of value, namely Chicago and Houston, also spent, and the same will be said about San Diego if they are successful.

Concretely, I think the best we can probably hope for is that the payroll will go north of 100 million for a span of three or four years rather than just one or two, and ideally the system will be strong enough to sustain re-toolings without full tear downs. We don't quite know what sustained success looks like, outside of perhaps Houston and I suppose the Yankees and Dodgers. In Pittsburgh, winning it all or getting reasonably deep into the playoffs will probably go a long way. I think the structure of the baseball playoffs makes it such that you can't do any more than put a good team on the field and hope for the best come playoff time.

This will probably rub some people the wrong way, but I don't really think a team like Tampa Bay is a model to imitate. They produce good talent, but that organization is ultimately a shining example of a lot of what's wrong with MLB today: maximizing efficiency like a McKinsey consultant, and then not pushing the chips in due to a bottom line. They got really close and then spent the offseason tearing down their roster. They could have easily kept Morton and Snell and added a little bit in a down market to go for it again.

Obviously, continuing to produce cheap young players from within is a cornerstone to success in MLB, and a part of that story is indeed the kinds of trades that Tampa often pulls off best, where they turn their pitchers into more good young players. But I think at the end of the day, what the recent several years in baseball show is that you can't fully try to emulate and copy other teams. You have to do what others have done to have success and also put your own stamp and twist on it that's right for your situation, and plays to the strengths you develop. I'm probably no less guilty of oversimplifying or generalizing, so again I'll reiterate that I don't fully have a problem with what Cherington is saying, but I'm skeptical there will be a sustainable winner built that doesn't push the 2022 or 2023 payroll much higher than what I anticipate it being.

Since this is in the realm of a discussion about finances again, I'll say a couple of brief things in defense of (barf) Bob Nutting.

First is that they did spend over $100M from '13-'16. Or at least intended to. Potentially dumping the Liriano contract made '16 <$100M on payroll.

Second is that the Pirates aren't really maximizing revenues from PNC Park. Even when they had their up-cycle they had some of the lowest ticket prices in the league. Maybe this time they'll do a better job of it. I dunno. Also supposedly their ATTSN contract is now more lucrative but who knows with that. When I was in Chicago and the Cubs started winning, you couldn't find a single seat at Wrigley under $100. Pirates you'd still see $20 seats all over the place.

Lastly I do think that the Steelers and Penguins will be on the downsides of their respective runs by then, so perhaps the finite amount of sports time and investment from the small-market Pittsburgh fanbase will slide the Pirates' way.

Edit: this relates to the Rays too. The city of Tampa never gave them any love. I'm not going to feel bad that the team decided to show its fanbase a similar level of investment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scandale du Jour

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
Thos are fair points for sure, I'm just not going to hold my breath on any real changes until we see the proof in actions. If we want to be sustainably good, eventually we're going to have to break through a few walls, so to speak - in signing solid FAs at market value, extending some of the developed talent long-term, and not culling back. I think the latter is probably my biggest point of skepticism, but we'll see. Still a ways to go before we can start asking these questions again.

Rocker's control ending up leaving him in the 5th and he was pulled for pitch count reasons. Solid performance, especially given that he was meant to start Friday but the game got moved to today. FB/SL both very good, mixing in some CH and a new cutter as well. Leiter will pitch game two of the doubleheader today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChaosAgent

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,739
12,096
Thos are fair points for sure, I'm just not going to hold my breath on any real changes until we see the proof in actions. If we want to be sustainably good, eventually we're going to have to break through a few walls, so to speak - in signing solid FAs at market value, extending some of the developed talent long-term, and not culling back. I think the latter is probably my biggest point of skepticism, but we'll see. Still a ways to go before we can start asking these questions again.

Rocker's control ending up leaving him in the 5th and he was pulled for pitch count reasons. Solid performance, especially given that he was meant to start Friday but the game got moved to today. FB/SL both very good, mixing in some CH and a new cutter as well. Leiter will pitch game two of the doubleheader today.

You are right that Nutting has to prove it to all of us. We're right to call him out for that. He hasn't proven it yet.

I think some of your calling for Hayes to be extended is really rooted in that thinking. Prove it, Bobbo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Spinoza

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
Leiter evidently pumped triple digits fastballs in the first inning according to the stadium gun. Locating 96-101 heat.

 

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,739
12,096
Leiter evidently pumped triple digits fastballs in the first inning according to the stadium gun. Locating 96-101 heat.



Oh lord.

Tiebreakers?

Leiter better secondary stuff. Rocker more downward plane and lower injury risk?
 

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,739
12,096
I love Rocker’s attitude. He’s got swagger that the Pirates desperately need. I recognize that that’s waaay down the list of things to look for but if they truly are neck and neck it’d tip the scales for me.

It makes sense.

+Height helps. Downward plane helps. Size helps too. Cole was TJ-proof and maybe with Rocker's sheer size he would also avoid going under the knife.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
If Leiter can consistently live around 95-96, I think that ultimately may tip the scales a bit, but we still have to see. Leiter has been able to get up to the mid-90s before, but I think in his freshman year he sat more around 91-92. The most impressive thing with Leiter for me was probably how much command he had on the fastball, especially up in the zone where he totally dominated. If he does that, he's more of a total package with the two offspeed pitches, but we have to see how Rocker's cutter and change are looking as well.

Rocker dominated today until his control seemed to go in the final inning and he missed with 8 straight fastballs. Overall though, a win-win day. I think the best case scenario for us is that Rocker and Leiter are pretty neck and neck in order to make it a hard choice between them.

It's sort of funny, because one of Rocker's knocks is lack of projectability, but you can basically same the same generic thing about Leiter, since his frame is smaller. Hill is the more projectable of the three, but my sense is that for 1.1 prospects, Rocker and Leiter are the best of the group. We want them to keep rivaling each other. More than frame, Rocker's question mark is probably command. He was pretty solid in that regard, and as we can see, some of his game is just overpowering and dominating others. He makes hitters look silly, but for me the operative queston will be if there's more impressive things under the hood with Leiter, so to speak.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
Thought this was a good, succinct summary from prospect hound Joe Doyle: Examining Kumar Rocker v. Jack Leiter after Monday — Prospects Live

It's a nice start, but ultimately just that. Both have a lot more innings to showcase their stuff between now and the draft. I think what tempts me the most with Leiter is that he has a higher floor. Unless his fastball somehow tanks, he has the profile of a strong front of rotation guy, maybe more of a solid #3 if it really comes to it. But looking at his ability to command the pitch, and sit around 95, and I see someone with a really strong path to true FOR anchor.

With Rocker, it seems like worst case scenario is something like high leverage reliever, since presumably that would guarantee the FB velocity holds and the slider alone is enough. His cutter looked pretty good in the clips I saw. The changeup being a work in progress isn't exactly a disastrous, and maybe it'll flash average at times this year.

I think the bar should be pretty high (and hence can't be answered till we get more new data), but ultimately I lean towards the allusion Doyle makes towards the end there that a choice will come down to the eye of the beholder. It's also generally worth pumping the brakes somewhat, as it's almost always the case that a decent amount can change between now and the draft. I'd ballpark both of them in the top 25-50 range of MLB prospects right now, but it's feasible that one or both could be pushing top 15-20 by draft time if their performances from today and repeated/expanded upon. From my perspective, that's exactly what we want, and BC and the scouts can make their choice.
 

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,739
12,096
I just look at the high effort delivery that Leiter has to get such good stuff and I think "arm problems." I don't have the same level of concern with Rocker.

That has to count for something.

In a way it's better that Rocker isn't throwing like 102 because then you'd think the arm issues would be inevitable, like they were with Strasburg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallatin

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
I don't quite have the same read. Leiter looks like there's a lot of effort going on because his body has a lot of follow through, but the actual arm action is short and repeatable. The comp I've seen that convinces me is Giolito.

That said, it's a good point about Rocker and injuries. My question with him comes down to whether his command will leave him too much or not. I don't put a ton of stock into the end of today's game, as this start was pushed from Friday and he wasn't going to throw a lot of pitches anyways. With his approach, some wildness is fine, but it's more a question of how often it shows up, whether he's missing spots consistently even if the results are still there, etc. The kind of thing that can't be said for sure until we have at last 4-5 more samples of starts for sure.

The extent of my posting about it probably betrays that I'm starting to lean more and more towards Leiter, but really, I'm not sure I'll have a firm take just from clips and results this year, and I hope the decision will get more and more difficult. I think there's something to the kind of bullying mound presence, and today's the first day I've really noticed Leiter overpowering people in the same way. If Rocker is consistent and the cutter or change flash like they could develop into plus pitches, then it's going to be a coin flip for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChaosAgent

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
For anyone who wants to dive further into the draft head-on, including beyond our Rocker-Leiter discussions and even beyond pick 1.1 discussions in general, TDK Baseball/Pirates Analytics dropped this long piece this morning: Scouting: Notes and Observations from the First Week of College Baseball – TDK Baseball

Still working through it, with fingers crossed that we may also get Longenhagen's full Pirates list today (it's next up, so it's coming this week no matter what, I think).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->