.
Dr. D splashes the pot with a huge bet ... is Brandon Mauer now part of a Big Five? To which Pros-Spec 66er Extraordinaire shoves in about four towers' worth of chips, rolling the table over:
.
.
Sanchez is #6. Pike is #7. Is Gohara #8?
I'm not down on Maurer, but super-high on Tyler Pike, ultra-polished low-90s teen lefty. Stepped right out of high school and put up a 1.78 ERA and 10.1 K/9.
And you can't ask for much more than Victor Sanchez did at 17, first time in the states. First 17-year-old to pitch for Everett since ... kid named Felix in 2003. Note: Everett is above rookie league, where almost all teenagers start.
And the scouting types seem to prefer huge Brazilian lefty Luiz Gohara (6-3, 220 at age 16) to any of them.
Wonder if the trademark has lapsed on "Big Eight"?
- See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/brandon-maurer-big-five#sthash.d...
.
The other players' seats have flipped backward and their soles of their shoes have a perfect view of the ceiling.
We take Spec's point and want to (1) kick the soccer ball a few more passes downfield, while (2) mixing our metaphors with a high-speed blender.
.
=== Baseball Top 100 Qwibbles and Bits ===
Here is a Feb. 19, 2013 Baseball America article by local Conor Glassey.
The below is not surprising, exactly, but Dr. D hadn't been crystal-clear that:
*For example, the 131 pitchers ranked in the top 25 the past 20 years, those guys have averaged over 800 innings in the majors. Perhaps it's fewer than 50% of top-100'ers that become regulars, strictly speaking, but as a group those top 100'ers are going to play a whale of a lot in the bigs.
.
In other words, if you are a top-100 prospect, you're probably going to have a decent career in the bigs, if you don't get injured. And it's very, very possible that you're going to become a star.
We say "probably." Adam Moore and Greg Halman were on the list, in their day. Roger Salkeld was #3 on the list at one time -- Lonnie and Mo' Dawg will remember him; we were stocking up on his baseball card.
We presume that the Gentle SSI Reader can bring the right sense of proportion to the disappointment list. Some top-100 prospects wash out. Most do not. The same is true of last year's ML All-Stars. Some will wash out this year. Most will not.
Salkeld is one of the top 10 or 20 prospects disappointments in BBA history, probably. He's not typical. He's a huge outlier on the disappointment side.
.
You've got this here yellow sticky note SOMEWHERE. We'll fetch it for you and bring it up on your monitor:
As you know, BBA's list is one of many available nowadays. BBA may be no more authoritative than several other national lists; it's less authoritative for me than any consensus I get from G, J, Spec and Lonnie.
But the point's the same. If a kid is ON this list, that's different from not being on it. Hultzen is on it. Pike is not on it. The top-100 list is an objective* metric.
Maurer, Pike, Sanchez and Gohara are indeed very exciting prospects. But the Big Four are on the verge of becoming impact pitchers in the major leagues. The Big Four are much, much more than blue-chip prospects; they're ML-ready elites. They are one biscuit short of being worth $50M+ apiece.
We're not countering Spec; we all know what he means when he (and G) say don't you go undersellin' Tyler Pike.
As much as I'm a fan of his game, he's got hurdles to clear before being annointed a Big Anything. Sanchez pitched in short-season and is wider than he is tall. Gohara has yet to scuff the dust off a piece of American rubber - let's save the frankincense and myrrh.
They are the next wave, but they aren't Big... yet. Just fun to keep an eye on. :-)
~G
Um, not to disagree with the suggestion that these guys are special for their age.
in response to the original comment was that Sanchez is the only one that really could get there this year and by the time he and the others really should be considered big there will likely be others not yet drafted or under the scope that are as well.
I remember Salkeld and Ryan Anderson was close to that disappointment as well. The tools of Anderson were being talked about specifically in that day when there were discussions on many more boards than just AOL that covered Salkeld in the minors on a couple occasions. He wasn't just hype, but a legitimately talented prospect with pluses in his repertoire and makeup. BA ranked him Pre-1998: Rated #23 Prospect Pre-1999: Rated #7 Prospect Pre-2000: Rated #9 Prospect Pre-2001: Rated #8 Prospect Pre-2002: Rated #14 Prospect. Both of them basically fizzling were painful at the time and hindsight in following postseasons sometimes brought up the "what if's"regarding them having not broken out. One of them could have been a difference on a world series champion, even potentially both of them in 2001-2003. Ooh well. Every team has had those anyway.
... psychotic, but right (I've always wanted to use that Animal House line!). The kids in the lower parts of the system are no Felix phenoms, so it is going to take a wee bit of time to see exactly what they are. Still though, when you have the best canvas, paints, and brushes, and the painting is 2/3 done for you in advance, it's easy to see the masterpieces in the making.
If Pike is as mature as I believe him to be, he may get bumped right up and over Everett and go to full-season low-A Clinton. If he does, then that will tell us a ton about what the organization thinks of him. A full season at Clinton, and then maybe a bump to AA as a 20 year old (I'm starting to dream a bit here), and suddenly in 2015 you have another 21 year old politely knocking on the door.
Filthy Sanchez should also be pitching with Pike in Clinton, and is a year younger. The two of them ought to own the Midwest League (at least in the first two months when pitchers have the advantage).
About a month ago I sat down and tried my hand at prognosticating where some of these young arms would end up. In Clinton, I determined that we could see:
- Tyler Pike
- Victor Sanchez
- Dylan Unsworth
- Charles Kaalekahi
- Seon Gi Kim
That Clinton team could have the most interesting rotation outside of Tacoma in 2013!
I totally agree that you take E-Ram, Pax, Hultz, Walker at the top of the class, and then there is a gap.
What I intended to convey is that IF you extend the envelope to include Maurer, THEN you ought to also consider Sanchez and Pike, because I think they are all together in the next flight down.
***
Maurer was very good, but not dominant, in AA at 21. A very good sign.
Pike was dominant against his age group in rookie ball. Also a very good sign.
Sanchez was solid when placed above age group at just 17. Also a very good sign.
Gohara was with a question mark. I don't put him in that group yet, but some (including John Sickels) do.
***
Not just me:
Sickels: Maurer 7, Sanchez 8, Gohara 12, Pike 17
Mayo (mlb.com): Sanchez 9, Maurer 10, Pike 13, Gohara 20
My rankings to be revealed, but, as to these four, are very close to Mayo's (but arrived at before I saw his).
***
In other words, I concur that there is a consensus as to "Big Four" better than "Everyone Else." But if you go to "Big Five" then maybe it should be "Big Seven or Eight." That's all.
Glad to have the debate.
Pike/Gohara/Sanchez...they're all further away from being ready. Maurer has already jumped several hurdles in the race to the big leagues...he has FAR better odds of finishing tthe race without hitting a hurdle than those other guys do. Maurer in a "Big 5" list...I think it makes sense.
I am not a scout, and don't pretend to be one. So I don't know how "projectable" Victor Sanchez is.
But I place significant weight on where the development staff chooses to place a player relative to age and experience.
For example, as much as I like Taylor Ard, I know that at age 22, coming out of a major-conference college program, spending the whole year at Everett indicates he is not viewed as "on the fast track." We learned that same lesson five years ago with Dennis Raben.
On the other hand, Taijuan Walker being placed in AA at 19 is almost unheard of. Almost every pitcher who got a whole year of AA at age 19 has gone on to not just MLB success but Cy Young votes at a minimum.
So when it is determined, by the people who know such things, that Sanchez should throw his first professional pitch at 17 against 19-22 year-olds (avg. age of hitters in NWL = 21.1), and then he comes out of 15 starts with a 3.18 ERA and 1.13 WHIP, then, yes, that's going to send him flying up the list.
He now has an "indicator of future MLB success" that the others don't have, and, therefore, deserves to be ranked above them, even with the acknowledgment that he's still a long way off.
I've seen Victor Sanchez on the fringe of some top-100 lists. Can understand the POV that says, "hey, if we're just talking about hot prospects like Maurer and Carson Smith, well there are three other guys who are legit blue-chippers."
There are guys who would take Sanchez over Maurer.
..........
My own position is different. I think Maurer is WAY up with a bullet, possibly close to Ramirez and Hultzen value. He's maybe three or four starts in the big leagues away from being at the top of the list, other than Taijuan.
A handful of good starts in the bigs and Maurer's definitely ahead of Erasmo, because his template is miles better.
It's an art, not a science. Obviously.
Maurer is closer to the majors, no doubt about that.
But Maurer has had five years in the minors and has yet to put up "dominating" results. Granted, he had injuries and he got mega-burned by High Desert, but he has not had a full season with an ERA under 3 or WHIP under 1.2.
Clearly he has good pitches, but he seems to get hit harder than he "ought to."
He hasn't yet shown me enough to separate himself from the pack. The very best guys almost always dominate a league before hitting the majors. But like I said, I'm not a scout.
And, again, I'm not down on him; it's just that Sanchez and Pike put up age/stat lines that stand out. Maurer hasn't (yet).
This is why I see Maurer up high...because he's so close to being established.
Answers could be many:
1. His pitches have only recently developed the extra bite (eg 95-96 mph vs 92-93 mph, changeup with better arm action etc)
2. He hasn't had all four pitches
3. He's one of those guys whose game translates better in the majors than minors
4. He just hasn't been executing his game the way he has begun to recently do
5. He feels unchallenged by his opposition, has no "sense of danger," and has had a lot of loose bolts in the carriage ... slaps himself in the head after a double, "Why did I throw that," etc
6. etc
Freddy Garcia only looked GOOD in the minors, not GREAT, but his game translated. In his second full year, before his arm went, he was #3 in the Cy voting. His system simply worked in the majors.
But the question is valid IMHO, and the one that needs to be axed.