Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

Prospect Smackdown: Verlander Vs. Cain Vs. Billingsley

Prospect Smackdown: Justin Verlander vs. Matt Cain vs. Chad Billingsley

There is a vigorous debate right now in sabermetric circles about these three young pitchers. . .which one is best? My own ranking is Verlander/Cain/Billingsley in that order, although I consider these three pitchers (along with Minnesota lefty Francisco Liriano) as the best pitching prospects in baseball. But other people have different rankings. I've had several requests for a smackdown for this trio, so here goes.

BACKGROUND AND INTANGIBLES:
  Verlander: Verlander was drafted in the first round in 2004, by the Tigers out of Old Dominion, second overall. His college career was impressive but erratic. He showed overpowering stuff, but his mechanics and control were inconsistent, and there was some concern about how quickly he would adapt to the upper levels of pro ball.
Those concerns were quickly dispelled in 2005, as he was utterly dominant at the minor league level. Regarded as intelligent, he sometimes lacked confidence as an amateur, but looked just fine last year, although he overthrew to some extent in the majors.
  Cain: Cain was a first round pick in 2002, 25th overall, out of high school in Memphis. He was regarded as being a bit raw when first drafted, but his development in pro ball was quite smooth. He adjusted very quickly to professional competition, maturing rapidly emotionally, intellectually, and physically. He's made the necessary adjustments as he's moved up, and scouts regard him as possessing the intelligence and confidence necessary to be a top-notch rotation anchor.
  Billingsley: Billingsley was a first round pick in 2003, 24th overall, out of high school in Defiance, Ohio. He was well-known to scouts for many years as an amateur, he suffered a bit from "overfamiliarity," in the sense that scouts knew about him for a long time and started to focus on his weaknesses, rather than his strengths, some teams seeing him more as a second-rounder on draft day. The Dodgers have been quite pleased with his pro performance. He's intelligent and confident, with all of the intangibles necessary to be a top flight starter.
  Comparison: All three pitchers have the mental, intellectual, and emotional intangibles to be top-notch major league pitchers. Verlander and Billingsley had higher amateur profiles than Cain, but all three have shown rapid development over the last two years. It's about as even as you can get here.

PHYSICALITY AND STUFF:
  Verlander: Verlander has a good pitcher's build at 6-5, 200 pounds, with fine overall athleticism and top-notch arm strength. His fastball is 92-93 MPH on a bad day, 98-99 on a good day, and a consistent 94-95 most days. The fastball has excellent movement as well as velocity. He also has an above-average curveball, and his changeup proved to be better-than-advertised. It was erratic in college, but just fine as a pro, giving him three plus pitches.
  Cain: Cain is big and strong at 6-3, 230 pounds. Although reasonably athletic, he's a big guy and may have to watch his weight as he gets older. His fastball is excellent at 92-94 MPH, hitting 95-97 MPH at times. His curveball is above average, and he was more willing to uses his changeup last year. The change still needs some work, but should be an above average pitch in time.
  Billingsley: At 6-2, 215 pounds, Billingsley has a somewhat stocky build and some believe he will have to watch his weight as he gets older. However, he's a fine natural athlete with plus arm strength. His fastball is a consistent 92-94 MPH pitch, touching 95-96 at times. His curveball and slider are both considered to be above-average. His changeup is mediocre right now, but he works hard at it.
  Comparison:: Verlander has the best fastball in terms of peak velocity, and all three can hit the mid-90s. All three also have above-average breaking balls. All three also need to improve their changeups. I think Verlander has a slight advantage due to better peak velocity. Physically, Verlander is also closest to the ideal physical specimen.

PITCHABILITY AND PERFORMANCE:
  Verlander: Verlander's statistics in the minors last year were beyond outstanding: 11-2, with a 1.29 ERA and a 136/26 K/BB in 119 innings. The Tigers tweaked his mechanics before the season, resulting in much better command than he showed in college. His power/precision combination was more than most minor league hitters could deal with.
  Cain: Cain went 10-5, 4.39 in the Pacific Coast League, with a 176/73 K/BB in 146 innings. Given his age (20) and the difficulties of the PCL environment, his performance was very good. He looked good in seven late-season starts with the Giants. Stat-wise, Cain's biggest problem is a higher-than-ideal walk rate. He knows how to pitch and is not a thrower, but his control is still unreliable on occasion.
  Billingsley: Billingsley went 13-6, 3.51 with a 162/50 K/BB in Double-A at age 20. His component ratios were all very good, and he acquitted himself well against generally older competition. He understands the intellectual side of pitching, and is not a thrower, though he needs to use his changeup more effectively and more often. Although his walk rate was good last year, he occasionally has trouble with command within the strike zone.
  Comparison: Verlander had the best numbers in '05, although both Cain and Billingsley pitched quite well, especially considering age/competition factors. Cain did better than Verlander in their major league exposures. All three have good command for a power pitcher, with Verlander possibly having a slight edge.

PROJECTION AND HEALTH:
  Verlander: Verlander is unlikely to gain additional velocity, being physically mature right now. Mechanical refinements have eased concerns about his durability. Injury is a risk for any pitcher, of course, but if he continues to throw strikes like this, Verlander should be a durable power pitcher.
  Cain: Cain is physically mature and unlikely to pick up additional velocity. He had some elbow soreness early in his career, but has been durable the last two seasons.
  Billingsley: Billingsley is physically mature for his age and unlikely to add additional velocity. He's been healthy as both an amateur and a pro, and his injury risk is no higher than normal for his age group.
  Comparison: Cain has the highest injury risk due to his 2003 elbow trouble and his weaker command. All three are at their physical peaks now and aren't likely to improve much further from where they currently are in terms of velocity.

OVERALL:
   Overall, I give Verlander a slight edge. Cain ranks a notch ahead of Billingsley because he has Triple-A and major league experience as opposed to "just" Double-A success. So I make it Verlander/Cain/Billingsley.

0 recs  |  Comment 76 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Liriano.
Where would you rank Liriano in regards to the other three?

by Justin & Joe on Feb 21, 2006 3:37 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

pitch
Verlander
Liriano
Cain
Billingsley

by John Sickels on Feb 21, 2006 3:51 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Wow.
Liriano, he of the Santana comps, is 2nd in baseball.

This Verlander kid must be really awesome.  Can't wait to see him pitch.

Almost with the Red Sox were in the AL Central now.  What an exciting division it's suddenly become!

by abbreviatedman on Feb 22, 2006 12:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops.
"wish", that is, not "with".

by abbreviatedman on Feb 22, 2006 12:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks, John!
We had a pretty vigorous debate on this last week in the diaries, so it was nice to hear your take on these guys.  I'm sticking with Cain, Verlander, and then Billz, but you make a pretty compelling argument for Verlander.  

by RayRay on Feb 21, 2006 3:53 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

injury concerns?
so verlanders tired shoulder last year isnt a cause for future concern? i would think that would make him the biggest injury concern of the three to me.

by taggartd on Feb 21, 2006 3:55 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

quick
Quick check reveals Verlander's "tired shoulder" was 100% normal in instructional league.

I still think Cain has higher injury risk due to his weaker control.

by John Sickels on Feb 21, 2006 4:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

thats good news...
but an interesting debate would be who is more likely to get injured
  1. a pitcher who struggled to end the last season with health or
  2. a pitcher who had a serious injury but has since pitched two full years without problems.
personally this is why i take billingsley, knock on wood he hasnt had to deal with injury yet.

by taggartd on Feb 21, 2006 4:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Verlander
Signed late and had not enough stamina. This is normal to go through that stage.

My only concern is how Detroit handles him. I think he should only get about 170 - 190 innings this year max.

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 12:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

question
"Cain has the highest injury risk due to his 2003 elbow trouble and his weaker command."

How does command affect injury??

But you can't be any geek off the street, gotta be handy with the steel if you know what I mean, earn your keep!

by werdnadogg on Feb 21, 2006 3:58 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

command
Bad command: more pitches thrown, longer counts. Also tends to impact fatigue. When you are tired, you are more likely to alter your mechanics. And that makes pitchers vulnerable to injury.

by John Sickels on Feb 21, 2006 4:03 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Unrelated point
about a pitcher who'll be in this discussion a year from now....

John, Pelfrey's vitals are listed as 6' 180 lbs, but everything I have seen lists him as 6'7" 230 lbs.  That's a big difference!

by BaseballBrain on Feb 21, 2006 4:21 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Tough call, but... Cain, Verlander, Billingsley
Only because Cain was effective in his brief stint with SF and Verlander had that "shoulder fatigue" issue.

Shoulders scare the heck out of me -- way more than elbows.

If Liriano was on the list, I'd rate him #1.  Great component ratios, huge improvement the last couple of years, and he's a lefty -- which really doesn't matter except in pick-em circumstances.

But heck, I'd take any of them in a heart-beat...  David Wells plus, anyone?

{166 is Tony Conigliaro's career HR total in a career ended far too soon)

by conig166 on Feb 21, 2006 4:46 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Are you more reluctant...
to rate pitching prospects straight A's due to the high rate of attrition and ineffectiveness? I ask only because Zimmerman doesn't appear to have the upside of any of the aforementioned pitchers.    

by kenshin1 on Feb 21, 2006 6:35 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

id still rate them
cain, billingsley, verlander.

I think i am seeing a lot of college pitcher bias here with rating verlander first.

by npurcell on Feb 21, 2006 7:16 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

yep
can't possibly be because people think verlander has better velocity, better command, the closest-to-ideal body type and better numbers, like john said in the writeup.  must be college bias.

by wily mo on Feb 21, 2006 7:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

re: verlander
i guess im not a  believer in verlander yet. I just dont believe hes not going to blow out his arm sometime soon.

next year, is he going to be in the tiger rotation or head to AAA?

by npurcell on Feb 21, 2006 7:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

He's battling for a rotation spot.
Ready or not, I'm guessing he's got it.

by abbreviatedman on Feb 22, 2006 2:47 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

"bias"
Most stathead types that "only" want college pitchers didn't want thier teams to pick Verlander bc he had sometimes poor college numbers.  he wasnt some stat fave

by nms on Feb 22, 2006 11:09 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

bias
As opposed to 1.29 ERA in Double-A bias?

by John Sickels on Feb 21, 2006 7:22 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Isn't a 2.33 ERA and .93 WHIP
in the Majors, by a 20 year old, slightly more impressive than Verlander's AA ERA, achieved as a 21 or 22 year old?

by RayRay on Feb 21, 2006 7:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It's called a "cup of coffee"
Some are longer than others, but a lot of good prospects have bad starts and a lot have good ones. I'm honestly not sure whether one can extrapolate anything from them.

by Flynn Blake on Feb 21, 2006 10:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

On that same note...
Verlander's AA was a cup of coffee too.

by limozeen on Feb 21, 2006 11:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

What about Cain's A stint?
The bulk of Verlander's age 22 season was spent in A last year.

1.67 ERA, 1.03 WHIP, 7.33 H/9, 1.99 BB/9, 10.88 K/9

Here's Cain's comparable A ball year:

1.86 ERA, 1.03 WHIP, 7.18 H/9, 2.11 BB/9, 11.02 K/9.

This season was every bit as good as Verlander's, and probably better due to league context (Cal league).  Cain was 19 at the time.

Verlander has put up some gaudy numbers, and he's a great pitcher.  Cain has a little tarnish because he's got injury history and was very aggressively promoted.  I still think Cain's performances, adjusted for context, are better and that he should be a straight A prospect.

by limozeen on Feb 21, 2006 7:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

to add
here are billingsleys' Aball numbers at the age of 19.

92IP

2.35 era 1.27 WHIP 6.65 H/9 4.79 bb/9 10.86 K/9

and, you could probably "adjust" those to make them better due to his home park since everyone seemed to be downplaying and adjusting kemp's numbers due to his A+ homepark.

by npurcell on Feb 21, 2006 7:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

cain
As scouts say, it's not all about performance.

Verlander throws harder than Cain and has better command.

People are acting like I'm dissing Cain by rating him as the third-best pitching prospect in baseball. Geez, guys, I love Cain.

by John Sickels on Feb 21, 2006 7:35 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I know
One thing about the command: Cain's was a lot better when he pitched at comparable levels to Verlander.  Did Cain lose some of the command he displayed earlier in his career, or was he simply aggressively promoted and struggling to locate his stuff?

by limozeen on Feb 21, 2006 7:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

promotion
He was promoted aggressively.

by John Sickels on Feb 21, 2006 7:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

changeup
i heard some talk about cain being forced to develop his change as he was moved up and thats why his control suffered...any truth to this statement?

by robcast23 on Feb 21, 2006 8:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

So I guess that
the site won't be renamed: www.ihatemattcain.com??

by RayRay on Feb 21, 2006 7:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

nope
Nope. :)

How about "www.jasonkubelwassupposedtobeinthebookandimsorryhiscommentwasdeletedsomehowalongwithshanekomine.com "

by John Sickels on Feb 21, 2006 7:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Question about GB/FB ratios
How important do you think GB/FB ratios are when evaluating a propsect? I know in your book you mentioned K/BB, K/IP, and H/IP as things you look at. How would GB/FB rate in relationship to that?

by mikbre on Feb 21, 2006 8:27 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

My Ranking
  1. Cain
  2. Billingsly
  3. Verlander
  4. Liriano.
Verlander had serious command issues in college.  I just think they are going to resurface at some point and the higher velocity makes him more of an injury risk.

Liriano is the highest injury risk of all.  He missed most of two minor league seasons before the AJ trade.

As a Giants fan, I'm really worried about Bilingsley.  I might rank him #1 except I just can't bring myself to do that.  On the other hand, I'm sure the baseball gods will punish me for being so excited about Cain.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 21, 2006 8:30 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

velocity
So guys have better velocity then Cain are injury risk. Lower velocity have less stuff.

what next?

Guys with better control are wimps? Worse control are no good?

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 12:21 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

cause
you were talking that Verlander is a bigger risk cause of higher velocity. That is nonsense.

If you have concerns on mechanics or build or something else then ok. But I have never ever heard that higher velocity causes injuries.

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 1:58 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Pedrophile is a little tough on the eyes, but...
... he has a point.  Does increased velocity have an effect on the likelihood of a pitching injury?  I've never heard of this, but I could certainly believe it's true.  Or not true.  I have no idea, frankly.  I've definitely heard that odd mechanics can cause injuries, and as John says above Cain's control problems may lead to odd mechanics and in turn injuries, but I'd be interested to know if velocity and injury have any correlation.

Have a good one!

by abbreviatedman on Feb 22, 2006 2:45 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Bill James argued that ...
guys who didn't throw as hard were more prone to injury because they had to hump it up on every pitch, max out on effort, to reach levels of velocity that other guys could reach easily.

I guess it depends. Your eyes probably won't let you down if you can accurately judge who's straining themselves regularly and who's throwing with a natural and easy movement.

If you run down the list of the hardest throwers, they seemed to have longish careers to me. But there's probably a lot of self-selective bias there -- you remember the hard throwers who lasted, and not the hard throwers who blew out, just because they weren't around as long to provide as many memorable moments.

by Flynn Blake on Feb 22, 2006 3:45 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yes
Good point Flynn.

I think the hard throwers that were not max effort may last longer. May. Good mechanics and non max effort I think are the two keys.

That is why a guy like Zumaya worries me. Max effort. How can he get control and stay healthy? Another is the prospect the Jays just cut with the great slider. Gaudin. Just don't see him putting it together and staying healthy.

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 3:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yes
yes it is, my mistake.

Did the Jays actually get anything decent for him?

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 2:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

PTBNL
so far as i know, he has not yet been named.

by jpahk on Feb 22, 2006 6:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Dustin Majewski
Decent OF prospect but probably never a starter.

by nms on Feb 22, 2006 9:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

comments
If someone shows substantive evidence about velocity effecting injuries I will surely take my words back.

We do hear about guys that throw hard getting injured. And we also hear about guys that don't throw hard getting injured.

Sure - some hardthrowers will overthrow. Some softer throwers do this cause they don't throw hard enough. Kris Honel ruined his career doing this exact thing. Would be interesting if there was a quality study on this.

I guess I came out attacking cause it seems you resent another prospect being picked higher than Cain and used what seemed to me silly comments.

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 3:48 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Resent?
Wheretheheck did I say anything about resentment?  I was trying to make a lighthearted joke about the rivalry between the Giants and the Dodgers.  Now, lighten up a little!  I said I was very worried about Billingsley, and that if I wasn't a Giants fan I would probably rank him #1.  Isn't that kind of a lighthearted way of saying I think he's the best prospect?

I've never seen Verlander pitch.  I have seen Cain pitch several times, in person in the minors and on TV in the majors.  He has excellent mechanics and does not appear to be coming anything close to maximum effort.  I have commented several times, as has Felipe Alou, that Cain reminds me of a young Tom Seaver.  Seaver was the king of mechanics.  Whether or not Cain comes close to Seaver's career is, of course, a longshot just by the nature of the business, but Cain has it all going.

Verlander definitely has had command issues in the not so distant past.  Yes, he had a great run in singe A, but his cup of coffee wasn't too impressive now, was it?  Were his command issues due to max effort?  I don't know, but higher velocity requires more propulsive force.  Muscles subjected to more force are more likely to fail.  

As for Liriano, I know he's the darling of this board right now.  His cup of coffee wasn't so hot either, was it?  I've seen several references to Cain's stress reaction from 2003.  Well, if you are going to make past injuries an issue, what about Liriano missing almost all of 2002 and 2003?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 9:19 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Verlander
I was not referring to Billingsley at all. Just your comment about Verlander throwing harder so is a bigger injury risk. I do not buy this at all. I have never once heard a respected baseball analyst say this.

The reason I thought it was resentment was it seemed you were stretching to put down Verlander.

Verlander did dominate in AA as well. And his cup of coffee was 2 games. Even Felix got lit-up a couple times. Felix when in trouble overthrew. Then he learned his lesson. Verlander did the same. We will see this year if he learned from it.

As for the physics side that is wrong. The muscles are not subjected to the force. The muscles generate the force. Injuries happen when muscles are tired or overextended due to bad mechanics.

More often you will see a power pitcher rein back on his power for more control and also less energy. These are able to prevent injury better IMO.

Yes - Liriano is a big injury risk. His cup of coffee does not worry me, the other numbers K/BB were so good. But you are right to question his health - and 190+ innings was a bit much for him. I do think he has more talent then Cain & Billingsley. But how he will hold up I don't know.

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 2:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Logic and Physics
Can you think of any reason I would be resentful of Verlander and not Billingsley?

True, muscles generate force, but they are attached to bones by tendons.  You don't think there is force placed on those structures?  What causes muscle tears if not force?  Why did Armando Benitez' hamstring tendons tear off his pelvic bone if it wasn't due to the force of the muscle contraction.  What causes ulnar collateral ligaments to tear if it's not due to the force of muscles pulling bones apart?  Muscles don't apply force directly to the ball. They exert it on other anatomic structures that in turn apply it to the ball.  I don't claim to be a physicist, but isn't there a basic Law of Physics that stated for every force there is an equal and opposite force? or at least something to that effect?

Maybe we just don't hear about the soft thrower's injuries,  I guess Tommy John himself wasn't much of a velocity guy, but most of the guys who I remember blowing out elbows could bring it pretty good:  Koufax, Wayne Simpson, Eric Gagne, Kerry Wood, AJ Burnett, Jesse Foppert, etc.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 8:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Koufax did blow out his elbow
If I remember correctly Koufax had to retire due to arthritis, and a hand problem associated with it.  He never blew out his elbow.

by ssjames on Feb 23, 2006 1:19 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Koufax
I believe, if you research the subject, you will find that there is pretty strong evidence that Koufax blew out his elbow either before or during the 1966 WS game he lost to Jim Palmer 6-0.  That is why he retired so ubruptly.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 23, 2006 8:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Koufax
Koufax pitched with extreme elbow pain the final two years of his career.  I don't know if new medicine has ever really determined what his injury was.  Inevitably after losses or "poor" performances (for Koufax) in 65 and 66 Vin Scully would ask in the post-game interview "was your elbow bothering you today Sandy?" To his credit, Koufax would always say, "no, just didn't have it today."

As for velocity and injury, I think the mechanics of the velocity is crucial. Some of the greatest, hardest throwers (Ryan, Seaver, Clemens) derived their power predominantly from their legs. And when they did have injuries, it tended to be groin problems.  They rarely had arm woes because that wasn't where the greatest stress/power was being generated.  The "whip" velocity guys are more prone to elbow and shoulder problems I believe.  But, in general, I don't believe pitching injuries can be predicted, anymore than I think knee injuries in NFL RBs can be predicted. Sometimes they're gonna happen.

by Roger on Feb 23, 2006 2:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

hmmm
giants fan saying Cain #1..

Liriano #4...

(I got nothing to say, just saying )

by hotshotschamp on Feb 21, 2006 11:09 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Biased?
Yes, I am a fan.  I don't claim to be unbiased.  There was a reason Brian Sabean considered Liriano to be expendable and it wasn't because he couldn't throw hard enough. Of course, he was wrong about Joe Nathan, but Nathan is about the only pitching prospect Sabean has ever traded who amounted to anything.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 1:10 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Just when I thought you are an idiot...
I realized that Brian SaBEAN(e) has a name that could be mistaken by a vision-impaired illiterate for that of Billy BEANE.

So you might off the hook;  you might not be an idiot.  Simply a near-blind victim of a bad public school education.

That assumes, however, that one agrees that Sabean's only error as GM has been dumping Liriano PLUS for an AJ rental.  Unfortunately, if one accepts that assumption in the face of all the evidence, I am back to the thinking you are an idiot scenario.

Question:  What is it about the Bay-area that turns its readers of this blog into rabid homers when most readers are just looking for some insight and intelligent discourse?   Residual effects of the Haight-Ashbury days?

by conig166 on Feb 22, 2006 2:33 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, be nice!
Seriously, I'm inclined to respond with something beginning with "What is it about...", but I think it can be too easy to feel okay about being mean as long as you're being clever.

Honestly, if you're looking for insight and intellectual discourse, don't spend your time making a point in an aggressive and disrespectful way.

P.S. I'm trying to be a voice of reason here, I'm sorry if I'm attacking the attacker, it's hard not to!  I mean no disrespect, I'm just trying to keep things civil.

by abbreviatedman on Feb 22, 2006 2:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Your argument makes a lot of sense
Since Red Sox fans are always non-biased gentleman looking for intelligent discourse.

by niallmack on Feb 22, 2006 2:52 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

At least I am...

by Anibal the Cannibal on Feb 22, 2006 2:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Especially since your rampage was
Based on this sentence, which you say is obviously wrong since Liriano was included in the same trade.

"but Nathan is about the only pitching prospect Sabean has ever traded who amounted to anything."

Since when is a 5.70ERA last year technically isn't amounting to anything, he could cut off his thumb chopping broccoli or get attacked by a crazy Red Sox fan at a bar and lose an eye.

by niallmack on Feb 22, 2006 3:02 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Dude...
You crack me up.

Question: What is it about 12 yr old kids and the internet that inspires them to abandon all rules of social decorum and belittle people in a thinly vailed attempt to assuage doubts of their own self worth?

by kenshin1 on Feb 22, 2006 8:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not necessarily knocking you...
... because I don't really know what you think of Sabean, but something you said just reminds me of people who think that certain GMs are infallible because most of the prospects they trade never amount to anything.  Well, that's because most prospects (especially pitchers) never amount to anything.  I remember hearing someone say, "Well, of COURSE Dan Meyer is a failure, John SCHUERHOLZ traded him, the only guy he's ever traded who turned into anything is Jason Schmidt!"

Of course, again, I'm not knocking you.  (You've gotta be careful what you say on these boards sometimes, eh, gotta make sure you're not seen as attacking.  Also, don't make direct eye contact.  And don't run.  Never run.)  And Sabean was right from his perspective at the time to include Liriano, he was just a live arm at the time who'd been injured the previous couple of years.

Trading a 1.06 WHIP pitcher with more than a K an inning for one year of a mediocre hitting catcher is rather foolish, though, you've gotta admit.

And also, you should never, EVER, trade a guy with as cool a name as Boof Bonser.

by abbreviatedman on Feb 22, 2006 2:36 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sabean
Where did I say I thought the AJ trade was a good one?  It was, of course, a horrible trade.  Of course there is a high probability that Liriano will make it even worse.  Sabean has made other bad trades.  Russ Ortiz for Damian Moss.  Livan Hernandez came back to life after going to Montreal.  Other than Nathan, who really wasn't a prospect anymore, and possibly Keith Foulke, who became a good closer years later, Sabean has yet to trade a prospect that came back to haunt him.  That's not to say Liriano won't be the first.  With that background, and his two missing years due to injury, I think it's fair to rank him #4 in this group.  It's pretty fast company.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 9:31 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Merkin
"Russ Ortiz for Damian Moss."

They also picked up Valdez in the Ortiz/Moss deal.  Not especially bad when you consider they got him and spun Moss off as part of a trade package

by nms on Feb 22, 2006 11:17 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Valdez
Merkin Valdez has taken a awfully long time to develop and is still far from a sure thing.  Yes, it may eventually turn out OK, but that's an awfully long time to wait for a trade to pay divedends.  Pretty hard to argue that the Giants will be bette off in the future than they would have been in the present with Ortiz.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 3:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

They did
acquire him when he was like 20, you cant hold the fact that hes taken awhile against him since hes still young.  That being said he needs to improve his control and consistancy a good deal

by nms on Feb 22, 2006 9:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not Getting Younger
Merkin is now 24 yo and not getting any younger and still looks like he has a long ways to go.  In this day and age, you simply can't wait 4-5 years for a trade to come around. That trade effectively squandered the last two productive years of Barry Bonds career.  No matter what Merkin does, he won't make up for that.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 11:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Foulke
I think you also missed him. And in 6 months we will also be listing Liriano.

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2006 4:01 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Foulke?
If you want to include success 5-6 years down the road, then OK, go ahead and add Foulke.  Notice I said "about the only", no "the only."

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 9:24 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not 5-6 years later
His first full year in Chicago he was useful, but nothing special. The second year started his run of 6 straight years of ERA < 3 and IP > 75. He was one of the best relievers in baseball 20 months after the trade. His third year in Chicago is where he became a "closer", if that is what you value.

by cdamon on Feb 22, 2006 10:45 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

5-6 years down the road?
Foulke was successful immediately following that trade.  He was a young dependable RP for the Sox right away.
"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Feb 22, 2006 9:55 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

OK
Since Nathan wasn't really a prospect when he was traded, we'll drop him and add Foulke.  Is that better?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2006 11:00 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Interestingly
the guy from that trade who had the most immediate impact was Bobby Howry (who I think you'd also have to include in prospects who amounted to something). He was installed as the White Sox closer first with Foulke as a setup guy, and only later in the second year after the deal did he and Foulke switch places. Both have had successful careers, however, and did so right from the start.  I think we've reached the point where you have to include Scott Linebrink as a bad loss as well (traded for 2 months of Doug Henry) and Clay Hensley might start making us Giants fans uncomfortable this year, too. As a fan who developed quite the man-crush on Liriano while watching him pitch in Hagerstown, I just cringed the day I read about the AJ trade.  At this point I a) hope Cain will turn out the best, b) tremble in fear that Liriano or Billingsly will, c) maintain an indifferent magniminity regarding Billingsly.

by Roger on Feb 23, 2006 3:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

billinglsey
John wrote:

"
  Billingsley: Billingsley was a first round pick in 2003, 24th overall, out of high school in Defiance, Ohio."

So he was the second prize winner ever from Defiance, Ohio. Ijust hope his husband treats him better.

by levski on Feb 22, 2006 12:17 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

conig166
Your question: "What is it about the Bay-area that turns its readers of this blog into rabid homers when most readers are just looking for some insight and intelligent discourse?   Residual effects of the Haight-Ashbury days?"

LOL, believe me most Bay Area people, no matter what the perception is, are not high or all hippies. I dont know about A's fans, but Giants fans do fill the park and like A's fans are excited about our team year in and year out.  We have a big treat whenever we go to the park (cough, cough #25) and we love to see baseball played.  

I am a Giants fan but I respect all baseball.
Even though I like Cain a whole lot and thinks he can be great...I would say that right now I would ahve to rank the pitchers this way:

Liriano
ILL ADMIT I have never seen Verlander pitch but if he can maintain 98 mph fastballs late into the game with a decent breaking ball and curve (according to scouting reports) then he should be 2nd
Cain
Bills

Sabean, stop giving away our 1st round draft picks!!

by z4 landshark on Feb 23, 2006 12:27 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed
Start posting on Minor League Ball »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Arizona Fall League 2009 Video Posted

Recent FanPosts

413niegoftl__sl500_aa280__small
UPDATED - Open Thread: Best of the Unprotected; Top Rule V Prospects
Small
BP DET Top 15
Small
BA Pirates Top 10
Small
Last year's rookies, #12 runoff
Small
Great block at plate by A.J. Jimenez
Small
BA MIL Top 10
Small
Last year's rookies, top community prospects for future performance #12
Small
Last year's rookies, top community prospects for future performance #11
Adam_jones_small
Dustin Ackley to 2nd base

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Carew_small John Sickels


Site Meter