Controversial Prospect: Trevor Cahill

Some may project him to be a Suppan type

While others are projecting him to be a Webb type.

by sully10x on Jun 16, 2008 12:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Only guys here

No reputed publications have compared him to Webb to my knowledge. Sure they may say he has a great sinker like Webb but I have not read Sickels, Baseball America, or Baseball Prospectus actually compare Cahill to Webb. Also, the source that stated his pitches were similar to Webb and Halladay was a member of the A’s scouting staff. One could see how this is not the least bit free of bias. Cahill is a very good prospect but likely will fill the role of a number 3 on a staff (not that it isn’t a very important role).

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 16, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Believe it or not, the websites that you mentioned aren’t the only one’s that know anything.

by sully10x on Jun 16, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can you give me a source from somebody other then an A's scout?

If so, I would really appreciate it. There are lots of other great sites out there, but these are the big 3 when it comes to prospects.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 16, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't sweat Sully

I’m sure next year’s edition of Baseball America Handbook & Baseball Prospectus will change Lil Billy’s tune. Cahill’s strong performance (leading minors in Ks, excellent groundball rate) will definitely earn him more respect in these publications (BA/BP).

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jun 16, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Im in Cahill's corner

Ive been able to catch a few port games this season and Cahill’s been very impressive. Aside from the stats, the way the kid carries himself out there is very encouraging. In one particular instance, the Umpire behind the plate had a very tight zone, missing oin several borderline calls. The kid roled with the situation, didnt show any body language and worked through. I like his makeup and couple that with the fact that he does have plus stuff (despite the lack of an overpowering fastball), I think Trevor has an excellent career at the pro level. A big league legit number 2 is not out of the question.

Cain is Able ...

by Norcalfan10 on Jun 16, 2008 1:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Cahill to AA

Q: William from Chicago asks:
How would you rank these guys, in terms of future MLB success? Cahill, Tillman, McAllister, Hellickson, Volstad, Jaime Garcia, Betances, Bumgarner, and Jarrod Parker…I know, it all depends on health, but what do you think? Thanks.
A:

Ben Badler: Off the top of my head, Cahill, Tillman, Volstad, Garcia, Parker, Hellickson, Bumgarner, Betances.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2008/266330.html
http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3660931

Trevor Cahill will join the team tonight and will replace Scott Moore, who was assigned to Single – A Stockton this morning. Cahill has had an outstanding season thus far in Stockton, as he was named to the California League All-Star team, while posting a 2.78 ERA and a 5-4 record.

by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 16, 2008 5:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It is one thing to like the guy

but projecting him to be Brandon Webb is way to damn much IMO

by nms on Jun 16, 2008 6:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

what about Gallardo

that was one of Cahill’s BP comps

by Bravesin07 on Jun 16, 2008 6:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

Cahill crazy here.

When is the last pitcher with a solid 90mph sinker with a good curve become a top pitcher? Hughes has a little more heat, a better curve, better control, and yet struggled. I think Hughes will be just fine. But Cahill doesn’t bring much to the table except as a safe bet as a solid mlb contributor.

An ace or #2 starter? Whomever is thinking this is on crack. Webb is throwing much more gas with nasty movement. Halladay has a top notch curve, awesome cutter, throws 95, is very efficient, and has no fear.

Those are horrible comps IMO. It’s like saying Petit was like Maddux because of his really low walk rate. And before you laugh it off many did make the comps. Well, I think they did ;)

by pedrophile on Jun 16, 2008 11:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

I have been stating this for a long time. Cahill will likely become a solid #3 starter and that should be looked at as a good thing.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 16, 2008 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

i thought he was Tyler Clippard last year, and this year has made it much MORE true than before.

alright—maybe he’ll end up a little better than Clippard. but i’m willing to bet that that comp holds up a whole lot better than a lot of these others.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 18, 2008 2:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know about that

Granted, sample sizes are small, but when comparing their numbers at the same levels, Cahill was better. Sure, their K/9 and BB/9 were similar (with Clippard walking fewer guys and Cahill striking out more), but Cahill gave up significantly fewer hits and HRs. Especially impressive is that his numbers were so much better in the Cal league than Clippard’s numbers in the FSL.

That being said, as much as I would love to think that Cahill has ace potential, until he proves himself at AA I will have to be content with saying that he is a promising, but not quite elite, prospect.

by ozzman99 on Jun 18, 2008 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tyler Clippard is an extreme flyball pitcher, while Cahill is the opposite. That is the major difference between Cahill and many other pitching prospects. You can’t compare someone like Clippard to Cahill.

by sully10x on Jun 18, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jun 18, 2008 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure i can

mature approaches, not so stellar arms, but big breaking pitches that are located well. fools minor leaguers and put up absurd ratios, but tells you little to nothing how they’ll do against big leaguers.

and DONE.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 19, 2008 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don’t see that they are two completely opposite pitchers? Clippard has no pitch comparable to Cahill’s change. Clippard telegraphs his pitches in the majors. Don’t you think theres a reason Clippard never got the hype Cahill is getting. Clippard throws a 4 seam at 88-91. Cahill’s sinker is about that. Cahill does indeed through a 4 seamer and consistantly sists in the low to mid 90’s in it (on a radio-cast, the announcer mentioned several times him sitting in the mid 90-s with it)

And, Cahill’s knuckle-curve >> anything Clippard throws.

Not to mention, Clippard was a 9th round pick with virtually no history before his stint in AA.
Cahill was a top 100 pick, and has 2 full seasons of dominating performance, including the best hitters league in the minors.

May I rest my case.

by sully10x on Jun 19, 2008 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

By Cahill’s change, i mean his Sinker.

by sully10x on Jun 19, 2008 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

your points

may be valid.

but you sure seemed to skip over this {mature approaches, not so stellar arms, but big breaking pitches that are located well. fools minor leaguers and put up absurd ratios, but tells you little to nothing how they’ll do against big leaguers.}

not much of a discussion when you refuse to discuss. ;)

by pedrophile on Jun 19, 2008 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t skip over that. I discussed that Cahill throws in the low 90’s with much sinking action.

by sully10x on Jun 19, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes you did

I didn’t see once where you acknowledged a point or replied to one.

by pedrophile on Jun 19, 2008 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

completely opposite?

well, i agree that flyballs are “completely opposite” of groundballs. no, i don’t see how they are, therefore, completely opposite pitchers, especially since, like every other ratio Cahill’s putting up in the minors, i don’t think it’ll be particularly indicative of how major leaguers handle his pitch style.

if Cahill sits in the mid-90s - ACTUALLY - then that’s great. but i’ll bet money, when you first see him in the majors, you’ll never, ever see a radar reading like that. i’m pretty sure there were 20 posters on this site who kept inflating Clippard’s velocity in the same way, until he “sat at 92, and could hit the mid-90s” too. he doesn’t, and never will.

it’s easy to say that Cahill’s knuckle-curve and sinker are better than anything Clippard throws. i don’t think Clippard’s pitches are really all that special from the descriptions of them. again, there were 20 fans vouching for the absurdity of Clippard curveball on this site, or adding in third plus pitches that he threw.

it doesn’t really matter what league you’re in when you have better command with off-speed pitches than most minor leaguers—i agree that minor leaguers won’t hit you well.

i’m not really sure what it means that Clippard had “virtually no history before his stint in AA.” looking at his Baseball Cube page it looks very similar historically to Cahill’s. the only difference is that Clippard was a 9th round pick, while Cahill was a 2nd round pick.* this would speak heavily in Cahill’s favor if he were greatly hyped out of the draft, or was loved by scouts after either of his first two years in the big leagues. except, he wasn’t. he received little love, and was widely dismissed, DESPITE his ostensibly solid production. that speaks loads about Cahill. now, when his numbers of reached the Clippard-Slowey-Inman-etc-etc-etc-haven’t-you-caught-on-to-these-stories-yet? point of absurdity, some people have started praising what he does do right, or talk about how his pitches “are better than we used to say.” i don’t buy it.

= I think it’s easy to exaggerate this difference, too. Outside of the first round, there’s usually no elite talent. And the 9th round isn’t the point where you’re throwing darts at the dart board, either. I’m not saying there’s NO difference between the two. But I wouldn’t overstate it, either.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 19, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a little confused

You concede that Cahill’s pitches are better than Clippard’s. You looked at their stats, but apparently missed the part where Cahill didn’t allow anywhere near as many hits as Clippard. Yes, his BB rate was slightly higher, but so was his K rate. The key differences are that Cahill induces more grounders, leading to far fewer hits and homers. Take a look at those 2 stats again. It’s really not even close. Cahill is far superior to Clippard. Now I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that a hitter that gives up fewer hits and fewer homers will probably also give up fewer runs, especially with a major league defense behind him.
So to review, better pitches, better stats, but somehow you think they are the same?

by ozzman99 on Jun 19, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And of course

When I say hitter, I mean pitcher.

by ozzman99 on Jun 19, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

umm

I don’t think anywhere he admitted that Cahill had better pitches.

let’s review shall we?

Over-rated pitchers, hyped velocity, hyped offspeed pitches, struggle in majors then forgot about when they struggle.

ps: why do you say more grounders induce less homers? Actually many times grounder type pitchers give up MORE homers. Silva had this problem, Lowe at times, and many ground ball pitcher. They thrive on the sinker so much that when it doesn’t sink they are done.

Also, many flyball pitchers are top-notch pitchers. Groundball isn’t the be-all and end-all. Not even close.

Talking stats exclusively is a crazy way to talk about minor leaguers. It’s almost all about projectability. Stats are ok. They are not the bible though.

by pedrophile on Jun 19, 2008 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

After re-reading his post, I see that I misunderstood him (about Cahill’s pitches being better than Clippard’s).

I say grounders result in fewer homers, because VERY few grounders result in homers. Yes, a pitcher whose only effective pitch is a sinker will likely struggle when his sinker isn’t working. But a lot of people feel that Cahill has 2 or even 3 plus pitches.

You say Cahill is over-rated. Where is your evidence of that?

No one is talking stats exclusively. I personally haven’t discussed scouting reports for a couple of reasons. One is that others have discussed them already, I don’t see the need to repeat them. The other is that when one person says Cahill has 3 plus pitches and another says he has none, we don’t seem to make any progress. Stats aren’t everything, but at least they are closer to being objective.

by ozzman99 on Jun 19, 2008 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

obviously grounders don’t result in hr’s. My point is that many ground-ball pitchers are HR prone. It might not be the norm but it certainly isn’t uncommon. Also, BABIP on grounders is higher than fly balls. It’s not that cut and dried.

evidence? lol

Scouting reports “almost” always over-rates rookies. So when I hear one scout say a guy has 3 plus pitches I discredit it. When I start to hear many scouts saying it then I take notice.

by pedrophile on Jun 21, 2008 5:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure where you are getting your information, because ground-ball pitchers virtually always allow less HR, and have lower BABIP. Your statement is just incorrect.

Anyway, Cahill has always had low BABIP’s due to his ground ball tendencies, and he has allowed 6 minor league homers total, in over 200 innings pitched.

by sully10x on Jun 21, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

really?

My point is that many ground-ball pitchers are HR prone. It might not be the norm but it certainly isn’t uncommon.

That was my point. Which isn’t correct. I say “many” not most nor all nor the average. There are a decent amount of Silva’s out there.

While Cahill has indeed had very good numbers I’m cautious until he faces better competition for an extended period.

I just don’t think he’s that good.

by pedrophile on Jun 21, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

Talking stats exclusively is a crazy way to talk about minor leaguers.

Scouting reports "almost" always over-rates rookies.

Ok, so if neither stats nor scouting reports are useful for evaluating prospects, what exactly do you use?

by ozzman99 on Jun 21, 2008 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

nice try

the first statement is saying not to use stats “exclusively”. Which I think anyone would agree.

the second is saying scouts over-rate rookies. And if you read the full paragraph you would realize I don’t react on one scout. I wait until it’s more reliable when multiple scouts report something.

Neither one of which says stats are useless. Neither says scouting is useless.

But it was a nice try to make me look like a fool. Maybe next time.

by pedrophile on Jun 21, 2008 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry

When you said “scouting reports ‘almost’ always over-rate rookies,” I foolishly assumed that “almost always” was not only plural, but also covered most scouts. Gee, what was I thinking? Obviously, “almost always” is synonymous with “one scout.”

by ozzman99 on Jun 22, 2008 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

seriously

In dismissing stats, you say that it’s “It’s almost all about projectability.” If it’s almost all about projectability, then it couldn’t be about stats very much at all. So stats are of little value. You go on to say that almost all scouting reports overrate rookies. If almost all of them overrate rookies, then very few of them are accurate. Therefore, as a whole, scouting reports are also of little value. I’m not trying to make a fool out of you. I am not putting words in your mouth. Maybe you are just given to hyperbole and are overstating your case. But it sure appears that you are contradicting yourself.

by ozzman99 on Jun 22, 2008 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

other than acting like an ass “gee, what was I thinking” by your tone of voice you seem to be missing the logic.

scouting reports ‘almost’ always over-rate rookies. That doesn’t mean the report has little or no value. Not even close to that. But when I hear a pitcher is throwing high 90’s with a quality changeup -> what I take from that is the pitcher touched high 90’s and threw SOME quality changes.

Most times we don’t get the full context of the scouting report just a clipped portion of what the scout said. A scout could be talking about projection when talking about a pitchers offering. Or he could be talking about that particular game.

Pitchers stuff varies from game to game and even varies throughout the game. Some have good stuff early in the game and it fades fast. Some take a while to heat up. Others have more some games and much less others. Or the quality of the breaking pitches, or consistency, varies from start to start. So you can see how scouting reports can be off.

Also, part of the reason is they are talking about what the player may become not what they are right now. And of course the likelihood of someone at BA or elsewhere of quoting the one or two comments glowing praise as it makes for better press.

That doesn’t in any way mean the reports have little or no value.

Stats? I dismiss more stats when it’s at a lower level and believe in it more at a higher level. Also, again I try to bring in context. With a pitcher like Cahill who has an advanced feel for the game they typically rip apart lower level competition. This doesn’t really mean he will do well or poorly.

by pedrophile on Jun 22, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But why

Why does Cahill have such an advanced feel for the game?

He has been pitching for 3 years of his life. He probably has less pitching experience than any other pitcher in High-A, and now he is in AA.

by sully10x on Jun 22, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ted Lilly

has been pitching forever and has no clue.

Some guys just have a feel for it and some don’t.

Also, being able to locate breaking pitches in the lower levels slaughters the hitters. If you can locate breaking stuff and change speeds you can put up Nintendo numbers.

by pedrophile on Jun 22, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

If you can locate breaking stuff and change speeds, you can get anyone out at any level. It’s the guys with the great arms but no control or secondary pitches that dominate the lower minors but struggle as they move up. Cahill’s own teammate, Henry Rodriguez, is a prime example of this. At low levels, you can K guys just thru sheer velocity, even if you aren’t in the strike zone. It’s the higher level hitters that lay off and make you throw strikes.

by ozzman99 on Jun 22, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not really

There are tons of college level guys that dominate in the lower levels because of locating breaking stuff and changing speed. Many of these don’t succeed in the higher levels.

Things like locating breaking pitches that start in the zone but end as balls works a lot in the lower levels. Many swings and misses. But MLB hitters don’t usually offer at these pitches.

So they have to throw breaking stuff and locate within the zone. That is why consistent action on the ball is so important in MLB and not nearly as much in the minors. Hanging pitches get destroyed.

Then there is the ability to miss bats within the zone on breaking pitches. This mostly comes down to stuff.

and there is much more but I’m lazy to type more ;)

knowing how to pitch, locating breaking pitches, changing speed, etc. —> this is important. But I think people are seriously underestimating stuff here.

by pedrophile on Jun 22, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

You make good points here. I can accept your argument. Or, more correctly, I can’t really make an intelligent rebuttal.
I think my point originally was that people are making too big a deal about whether Cahill’s fastball sits at 91 or 95. It seemed to me that the only criticism of him was a lack of velocity. I really don’t buy the argument that a pitcher can’t be successful without a 95+ fastball, even if he has a very good sinker and change. As I said above, I am not convinced that Cahill is elite. At the same time, to simply dismiss him as another Clippard without any discussion is as ridiculous as calling him the next Webb.

by ozzman99 on Jun 22, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

never saw him as a clippard

Clippard was billed as a mid to back end starter. Personally I think he is a AAAA pitcher.

Cahill is billed by many as a front of rotation pitcher. I see more of a mid to back end pitcher. Which every team should be happy to get.

It’s possible he becomes more. It’s just that without the velocity to become a front of rotation starter you must be elite in most other ways.

by pedrophile on Jun 22, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I am obviously not the biggest Cahill fan but he is far superior to Tyler Clippard. This comparison really makes no sense tome.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 19, 2008 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

from BA chat

Q: Brett from Long Island asks:
When will Trevor Cahill be moved up to AA Midland? Does he have top-of-the-rotation potential?
A:

Ben Badler: I can’t imagine it should take him much more time to reach Midland. He does have top of the rotation potential with his nasty fastball/curveball combination, good delivery and athleticism.

Q: Doug from NYC asks:
Trevor Cahill- next Brandon Webb? Also- what is to make of Rick Porcello’s lack of K’s?
A:

Ben Badler: Slapping a perennial Cy Young-caliber comp on a guy is unfair, no matter how much you (or I) love Cahill. Porcello is a 19-year-old in High A… that he has a 1.98 ERA through 36 innings, 3 walks per nine and even 5.5 K’s per nine is superb. He’s facing much, much older, more advanced competition than anything he ever saw in high school. It’s important to know what the stats mean, but it’s also just as important to know what they don’t mean.

by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 16, 2008 11:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Link please

If I remember correctly, Badler also states that Cahill will likely not be a top 10 prospect.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 17, 2008 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yet

He also says he will be a top 5 pitching prospect by years end.

by sully10x on Jun 17, 2008 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is Cahill Really a "Controversial Prospect"

Who is on the anti-Cahill side? His stats are mind blowing and I haven’t read anything really negative about him.

by delmonfan on Jun 18, 2008 10:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There is nothing negative about Cahill....

It’s just people refuse to give him respect. I realize that the Webb/Halladay comparisons are unfair at the moment, but to say his ceiling is just a mid-rotation starter is premature as well. The bottom line is that Cahil has a disgusting sinker/knuckle curve combo. He gets strikeouts in the bunches along with a ton of groundballs. What’s not to like??? It seems a lot of people are hung up on the fact that Cahill doesn’t throw 95 mph. He is now in AA and perhaps he can prove one way or another, of what he really is; potential ace or innings eater.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jun 18, 2008 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In this thread alone

Some people compare him to Brandon Webb, others to Tyler Clippard. I think that’s pretty controversial.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Jun 18, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Webb comparisons

The thing I think of is that Brandon Webb sure was no Josh Beckett, or something. Heck, he wasn’t even Brian Taylor, or many other insanely hyped pitchers.

Webb has smarts. He’s gotten only better, after he was real good initially, then struggled for a year. He developed new pitches, as well. What I heard is on top of his great sinker, he now has a top changeup he’s just developed the last few years.

So, you can’t compare an A ball pitcher to Webb, even remotely.

Prospecting is interesting business. How many people would rank Ian Kennedy higher than Cahill? I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for Kennedy. Just another overhyped Yankee prospect. Cahill, I own in a keeper Yahoo league. He’s going nowhere.:)

by billybgame on Jun 18, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just for good measure

Cahill’s first AA start:

6.0 IP, 2 H, 1 R, 3BB, 6 SO, 11-1 GO/AO

by sully10x on Jun 20, 2008 11:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Response

I can understand some caution with Cahill, but looking at the numbers, two things are very clear:

1) Lots of guys can’t make contact with his pitches
2) Of the guys who do make contact with his pitches, very few do it well enough for it to matter

One might suggest that he’s simply going to be exposed at higher levels due to his heavy use of a high 80s-low 90s sinker. Then again, the counter-argument is that as he moves to higher levels of competition, the infield defenses playing behind him will be of markedly better quality. His pronounced groundball tendencies suggest that he may well be the type of pitcher who actually looks better statistically at higher levels of competition, and quite frankly while I have my doubts that things could get much better for him, at the very least I don’t see a reason why he should have a significant dropoff in the quality of his results on balls in play.

So okay, we accounted for the second of the two things I mentioned before, but I jumped ahead and didn’t address the first. Can Cahill keep making guys swing and miss as he moves to higher levels? The answer is yes, although he’ll probably have to make some adjustments. There’s been some criticism that while he can throw his breaking stuff for strikes reasonably well, he often prefers to throw it out of the zone and get guys to chase. Obviously, he’s managed to do just fine with that thus far, but eventually he’s going to face disciplined batters and he may get himself into trouble if he can’t/won’t throw his secondary pitches for strikes. On the other hand, his secondary pitches aren’t fringy by any means. His change is fine enough for his age and his curve is good enough to be an out pitch at high levels, given some more time.

So basically . . .about the worst thing I can say about Cahill is that he doesn’t look like a guy who’s going to be in Oakland three months from now. He has some things he needs to improve upon, like all young pitchers do. But for a guy at his stage of development, he is really, really good.

by mrkupe on Jun 22, 2008 11:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

comment

His change is fine enough for his age and his curve is good enough to be an out pitch at high levels, given some more time.

Sure. But to assume either will actually happen is a huge assumption.

TB had a young pitcher with an electric fastball, dominant change, improving breaking ball (but somewhat erratic). The breaking ball was always erratic leading so serious problems. The fastball stayed flat and eventually lost velocity.

by pedrophile on Jun 23, 2008 1:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Response

I don’t think anybody is assuming anything to be set in stone, especially when we’re talking about a 20 year old pitcher. But you know . . .he’s in the minor leagues for a reason. It’s because he doesn’t have the skills necessary for being an effective major league player. This is true for like almost every prospect (even the really good ones) in the minor leagues. That’s why prospect watchers tend to focus on the things that a minor league player does have rather than what he doesn’t have just yet, and why that focus tends to reverse itself once a player reaches the major leagues. The list of good things about Cahill is much longer than the list of bad things, and many of the bad things are simply derived from the lack of experience that comes with being 20 years old.

As for Brazelton, he was a very different prospect. His fastball, despite its velocity, didn’t produce groundballs by the bushel like Cahill’s does, which turns them into totally different animals the moment two identical batters make contact with two fastballs, one thrown by each pitcher. In a nice coincidence, though, mentioning him makes it much easier to elucidate my points. Brazelton had the raw material to be a pretty good major league pitcher, I’m sure we agree upon that. But he was pushed to the majors long before he was ready to take batters of that quality on in any more than a trial setting. He had his flaws just like every prospect – unfortunately for him, nobody gave him the time or training needed to rectify those flaws when it could have made a difference.

by mrkupe on Jun 23, 2008 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can agree with much of that

point being guys with better stuff can afford to make more mistakes, to have pitches be a little more erratic, etc. A pitcher like Cahill has a little less room for error. And guys like Kennedy or Clippard have even less room for error.

by pedrophile on Jun 23, 2008 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I listened to Cahills AA start on radio

And from the way the broadcaster talked about his pitches, he was in awe by his sinker, curve, and change, while his slider was striking most of the people out.

He was most impressed by his change and slider which he said he didn’t know how good they were. So, Cahill throws 5 pitches (sinker, 4seam, curve, change, slider), with many of them having a chance to be plus pitches. (sinker, curve already are; change slider have potential to be) and Cahill slings his 4seamer in at 93 so I don’t see what the big beef about his velocity is. The fact that he is willing to take a couple ticks off in order to make his ball move is a testament to his skill and knowledge.

by sully10x on Jun 23, 2008 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree completely...

Cahill is very advanced for his age in his approach to getting batters out.

Right now it seems people are hung up on outdated writeups of Cahill.

The kid is making major progress and developing quickly this year.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jun 23, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you want to know what i'm looking forward to?

after Cahill settled firmly into the back of some rotation after struggling several years to stay in the big leagues at all, how quickly people will deny that these blatantly exaggerated scouting reports on Cahill were ever made, and how they will therefore not be instructive at all when looking at the next puss-armed mature kid who puts up a pretty K/BB in the minors.

really.

it’ll be fun.

it won’t be like banging my head into the wall at all.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 23, 2008 7:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You are pathetic.

And sad, And I’m looking forward to you eating crow.

You think it’s a pretty K/BB ratio…. look at every statistic in the book, he is excelling in it.

Bottom line: PEOPLE CANT HIT OFF HIM.

by sully10x on Jun 23, 2008 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, i'm certainly sad

anyway, i thought the bottom line was MINOR LEAGUERS CAN’T HIT OFF HIM.

i’m pretty sure you’ll get the difference one of these years. i’ll cross my fingers for you. because i HATE seeing people burned again and again. it’s like watching a little bird run into a clear window repeatedly. breaks my heart.

so, yes. i am pathetic indeed. the box scores indicate it must be true, and i heard a radio announcer repeat it.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 23, 2008 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

here is a pitcher in the majors:

Fastball: consistently 95-97
Sinker: low 90’s
Cutter: a little less?

Curve: sharp late break

Change: nice action and deceptive motion

Slider: hard break. Better out of the zone than in the zone only negative

He has a way better fastball than Cahill, actually 10x better as sully’s name would attest. His other stuff is so much better. And yet his ERA is above 4. Why? Because MLB is difficult. It really is.

btw – my name is Dustin McGowan one of the best pitching prospects in baseball.

by pedrophile on Jun 23, 2008 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of all

Isn’t McGowan very good?

Are you praising Cahill here?

And then, to break the comparisons, Cahill is 3 year younger in A+, lets up significantly less HR, induces significantly more ground balls, and has been much more difficult to hit in the minors.

by sully10x on Jun 24, 2008 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

honest question

just so i can get a sense of exactly where your head is at right now:

do you genuinely believe that Trevor Cahill’s scouting report is comparable in any way to Dustin McGowan’s?

i’m not asking about “who was more difficult to hit in the minors. i get it. it’s not JUST the K/BB ratio. i’m all over that.

what i’m asking is, if you asked someone with a good reputation that scouts all 30 major league teams (or at least receives unbiased reports about them all professionally), do you think ANY of them would say that Cahill’s stuff is as good as McGowan’s?

or close to as good?

or is likely to be as good in 3 years?

or will EVER be as good?

i think that your answer is yes, because, the way you list what he throws, that’d probably be the case.

what the rest of us who are, shall i say, “a little more grounded” are saying is…....not so much. and what’s crazy is that you’ve elevated his “pure stuff” not just from the point of being passable up to the point of being truly elite in terms of raw talent to complement his great polish.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever you may think

of Cahill’s supporters, rooting for a guy to fail is a little mean-spirtited and totally uncalled-for, don’t you think?

by ozzman99 on Jun 24, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahahahah.....ummmmm, no, i don't

boy—who could imagine rooting for different outcomes in sports?

shouldn’t we all just be pulling for everyone to win? that’s possible, right? i wouldn’t want some team’s feelings to get hurt.

incidentally, even if what you said wasn’t completely bat-sh*t insane to begin with, i’d hardly say that what i said was:

1) mean-spirited - to say you’re looking forward to when someone becomes just an alright major leaguer isn’t - it’s not like i said, “i can’t wait until he gets injured”
2) directed at Cahill in the slightest - it isn’t, since it’s about his fans and the scouting reports they’ll use for future pitchers
3) represented “rooting” - “rooting” is saying, “boy—i hope he does (blank)”; what i said was a sarcastic comment about how frustrating it will be when someone does something

i will be waiting for your apology for calling my post “totally uncalled-for” and “mean-spirited.”

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what?

Rooting for one team to win and one team to lose is not at all similar to hoping that one specific player struggles to reach and stay in the majors. If you can’t see that difference, then I just can’t help you.

Don’t hold your breath on the apology you don’t deserve.

by ozzman99 on Jun 24, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

complex sentences

apparently to complex to follow thoughts, so i’ll help you out:

you want to know what i’m looking forward to?.....
how quickly people will deny that these blatantly exaggerated scouting reports on Cahill were ever made, and how they will therefore not be instructive at all when looking at the next puss-armed mature kid who puts up a pretty K/BB in the minors.

oh yeah, huh.

oh—but you point out that that REQUIRES Cahill to struggle.

question, though: how is that different than rooting against a team? do you think that your arch-rival’s players are going to do fantastically, but their team is going to suck?

so, right now, are you rooting for Nick Adenhart to become more part Pedro Martinez, or more part Brett Tomko? because i KNOW you root for all players to succeed.

believe me—i’m not holding my breath. i just figure you shouldn’t be able to say anything that knee-jerkingly inane without someone pointing it out.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

let's try this again

Hoping that a particular team loses and hoping that a 20 year old never reaches his potential are 2 very different things. You can keep misinterpreting me and then arguing with yourself or you can actually read my post, take a minute to understand it, and then respond.

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

gosh. goly.

he’s 20.

ergo, i can’t root for him not to reach the potential his fans have for him as a professional baseball player.

that’s like rooting for him to get cancer and die.

again, you do realize teams are made up of players. and you also do realize that “not becoming a superstar baseball player” is not like wishing a pox on the Cahill household. and you do realize that i didn’t even say ANYTHING about hoping what Cahill would or wouldn’t do.

everything else aside, if Cahill became a back-of-the-rotation starter, he WOULD be reaching his potential.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

everything else aside, if Cahill became a back-of-the-rotation starter, he WOULD be reaching his potential.

Ok, that’s your opinion. Most people here disagree with you. Why does that make you so upset? Being in the minority doesn’t make you right, just as being in the majority doesn’t make them right either.

Ok, I will give you your apology. I was wrong. I misread your post. You don’t want Cahill to fail, you want his fans proven wrong. I am sorry for misunderstanding you. The error was in my interpretation, not in your post or wording.

No, why are you so upset that people like Cahill? What about other players you disagree with people over? Do you look forward to the day you are proven right and they are proven wrong about those players, or is there something about Cahill’s fans that fires you up? Because I can’t see any difference between them and fans of any other good-but-not-great prospect.

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not upset

i’m frustrated, because this same conversation happens with two or three pitchers a year, and it really never does seem like anybody learns from it. instead, the same arguments get repeated if you happen to think these pitchers aren’t good.

1) supporters point to the stellar stats like it’s a trump card
2) supporters point to the player’s young age, as if it mattered when there’s little projectability and a lot of polish
3) people don’t understand how polish can be a confounding factor, and instead insist it’s purely a virtue
4) and this is the one that REALLY bothers me: people start exaggerating and exaggerating the scouting reports, or quoting only from the choicest sources. i.e., if someone hit 93 once (maybe on the fastest gun there), suddenly he SITS at 93. and if he SITS a 93, well, dadgumit, he can probably HIT 95. and if he can HIT 95, well, why on earth is everyone so concerned about this guy’s velocity???? not to mention that, if he’s retiring so many minor leaguers, and his fastball’s NOT what he’s known for, well then all of his breaking pitches must be pluses, if not plus-pluses.

what frustrates me is the way the conversation goes, and history repeats. it’s not that, in the future, i’d like everyone to AGREE with the arguments i would make against Cahill. it’d just be nice if more people accepted them as possibilities, since they’ve certainly been real factors in the past.

i can’t tell you with certainty how Cahill will turn out (obviously). but i do know that there needs to be a lot more skepticism about him than a lot of the people on this blog have.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thoughts

Why don’t you both just agree that BOTH your possibilities are correct? Nobody knows how a prospect will turn out so neither of you should really be considered ‘wrong’. Everyone is able to post their opinions but it seems you two have wasted a lot of energy going back and forth. Personally, I currently don’t have the energy to care if somebody else is proven right and I am proven wrong.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 25, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

i think we did agree on that, nor did we ever disagree. in the mean time, i thought this site was about discussing prospects. conversations where everyone agrees are stupid.

i’m not sure who cared about being “proven right,” but i also think it’s sad that you don’t even have “the energy to care” about it. maybe you could use a Red Bull?

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or...

Maybe I could be in remission from cancer.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 25, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Red Bull....

....works for that, too.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is this funny?

Do you think cancer is some sort of joke? Going through multiple surgeries and wondering if you need chemotherapy to survive is somehow funny? I have spent the last 4 months wondering if I live or die, and have learned that life is a gift. Spending time stressing over what others think of me is not important as all it does is cause stress to me, and strain on my immune system. Thank you for your concern, but I will skip the Red Bull (Caffiene is not recommended for cancer patients).

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 25, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my question is, is this RELEVANT?

why are you telling me about what I should care about based on what you have the energy for?

i’m very sorry you have cancer, but i’m very confused why you’re telling me about it and playing off it for sympathy. the only thing i could assume is that you’re trying to make an uncomfortable joke. otherwise, you’re just running your mouth for no reason at all.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joke?

Was your Red Bull joke relevant? It just showed that you have zero class and was intended to insult.

You said it is sad I don’t have the energy to respond and told me to take a Red Bull. I told you my reason. Trust me when I state that I don’t care about your sympathy. You have shown the type of person you are and I don’t waste time on negative people who just like to whine and moan to bring others down to their level. I am done discussing any topic with you and hope that you become more positive in the future. Take care.

The last thing I want from anyone is sympathy. I was lucky enough to beat this disease and have learned a few things along the way. That is why I tend not to focus my energy on who is right or wrong on a baseball message board. I would rather read the opinions and make my own mind up.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 25, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know you aren't looking for sympathy

But it is great to hear that you are recovering/recovered.

by sully10x on Jun 25, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

The doctors let me know on Friday, June 6 that I was in remission. They say their is a 50-60% chance I need chemo down the road but we hoping to avoid it if at all possible. This site helped me kill a lot of time when I was unable to work or go to school due to the cancer. On a plus note, my minor league system in my keeper league is stocked!! LOL!!!

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 25, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Red Bull's ALWAYS relevant to energy

especially when someone starts acting like stuff that just isn’t that big of a deal takes too much of it.

incidentally, telling people “you shouldn’t have the energy for this pointless argument” is intended as an insult. as is telling someone they have no class. but hey. whatever. pretty sure that those are both bigger insults than suggesting someone needs a Red Bull.

i’m not sure where you got the idea about who’s right and who’s wrong. again, we were just posting our opinions of players. i’m still not sure why you think otherwise. we were posting our opinions about a particular player, which is what you say you come to message boards for.

what i DON’T come to message boards for are trite life lessons and shards of wisdom from strangers. don’t intend on doing that any time soon, either. and that IS intended as an insult.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, um weird

I disagree with your Cahill thoughts, but the “hey, I have Cancer” comment was a complete non sequitor and had no place anywhere.

by Galt on Jun 25, 2008 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

when reading the above comment of yours about remission I also thought it was an awkward joke. And I think most people would think that.

Probably because in the middle of a silly conversation (like hey, you don’t have energy try a redbull) people generally don’t drop some heavy shit on them like cancer or family dying, etc.

It’s just not normally done. Not laying anything on you. But when you do it don’t be surprised at peoples reactions.

It’s like the joke “i’ve called in sick too many times so I called in dead”. This isn’t a joke mocking the newly deceased or anything.

No-one is hacking you and I’m sure everyone wishes you well.

But please don’t try to come down hard or to imply people are making sick jokes.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand you

It’s true that people cherry-pick and exaggerate scouting reports that support their viewpoints, no doubt about it.

And for the record, while I think Cahill is better than you are giving him credit for, I don’t think he is destined to become a true ace (or even necessarily capable of it). My opinion, best case scenario he turns into a solid #2, but he’s more likely to become a good #3. I could see him having a career similar to Mike Hampton.

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hampton is a decent comp

But Hampton’s size is what caused a lot of his injuries. Cahill has a great sturdy frame with clean and easy mechanics.

by sully10x on Jun 25, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my other thought

Tim Hudson also came to mind, but he’s not that far behind Webb, and I just can’t see Cahill being that good.

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who

If this happens with a few pitchers every year, who are they?

You’re not going to say that people were this high on say Kevin Slowey, Tyler Clippard, or Yousmerio Petit are you?

Who are these magical pitchers that people fawn over who don’t turn over good? Gallardo?

by Galt on Jun 25, 2008 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

excuse me

You want to know what I’m looking forward to
after Cahill settled firmly into the back of some rotation after struggling several years to stay in the big leagues at all, how quickly people will deny that these blatantly exaggerated scouting reports on Cahill were ever made, and how they will therefore not be instructive at all when looking at the next puss-armed mature kid who puts up a pretty K/BB in the minors.

If you are intelligent, which I hope you are, and you actually read the full statement you would see he is looking forward to people eating their words. Mostly because they are using minor league stats and ignoring scouting (or only reading the ones that suit them).

I don’t see a single word against Cahill.

Intelligent people converse and discuss. BJB is one of the most intelligent here if not the most. And yet you choose to read what you will and hack him.

You are making a fool of someone. Unfortunately for you it’s not BJB.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure

Where the intelligence question comes up. If you think that I am attacking BJB, or that I was attacking you earlier, that is not at all the case. I am attacking your arguments because I disagree with them. I’m trying to have a discourse with you. If the two of you want to make it personal, that is up to you, but please stop trying to bait me into a personal attack. I agree completely that BJB is very intelligent, as are you. I have read numerous posts from both of you on various players that I agree with, and in genereal, you both make very rational arguments.

In this one case, though, BJB seems very personally offended that people like Cahill and have the audacity to disagree with him. He seems to have this intense need to be right. Why? So what if he does turn out to be right? Also, so what if he turns out to be wrong? Name one person who has never been wrong in their evaluation of a player. Why is he so offended by people liking Cahill?

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that is where you misunderstand

this statement here: Why is he so offended by people liking Cahill?

The main thrust of what he is saying is about people pushing Cahill as something he is not. Time after time prospectors see someone with great minor league numbers but without scouting reports to back it up. And time after time these guys fail to live up to expectations.

Neither of us are wishing poorly on Cahill. We just don’t think he is that good.

We may be wrong on Cahill, sure.

I mention the intelligence thing since it really seemed you were going out of your way to be BJB vs. Cahill when that wasn’t the case at all. It looked like you were trying to change what he was saying instead of trying to understand his point.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and one more thing

I may not actively hope that every player out there becomes a star (after all, it’s all relative), but I also don’t sit here hoping that they never reach the majors. I would love for the Angels to lose more often, but I don’t single out any individual player and hope that he never succeeds. I don’t pray for Brandon Wood to turn out to be a bust, I just hope that IF he becomes a successful major leaguer, the A’s have the talent to counter that. That’s not to say that I will shed any tears over Wood if he is the next Russell Branyan, but I don’t have to root for him to fail before he even poses a threat to the A’s at all.

Do you not see that?

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I think that is a pretty good explanation. I tend to root for my favorite teams but I don’t wish that their rivals prospects (i.e. Revere, Porcello) tend to be busts.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 25, 2008 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

complex scheme you've got going.

me—i’ll take the easy and reasonable route. i’ll hope that the team i like has players who do well, and that the team they compete with doesn’t have good players.

if you’re so free from sin that you deny ever having to root against a player, i’d congratulate you, if i thought that doing that was even a virtue. but i don’t think that is, and it seems like you’ve already congratulated yourself enough for it.

so, do you play fantasy baseball? if so, do you root for the players you traded away?

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not complex at all

I want the A’s to win. I want them to be the best team. What everyone else does is irrelevant, as long as they lose to the A’s. That’s it. This is actually much simpler than simultaneously worrying about other teams.

I never claimed to be a saint or to be free from sin, and I’m not congratulating myself on anything. I suspect that most sports fans feel the way I do, with the exception of certain rivalries. And I never said that the way I feel is entirely selfless and altruistic. After all, the better the Angels are, the better the A’s look when they beat them.

Also, to be clear, there are certain players I root against, like Bonds or Clemens. I used to root against Giambi for the obvious reasons, but I got over that a long time ago.

No, I don’t play fantasy baseball. However, when the A’s trade away a player, or lose them to free agency, I usually either still root for them (like Hudson or Dye), or I just lose interest in them (like Zito).

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

Mcgowan has better stuff, in terms of MPH on his fastball.

But so Does Radhames Liz, and countless other pitchers.

Theres 2 other pitchers in the minors with a GB% as high as Cahill’s (Rick Porcello, Jhoulys Chacin) and 2 pitchers in the majors (Fausto Carmona and Brandon Webb)

Cahill has an extremely rare ability to keep the ball on the ground, therefor you can’t compare him to McGowan, Clippard, Silva, Brazelton, or anyone else on this thread except for potentially a Brandon Webb because like it or not, he is extremely similar to Webb.

by sully10x on Jun 24, 2008 1:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Correct me if I'm wrong

But when people compare Cahill to Webb, they are comparing their styles more than their talent, right? Because I can see that comparison, but to say Cahill is as good as Webb is a bit much.

by ozzman99 on Jun 24, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

You seem to get something that a lot of people aren’t getting. I don’t see a good reason to say that Cahill’s talent level is at or even approaches that of Brandon Webb. Of course, at age 20 Brandon Webb wasn’t even Brandon Webb yet.

But if you want to say that they’re similar pitchers in terms of approach, then yeah, maybe. It reminds me of way back when, when John did a Prospect Retro on Sammy Sosa and many were shocked that Ellis Burks was on his list of top comparables. It doesn’t mean that Ellis Burks was as good a player as Sosa was and should never be read as such. It can be read as Burks was like Sosa only not as good, or that Sosa was like Burks only better. Same sort of thing here, although obviously the margin of difference in performance between minor league and major league players is much greater than the margin of difference in performance between two established major league players.

by mrkupe on Jun 24, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

so let me restate what i think you’re saying:

“ignoring pure velocity, scouts would say that Cahill’s stuff grades out as well as Dustin McGowan’s”?

i’m really hoping this is what you’re saying. just for humor’s sake.

btw, i don’t think anyone here meant to suggest that “velocity” and “stuff” are synonymous. it’s just the easiest, quickest proxy to give to represent the body of Cahill’s not-so-stellar arsenal.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So unless someone

throws 95+ he isnt a good prospect?

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on Jun 24, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

reading skills! reading skills!

ignoring pure velocity

i don’t think anyone here meant to suggest that "velocity" and "stuff" are synonymous

so, imagine what you just wrote, and then turn it into something that wouldn’t be the dead opposite of what i clarified for someone else to make that mistake.

no. no i am not saying that. at all.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So why all the hate?

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on Jun 24, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

because....

....even ignoring velocity, which IS an important component to how ALL of his pitches will play out, his stuff isn’t that good.

if you think otherwise, you’ll disagree with me. it’s as simple as that. i’m certainly willing to put money on how this one plays out in 5-10 years, though. i’ve seen this same thing and had this same argument with too many other people over the years to even think of hesitating.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wtf?

Velocity is important. Ask Zumaya.
McGowan also has a better secondary pitch, better third pitch, better movement on his fastball.

But except for all that Cahill is much better.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

holy shit

are you crazy? have you watched McGowan?

Lets compare:

1) fastball velocity -> McGowan. By a lot
2) fastball movement -> McGowan. His cutter has nasty movement.
3) curveball -> McGowan
4) slider -> McGowan

For some reason you are either:

a) anti-velocity. Weird.
b) related to Cahill.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

none of the above

c) believer in extreme ground ball pitchers

by sully10x on Jun 25, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why

don’t you answer questions regarding stuff?

You mention that other than fastball velocity Cahill has better stuff. Or at least imply that. But nothing I have heard or seen shows that to be true. McGowan has across the board better stuff including better movement.

Now you are changing the argument to be ground balls are more important than anything.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think the problem is....

....that sully, i believe at least, is referencing the extreme success that COMBINED strikeout-groundball pitchers tend to have.

the problem with THAT is that, as both of us realize, even if Cahill’s sinker CAN continue to get some groundballs, he certainly does NOT have the stuff to continue to get strikeouts.

at that point, he’s just like any other sinkerballer, with slightly worse stuff, but a good feel for pitching and good command.

sully’s still assuming the K’s are going to come in the bigs, which is why he takes for granted that get groundouts is such a big deal.

i can only assume this is the leap in logic, because, otherwise, it makes no sense to think that groundballs alone are some huge predictor of future success.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

and I think he ignores the huge damage that fouling off pitches can do. Do you remember Chris George for the Royals? He had everything and was going to be a stud. Unfortunately he didn’t have a pitch that missed bats. Foul after foul eventually pitchers make mistakes.

Also, he is ignoring when pitchers have days they can’t locate offspeed. Can he live on his fastball alone? I don’t think so.

Wang has a way better moving fastball. But he felt the need to improve his off-speed pitches.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent point

Dustin McGowan, who is 26 and in the majors has better stuff, and is a better pitcher than Trevor Cahill who is 20 and in AA.

Compelling argument.

by Galt on Jun 25, 2008 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

nice sarcasm there.

His point was that McGowan had better stuff only in velocity. I went on to mention that McGowan had better stuff in almost all areas.

why are you such an asshole?

by pedrophile on Jun 26, 2008 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Communicate more effectively

Every post prior was “has” not “had”. “has” regarding McGowan. Has.

Quite a difference there.

by Galt on Jun 26, 2008 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"his stuff isn’t that good."

Have you seen him pitch? How do you come to this conclusion?

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on Jun 24, 2008 4:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

rather than me repost all the reasons....

i’ve concluded this, check out this earlier thread. i’m about the third or fourth post on it, and the discussion continues for a little while:

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/4/3/389373/update-and-thursday-discus

so, forgetting the common lines “you’re not a professional” and “you’re a biased fan,” have you seen him pitch?

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No but I have friend that live in Cal

and have seen him pitch. They have been to many games. Now since hes in the Texas league they wont be seeing him anymore but they had alot of looks this year.

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on Jun 24, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

so you hack him about not having seen him pitch but neither have you.

he is using scouting reports you are using reports from your friend. But somehow you are more objective.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

This is actually a very good point. I would trust the second hand info of a scout over a friend.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jun 25, 2008 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What scouting reports is he useing?

Ill take the word of my friend who have seen him pitch a lot rather than some random person on the internet.

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on Jun 25, 2008 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i thought you'd read the link....

....that i posted describing how i came to my conclusions?

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well in that thread you put

up a great fight. But youre in the minority that would rather have Hrod than Cahill. Whatever I cant change your mind.

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on Jun 24, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

just trying to get out some diversity of opinions.

just one comment about seeing Cahill pitch: it takes a fair amount of talent and experience scouting to tell when a pitcher who IS dominating performance-wise does NOT actually have great stuff. if the pitcher’s pitches are consistently beating people (and they are genuinely off-balance and unable to deal with him), it takes a real eye to know that, for example, a fastball-curveball combo like [Generic Pitching Prospect] features won’t fool more experience and talented hitters. it’s only natural to think someone’s stuff looks really good and unhittable when everyone you see swinging at it can’t hit it.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what would, in your eyes, make Cahill a better pitching prospect? If he through 94-95 with a 40% groundball rate, would you like him better?

by sully10x on Jun 24, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

threw*

by sully10x on Jun 24, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

answer

first off, i want to say, again, so that it doesn’t get misquoted, that you’re oversimplifying by making it JUST about velocity.

second of all, even if my only complaint about Cahill was that he didn’t have good enough velocity, i’d still need to know how this new, hypothetical pitcher’s overall arsenal graded out.

but let’s assume that you’re saying that this new pitcher has relatively comparable secondary pitches to Cahill, has a fastball with similar life to it, equal command and throws 94-95, but with a way less impressive GO/AO rate thus far in his career. then, yes—i’d take this guy in a second. i think i’d also take him if he truly sat at 92-93 (which i don’t think Cahill does).

on the other hand, if it were a question between two identical pitchers except one sits 92-93 but has Cahill GO/AO rate, whereas the other pitcher sits, say, even at 96, but with 40% of the groundball rate…..THEN i’d take the slower pitcher with the GO/AO rate.

but all of this is papering over the fact that i’m not all that convinced that this hypothetical Cahill clone has good enough secondary pitches to be successful against major leaguers. presumably, the added velocity would also manifest in sharper breaking pitches, but, unless we explicitly change that factor, then i’m only mildly higher on any of these new pitchers than i am on Cahill.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said previously

pitchers who throw 94-96 with fly-ball tendencies are much more common than ones with 65% ground ball rates.

You definitely undervalue a pitcher who can dominate the ground such as Cahill has.

by sully10x on Jun 24, 2008 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

three things

1) i believe i just said that i wouldn’t consider someone who threw 94-96 a good prospect without other traits, so…...what’s your point? we agree - neither one’s a good prospect on it’s on. EVERYTHING is about combining all aspects of a pitcher. (and, personally, i think minor league stats aren’t the best indicators for pitchers - much more useful for hitters.)
2) how rare something is doesn’t really make it better, now, does it? “pitchers who can post sub-5.00 ERAs without hitting 86 mph are much rarer than those who throw 92+, therefore, i’d rather have the pitcher who throws 86”
3) if i thought Cahill would be either “domininant” or have huge success keeping people on the ground, i might feel differently

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cahill

was touching 94 in high school. All the pre-draft reports were saying that. Everything I’ve seen is that he’s still sitting in the 91-93 range. Where are you seeing otherwise?

by Galt on Jun 25, 2008 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really wonder what

You thought of Aaron Laffey as prospect. I mean, he probably couldn’t hit 90 if he tried. Yet he induces groundballs extremely often… which turn into outs.

by sully10x on Jun 24, 2008 9:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i wonder what you thought of Laffey too

if you can point me to some posts where you argued about Laffey’s bright future, i’d really appreciate it

regardless, your point doesn’t really sway me—minimum necessary velocities are much higher for righties than lefties, so comparing the two is a waste of time. and i can point you to plenty of posts on this site where i’ve said that.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 24, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been a believer

I have been high on Laffey All season (and he had been a top 50 ranking on Project Prospect)

I figure I’m about done arguing with you because neither of us are going to budge from our stances.

by sully10x on Jun 24, 2008 9:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Question For BJB

And others, really. If I follow your argument correctly, you’re saying that Cahill succeeds at the lower levels because of his maturity, but that he will struggle at higher levels where hitters have a more advanced approach because he lacks great stuff, is that about right? And in general, pitchers with great stuff have historically performed better in the majors than pitchers with mediocre stuff.

Here is my question: are the pitchers with great stuff more successful in the majors because their stuff is so great, or is it because they get more chances than the guys with mediocre stuff? Especially if this thinking pervades baseball. I mean, someone like Cahill doesn’t have great stuff, so he gets a shot in the majors, struggles for a few weeks and gets sent down. The next year the same thing happens, he gets stuck with the AAAA label, and that’s that. On the other hand, a guy like Bonderman is in his 6th season of major league mediocrity, while people still sing his praises. Felix Hernandez struggles a bit in his first full ML season, but he is given the chance to work through those struggles and has now established himself. Granted, Cahill is no King Felix, but is it possible that pitchers with great stuff have a greater history of achievement simply because they are given more chances?

by ozzman99 on Jun 25, 2008 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

certainly seems possible

there’s always a lot of confirmation biases in these things, so i’d definitely agree that players without the raw tools get less leeway to prove their worth, probably unfairly so in some cases. therefore, if you gave them more of a chance, as maybe Cahill would be given, there might be more chance he’ll stick. (incidentally, i don’t think him being a #3 is impossible, or even particularly unlikely. i would describe that as his ceiling, though, and i think he has a non-unrealistic shot of being a swingman at best.)

on the other side of the argument, there is some reason to give pitchers with great tools more of a chance: they have more upside.

hypothetically, let’s say Radhames Liz and Trevor Cahill both put up identical stats in their first big league stint (notice—NOT minor league stint), making them both borderline 5s. Liz would DESERVE more chance to stick in the majors because he has more chance of being a 1 or a 2, whereas, even if everything clicks for Cahill, he would only be a 3.

this also emphasizes one of the most basic concepts here: you can gain maturity, but (with some caveats) you usually don’t gain velocity, arm strength and “stuff.” that’s what makes “early maturers” scary—their minor league results are already “maxed out,” since they’ll never get “more mature.” whether someone like Liz does or not is impossible to say, but it’s certainly a possibility (and necessary to a pitcher’s natural development), so there has to be more hope.

finally, i think the point about mature pitchers is simply that their minor league stats lie. this is true for COMPLETE puss-arms like Inman and Clippard as well as for somewhat more talented pitchers like Phil Hughes (who was, nonetheless, hugely overrated because he hit his spots with his curveball). right now, Cahill maybe, possibly, could be great. but it’s really difficult to tell BECAUSE he’s been blessed with a mature approach. in the meantime, i think people are making way too much about his stats.

(also, a little off-topic, but i think that calling Bonderman “mediocre” is unfair for a lot of reasons - age and injuries, mainly - but that’s not the point.)

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree with your points

but the below isn’t what I would do if I was a GM. Which I’m not.

{hypothetically, let’s say Radhames Liz and Trevor Cahill both put up identical stats in their first big league stint (notice—NOT minor league stint), making them both borderline 5s. Liz would DESERVE more chance to stick in the majors because he has more chance of being a 1 or a 2, whereas, even if everything clicks for Cahill, he would only be a 3.}

I would put Liz in the pen right now and keep Cahill in the rotation. Cahill seems better suited for the rotation or even better is the swingman role. Liz just seems destined for the pen. I hate the argument about rotation being better so it costs nothing to see if he can make it in the rotation. Not implying you would use it. But it’s just a stupid one. Of course it costs something. Taking a guy you know is injury prone and waiting for him to break down then putting him in the pen. It’s a little too late then.

Besides, Liz could always be moved up from the pen to the rotation. Doubt he ever belongs in the rotation though.

Cahill? If he does ok in AA & AAA I think he will look great for Oakland for one year. Be Gaudinesque but then settle in as a 4. But I’d like to see him in AA for a full year.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good points

thinking more specifically about those two, you’re probably right. i was just looking for someone with great stuff who the most statistically inclined might not like, but Liz’s arsenal and mechanics does make him a better bullpen candidate.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

shit

I had a nice reply and it got wiped. To sum it up: I think your comp is still solid, most GM’s will still follow the tried and true.

I like the few organizations that are bold like Minnesota and Anaheim. They know how to build pens by quickly assessing talent and moving them to the pen. Not waiting for the injuries to mount. The others spend $5 million per year on Farnsworth type guys. ugh

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's a little of both

but more about the stuff than the chances.

Even Maddux and Glavine who are legendary for their control had excellent stuff. Not only amazing control but Maddux had solid velocity at the beginning, nice movement on the fastball, very good breaking pitches, and of course all the stuff that made him Maddux.

Major league baseball hitters are very very good. Pitchers don’t have that much room for error. Having a fastball sitting at 97 or a wicked curve or a killer change-up gives the pitcher a lot of room for error. Because all pitchers have bad days. It’s the top pitchers that can put up good numbers on bad days.

I’ve seen ground-ball pitchers without other dominant stuff when their sinkers didn’t work. It’s ugly. Wang went through it just before his injury. Silva has this problem every other year. Carmona has it but he’s throwing gas so even if it doesn’t move there is some room for error.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neither

Wang, Silva, or Carmona ever were strikeout pitchers. None of them have any other plus pitches, Cahill does. And Silva isn’t even an extreme ground ball pitcher. He is mediocre all the way around.

I would just really appreciate if you made a comparison that fits Cahill. You are really missing with every name you bring up.

by sully10x on Jun 25, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are just looking

for any little reason to disagree. Trying to compare K numbers of very successful MLB pitchers versus K numbers of A ball pitchers is worse than insane.

btw Wang had a 7K/9 rate in the minors and he was so far from polished.

btw2: Silva is a ground ball pitcher every year he’s successful. This year he’s at 1.18 G/F only because his sinker sucks this year. Last year it was 1.57, the year before where he also sucked it was 1.29, the five years before that 1.55, 1,58, 1.58, 1.83, 2.75.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

7k/9 for Wang, while Cahill is over 10 k/9, huge difference.

And I don’t consider Silva’s ground ball numbers to be that of an extreme ground ball pitcher. You need to be over 60 GB%, or 2.00 GO/AO for me to classify a pitcher as that.

You’re telling me these are “little reasons”. They are huge reasons, they are what make Cahill so special. Not many prospects come along with 25% K%, and 63 GB%. They are very rare, and I bet a track record would prove successful for any minor leaguers posting those numbers.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Jun 25, 2008 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

at A ball?

or against good hitters?

Your points may be very valid once he keeps doing that in AA and AAA. But in A ball statistics just do not translate.

by pedrophile on Jun 25, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So far, so good

I know it’s only one start but he has looked great in AA.

And you do realize the California league may be the hardest league on pitchers in the minors… right? you know that right, you have to.

The way you talk about High-A is that stats don’t matter at all and its just a crapshoot on prospecting until they reach AA.

You’re the king of making incorrect statements.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Jun 25, 2008 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so....

.....the California League’s ballparks make A-ball hitters more able to recognize and deal with well-located breaking balls?

oh yeah—the fact that it’s the Cal League is all but irrelevant.

also, yes—for well-polished pitchers, statistics at low levels ARE pretty meaningless. saying that pedro’s saying ALL stats are fairly meaningless is the “incorrect statement.”

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So I'm getting that Cahill gets some sort of prize

for being the most controversial prospect?

by Galt on Jun 25, 2008 11:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

BP

Kevin Goldstein had this to say about Cahill over at BP. Seems like a pretty good prospect to me. Might not be in the same bracket stuff wise as McGowan but certainly this talk of below average/average stuff and velocity seems to be overblown by some people on this site.

“The mid-season point makes for a lot of player movement, and one of those moves was Cahill’s advancing to the Texas League, where he allowed one run on two hits and struck out six over six innings in his first outing. The minor league strikeout leader with 109, Cahill doesn’t seem to be getting the kind of attention his statistics deserve, and that might be because he doesn’t really stand out in a crowd. He’s not massive, but at 6’3” and 195 lbs., he’s plenty big enough. He doesn’t have top-notch velocity, but his fastball is above-average in terms of both velocity and movement. It’s not a Barry Zito curve, but it’s an above-average pitch. It’s not a crazy changeup, but it has plenty of deception and fade, and while his control is not exactly Maddux-esque, he throws plenty of strikes. That’s the thing with Cahill—he has no glaring weaknesses, but pretty much everything about him is good, and that goodness could be lined up for a September look.”

by DeJay on Jun 26, 2008 1:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs