Prospect Profile: Ian Desmond

by John Sickels on Sep 17, 2009 3:36 PM EDT Comment 11 comments

Ian Desmond was drafted by the Montreal Expos in the third round in 2004, out of high school in Sarasota, Florida. He was considered very toolsy but very raw when drafted, showing excellent arm strength and good speed, but lacking power and offensive polish. He hit .227/.272/.292 in 55 games of rookie ball in the Gulf Coast League after signing, hardly impressive numbers through organization officials praised his work ethic and physicality. He did steal 13 bases in 16 attempts. I didn't put him in the 2005 book but would have rated him as a Grade C, with a high ceiling but needing to make a lot of progress.

The Expos became the Nationals in the 2005, and the organization braintrust decided to push Desmond very quickly, skipping him past the New York-Penn League and assigning him directly to full-season ball. He hit .247/.291/.334 in 73 games for Savannah in the Sally League, then .256/.325/.385 in 55 games for Potomac in the Carolina League, after a very aggressive promotion. He made 35 errors, but scouts liked his range and arm strength. He also stole 33 bases in 45 attempts, and impressed the front office with his emotional maturity. I gave him a Grade C in the 2006 book, noting his age-relative-to-league, but also noting the necessity to sharpen his plate discipline, given his 34/113 BB/K ratio in 515 at-bats.

Desmond began 2006 at Double-A Harrisburg, but he was overmatched and posted a 184/.221/.232 mark in 38 games, also struggling with the glove. Sent back to Potomac, he hit .244/.313/.384 in 92 games, similar to what he'd done in '05, though he looked more comfortable defensively. I gave him another Grade C, continuing to note his youth but also his lack of offensive progress.

The Nationals gave Desmond some stability in 2007, letting him play 129 games at Potomac. This resulted in an improved .264/.357/.432 mark, with 13 homers, 27 steals in 38 attempts, and a career high 57 walks. The Nationals made adjustments to his swing, enabling him to quicken up on fastballs, and he also did an improved job recognizing breaking balls. His defense remained solid. Although this was his third season at Potomac, he was still just 21 years old. I gave him a Grade C+ in the 2008 book, noting the improvements and projecting that if he maintained this progress, he could see the majors in 2009.

Returning to Harrisburg in 2008, Desmond hit .251/.318/.406 in 93 games, with 12 homers, 31 walks, and 12 steals in 20 attempts. His discipline slipped, but it was certainly much better than his '08 Double-A trial. I did lower his grade to a straight C in this year's book, expressing concern about if he'd hit enough to start in the majors, but noting that he was still young and still had development potential.

Desmond began '09 at Harrisburg again, hitting .302/.372/.494 in 42 games. Promoted to Triple-A Syracuse, he remained hot with a .354/.428/.461 mark, giving him a combined total of .330/.401/.477 on the season, with 21 steals in 26 attempts. He's 10-for-17 (.588) in four major league games, with a homer and four doubles. Obviously that kind of pace is unsustainable, but nevertheless it's been a remarkable year for him.

His BABIP was rather inflated this year, .425 at Syracuse and a cumulative .398. If you use the "normalize luck" and "normalize park" tools at MinorLeagueSplits.com, his numbers this year come out as a mere .248/.326/.363, very much like what he did in previous seasons. On the other hand, the tools have always been here, and most scouts seem to believe he's made real progress honing his skills. He's played almost the entire season at age 23 (he turns 24 later this month), so he's young enough for the breakthrough to be real. On the third hand, despite the improved overall numbers his strike zone judgment hardly budged at all compared to last year: he had a 31/80 BB/K last year in 336 at-bats, compared to a 36/71 BB/K in 348 at-bats this year. His strikeouts are down a bit but not by a huge amount. Usually if a guy has made hugely signficant improvements in his approach, it will show up more strongly.

I haven't seen Desmond outside of video this year, so I don't have any personal observations to contribute. Did he just get lucky this year, or has he made real progress? I think the jury is still out. Grade-wise, I'm thinking that I have to go up to at least a B-, but higher than that I'm doubtful. My guess, right now, is that there are elements of truth on both sides here....he obviously had better luck this year, but he also made some genuine progress. This isn't a Mike Aviles-like Age 27 career season, I don't think...but he's not going to maintain a .398 BABIP, either. I expect Desmond will regress to some extent in 2010, but not all the way back. That's just my current thinking, and I know I have a tendency to just "split the difference" in cases like this, which isn't always the right approach. I could change my mind. What do you think?

0 recs | Comment 11 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"On the third hand"

What are you Ganesh?

Part of me thinks the Nats need to be careful with Desmond and not continue rushing him. Let him start the season in AAA in 2010 to reinforce the improvements he made this year. He will regress (likely), it may be easier on him to adjust in AAA to any regression than be seen as a flash in the pan if he regresses in the bigs. The Nats have no reason to rush. They have a few years of terrible baseball ahead of them before the youngsters start turning things around.

by Cormican on Sep 17, 2009 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly

Beneath John Sickels’s glasses lie not a pair of eyes, but another fist.

"That is like saying my ‘upside’ is Brad Pitts face, with Einstein’s brain, and Ron Jeremy’s unit. It is nice to dream, but that ceiling isn’t going to happen." (King Billy Royal)

by drjayphd on Sep 18, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

re: Ian Desmond

Desmond’s defense has never been “solid” — the knock on him was (and is) that he makes the hard plays look easy and the easy plays look hard.

by Wooden_U_Lykteneau on Sep 17, 2009 5:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Went to the Phillies/Nats game last night

He appears to know what he’s doing at the plate for sure, on the basepaths and defense though is suspect. He was thrown out at third as he was inbetween that and home on Livan’s bunt last night…and had an all-around shaky day findng first base on his throws (although some of that may have to do with Adam Dunn’s constant lack of defense.

"...It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."

by metsman128 on Sep 17, 2009 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Desmond

He’s interesting, that’s for sure. I agree with John that the truth lies somewhere in between.

I do think there is some genuine improvement, but the numbers simply don’t lie so there is undoubtedly some luck involved. Some regression is to be expected, but Desmond’s athleticism could really make him an interesting player with even a small improvement in his ability to control the strike zone.

He has the type of tools that make him a light-switch style player, so I’m hoping that his improvement this year is enough to unlock his true potential. He looks like he could be a fun player to watch in the future.

by Lark11 on Sep 18, 2009 10:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Desmond

I’ve seen most of Ian’s games up in the majors. John & Lark11 are seeing things right about him. As a Nats fan, I think the key issue must Nats fan are seeing have to do with the position coaching in the Nats farm system and with Rizzo at the helm things are changing and will contiinue to change. As this relates to Ian, I believe he can still be “coached up” better and he’ll see improvement in he’s infield play and base running. He wrist was hurting him and playing a big part in hitting game 2007-2008 . He had his hamate bone taken out and that’s when we saw his improvements in 2009. nats MLB hitting coach Eckstein sees more things in his swing he can correct and believes will make him better, but come on hitting .350 would be to much to ask, eh. Let hope he’s a solid player for years to come.

by Berndaddy on Sep 22, 2009 1:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Desmond

Yeah, you can see why the Expos/Nationals were willing to be so patient with him. It’s difficult to find a solid defensive shortstop with any kind of offensive upside. Honestly, you can count on one hand the prospects who can both field the shortstop position and be an asset with the lumber. It seems clear that Desmond has the necessary ability with the glove and the interesting potential with the bat. He may not be likely to reach it, but his 100% projection is that of an impact player. Even if the bat doesn’t reach it’s full potential, he still should have enough ability to be a league average shortstop. That has value, especially for the first 5-6 years of his service time.

Still, I’m not convinced the Nationals know what they might have and how to make the most of it. I read a quote from Jim Riggleman (I think) who said that Desmond might be a super utility guy or even a centerfielder. It boggles the mind that they aren’t giving him a full-time look at shortstop, especially with Cristian Guzman admitting that he’s suffering from a sore shoulder.

At the very least, they should shut down Guzman for the season and give Desmond a longer look. And, in all probability they would be much better off just parting ways with Cristian Guzman entirely. Taking their respective salaries into account, I don’t think Desmond would have to do much to be a more valuable option than Guzman.

by Lark11 on Sep 25, 2009 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Riggleman statement is all air. Rizzo repeated after that comment that Desmond...

…was a middle infielder and any other determination would be sorted out at spring training. Please don’t look at the Nats farm system through Jim Bowden colored glasses. Rizzo will remake the system to be better. How do I know? I don’t directly, but the man knows talent better than any GM that has sat in his seat before him. He knows that the talent needs to be found, trained and taken care of better. Desmond and all other prospects will be better off because of Rizzo. As far as Riggleman’s insistence to keep Guzman in the line-up; that has all Nats fans perplexed. He’s trying his hardest to give the managing job away. No that it was his to begin with, eh. The next couple of months before the winter meetings should tell volumes about the true direction of the club. After waiting 33 years for a team to come to DC waiting till the winter meets will seem like an eternity…

by Berndaddy on Sep 25, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rizzo

Well, I’ll take your word for it. I admittedly don’t know much about Rizzo. Obviously, Strasburg was a huge step in the right direction and Bryce Harper will be another. If Strasburg stays healthy and pitches up to his ability, then the Nats will reap a huge reward. Adding one homegrown #1 starter can really alter the fortunes of the entire organization. You can see it with the Giants and Tim Lincecum. Dropping a true, cost controlled ace into the #1 slot bumps everyone else down to a more comfortable spot in the rotation.

I’m not sure about Riggleman. I tend to think they’d be better off with Manny Acta. Given the utter lack of talent in the lineup, it’s unfortunate the Nats chose to blame Acta. It’s good to hear that the Nats view Desmond as a middle infielder. I think both his bat and glove play better there.

I will say that I think the Nats caught a bad break when they lost John Patterson. I was really impressed with Patterson. His curveball was awesome. It was tight and had nasty late bite to it. The Barry Zito water balloon curve gets all the hype, but I think Patterson’s curveball was more impressive and effective. If his 2007 season was an indication of his true ability, then he had the potential to have a pretty special career. Patterson and Strasburg at the top of the rotation would make the Nats rotation pretty formidable.

by Lark11 on Sep 26, 2009 12:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Shawn Hill woulda-shoulda been a good one,too.

A lot of Expo/Nats fans were hoping apond hope for him, as well.

Yea, there are a lot of #4 or #5 type pitching prospects in the systems. We’re hoping that the Nats have a solid #1 in Strasburg a solid # 3 in Lannan and that Zimmermann comes back to be a solid #2. That would make three home grown pitchers, eh. And if they keep to their word and get a nice Veteran starter in the off season and boister the lacking bullpen we should at least compete.

I’m always hopeful that between Stan Kasten and the Lerners they’ll get this turned around. I’m realistic enough to figure this to be two to three years down the road. hey, as a Redskins fan the Lerners are geniouses compared to Dan Snyder. Now that’s a team to write off.

Nats next year 75-87 the Redskins this year 6-10 if their lucky…

by Berndaddy on Sep 26, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big Game

Man, Desmond had a big night tonight. A homer, a single, a walk, and three RBI.

He needs to work deeper into counts and draw more walks to help minimize the chances of the dreaded sophomore slump. Pitchers will adjust to him and I could see him falling off in a big way if he doesn’t utilize a selective approach. Pitchers will tempt him to chase next year and he needs to be disciplined enough not to do it.

Still, he continues to impress.

by Lark11 on Oct 3, 2009 12:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs