Why is that? Is it an inability to command 3 pitches? Questionable mechanics or injury concerns?

 

Interesting stuff.

Maybe I'm quibbling, but Gio/DLS aren't two of the "better pitching prospects in baseball". Gio has a lot of question marks and DLS has a long way to go, although he could quickly rise up the ranks.

Tell us how you really feel.

 

Well, Gio is a top 30 prospect overall...so that seems like he would be one of the better pitching prospects in baseball....

 

Secondly, I wasn't telling you how I feel. I was pointing out all facts...

1. Who was the everyone slamming steroid users and

2. Who was the everyone praising this trade?

My friend is a diehard Rangers fan and he always was raving about Volquez... as in he thought he was the best of the DVD trio. Stuff wise, he has some real nasty stuff... mental wise I think he is lacking.

1. Who was the everyone slamming steroid users and

2. Who was the everyone praising this trade?

 

 

1. See the position I took in the Mitchell Report Thread, and most peoples' reaction to it; and

2. Never said everyone, rather, alluded to the general consensus in the thread that the Reds made a poor trade (which is as usual, the result of envious fans from a team that wanted him but did not get him)...

I respect your scouting opinion and all, but I personally dont think his stuff is comparable to Pedro, Pedro has/had a nice late breaking fastball and amazing ancillary stuff, Volquez has a straight hard fastball and a good change, but a pedestrian curve.

Chicago has a decent drug supply so we coulda signed him long term...

Ok, fair enough, I just disagree. I see Pedro as one of the all time bests, and I feel his pitches were all plus plus and had a ton of natural movement that you just cannot teach.

Ok, fair enough, I just disagree. I see Pedro as one of the all time bests, and I feel his pitches were all plus plus and had a ton of natural movement that you just cannot teach.

 

Pedro's control was also ridiculous for a power pitcher. Something Volquez hasn't taken care of yet. Although Pedro did struggle with control early on like Volquez has so you never know, but it's hard to imagine another power pitcher with that much movement on all his pitches being that precise.

Edited December 22, 200718 yr by sircaffey

I understand you POV as you have stated it several times. I just find it hard to believe that anyone is comparing the number 178th ranked prospect to one of the best pitchers of all time. It just doesnt compute.

 

Gio in comparison is in the high 20's rankings, and should be worth more than Volquez. Ive seen a few prospect articles that state he could be a solid #2.

Edited May 23, 200817 yr by knightni

regardless of their entertainment purposes, a prospect who has the ceiling and future of a possible best pitcher ever like Pedro would be at least mentioned by them in the top 100, 50, 20, 10 and 5. The fact that he isnt speaks volumes. Fact is, the guy doesnt have that ceiling, few players ever do.

This trade is SO much the Rangers way of doing things. Suck for years because you have no pitching, then trade pitching for hitting.

Edited December 23, 200718 yr by YASNY

This trade is SO much the Rangers way of doing things. Suck for years because you have no pitching, then trade pitching for hitting.

 

They still have Hurley and Diamond... Hurley is probably a better prospect at this point than Volquez or Diamond. Actually have Kiker too.... Id say Kiker and Hurley have more potential than any pitcher we have in our minors at this time.

Only your scouting is good? Just because they are writers, they are worse scouting reports? I don't take their world as gold. I take it with a grain of salt. I take yours the same way too. Scouting in general seems to be a bunch of bulls*** psuedo science based on too many assumptions. No offense meant. If you care to tell me how I'm wrong I'd like to hear it. I don't really know what the scouts you associate yourself with do differently. How often are they wrong? 74% of the time?

Edited May 23, 200817 yr by knightni

Fair enough. You have faith in your own scouting. So how often are you pretty far off? Not sure how I'd define pretty far off. As loosely as you want to I guess.

I didn't mean "faith." I meant confidence of its accuracy. So you are above average or better, whatever. If the industry itself is crap, which I think it is at this point, and which is also why I am asking you about it, then who cares if you are one of the better guys? You're above average crap in that scenario. No offense meant, just making a point. Why don't you know how often you are wrong? That seems like something you might want to keep track of, then you can improve on that number. Also there is no accountability. How in the world can I say, oh you're right a lot, then trust your opinion. I need to know how often you are right or else its meaningless to me.

 

Also, if I want to doubt what you say is accurate, I'm going to. In arguing with you, I am learning something. If you can't be bothered to defend your appraisals of talent, maybe you shouldn't post here. I'm not religious. I don't make dogmatic leaps of faith. I'm not going to give some anonymous internet poster the benefit of the doubt.

Settle down there, Mr. Professional. I know you don't care if I believe you. I don't care that you don't care. That is so far from my point in asking you about it. I also know I'm not a professional in scouting, and what you said about me having an arm chair view is misleading. I simply said I don't know about it because I don't. Not knowing about it leads me to thinking its a crap industry. All I am trying to do is understand why its not crap. Without another source I am asking you because I want to know. Not because I want you to care what I think.

And I am definitely going to question what you say. If you can't deal with, poor baby. I don't give a f***. Are you that insecure that you can't be questioned?

Bureau, the more defensive you get the clearer it is that you work at the mall during the day and post at night...

lol, guy deleted his posts. I wish I would have quoted him.

This wasn't even supposed to be an argument. You made it one. I just want to learn about scouting so I can know its not what I think it is. That is all. You're being a little too vague, so I ask a little more forwardly, then you get defensive. I'm not attacking you. I've stated several times that I don't know what I'm talking about and I'd like to. I look forward to any in depth insight you'd give into how scouting reports are prepared. If you would say what you do, maybe I would find it valid. I know you don't care what I find valid. I care what I find valid and make an effort to educate myself on what I don't know. Not doing so would be a disfavor to myself and others.

Edited May 23, 200817 yr by knightni

You should play OOTP, Bureau.

 

 

Wow great post. I'm sure that took some time. Thanks. I have a question. How did you get that overall current? Was it a simple average or a weighted average based on the priorities below by position?

Is the Catcher - F, T, H, P, R

1B - H, P, F, T, R

2B - H, F, P, R, A

3B - H, P, F, T, R

SS - F, T, H, R, P

LF - H, P, F, T, R

CF - F, H, R, P, T

RF - H, P, T, F, R

 

After this, you add up their OFP (Overall Future Projection - based on their current abilities):

 

Player A (CF):

 

Hit - 35 current

Power - 30 current

Field - 45 current

Throw - 50 current

Run - 60 current

 

Overall Current: 44

 

I guess I just didn't understand why the order you listed the tools in matters by position if you are just going to average them unweighted.

 

Is it that the overall projection is not really looked at as much as the tool projections for certain positions?