Jackson scouting report

[BrandoFan]

If you look at Pedro's numbers as a starter, than you will see that they were still pretty impressive

 

Oh no, don't get me wrong, a mid-to-high 3.00 ERA in NL is still pretty damn impressive even if it shows that it's easier to come into the league as a 22yo and be dominant in RELIEF and then find out that STARTING is a totally different beast and regress. Hence my distrust of Jackson's cup o coffee perfomance (too many baserunners, too), especially given his rather human, for someone of his caliber of course, AA numbers....Still, Pedro of Dodgers had very little to do with Pedro of 1997 and beyond, which further shows how hard it is for 20-22yo pitchers, no matter how talented, to consistently beat major league hitters. And even when they succeed, they often go into sophomoric slumps and relapses.

 

In fact, I am not sure why I even picked Pedro as he weakens my arguement to an extent. I should have gone with Shilling, Unit, Brown, Mulder, Hudson, Maddux, Clemens, Garcia, Glavine, Beckett, Sheets, Vaquez, Millwood, Colon, Ortiz-- phenoms who didnt truely put up the numbers scouts expected them to until they were 23+. Certainly not even close to 19 or 20.

 

And, yeah, going back to 2002, Sox 5th Starters were abominable, but if we do do this deal with LA (say, Perez, Mota and Jackson for Maggs and 2 A-minus prospects) and free up cash for Ponson, that would mean Perez is #4 and we have GARLAND as out 5th starter, and I fully expect John to post a low-4.00 ERA, especially if we have a 1B who can actually field challenging grounders......which means Jackson's projected 2004 numbers are not a necessity but a luxury. Can we give up our biggest offensive threat for such a luxury? Given Jackson's probable production as a 23yo in 2006 and beyond, I still say yeah, I guess. Was I so crazy to expect Maggs + prospects for Miller, Perez AND Jackson?

 

Ok anyway, given that they lack Rich Harden/Mark Prior-esque jaw-dropping numbers in the minors, TELL ME WHAT YOU LOVE SO MUCH ABOUT THEM IN TERMS OF CONTROL/STUFF AND WHAT DO YOU THINK PUTS THEM IN THE CLASS OF THEIR OWN.

[Cerbaho-WG]

For someone who is one of the best prospects to ever come down the pipe and was supposedly "almost" scheduled to pitch in the MAJORS when Dodgers fell out of contention this year, the above numbers are nowhere NEAR mind-blowing.

 

Ryan Wing, who you will agree is not a phenom by a long shot, put up BETTER numbers (ok, not better but close) in A-ball.    I am not sure about Cotts, but Honel and Malone too excelled on that level too, didn't they?  And neither of those two is/was "comparable to Prior". Ever. 

 

There are a ton of pitchers who can post 3.70 ERA in AA and almost as many who can post 2.50 ERA in AA......all the while having similar "stuff":  low-90s fastball, nasty curve, developing change, etc. Of course, Miller and Jackson are a year ahead of their peers, they wouldn't be "special" if they weren't.

 

It's just that what they can do FOR White Sox in the next couple of years is all I care about.

Whoa whoa whoa, back the f***ing truck up. The kid is 18, in High-A ball, and puts up a 2.5 ERA. He then backs it up by averaging 13 K/9 IP at AA, as an 18 year old. The kid was reportedly popping 95 on the gun with his fastball, and has two offspeed pitches (curve, slider) rated well above-average.

 

Enough with the stats, this kid projects. Most likely with some more weights and a little more muscle this kid should be hitting the high 90's with ease.

 

Ryan Wing's 2003 campaign is flat out dogs*** compared to Miller's. Wing was 21 at High-A, and put up a far from impressive 4.15 BB/9 IP ratio, as well as an awful 1.6 K/BB ratio. His OBA was phenomenal, but as Wing progresses those walks will bite him in the ass repeatedly.

 

Cotts had loads of control problems at High-A, as well as a low 4's ERA. Malone only made 5 starts at High-A. Honel had a very good year at W-S, but nowhere close to as good as Miller's.

 

Simply put, Jackson and Miller project to a feared 1-2 punch at the top of a rotation. Wouldn't you want the mere thought of having Jackson, Miller, Cotts, Honel, etc. in your farm system? With that much talent, I'm willing to bet 2 or 3 will pan out quite nicely.

[BrandoFan]

Wouldn't you want the mere thought of having Jackson, Miller, Cotts, Honel, etc. in your farm system?

 

OF COUSE I WOULD!

 

What I was questioning is whether or not 19 and 20yo pitchers are gonna have much impact in 2004 and 2005 (cup o coffee meaningless games notwithstanding). The thread started with me wanting a Maggs for Miller and Jackson deal, afterall.

 

Miller is gonna throw "high-90s with ease"? Are you f***ing serious? Don't you mean he'll throw 92-93 touching 95 at times? The way organizations inflate velocities is ridiculous.

 

Once upon a time I suggested a 22yo Mark Prior would be scary good in 2003. I was jumped on for being an idiot who bought into the Cubbie hype. Now I hear these talks of LA having not one but two 19yo Mark Priors (two!) in their system and I am supposed to be into the hype? The only truly impressive thing about them is the fact they are exactly 1 year ahead of the curve.

 

My original point was that if LA don't wanna give up Mota, just WHO are the trying to peddle to us? Perez? Perez for Maggs?

[Ishmookie]

trade nomah or mags for them!!!!!

[BrandoFan]

Just like that, Ishmookie?

[whitesox61382]

I feel like I am repeating myself so I will just make some bullet points to summarize my arguement.

 

- Perdo's numbers as a starter in his 1st 3 years(94-96) were still pretty damn impressive, including the fact that he never posted an ERA above 3.70.

 

1994 Mon 24 23 1 1 144.2 115 58 55 11 45 142 11 5 1 0 0 3.42

1995 Mon 30 30 2 2 194.2 158 79 76 21 66 174 14 10 0 0 -- 3.51

1996 Mon 33 33 4 1 216.2 189 100 89 19 70 222 13 10 0 0 -- 3.70

 

- I am suggesting that Jackson and Miller could possible follow a similar learning curve as Pedro. By that I mean they either could be dominating out of the pen from day 1 and eventually move to the rotation, OR they could start in the rotation and put up good number(similar to Pedro his 1st couple of years), but not dominating numbers(maybe with time).

 

- You need to stop with this 1.27 WHIP. You do realize that is below the league average, and is still pretty solid. Furthermore, he showed the ability to pitch around the baserunners as evidence by his low ERA and high SO total.

 

- As unlike as it is that the Sox would be able to land BOTH Jackson and Miller, it is similarly unlikely that the Sox would bring in two big salary starter(like Perez and Ponson). If the suggested Maggs to LA deal would go through, than the Sox would save about 7M. It just so happens that as things stand right now(after arbitration), the Sox are about 5-7M over budget so that 7M saved would go to existing players and not to a player like Ponson at 6M. So the idea of Garland being the 5th starter is highly unlikely, and I think there is a good chance that Jackson could put up better numbers then Garland next year. Besides I like the idea of giving the 5th spot to youngsters, especially if one of those youngsters is either Jackson or Miller. The key to sucess is building from within and suplanenting from outside.

 

- They lack Prior/Harden jaw dropping numbers? Have you even checked the stats? I don't think you have, because here is a breakdown of how each did.

 

Prior 22, AA and AAA(from 2002) 50 IP 7.02H/9IP 3.24BB/9IP 14.22SO/9IP

Harden 21, AAA(from 2003) 88.2IP 7.33H/9IP 3.56BB/9IP 9.23SO/9IP

Jackson 19, AA(from 2003) 148.1IP 7.34H/9IP 3.21BB/9IP 9.53SO/9IP

Miller 18, high A and AA(from 2003) 142.1IP 7.46h/9IP 3.03BB/9IP 9.55SO/9IP

 

- As you can see, besides Prior's SO/9IP rate, there numbers are almost identical, so will you please stop with this "human" type numbers. Not only that, but their walk rates were both lower then Prior and Harden, which I think is maybe the most important stat up there. Furthermore, both Miller and Jackson are 2+ years ahead of Prior and Harden, which is what makes them that special. They are putting up similar numbers as other top prospects, but they are doing it 2-3 years younger then there counterparts. They aren't 1 year above the learning curve, they are 2-3 years above the curve, which is the reason I can argue that they might be able to be good in the majors at 20 or 21, because that is similar to comparing them to other top prospects at 23 or 24 coming into their own. Not only is it that there numbers are impressive, but their raw stuff is what makes them head and shoulders above the rest of the pitching prospects. Thats why I, along with ever scout in the majors/minors, love these guys and think there are 2 of the top 5 pitching prospects in baseball. Its also why Evans is so reluctant to give them up.

 

- In conclusion, my point isn't that they are going to dominate from day 1, but I am suggesting that they could be very effect(ie ERA in the 4.00-4.50 range as a 5th starter) even at the age of 20 or 21. With time they have the ability to develop into a front of the rotation starter. The fact is that pitching prospects of this calibur don't come around that often(see Mark Prior), and to add one of these guys would be like adding a Mark Prior to our organization.

[Chisoxfn]

I feel like I am repeating myself so I will just make some bullet points to summarize my arguement.

 

- Perdo's numbers as a starter in his 1st 3 years(94-96) were still pretty damn impressive, including the fact that he never posted an ERA above 3.70.

 

1994 Mon 24 23 1 1 144.2 115 58  55 11 45 142 11 5 1 0  0 3.42

1995 Mon 30 30 2 2 194.2 158 79  76 21 66 174 14 10 0 0 -- 3.51

1996 Mon 33 33 4 1 216.2 189 100 89 19 70 222 13 10 0 0 -- 3.70

 

- I am suggesting that Jackson and Miller could possible follow a similar learning curve as Pedro. By that I mean they either could be dominating out of the pen from day 1 and eventually move to the rotation, OR they could start in the rotation and put up good number(similar to Pedro his 1st couple of years), but not dominating numbers(maybe with time).

 

- You need to stop with this 1.27 WHIP. You do realize that is below the league average, and is still pretty solid. Furthermore, he showed the ability to pitch around the baserunners as evidence by his low ERA and high SO total.

 

- As unlike as it is that the Sox would be able to land BOTH Jackson and Miller, it is similarly unlikely that the Sox would bring in two big salary starter(like Perez and Ponson). If the suggested Maggs to LA deal would go through, than the Sox would save about 7M. It just so happens that as things stand right now(after arbitration), the Sox are about 5-7M over budget so that 7M saved would go to existing players and not to a player like Ponson at 6M. So the idea of Garland being the 5th starter is highly unlikely, and I think there is a good chance that Jackson could put up better numbers then Garland next year. Besides I like the idea of giving the 5th spot to youngsters, especially if one of those youngsters is either Jackson or Miller. The key to sucess is building from within and suplanenting from outside.

 

- They lack Prior/Harden jaw dropping numbers? Have you even checked the stats? I don't think you have, because here is a breakdown of how each did.

 

Prior 22, AA and AAA(from 2002) 50 IP 7.02H/9IP 3.24BB/9IP 14.22SO/9IP

Harden 21, AAA(from 2003) 88.2IP 7.33H/9IP 3.56BB/9IP 9.23SO/9IP

Jackson 19, AA(from 2003) 148.1IP 7.34H/9IP 3.21BB/9IP 9.53SO/9IP

Miller 18, high A and AA(from 2003) 142.1IP 7.46h/9IP 3.03BB/9IP 9.55SO/9IP

 

- As you can see, besides Prior's SO/9IP rate, there numbers are almost identical, so will you please stop with this "human" type numbers. Not only that, but their walk rates were both lower then Prior and Harden, which I think is maybe the most important stat up there. Furthermore, both Miller and Jackson are 2+ years ahead of Prior and Harden, which is what makes them that special. They are putting up similar numbers as other top prospects, but they are doing it 2-3 years younger then there counterparts. They aren't 1 year above the learning curve, they are 2-3 years above the curve, which is the reason I can argue that they might be able to be good in the majors at 20 or 21, because that is similar to comparing them to other top prospects at 23 or 24 coming into their own. Not only is it that there numbers are impressive, but their raw stuff is what makes them head and shoulders above the rest of the pitching prospects. Thats why I, along with ever scout in the majors/minors, love these guys and think there are 2 of the top 5 pitching prospects in baseball. Its also why Evans is so reluctant to give them up.

 

- In conclusion, my point isn't that they are going to dominate from day 1, but I am suggesting that they could be very effect(ie ERA in the 4.00-4.50 range as a 5th starter) even at the age of 20 or 21. With time they have the ability to develop into a front of the rotation starter. The fact is that pitching prospects of this calibur don't come around that often(see Mark Prior), and to add one of these guys would be like adding a Mark Prior to our organization.

Outstanding post

 

I completely agree with you. I don't think me or you are saying they will come in and dominate out of the gate, but they have the potential to do so and they should be more then capable of holding up with a 4.5 or lower ERA in a full season when they are ready. You can make a case for Jackson being ready now and if he's inserted in as the 5th starter I wouldn't have a problem.

 

Miller is more raw and I think a full year in the minors would be of better benefit to him. Either way these guys are absolute studs, as you mention and are comparable to the best prospects out there over the past few years and right now in my opinion are the best right handed and left handed pitching prospects in the game.

 

And whose to say they don't come in and pitch great like Brandon Webb and Dontrell Willis did this past year.

[BrandoFan]

Outstanding post

 

I completely agree with you.  I don't think me or you are saying they will come in and dominate out of the gate, but they have the potential to do so and they should be more then capable of holding up with a 4.5 or lower ERA in a full season when they are ready.  You can make a case for Jackson being ready now and if he's inserted in as the 5th starter I wouldn't have a problem.

 

Miller is more raw and I think a full year in the minors would be of better benefit to him.  Either way these guys are absolute studs, as you mention and are comparable to the best prospects out there over the past few years and right now in my opinion are the best right handed and left handed pitching prospects in the game.

 

And whose to say they don't come in and pitch great like Brandon Webb and Dontrell Willis did this past year.

So when are they arriving to the Tuscon camp?

[Cerbaho-WG]

Miller is gonna throw "high-90s with ease"? Are you f***ing serious? Don't you mean he'll throw 92-93 touching 95 at times? The way organizations inflate velocities is ridiculous.

 

He's already hitting 95, and he's 6'5 195. As he adds more muscle, I believe he should add more velocity. High 90's isn't out of the question.

[MurcieOne]

If we trade for prospects...... we are basically admitting defeat this season before it starts, and ensuring Ozzie Guillen a long losing honeymoon.

 

I dunno... I like prospects as much as anyone... but can this team stand another rebuilding year?

[BrandoFan]

He's already hitting 95, and he's 6'5 195. As he adds more muscle, I believe he should add more velocity. High 90's isn't out of the question.

 

Everything is possible, tho things like that are not easily projectable.

 

I remember it like yesterday....."Barcelo tops out at 98 and doctors are not ruling out after Tommy John he might hit tripler digits"....."Jon Garland routinely reaches 94-96"......."His name is Kyle Kane and he throws 99"...... Danny Wright was supposed to top out at 97+ as well. They all lied. The only guy I can remember who gained velocity as he matured and moved out of organization was Kip Wells, who was 91-93 with us and 93-97 with Pittburgh.

 

Are you saying Miller is CONSISTENTLY 95 or he touches 95 at times? I've always figured it's the former.

 

Randy Johnson is the ONLY left-hander who throws with the kinda velocity you're expecting from this kid. Something is definately off.

[BrandoFan]

If we trade for prospects...... we are basically admitting defeat this season before it starts, and ensuring Ozzie Guillen a long losing honeymoon.

 

People say Jackson will be challenging for 4-5 spot as early as 2004 and can be the RH man we need to reaplce Tom Gordon. Then you get Mota which would make the bullpen better than last year's. Then you guy Perez and his 5+ Mill as a Dodger salary dump. Another guy to light the fire under Judy's ass.

 

And, of course, about 7 Million in CASH, which buys you One Gone or Palmeiro, who while not as good as Magglio anymore, are still help out.

 

So in effect it's Gonzo + Mota + Jackson + Perez for Magglio "Unsignable" Ordonez.

 

Of course it will never happen.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Everything is possible, tho things like that are not easily projectable. 

 

I remember it like yesterday....."Barcelo tops out at 98 and doctors are not ruling out after Tommy John he might hit 100 digits"....."Joh Garland routinely reaches 94-98"......." His name is Kly Kane and he throws 99"...... Danny Wright was sipposed to to top out at 97+ as well. The only guy I can remember who gained velocity as he matured and moved out of organization was Kip Wells, who was 91-93 with us and 93-97 with Pittburgh.

 

Are you saying Miller is CONSISTENTLY 95 or he touches 95 at times? I've always figured it's the former.

 

Randy Johnson is the ONLY left-hander who throws with the kinda velocity you're expecting from this kid.  Something is definately off.

No, I was saying he touches 95 at times, but usually sita at 92-93. After some bulking up I believe he could hit 97 or so while having his fastball sit comfortably at 94-95.