Jim Callis on Haeger and Broadway

[SSH2005]

On Charles Haeger...

 

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=10431

Tony Coleman (Wilmington, DE): Besides Charlie Zink, are there any knuckleballers in the minors that we can expect to make the majors in the next few seasons?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: I'm not sure Zink is going to make the majors--he hasn't cracked my Red Sox Top 30 in our Prospect Handbook for the last two years, Charlie Haeger of the White Sox might have a better shot.

On Lance Broadway...

 

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=10431

Dave (Chicago): What can we expect out of Lance Broadway?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: Solid but not spectacular middle-of-the-rotation starter, should move quickly through the minors for the White Sox.

Edited January 14, 2006 by SSH2005

[sayitaintso]

On Charles Haeger...

 

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=10431

On Lance Broadway...

 

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=10431

Broadway!

[Balta1701]

"Moving quickly through the minors" - probably the most important thing right now, since it looks like we will be down to 5 starters either this year or next, and if he have a decent middle of the order guy in AA...that would be useful.

[AddisonStSox]

A couple questions for Rex, BH, and the rest of the gang.

 

1) Why should I not fear a knuckler playing the bulk of his games in US Cellular Field? I'm sure some comparison can be drawn to Wakefield playing in Fenway, or Charlie Hough playing at Comisky, but, I'd be awfully surprised to see this kid work out.

 

2) Why am I thinking drafting polished, collegiate pitchers is the way to go? I know you can always find some gems straight out of high school, but, if I were in the front office, I'd much prefer to see a collegiate player drafted in the early rounds. Is that thinking dangerous?

[Rex Hudler]

A couple questions for Rex, BH, and the rest of the gang.

 

1) Why should I not fear a knuckler playing the bulk of his games in US Cellular Field?  I'm sure some comparison can be drawn to Wakefield playing in Fenway, or Charlie Hough playing at Comisky, but, I'd be awfully surprised to see this kid work out.

 

2) Why am I thinking drafting polished, collegiate pitchers is the way to go?  I know you can always find some gems straight out of high school, but, if I were in the front office, I'd much prefer to see a collegiate player drafted in the early rounds.  Is that thinking dangerous?

 

 

1). The odds are definitely against Haeger. Regardless of what part he plays in, it will be difficult for him to get to the Majors let alone be successful. If he makes it, he will be the exception rather than the rule. At this point, I would consider him a longshot at best.

 

2). That is definitely the safest route to go, but not always the best. Who you draft is pretty circumstanstial and a good club might have to change their strategy each year based on where they are drafting, the quality of players being drafted and what other teams are doing. If you are drafting 15th and the other teams are going after "polished, collegiate pitchers" then you may find more value in drafting the 3rd best HS pitcher than the 7th best college pitcher. It also may depend on the depth of your farm system and your ability to attract free agent pitchers.

 

Until you factor in all of those elements, I don't think you can say drafting one way is smarter than another. Not without being smart enough to know you may need to do the opposite the next year, anyway.....

[BHAMBARONS]

A couple questions for Rex, BH, and the rest of the gang.

 

1) Why should I not fear a knuckler playing the bulk of his games in US Cellular Field?  I'm sure some comparison can be drawn to Wakefield playing in Fenway, or Charlie Hough playing at Comisky, but, I'd be awfully surprised to see this kid work out.

 

2) Why am I thinking drafting polished, collegiate pitchers is the way to go?  I know you can always find some gems straight out of high school, but, if I were in the front office, I'd much prefer to see a collegiate player drafted in the early rounds.  Is that thinking dangerous?

 

 

1. From what I seen of Haig I agree with Rex in saying that Haig is a big long shot to make it. Wakefield still has a pitch to keep the hitters off balance but Haig's fastball is 80-82 and if he facing an experienced lineup with the Knuckle ball not dancing like it should he will be in serious trouble. Walks are also an issue for Haig because he doesn't have a great K pitch, he gives up a couple of walks and all of the sudden he has to rely on the fastball which just won't cut in the majors.

 

2. I like college players as well and they are the safe bet but really it depends on the front office, are they more risk takers? Or do they like the take it safe approach with the safe college pick? I tend to agree with you about the college players but I have also seen some good prospects in high school and there are some players that are certainly worth the risk.

Edited January 18, 2006 by BHAMBARONS

[Randar68]

2. I like college players as well and they are the safe bet but really it depends on the front office, are they more risk takers? Or do they like the money ball approach with the safe the pick?  I tend to agree with you about the college players but I have also seen some good prospects in high school and there are some players that are certainly worth the risk.

 

What is the hardest thing to do in drafting and player development? (aside from finding/developing top catchers, ;-))

 

IMO, it's finding/developing ace starting pitchers. The problem with college pitchers is that most of the ace starters that have come from college are top 15-pick type pitchers.

 

You're going for the HR with HS kids. Projecting both physical and mental/emotional growth into something. College kids take much less imagination/vision to see, as much of the physical and mental part has already begun to mature.

 

It comes down to organizational philosophy. If your strategy is to sign/trade for ace pitchers and rely on your organization to supply you with 3, 4, and 5 starters, drafting college pitchers is the way to go. Not only is it more likely the develop, but they are also more ready to be tantalizing trade bait in said deals. It seems this is the philosophy KW has taken in the past 2 or 3 years.

[Balta1701]

2. I like college players as well and they are the safe bet but really it depends on the front office, are they more risk takers? Or do they like the money ball approach with the safe the pick?  I tend to agree with you about the college players but I have also seen some good prospects in high school and there are some players that are certainly worth the risk.

I sort of disagree that this is the "Moneyball" approach. To me, the whole "Moneyball" approach was focused on finding value in places other teams were undervaluing. Teams were overvaluing BA against OBP, so Beane put together teams composed of high OBP players, etc.

 

The draft story I got was that Beane felt people were overvaluing high school level performances, and not giving enough value to college performances. So, he went and focused his drafts on guys who had performed to his criteria in college. But now, people have started valuing college performances more highly, so that under-valuation has corrected itself, and voila...the A's were drafting High Schoolers and college players both last year.

 

The Moneyball philosophy is that to compete in the big leagues, you have to find value wherever you can. It's a risk to draft a high-schooler, but if a guy starts to drop in the draft because he's a high-schooler, then at some level it does become worht the risk.

[BHAMBARONS]

I sort of disagree that this is the "Moneyball" approach.  To me, the whole "Moneyball" approach was focused on finding value in places other teams were undervaluing.  Teams were overvaluing BA against OBP, so Beane put together teams composed of high OBP players, etc.

 

The draft story I got was that Beane felt people were overvaluing high school level performances, and not giving enough value to college performances.  So, he went and focused his drafts on guys who had performed to his criteria in college.  But now, people have started valuing college performances more highly, so that under-valuation has corrected itself, and voila...the A's were drafting High Schoolers and college players both last year.

 

The Moneyball philosophy is that to compete in the big leagues, you have to find value wherever you can.  It's a risk to draft a high-schooler, but if a guy starts to drop in the draft because he's a high-schooler, then at some level it does become worht the risk.

 

Yes I agree and have edited the post

[Texsox]

I think this can be a position by position and a current state of the roster situation.

 

In general, I like college pitchers. A few more innings pitched, and against better talent, starts to reveal any structure issues.

 

Roster situation. If I'm the Yankees, I'd take all the chances in the world on left side infielders, those positions seem nailed down for a few more years. College outfielders make more sense.

 

Finally, in favor of HS draftees, who would you rather have coaching a player, your minor league system or a college staff of questionable skills and methods?

 

Another factor is how loose you are in dealing prospects. If I was a develop my team in house type, I might opt for more HS picks, if I was a deal 'em kind of GM, I'd take the quicker to be almost ready college kids. (Actually, I need to rethink that last bit, that could go either way.)

[FLsouthsider]

Finally, in favor of HS draftees, who would you rather have coaching a player, your minor league system or a college staff of questionable skills and methods?

 

While I see your point about having your coaches developing talent and teaching things by the organization's formula, I'm not sure where you're going with ripping college coaches. Some of the best baseball coaches period have been in the college ranks (the late Rod Dedeaux comes to mind).

 

While some kids might not get a lot out of the college experience, some have been helped tremendously by playing college ball. Players that age (17-21) need to mature as people, too.

[Texsox]

While I see your point about having your coaches developing talent and teaching things by the organization's formula, I'm not sure where you're going with ripping college coaches. Some of the best baseball coaches period have been in the college ranks (the late Rod Dedeaux comes to mind).

 

While some kids might not get a lot out of the college experience, some have been helped tremendously by playing college ball. Players that age (17-21) need to mature as people, too.

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Not all college staffs are top shelf, some are down right terrible, while other are arguably better than a Rookie ball or A staff. Instead of questionable, I should have said unknown, inconsistent, or something along those lines.