Jump to content

Gorzelanny, anyone?


chw42

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 04:55 PM)
.781 OPS and was repeating High-A. Not a good contact rate, good walk rate, a little bit of power...he looks like a marginal prospect, perhaps a guy that could develop into a starter or left handed platoon mate at some point down the road, but hardly anything exciting.

 

I forget where I just saw this, but some scout said he is a 60 power, 65 arm, and 55 speed. Those are pretty good ratings. They just said he needs to work on his contact skills. He was the 7th best prospect in the Nats system, a system that included Strasburg, Storen, and other pretty legit players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 04:28 PM)
I forget where I just saw this, but some scout said he is a 60 power, 65 arm, and 55 speed. Those are pretty good ratings. They just said he needs to work on his contact skills. He was the 7th best prospect in the Nats system, a system that included Strasburg, Storen, and other pretty legit players.

 

And making contact is by far the most important aspect of hitting, and isn't an easy thing to improve without sacrificing power. Joe Borchard had better power than that, I assume a better arm, and similar speed, but has been relegated to AAA because he can't make contact.

 

They did well to get a guy with good tools, but as was said, this is Tom Gorzelanny we're talking about here, the Nationals aren't going to trade a monster prospect for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:45 AM)
And making contact is by far the most important aspect of hitting, and isn't an easy thing to improve without sacrificing power. Joe Borchard had better power than that, I assume a better arm, and similar speed, but has been relegated to AAA because he can't make contact.

 

They did well to get a guy with good tools, but as was said, this is Tom Gorzelanny we're talking about here, the Nationals aren't going to trade a monster prospect for him.

Which of course makes one ask the question...why did the Cubs need to do this? They probably didn't get better long term, and they probably didn't get better this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 07:42 AM)
Which of course makes one ask the question...why did the Cubs need to do this? They probably didn't get better long term, and they probably didn't get better this year.

 

$$$$$$$$???

 

I don't know what kind of arbitration number he was looking at, but every dollar counts to the Ricketts right now. They already have an abundance of mediocre at best starters to fill the back of that rotation anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...