Jump to content

Tiger Cubs (notes on the minors)


gehringer_2

Recommended Posts

Was watching the Tigers Minor league report YouTube cast of the draft. One of the fellas on there was raving about Jobe adding a 3rd pitch with a 2600+ spin rate ( a cutter) said he was already a bit of a unicorn with two pitches ( a FB and SL) that had high spin rates.  If his health holds up...which is forever a concern wit pitchers, passing on Mayer and Lawlar might wind up being a good bit less painful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to JHM being in the top 5 I have him there just cause I think he has a higher floor than all the other Tigers prospects.(not counting this class since I dont know much about them or the guys I have above him)

I think at the very least JHM is going to be a league average bat in MLB for atleast a few seasons. While that isn't all that valuable as a whole as a floor that is alot more than I can say about the rest of the Tigers prospects outside of the folks I mentioned. 

Edited by RandyMarsh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Clark

2. Keith

3. Jobe

4. JHM

5. McGonigle

6. Jung

7. Flores

8. Meadows

9. Madden

10. Dingler

Based mostly on the likelihood to get to the majors and have some sort of impact. Really wanted to include Graham and/or Santana, but they have been pretty inconsistent at low A.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shinzaki said:

I would put Jobe at #3 on raw materials alone...I would rank McGonigle in the top 5 and Anderson in the top 10 ahead of Dingler

You could certainly make a case for Jobe to be that high considering the stuff he has flashed since he came back this year but I still want to see a bit more from him to confirm that he is healthy and last season's subpar performance along with the injury was just a fluke thing and something that is behind him now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think alot of it goes to how you view your ratings, like if you put more emphasis on upside then I think Jung may be a little high in mine and others cause I don't see All Star level upside but if you put emphasis on the likelihood they amount to anything in the big leagues than I think Jung is worthy of being a top 5 prospect for us.

I think his bat is good enough to be a solid contributor for an MLB team but unlikely to be a true impact one, yeah his defense will probably be subpar but he can stick around in the MLB if he can put up league average or slightly better offensive numbers and be able to play at 3B or 2nd in a pinch if need be which barring some sorta major injury or rapid decline is something that I feel pretty confident  in that he will be at the least. And who knows maybe the bat turns out better than expected, there certainly is a non zero chance that it does indeed become a plus one. 

Edited by RandyMarsh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Meadows, I’m concerned about how his swing and miss will be exploited in the majors.  Seems like all of the other tools are there—power, speed and defense.  Jung seems like he’ll hit and have some power, with speed and defense lacking.  

Great opportunities for the new player development team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess some of this is due to the vagueness of a simple ranking. There isn’t any way to discern the gaps between players. No tiers. I would put Clark and Keith in one tier and the rest in another. Plus the whole floor/ceiling thing and how close/injury possibility. Time to get back to playing the games and see how it all turns out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said:

I guess some of this is due to the vagueness of a simple ranking. There isn’t any way to discern the gaps between players. No tiers. I would put Clark and Keith in one tier and the rest in another. Plus the whole floor/ceiling thing and how close/injury possibility. Time to get back to playing the games and see how it all turns out. 

Agreed, I think Clark and Keith are in their own tier then after that there are a number of different players that you can basically put in any order depending on your views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to statcast Jobe's stuff has been electric and as advertised when we drafted him but as you said it has been an extremely small sample and he hasn't thrown many pitches in any starts so it's hard to say if he would maintain that throughout a regular length start.

If he shows he can then I definitely think he is worthy of being a top 3-5 prospect for us with the potential to be even higher down the road cause there is no doubt that the stuff he is featuring thus far is Cy Young caliber stuff. He'd be in the top 1% in both velo and spin rate among starters in the Majors if the numbers he has shown this year actually ended up being his norm even in longer starts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dan Gilmore said:

I am not sold on Jung that high in the rankings, and also am a bit more optimistic about PMeadows. Each has short term successful periods, I think Meadows positional value is much greater. What do the rest of you think about that?

I think if Harris was high on Meadows he would have taken Langford and I suspect both Mcmonigle and Anderson will be better than Jung but I am overly pessimistic about Avila drafts and probably overly hopeful with Harris. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

I think if Harris was high on Meadows he would have taken Langford 

not sure I understand this--if Harris was high on Meadows, wouldn't he be more comfortable taking a HS who might take longer to develop?

Probably doesn't matter, because I doubt Harris' opinion of anyone he inherited would have factored in, especially if he was drafting for BPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoCalTiger said:

I think if Harris was high on Meadows he would have taken Langford and I suspect both Mcmonigle and Anderson will be better than Jung but I am overly pessimistic about Avila drafts and probably overly hopeful with Harris. 

I don't think you can consider position too much at the top of a baseball draft, you have to go BPA. I think people are just surprised they had Clark higher on their board than Langford, but to listen to Harris and you hear him telling you that they aren't scouting performance as much as the factors they have identified as projectable.  I certainly can't pass judgment one way or the other on whether they are right, but just from what I've read about the two prospects, I can believe the Tigers probably think Lanford is already closer to his ceiling than Clark and that's why Clark was higher on their board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Also, my impression of Meadows is that he is the type of prospect you want to watch, but not one you pencil into the future starting lineup.  

He's getting close to the cusp of reasonable call up material - OPS, walk rate, power have all improved, but that 27-28% K rate is just kind of stuck there. Under 30%  so maybe not a total killer but it's certainly high enough to keep his future cloudy.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...