Post by: Jacksonian on March 16, 2005, 12:20:49 pm
Post by: jasonact on March 16, 2005, 07:57:11 pm
Thanks. I'm loving this forum.
Post by: Jacksonian on March 16, 2005, 11:34:28 pm
Quote:
What's the deal with Carlos Rivera? I know he's a NRI, but what are his + and -? What's his history?
IMO, think Pedro Serrano before the "fuck you Jobu I do it myself."
Quote:
Where might he end up? Any chance of being added to 40-man?
Only if he also makes the 25-man.
Quote:
Thanks. I'm loving this forum.
On behalf of the MR/MO staff, you're welcome.
Post by: stubbyc on March 25, 2005, 11:14:31 pm
11) Qualls
12) J. Gutierrez
13) Whiteman
14) Gimenez
15) Barthmaier
16) Zobrist
17) L. Scott
18) Santangelo
19) Parraz
20) Reineke
21) Gothreaux
22) Talbot
23) Conrad
24) Maysonet
25) McLemore
26) Hirsh
27) Alcantara
28) Self
29) Bruntlett
30) Sutil
No huge complaints here with their list. There were a few names mentioned as just missing who I've never heard of and couldn't find on The Baseball Cube. Could I get any information on SS Ronald Ramirez or RHP Celsan Polanco?
Post by: Jacksonian on March 26, 2005, 12:48:46 am
Quote:
There were a few names mentioned as just missing who I've never heard of and couldn't find on The Baseball Cube. Could I get any information on SS Ronald Ramirez or RHP Celsan Polanco?
I challenge you, stubby, to use the resources provided in MR to find at least some statistical info on those guys. Hint: VSL/DSL. DSL will require extra work.
Both of those guys may actually be in the US this summer. I'll try to track down some info but no guarantees.
Post by: stubbyc on March 26, 2005, 01:03:58 am
Post by: stubbyc on March 26, 2005, 01:11:17 am
Post by: Jacksonian on March 26, 2005, 01:13:53 am
Quote:
Well I have managed to dig up some information on Ramirez. He's a stringy 19 year old 6'0 SS who hit .277/.356/.369 with 16 SB's in the VSL last year. His fielding % is pretty brutal, but you'd expect that from a guy who was 18 years old all of last year. The most positive thing about him seems to be that he walked more than he struckout last year.
He's also got some speed. As for defense, there's no telling what VSL infields looked like last season. When guys like this get mentioned it usually refers to raw tools. I'd guess, and it's only a guess, but I'd say his tools are likely speed (range) and arm.
Post by: stubbyc on March 27, 2005, 10:50:17 pm
Post by: EasTexAstro on March 27, 2005, 11:31:46 pm
Quote:
Mike Burns.....why isn't this guy getting a longer look? He put up some outstanding rates last year and could really help the bullpen if he pitches anything close to that this year. Is this another guy the Astros are going to waste away in AA or AAA regardless of how he performs?
I'm not one of the local experts, but I suspect that with the concerns with the pen the Astros have had over the last year and possibly the next year, if he was anywhere near ready to help, he wouldn't be "wasting away." I'm betting there are a few details you are missing.
Post by: Andyzipp on March 28, 2005, 09:45:03 am
Post by: Jacksonian on March 28, 2005, 01:20:59 pm
Quote:
Mike Burns.....why isn't this guy getting a longer look? He put up some outstanding rates last year and could really help the bullpen if he pitches anything close to that this year. Is this another guy the Astros are going to waste away in AA or AAA regardless of how he performs?
I see Burns a lot like Houlton. He put up nice stats but when you look at his arsenal none of his pitches stand up and say "I can get major league hitters out." Jared Gothreaux's slider does and that is why he is very near being in the Astros bullpen.
Post by: Kent's Moustache on March 28, 2005, 03:53:28 pm
At the end of the day, which is more important: a pitch that looks like it can major league hitters out, or a proven track record of getting hitters out?
Post by: Jacksonian on March 28, 2005, 04:10:02 pm
Quote:
At the end of the day, which is more important: a pitch that looks like it can major league hitters out, or a proven track record of getting hitters out?
The actions of the parent club. The Astros chose to include Gothreaux on the 40-man with a special note about his slider and not Burns and Houlton despite their good work.
Post by: stubbyc on March 28, 2005, 06:03:31 pm
Quote:Quote:
At the end of the day, which is more important: a pitch that looks like it can major league hitters out, or a proven track record of getting hitters out?
The actions of the parent club. The Astros chose to include Gothreaux on the 40-man with a special note about his slider and not Burns and Houlton despite their good work.
Well with all due respect to the front office, if Burns puts up anything close to the #'s he put up last year this year in AAA he should at least be given a chance.
I view Mike Burns as a poor man's Keith Foulke. Very good control, soft tosser, finesse, etc. I think he's also very similar to Kirk Saarloos who was actually pretty decent as a reliever for us.
I thought Houlton had an outstanding curveball and not much else?
Post by: Kent's Moustache on March 28, 2005, 06:39:31 pm
Quote:
At the end of the day, which is more important: a pitch that looks like it can major league hitters out, or a proven track record of getting hitters out?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actions of the parent club. The Astros chose to include Gothreaux on the 40-man with a special note about his slider and not Burns and Houlton despite their good work.
Funny, until I started posting here, I never realized that this is a faith-based Board. Kidding.
Personally, I'm a big fan of Gothreaux as well. His slider, when it's on, can be baffling. Also, he can warm the fastball up to 92-93 mph on occasion. However, he also has a penchant for giving up the long ball.
I suppose this is yet another case of "projection" vs. "performance"...
Post by: No? in Austin on March 28, 2005, 10:55:40 pm
Quote:
Funny, until I started posting here, I never realized that this is a faith-based Board. Kidding.
Until you started posting here, we never realized how arrogant fans can really get about knowing more than the organization. Kidding.
Post by: JimR on March 28, 2005, 11:27:46 pm
Post by: stubbyc on March 28, 2005, 11:50:29 pm
Quote:
Burns is not a soft-tosser, but he has had more ups and downs than an elevator. i have heard nothing about him this spring.
Do you have a scouting report? I think it was Callis who said that Burns topped out around 90mph.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 29, 2005, 01:09:08 am
Quote:Quote:
Burns is not a soft-tosser, but he has had more ups and downs than an elevator. i have heard nothing about him this spring.
Do you have a scouting report? I think it was Callis who said that Burns topped out around 90mph.
90 is not a soft tosser.
Post by: VirtualBob on March 29, 2005, 09:46:53 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Burns is not a soft-tosser, but he has had more ups and downs than an elevator. i have heard nothing about him this spring.
Do you have a scouting report? I think it was Callis who said that Burns topped out around 90mph.
90 is not a soft tosser.
And I have seen him at 91 or 92 on the Dell Diamond gun. Very hittable in '03; almost unhittable in '04. I expect a 'best-two-out-of-three' as he spends his 3rd year in Round Rock (1st at AAA, of course). Here's hoping ...
Post by: Kent's Moustache on March 29, 2005, 12:34:48 pm
Quote:
Funny, until I started posting here, I never realized that this is a faith-based Board. Kidding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until you started posting here, we never realized how arrogant fans can really get about knowing more than the organization. Kidding.
Wow. If I am the most "arrogant" thing that this Board has seen regarding the organization's decision-making, then OWA has truly had a charmed existence.
I'm intrigued, though, about the Board's definition of "arrogance." Personally, I had not previously considered that raising an honest question about whether "projection" vs. "performance" was the truest measure of player evaluation constitutes arrogance. Of course, I also never considered "whatever the organization believes is correct" to be a fulfilling answer to that question. It's an answer alright, in an Orwellian or Aggie sort of way, but not a very fulfilling one.
This discussion does, however, help me further understand why so many baseball professionals and afficionados rushed to denounce "Moneyball" without actually having read it or considered the validity of its hypotheses.
Post by: Jacksonian on March 29, 2005, 12:42:03 pm
Quote:
Of course, I also never considered "whatever the organization believes is correct" to be a fulfilling answer to that question. It's an answer alright, in an Orwellian or Aggie sort of way, but not a very fulfilling one.
If this is in response to my earlier answer to your question then you need to reread the answer. Yes I did say what the club does however when you read the second sentence you see I give an example that answered your question. Pitch vs. track record? Pitch and track record over track record is the more complete answer.
Post by: Kent's Moustache on March 29, 2005, 01:07:10 pm
Quote:
If this is in response to my earlier answer to your question then you need to reread the answer. Yes I did say what the club does however when you read the second sentence you see I give an example that answered your question. Pitch vs. track record? Pitch and track record over track record is the more complete answer.
I didn't infer said proposition from your initial response.
I do think it a reasonable proposition, although I'm not sure if Goat vs. Burns/Houlton is a solid example.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 29, 2005, 01:23:40 pm
Quote:
Wow. If I am the most "arrogant" thing that this Board has seen regarding the organization's decision-making, then OWA has truly had a charmed existence.
I'm intrigued, though, about the Board's definition of "arrogance." Personally, I had not previously considered that raising an honest question about whether "projection" vs. "performance" was the truest measure of player evaluation constitutes arrogance. Of course, I also never considered "whatever the organization believes is correct" to be a fulfilling answer to that question. It's an answer alright, in an Orwellian or Aggie sort of way, but not a very fulfilling one.
This discussion does, however, help me further understand why so many baseball professionals and afficionados rushed to denounce "Moneyball" without actually having read it or considered the validity of its hypotheses.
Ahum... *Kidding*... don't get bent out of shape over nothing, just making a funny like you did. *Sheesh*, paranoid enough? How you made a giant leap into Moneyball from my little funny remark is really beyond me.
Loosen up the tie counselor.
Post by: Kent's Moustache on March 29, 2005, 04:21:27 pm
I perceived, apparently incorrectly, that your liner about "arrogance" was intended with considerably less levity than my tongue-in-cheek "faith-based" comment. I stand corrected.
My comment about "Moneyball" was in follow-up to the discussion about "projection" vs. "performance" in terms of player evaluation, which I understood to be one of the book's central themes.
Don't get me wrong--I'm neither a Beane nor James disciple, and I certainly do not worship at the altar of sabermetrics. "Moneyball" did, however, make me question the way I thought about front office baseball, from both a macro (team payroll, lineup, etc.) to a micro (individual player evaluation) perspective. Specifically, it also led me to believe that an individual scout's, cross-checker's, scouting director, or GM's opinion of a player is always subject to question.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 29, 2005, 05:08:58 pm
Quote:
"Moneyball" did, however, make me question the way I thought about front office baseball, from both a macro (team payroll, lineup, etc.) to a micro (individual player evaluation) perspective. Specifically, it also led me to believe that an individual scout's, cross-checker's, scouting director, or GM's opinion of a player is always subject to question.
Translated, you're into "faith-based" as well, but in a different manner?
Post by: Duman on March 30, 2005, 09:54:41 am
Post by: Jacksonian on March 30, 2005, 11:30:35 am
Quote:
I know that the Minor league season is about a week away. Any word on who is where?
Hopefully coming soon.
Post by: EasTexAstro on March 30, 2005, 11:35:39 am
Quote:Quote:
I know that the Minor league season is about a week away. Any word on who is where?
Hopefully coming soon.
I know the rosters are coming, but for those who just have to have a few tidbits now, I did find this link for the Hooks:
Quote:
Those players who appear to be definite at this point are pitchers Nick Bourgeois, Tim McClaskey, Mark McLemore, Fernando Nieve and Chris Sampson; outfielders Josh Anderson, Charlton Jimerson and Mike Rodriguez; first baseman-third baseman Mark Saccomanno and catcher Hector Gimenez. Third baseman-designated hitter Junior Zamora also is a likely candidate, with third baseman Scott Coolbaugh being one of the eight optioned by the Astros on Tuesday.
Post by: Jacksonian on March 30, 2005, 11:44:32 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
I know that the Minor league season is about a week away. Any word on who is where?
Hopefully coming soon.
I know the rosters are coming, but for those who just have to have a few tidbits now, I did find this link for the Hooks:
Quote:
Those players who appear to be definite at this point are pitchers Nick Bourgeois, Tim McClaskey, Mark McLemore, Fernando Nieve and Chris Sampson; outfielders Josh Anderson, Charlton Jimerson and Mike Rodriguez; first baseman-third baseman Mark Saccomanno and catcher Hector Gimenez. Third baseman-designated hitter Junior Zamora also is a likely candidate, with third baseman Scott Coolbaugh being one of the eight optioned by the Astros on Tuesday.
I'm not sure why he got left out, but Hirsh has been pitching regularly with Sampson and Nieve in the AA group.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 30, 2005, 01:00:20 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
I know that the Minor league season is about a week away. Any word on who is where?
Hopefully coming soon.
I know the rosters are coming, but for those who just have to have a few tidbits now, I did find this link for the Hooks:
Quote:
Those players who appear to be definite at this point are pitchers Nick Bourgeois, Tim McClaskey, Mark McLemore, Fernando Nieve and Chris Sampson; outfielders Josh Anderson, Charlton Jimerson and Mike Rodriguez; first baseman-third baseman Mark Saccomanno and catcher Hector Gimenez. Third baseman-designated hitter Junior Zamora also is a likely candidate, with third baseman Scott Coolbaugh being one of the eight optioned by the Astros on Tuesday.
I'm not sure why he got left out, but Hirsh has been pitching regularly with Sampson and Nieve in the AA group.
Scott Coolbaugh is no longer a major leaguer. Mike Coolbaugh, his brother got reassigned yesterday by the Astros. It is the desire of the Astros to have both Royce Huffman and Mike Coolbaugh catch at least one game a week to learn the position. That would make either man available to be called up if they need a good hitting right handed hitter for the bench. It makes sense to send Coolbaugh to AA and Huffman to AAA to get that one game a week learning experience. Humberto Quinonez will get the lion share of duty and Tremie and Norris pretty much are career minor leaguers, soon to be coaches type of players. Gimenez will get the lion share of catching duties in AA.
BTW - Tim McClaskey is at best a middle reliever/long reliever/spot starter in the making for the majors... if he makes it that far. Think Joe Slusarski (ironically the AA pitching coach) for a frame of reference on McClaskey. Why he would be a starter at AA right now is anyone's guess I suppose.
Post by: Jacksonian on March 30, 2005, 05:16:55 pm
P: Nieve, Sampson, Hirsh, McClaskey, Peguero, Mansfield, Kesten, Rijo, and McLemore. There should be at least 1 more joining the team presumably when the Astros make their final cuts.
OF: Anderson, Jimerson, M. Rodriguez, C. Rodriguez. There should be another but I didn't get that info.
IF: Zamora, Eckelman, Santora, Saccomanno
C: Gimenez, Fatheree. Might get another infielder or catcher, not sure.
There are some rumors about guys not advancing as expected. But, that is probably reflected in the big club's uncertainty for the final spots and subsequent reassignments.
Post by: stubbyc on March 30, 2005, 05:57:39 pm
Is Hirsh still in the plans? I'm not sure how much I can rely on these reports, but I've heard that his stuff was extremely inconsistent last year and he was a major disappointment.
Post by: stubbyc on March 30, 2005, 05:58:27 pm
Post by: Jacksonian on March 30, 2005, 06:14:39 pm
Quote:
Interesting that they're promoting Anderson after he struggled so much in high A ball last year.
I was a bit surprised as well. I have a couple of followup feelers out. We'll see.
Quote:
Is Hirsh still in the plans?
He is very much in their plans and is in the Corpus rotation. This is a big year for Jason. He has moved through the Astros system quite quickly. They had him skip low-A last year which is something they don't do with every pitcher. The jump to AA is huge and if he can put together a solid season his stock will rise rapidly. Remember, he was drafted just 2 years ago and stands now just two levels from Houston. He'll be 23 all season which is a good age for a AA pitcher.
Quote:
I'm not sure how much I can rely on these reports, but I've heard that his stuff was extremely inconsistent last year and he was a major disappointment.
I see you've read BAonline. They're sloppy with this kind of reporting. Hirsh had trouble with his mechanics all year which led to his low strikeout total. Also, last season was his first at a full-season club. Astros minor league pitchers throw everyday as well. The result: he wore down at the end of the year. We've got reports that he's ironed out his mechanics and had a strong instructional league and I didn't hear about any problems with his work at spring training.
Post by: Jacksonian on March 30, 2005, 06:16:15 pm
Quote:
Also, on Gothreaux. Is he being viewed strictly as a reliever now? Will he be a starter at AAA like Qualls was?
I understand that he's looked at in a similar way as Qualls. I don't know whether he'll start or relieve, yet. I'll guess start, to get innings.
Post by: Kent's Moustache on March 30, 2005, 06:25:54 pm
Quote:
Scott Coolbaugh is no longer a major leaguer. Mike Coolbaugh, his brother got reassigned yesterday by the Astros.
Good catch, Noe.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Scott Coolbaugh managed a Texas league team last season, perhaps the El Paso Diablos...
Post by: VirtualBob on March 31, 2005, 06:44:53 pm
Thanks.
Post by: Jacksonian on March 31, 2005, 06:52:55 pm
Quote:
Two days in a row now I have seen Wade Robinson's name in the box scores. He apparently got some late inning time at 2B in today's game. I figured he would be the starting SS at CC this year. Any idea (a) why he is still in camp? or (b) how he has done? or (c) how the Astrobrass view his development??
Thanks.
A) He's working on his defense as much as anything.
B) He's fine.
C) He'll go back to Salem and work on his defense. The Astros apparently did not like his defensive work last year as evidenced by the number of errors he committed. If he can iron out the wrinkles and continue to hit, he'll eventually move up.
Post by: VirtualBob on March 31, 2005, 11:20:02 pm
So ... if Robinson is headed back to Salem, does that mean that Alex Eckelman will be playing SS at Corpus?? Or is some other semi-prospect going to play there?
Post by: Jacksonian on March 31, 2005, 11:29:22 pm
Quote:
Thanks.
So ... if Robinson is headed back to Salem, does that mean that Alex Eckelman will be playing SS at Corpus?? Or is some other semi-prospect going to play there?
I'm not sure yet. Final Houston assignments and cuts may have an impact at the AA level.