PDA

View Full Version : Scouts' Take On Sox


Lip Man 1
03-27-2003, 09:06 PM
For those of you who don't get Sports Illustrated, I thought you might be interested in reading this.

As part of every team's evaluation a scout from another team is asked to give his observations. The scouts name and team affiliation isn't revealed in order to provide honest answers.

SI picks the Sox 2nd in the Central, they also say they will be in the playoff hunt ("By adding an ace and a flamethrowing closer, they're back in the playoff hunt..."

Here is what the scout says (and this piece was authored BEFORE the Danny Wright / Josh Stewert situation...)

"Some people say the Sox won themselves a pennent when they made their off-season moves, but with the 3, 4, 5 starters they have, it's going to be tough...Physically Bartolo Colon looks better, more fit then he has before. If the playoffs started tomorrow, you could match him against anyone in baseball. Mark Buehrle had question marks going into last year, but he relaxed and flourished... The other guys continue to throw harder, not smarter. I'm not sold on Jon Garland , or Danny Wright. Their control and command haven't caught up to their stuff...Billy Koch was a steal. He's what a closer is all about. He'll blow a save or two, but he's a flamethrower and will come in and fire up the team...

Offensively they are strong. Defense is the weakness. Aaron Rowand is not a major league caliber center fielder. Paul Konerko is shaky at first. There are questions up the middle about Jose Valentin and D'Angelo Jimenez...Joe Crede is a future All Star, but they need to be patient. He's going to go through rough patches, but he can hit and can hit for power...Frank Thomas looks the best I've seem him in two or three years. he can still be a force."

Just FYI

Lip

dougs78
03-27-2003, 09:29 PM
I read this as well. I found this to be quite an interesting read on all the teams. I have to say that in reading the blurbs about other teams they seem to be pretty insightful and correct. However, one thing really threw me about this Sox one. That is their saying that PK is shaky at 1st. I really cant' say I agree with that and think we have many other positions that are much weaker than he is. Other than that I agree with them. I dont' think they necessarily slam anyone, just saying what I think we all agree with...that JG and DAnny need to take that next step in their development.

sox_fan_forever
03-27-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
However, one thing really threw me about this Sox one. That is their saying that PK is shaky at 1st. I really cant' say I agree with that and think we have many other positions that are much weaker than he is.

Yeah, that one really threw me too. I'm a PK fan, but I don't think he's a god like some Pk fans do. Still, I've never thought he was shaky...

Lip Man 1
03-27-2003, 10:48 PM
I'm assuming they mean "shaky" defensively since that is the area they were talking about when Konerko's name came up.

Lip

jeremyb1
03-27-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
I read this as well. I found this to be quite an interesting read on all the teams. I have to say that in reading the blurbs about other teams they seem to be pretty insightful and correct. However, one thing really threw me about this Sox one. That is their saying that PK is shaky at 1st. I really cant' say I agree with that and think we have many other positions that are much weaker than he is. Other than that I agree with them. I dont' think they necessarily slam anyone, just saying what I think we all agree with...that JG and DAnny need to take that next step in their development.

i'm skeptical about the comments about garland and wright. wright's only thrown 6 innings in the spring so what time frame is involved here? these are pitchers that struggled with their consistency last season so if we have a scout going off of one or two appearances from last season i don't think that's all that valid. there's no question that both of those pitchers do have the command and control at times or they wouldn't have been able to dominate as they did in certain starts last season. personally, i don't see how a scout is able to determine how consistent a pitcher will be in the future.

hold2dibber
03-28-2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i'm skeptical about the comments about garland and wright. wright's only thrown 6 innings in the spring so what time frame is involved here? these are pitchers that struggled with their consistency last season so if we have a scout going off of one or two appearances from last season i don't think that's all that valid. there's no question that both of those pitchers do have the command and control at times or they wouldn't have been able to dominate as they did in certain starts last season. personally, i don't see how a scout is able to determine how consistent a pitcher will be in the future.

The scout said that their command has not caught up with their stuff. You don't disagree with that, do you? If you look at their numbers last year, one of the things that jumps off the page for me is their high walk totals. I completely agree with the scouts general assesment of them - I'm not sold on them yet either until they can improve their command. I'm don't know if they will or not. But to me, that is the key factor in whether they take the next step from adequate 4/5 starter types to good, solid 2/3 starter types.

dougs78
03-28-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I'm assuming they mean "shaky" defensively since that is the area they were talking about when Konerko's name came up.

Lip

No, I do agree they were discussing PK's defense. I'm just not sure PK actually does have shaky defense. If anything I'd say he and Maggs are our best defenders by position. I'm hoping Crede can join that club this year.


orginally posted by hold2dibberI'm don't know if they will or not. But to me, that is the key factor in whether they take the next step from adequate 4/5 starter types to good, solid 2/3 starter types.

That is exactly the way I interpreted this scout's statement as well. Although I, undoubtedly somewhat biased, believe that Garland will make that turn this year. But overall, going by his career performance, I think the scouts assessment was accurate.

gosox41
03-28-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
I read this as well. I found this to be quite an interesting read on all the teams. I have to say that in reading the blurbs about other teams they seem to be pretty insightful and correct. However, one thing really threw me about this Sox one. That is their saying that PK is shaky at 1st. I really cant' say I agree with that and think we have many other positions that are much weaker than he is. Other than that I agree with them. I dont' think they necessarily slam anyone, just saying what I think we all agree with...that JG and DAnny need to take that next step in their development.

I've been waiting for Garland for 2 years to live up to his hype. Age is a factor, but he has the physical tools to be a success. I do like what I've read about him so far this spring. Maybe he's finally ready to take the next step.

Bob

34 Inch Stick
03-28-2003, 09:04 AM
I would never call PK's defense shaky. Frank Thomas is shaky, where he can hurt you by being out there. Konerko is no worse than average, he will not hurt you or win one for you. I always thought he was above average, but that is not my job.

As for Garland/Wright. The assessment is correct, although I think Garland had enough good starts in the second half and spring training to anticipate improvement this year. Wright is still questionable to me.

The thing that I question, is no mention of the catching situation. Now I would call that even shakier than center field, shortstop or second base. Also the lack of a proven leadoff hitter concerns me. He is the expert though.

sox_fan_forever
03-28-2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
I would never call PK's defense shaky. Frank Thomas is shaky, where he can hurt you by being out there. Konerko is no worse than average, he will not hurt you or win one for you. I always thought he was above average, but that is not my job.


Agreed. I have never thought his defense was shaky. Not great, but not bad either. Like you said, average.

Foulke You
03-28-2003, 11:59 AM
What I found odd is the comment about "Wright and Garland throwing harder, not smarter". While I agree that they aren't the smartest of pitchers, I don't necessarily remember them throwing any harder than they did when they came up with the team. Have their fastballs been clocked higher on the radar gun this Spring?

jeremyb1
03-28-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
The scout said that their command has not caught up with their stuff. You don't disagree with that, do you? If you look at their numbers last year, one of the things that jumps off the page for me is their high walk totals. I completely agree with the scouts general assesment of them - I'm not sold on them yet either until they can improve their command. I'm don't know if they will or not. But to me, that is the key factor in whether they take the next step from adequate 4/5 starter types to good, solid 2/3 starter types.

yeah. i disagree with that. if you can't locate your pitches you can't hold down a starting job the entire season and you can't win 10+ games with a decent era. maybe its just how i'm interpreting the comments of the scout but i interpret them as being quite negative. garland was an excellent 4 last season. i don' t see how you could not be "sold" on him as a major league starter. maybe the scout is just saying he's not sold on garland as a top of the rotation starter right now but that's not how i understood his comments.

again i do disagree that garland lacks good command. he may not have it on a consistent basis but that's different than not possessing good command at all in my opinion. garland had seven games last season in which he allowed one or zero walks. that indicates to me that he does have command as far as a tool.