PDA

View Full Version : Last Sox prospect to live up to the hype


32nd&Wallace
09-27-2005, 10:56 AM
BMAC is starting tonight. Got me thinking. WHo is the last Sox player who was pretty hyped up in the minors that actually made good on the hype when he got here. Can anybody think of anyone without going back to Frank? I can't. Magglio and Carlos lee don't count because they weren't hyped.

mdep524
09-27-2005, 11:05 AM
It depends on what your defintion of "hyped" is, I guess. I would say Magglio and Caballo were relatively hyped when they reached the majors, though certainly not as much as McCarthy.

Ray Durham was hyped, and he had himself a pretty good major league career. Robin Ventura too. Then the whole crop of pitchers from the early '90s- McDowell, Fernandez, Bere, Alvarez. I don't remember how much hype surrounded them but they all came up and produced.

And of course, this thread won't be complete until someone mentions Mike Caruso.

cleanwsox
09-27-2005, 11:21 AM
I think the Big Hurt lived up to expectations.

kittle42
09-27-2005, 11:22 AM
Jeremy Reed.

gobears1987
09-27-2005, 11:26 AM
Joe Crede lived up to the expectations of his hitting abilities.

Baby Fisk
09-27-2005, 11:28 AM
Joe Crede lived up to the expectations of his hitting abilities.
To be fair to Joseph, I think he's lived up to HIS hype, ie.: we were never promised another Ventura, but he's been a serviceable 3Bman. Certainly not a bust.

Hitmen77
09-27-2005, 11:43 AM
We had hyped prospects 4 years in a row that lived up to the hype - McDowell, Ventura, Thomas, and Fernandez. After that, I can't think of anyone.

This is in contrast to the Indians who have so many prospects that have lived up to their billing that I can't keep track of them. That's gotta say something about each team's organization.

Frankly Missing
09-27-2005, 11:51 AM
Konerko didn't come from our minors but I seem to remember the Dodgers being very enthusiastic about him coming up in their farm system.

They barely gave him any play time in the big game, however I can't really blame them because he barely hit about the Mendoza line.

He was awful again in Cincinnati.

Something really clicked for him here in '99.

It's been mutally a satisfying arrangement!

jshanahanjr
09-27-2005, 12:02 PM
Do you think either the Dogs are Reds wish they still had good old PK? He's not Frank, but he's pretty darn good. Thank you Schueler for trading for Paulie. Where would we be now without him?

I think Crede and Rowand have contributed to a good number of wins. McCarthy and Anderson are the next two.

TaylorStSox
09-27-2005, 12:15 PM
Jon Garland
Mike Cameron

Brian26
09-27-2005, 12:24 PM
I would say Magglio and Caballo were relatively hyped when they reached the majors, though certainly not as much as McCarthy.

I actually don't recall as much hype around Mags and Caballo. Didn't they just sort of come up and happen to get hot at the same time? I don't think the Sox had any idea they would get as much service and production from those guys.

ode to veeck
09-27-2005, 12:27 PM
Hurt and McDowell come to mind, and they lived up to the expectations, though McDowell's career (as a pitcher, not a rock star) could have been longer

maurice
09-27-2005, 01:06 PM
BA named Lee the top Sox prospect in 1999. He definitely lived up to his hype.

Crede was a league MVP in the minors. His major-league numbers have been disappointing.

ja1022
09-27-2005, 01:06 PM
I actually don't recall as much hype around Mags and Caballo. Didn't they just sort of come up and happen to get hot at the same time? I don't think the Sox had any idea they would get as much service and production from those guys.

That's how I remember it. It seems to me that the hyped prospects back then were actually guys like McKay Christenson, Brian Simmons, Jeff Liefer and Robert Machado.

antitwins13
09-27-2005, 01:09 PM
I was hyped, and look at me now!!!!!!



http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:2TwZXJf-dIsJ:www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/jon-garland.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/jon-garland.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.homeruncards.com/rookiecards/jon-garland-rookie-card.shtml&h=350&w=252&sz=24&tbnid=2TwZXJf-dIsJ:&tbnh=116&tbnw=83&hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJon%2BGarland%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den% 26lr%3D)

nug0hs
09-27-2005, 01:14 PM
:rauch I won the U.S. a gold medal and I'm going to be an AS by the end of my career

eriqjaffe
09-27-2005, 02:27 PM
Konerko didn't come from our minors but I seem to remember the Dodgers being very enthusiastic about him coming up in their farm system.I lived in LA back in the late 90's, and Konerko was very hyped. Paluie was the 1997 Baseball America Minor League Player of the Year. He got a cup of coffee with L.A. and didn't do much, and the talk around L.A. was that his minor league numbers were inflated because he played in high-altitude Albuquerque. He was traded to the Reds along with Dennys Reyes (who was just like Fernando Valenzuela, if Fernando had stunk) for closer Jeff Shaw in 1998.

batmanZoSo
09-27-2005, 02:35 PM
Carlos Lee was a highly touted prospect in our system in 98-99--not so much in the major leagues, but in our system for sure. He came up and produced right away, hitting 16 homers in his first year, which began in the early/middle part of 99. He never became a true stud with us, but he was definitely productive. He probably met most of the organization's expectations of him.

Magglio wasn't really expected to do anything and became a borderline superstar. Same deal with Buehrle.

StockdaleForVeep
09-27-2005, 02:35 PM
Jon Garland
Mike Cameron

Garland was hyped in the cub system, and one season doesnt make it that he's lived up to the hype, he's still a .500 career pitcher

StockdaleForVeep
09-27-2005, 02:38 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1999/06/24/twins_whitesox/t1_caruso_ap_01.jpg
"I lived up to the hype for my rookie season"

Note-i love how i keep finding threads to put this mike caruso pic in

Randar68
09-27-2005, 02:40 PM
Garland was hyped in the cub system, and one season doesnt make it that he's lived up to the hype, he's still a .500 career pitcher

LOL! Have you checked the guy's birthday?

The ERA's and # of innings pitched and durability he has shown is better than 90% of the pitchers in baseball, particularly for the age at which he did them, when most productive MLB pitchers were in A or AA ball...

Sheeesh.

StockdaleForVeep
09-27-2005, 02:49 PM
LOL! Have you checked the guy's birthday?

The ERA's and # of innings pitched and durability he has shown is better than 90% of the pitchers in baseball, particularly for the age at which he did them, when most productive MLB pitchers were in A or AA ball...

Sheeesh.

Actually his bday is today but we are discussing hype. We got garland very very cheap and he was hyped and hyped to be a great starter. Now in the 5 years he's pitched, he's had 1 winning season(not counting this) at 12-11 and had 3 straight double figure loss columns. That winning season also had an era of 4.89

People who make the argument that garland is good are the same people who thought loiaza would be good after one season, or that todd richie should be could cuz he was "due"

SoxFan76
09-27-2005, 02:58 PM
Actually his bday is today but we are discussing hype. We got garland very very cheap and he was hyped and hyped to be a great starter. Now in the 5 years he's pitched, he's had 1 winning season(not counting this) at 12-11 and had 3 straight double figure loss columns. That winning season also had an era of 4.89

People who make the argument that garland is good are the same people who thought loiaza would be good after one season, or that todd richie should be could cuz he was "due"

Are you mental? You are comparing Garland to Loaiza and Ritchie?!? Here's the big difference, Garland is 25 years old. Loaiza was in his 30's already.

StockdaleForVeep
09-27-2005, 03:08 PM
Are you mental? You are comparing Garland to Loaiza and Ritchie?!? Here's the big difference, Garland is 25 years old. Loaiza was in his 30's already.

Isnt he 26 today? And again, im not arguing age, im arguing hype. Prior was young and got hyped, same as wood. Garland has been hyped and bashed the past 5 years, this year he has a good first half and then he's a stud?

Brian26
09-27-2005, 03:18 PM
That's how I remember it. It seems to me that the hyped prospects back then were actually guys like McKay Christenson, Brian Simmons, Jeff Liefer and Robert Machado.

And Abbott. I remember thinking Abbott and Lee would platoon in left, and center would be a platoon between Simmons and Singleton.

Randar68
09-27-2005, 03:24 PM
Isnt he 26 today? And again, im not arguing age, im arguing hype. Prior was young and got hyped, same as wood. Garland has been hyped and bashed the past 5 years, this year he has a good first half and then he's a stud?
HUH? A stud? Who's saying that? Heck, Garland was regularly back-seated by Kip Wells and Jon Rauch over the years.

I love how people equate "talked baout regularly as a prospect" with "He's the next #1 ACE STARTER ALL-STAR CY YOUNG!"

*****! Garland has never shown the ability to be a #1 pitcher. Period. In my recollection, he's never been hypes as that, either. Heck, #2 and 3 starters are so hard to develop as it is, and that's the absolute MAX that anyone has ever projected him as.

Has he been too hyped? Hell, the guy has been an effective #3 and #4 starter the past 3 years as a kid in his early twenties. Now he's shown to be a little better than that, a SOLID #3 in the AL, and now you want to put words in peoples' mouths that they are and have been calling or hyping him as a stud?

Geez. Talk about a Straw Man...

santo=dorf
09-27-2005, 03:51 PM
I recall a Peter Gammons article back in the Summer of 2000 talking about how Kip Wells and Jon Garland would be dominating the AL the next season.

kitekrazy
09-27-2005, 04:01 PM
I think the Big Hurt lived up to expectations.

Didn't he actually exceed them? I know he was a high average hitter but when he came up with the Sox he wasn't known as a power hitter. I don't think he hit a lot of homers in the minors.

Daver
09-27-2005, 04:06 PM
Didn't he actually exceed them? I know he was a high average hitter but when he came up with the Sox he wasn't known as a power hitter. I don't think he hit a lot of homers in the minors.

He wasn't there long, and played in Birmingham, it takes a bunch to hit a ball out of that place.

maurice
09-27-2005, 04:07 PM
I don't think [Thomas] hit a lot of homers in the minors.

He didn't get much of a chance, since he was promoted to the majors so quickly. He hit 23 HR in only 181 games (most of them in an extreme pitchers' park), and his frame obviously sugested that he would hit for plenty of power. The criticism I remember (ridiculous in retrospect) is that Thomas wouldn't be able to hit a MLB fastball, because he had only "slider batspeed."
:kukoo:

34 Inch Stick
09-27-2005, 04:10 PM
HUH? A stud? Who's saying that? Heck, Garland was regularly back-seated by Kip Wells and Jon Rauch over the years.

I love how people equate "talked baout regularly as a prospect" with "He's the next #1 ACE STARTER ALL-STAR CY YOUNG!"

*****! Garland has never shown the ability to be a #1 pitcher. Period. In my recollection, he's never been hypes as that, either. Heck, #2 and 3 starters are so hard to develop as it is, and that's the absolute MAX that anyone has ever projected him as.

Has he been too hyped? Hell, the guy has been an effective #3 and #4 starter the past 3 years as a kid in his early twenties. Now he's shown to be a little better than that, a SOLID #3 in the AL, and now you want to put words in peoples' mouths that they are and have been calling or hyping him as a stud?

Geez. Talk about a Straw Man...

I agree with you in your appreciation for what Garland has done at a very early age. However, as I remember it Garland was being touted as a future #1. When the Cubs traded him both he and some pitcher named Noel were thought to be future stars (I remember them because of the pairing of Garland and Noel in some sort of Christmas theme).

maurice
09-27-2005, 04:13 PM
When the Cubs traded him both he and some pitcher named Noel were thought to be future stars (I remember them because of the pairing of Garland and Noel in some sort of Christmas theme).

This reflects the cubbie hype machine, not the general consensus in the scouting community. If the scouts believed that Garland was a sure-fire #1, they would have kept him . . . or at least gotten a lot more in return.

The most hyped pitching prospects have big K numbers. Garland doesn't.

Daver
09-27-2005, 04:15 PM
I agree with you in your appreciation for what Garland has done at a very early age. However, as I remember it Garland was being touted as a future #1. When the Cubs traded him both he and some pitcher named Noel were thought to be future stars (I remember them because of the pairing of Garland and Noel in some sort of Christmas theme).

The Cubs hyped him as a future #1, not the Sox.

Bucky F. Dent
09-27-2005, 04:27 PM
Ventura & Black Jack McDowell come to mind.

TaylorStSox
09-27-2005, 04:56 PM
The only reason I mentioned Garland is that the Cubs only held his rights for 1 year.

SoxFan64
09-27-2005, 05:18 PM
I stopped believing in the hype after I heard that Bee BeeRichard was the answer at SS in 1971. Then it was Henry Chappas.......

But since Thomas, Black Jack matched the hype.

If after McDowell, Thomas and Ventura, (and you say I can't use Maggs, which I disagree with the premise -- he was hyped just not Henry Chappas-hyped with a SI cover) then it is Crede.