PDA

View Full Version : Jacob Rasner


chisoxmike
11-15-2007, 07:21 PM
What's the status on this guy? Is he still in Class A? On the Sox? I thought the main "prize" in the Brandon McCarthy deal was not Danks, but this guy Rasner.

Can anybody give me some info? Thanks.

upperdeckusc
11-15-2007, 07:25 PM
What's the status on this guy? Is he still in Class A? On the Sox? I thought the main "prize" in the Brandon McCarthy deal was not Danks, but this guy Rasner.

Can anybody give me some info? Thanks.

LOL no. rasner was a throw in, a wildcard if you will. Danks and Masset were definitely the main focuses.

Daver
11-15-2007, 07:26 PM
What's the status on this guy? Is he still in Class A? On the Sox? I thought the main "prize" in the Brandon McCarthy deal was not Danks, but this guy Rasner.

Can anybody give me some info? Thanks.

They won't release minor league rosters until after spring training, he was drafted in 05 or 06, and has not been traded or released, so he is still the property of the White Sox. Jacob has the highest ceiling of the three the Sox got from the McCarthy trade, but only time will tell.

chisoxmike
11-15-2007, 07:36 PM
They won't release minor league rosters until after spring training, he was drafted in 05 or 06, and has not been traded or released, so he is still the property of the White Sox. Jacob has the highest ceiling of the three the Sox got from the McCarthy trade, but only time will tell.

Alright, thanks. :thumbsup:

Daver
11-15-2007, 07:42 PM
LOL no. rasner was a throw in, a wildcard if you will. Danks and Masset were definitely the main focuses.

He was a top ten prospect last year in the Rangers system, definitely not a throw in. Why reply when you don't know what you're talking about?

dickallen15
11-15-2007, 07:47 PM
He was a top ten prospect last year in the Rangers system, definitely not a throw in. Why reply when you don't know what you're talking about?
Baseball America had him rated the Rangers #30 prospect at the time of the trade.

santo=dorf
11-15-2007, 07:49 PM
Baseball America had him rated the Rangers #30 prospect at the time of the trade.
Ah yes, but last year he was top 10 in the Rangers system. :tongue:

Sockinchisox
11-15-2007, 08:03 PM
He was def. a throw in.


http://www.rotoworld.com/images/pixel.gifRHP Jacob Rasner was traded from the Rangers to the White Sox in a five-player deal.
Rasner, a 2005 seventh-round pick, went 6-16 with a 5.41 ERA, 154 H and 117/52 K/BB in 144 2/3 IP for low Single-A Clinton last season. He's a real long shot to ever reach the majors.


And he was in Kanny (A ball) last season and was brutal. 6.85 ERA, 1.79 WHIP, 185 H, in 139.2 IP.

Daver
11-15-2007, 08:15 PM
He was def. a throw in.



And he was is in Kanny (A ball) last season and was brutal. 6.85 ERA, 1.79 WHIP, 185 H, in 139.2 IP.

He was drafted out of high school.

dickallen15
11-15-2007, 08:29 PM
He was def. a throw in.



And he was in Kanny (A ball) last season and was brutal. 6.85 ERA, 1.79 WHIP, 185 H, in 139.2 IP.
In rookie ball in 2005 he was 1-5 with an 8.37 ERA and a WHIP of 1.99. So he has improved. He still is only 20, but he's a project at best. I don't think Texas would have held up a trade they liked by refusing to give him up.

upperdeckusc
11-15-2007, 08:38 PM
Baseball America had him rated the Rangers #30 prospect at the time of the trade.

so daver, do myself, sockinchisox, and dickallen ALL not know what we're talking about?? *****. he was a throw in. he wasn't the guy the deal was based around. i dont care if he was drafted out of high school. KW wanted danks and masset. he figured he'd take a shot with rasner as well ala john lujan, and TEX said sure, have him, just throw in another player on your side, and we did, that young OF.

upperdeckusc
11-15-2007, 08:51 PM
He was a top ten prospect last year in the Rangers system, definitely not a throw in. Why reply when you don't know what you're talking about?

to add proof that i "know what i'm talking about" daver, here's a link to their top 10 before the 2006 season:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/05top10s/rangers.html

rasner is mentioned way at the bottom, under promising high schoolers (oOoOoOo!).

and to their top 10 the winter before the 2007 season:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/262987.html

rasner's name isn't mentioned anywhere on there.

so, daver, do i know what i'm talking about now? :rolleyes:

Frater Perdurabo
11-15-2007, 08:52 PM
so daver, do myself, sockinchisox, and dickallen ALL not know what we're talking about?? *****. he was a throw in. he wasn't the guy the deal was based around. i dont care if he was drafted out of high school. KW wanted danks and masset. he figured he'd take a shot with rasner as well ala john lujan, and TEX said sure, have him, just throw in another player on your side, and we did, that young OF.

This should be good. Three against one. But the one is Daver. The questions are, what are the three packing, and how quickly can Daver re-load the elephant gun?

:redneck

upperdeckusc
11-15-2007, 08:56 PM
This should be good. Three against one. But the one is Daver. The questions are, what are the three packing, and how quickly can Daver re-load the elephant gun?

:redneck

LOL the proof is right above. he loves to ACT like he knows everything about everything, but on this, he's wrong. instead of saying "i believe he was in the top 10 last year, but i'm not sure," he comes out with "why reply if you don't know what you're talking about?"

comical, i tell ya.....

Sockinchisox
11-15-2007, 09:00 PM
I don't want to start an argument, mike asked where he/how he was doing was so I gave him an answer.

upperdeckusc
11-15-2007, 09:03 PM
i don't, either. i was just giving my 2 cents to help that guy out too. but a comment like "why reply if you don't know what you're talking about" gets on my nerves, ESPECIALLY when i'm just trying to help someone out, and when my initial information was correct.

oeo
11-15-2007, 09:33 PM
I'm just going to say that I do remember Kenny and others in the organization speaking highly of Rasner. I don't think he was 'just a throw in.' The Sox traded an outfielder, as well, to get him.

BTW, those links you provided did nothing to prove that you knew what you were talking about. Come talk to me when you actually know something about the guy. Have you seen him pitch? Have you seen a scouting report? You're drawing a conclusion from some stats as a 20-year-old, and a couple of articles that hardly even mention the guy. Sounds like great reference...

chisoxmike
11-15-2007, 09:58 PM
I think I'm going with Daver on this one.

itsnotrequired
11-15-2007, 10:10 PM
I think I'm going with Daver on this one.

:party:

Daver
11-15-2007, 10:12 PM
I think I'm going with Daver on this one.

Don't do that, the guy that has no idea what the shift key is, as well as the guy that knows everything there is to know in the universe, both think I am off my rocker.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 10:27 PM
Daver's right, pure stuff-wise, Rasner is the best of the bunch. He's just a long way away and needs a lot of work. Project is a good word for it, like someone said earlier. But Daver's right that Rasner's ceiling is significantly higher than the other two.

upperdeckusc
11-15-2007, 11:34 PM
I'm just going to say that I do remember Kenny and others in the organization speaking highly of Rasner. I don't think he was 'just a throw in.' The Sox traded an outfielder, as well, to get him.

BTW, those links you provided did nothing to prove that you knew what you were talking about. Come talk to me when you actually know something about the guy. Have you seen him pitch? Have you seen a scouting report? You're drawing a conclusion from some stats as a 20-year-old, and a couple of articles that hardly even mention the guy. Sounds like great reference...

of course the guy has talent, and of course KW's going to speak highly of him. whats kenny gonna say: "this guy doesn't have much stuff and we just wanted a pitcher for our A ball team." of course not. daver said he was a top 10 prospect for the rangers. the links proved that he wasn't. sockinchisox even included a quote from a writer that said he'll probably never make the majors. no sorry i didnt see him pitch in high school, but based on his time in TEX, what people wrote about him and how he wasn't near the top of their prospect list, that gives me a pretty good idea that he was a throw in. if danks projects to be a middle of the rotation starting pitcher, and rasner has a higher ceiling, you're saying this guy has the chance to be a top of the rotation starter or a lights out closer?
thats not realistic, and that's not what KW is expecting from him. he's probably just seeing if he can catch lightning in a bottle from him, like lujan, dubee, link, etc.
jeeeeeeeeeeezus

dickallen15
11-15-2007, 11:38 PM
Daver's right, pure stuff-wise, Rasner is the best of the bunch. He's just a long way away and needs a lot of work. Project is a good word for it, like someone said earlier. But Daver's right that Rasner's ceiling is significantly higher than the other two.

Right now, "stuff-wise", he is nowhere close to best of the 3, but he is projectable. He is only 20, so he still has some time. He throws 90-92 sometimes a little higher, supposedly has decent downward movement on the fastball, but really has no offspeed pitches. He is built like McCarthy. If he fills out, adds a couple miles per hour on the fastball, develops something offspeed, he could be good. But a lot of things have to happen for him to get there. Most guys with the results he's had would have been looking for real jobs by now, so obviously there is a glimmer of hope for development.

oeo
11-16-2007, 12:59 AM
of course the guy has talent, and of course KW's going to speak highly of him. whats kenny gonna say: "this guy doesn't have much stuff and we just wanted a pitcher for our A ball team." of course not.

You're making no sense. You first came in here laughing it up (you love the lawls), like he was some piece of ****. Now you're admitting that he does have talent. You're the one who came in acting like they knew what they were talking about, not Daver. Daver said he had a high ceiling...you just laughed him off like he was a bag of balls.

daver said he was a top 10 prospect for the rangers. the links proved that he wasn't.You also said the links proved you knew what you were talking about, which is false. Daver was wrong about him being a Top Ten prospect, but you still don't know what you're talking about.

sockinchisox even included a quote from a writer that said he'll probably never make the majors.Oh wow, I can find random quotes from random writers by searching Google too. Here's one:
Jacob Rasner is listed as 6-5, 190. I'm a fan of selecting pitchers with the potential of filling out a big frame. He's kinda stunk so far (http://thebaseballcube.com/players/R/jacob-rasner.shtml), but he was a solid high schooler picked in the seventh round in 2005. In his case right now, don't pay too much attention to the numbers. Scouts like his arm, he throws in the low 90s. Anyway, that doesn't matter for Texas any more. Of the three, and I know his numbers don't show it now, this is the guy I wish the Rangers could have kept. But this is what happens when you trade players.http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2006/dec/23/rangers-trade-three-prospects-white-sox-brandon-mc/

At least this guy seems to know a thing or two about Texas' system, unlike the USA Today quote that Sockinchisox happened to fall upon (which is obviously just using stats to base its opinion, as well).

no sorry i didnt see him pitch in high school, but based on his time in TEX, what people wrote about him and how he wasn't near the top of their prospect list, that gives me a pretty good idea that he was a throw in.So you're basing your opinion off of statistics early in his career, and 'what people wrote about him' (which is basically nothing).

if danks projects to be a middle of the rotation starting pitcher, and rasner has a higher ceiling, you're saying this guy has the chance to be a top of the rotation starter or a lights out closer?I'm not saying anything. I don't know a thing about the guy. I do know that the Sox were high on him, I do know that he supposedly has a high ceiling. That's it. I'm not going to act like I know what kind of future he has like yourself.

thats not realistic, and that's not what KW is expecting from him. he's probably just seeing if he can catch lightning in a bottle from him, like lujan, dubee, link, etc.
jeeeeeeeeeeezusIsn't that what you do when you acquire a guy low in the minors? :?:

upperdeckusc
11-16-2007, 01:24 AM
aaron cunningham was low in the minors when he was acquired. i dont think ARI is just looking to catch lightning in a bottle with him, HE has a high ceiling. and until rasner shows anything, yea, he is a worth the same as a bag of balls. i didn't know that a righty throwing in the low 90's was anything to brag about these days. if he's struggled for 2 years now against A-LEVEL HITTERS, when's he gonna turn it around and be ready for the majors, when he's 30?

alright, alright, i get the point. i made fun of your boyfriend daver and that upset you, i apologize. i just hope he's not too mad at you for you admitting that he was wrong.........lord knows he wouldn't admit it.

DrCrawdad
11-16-2007, 09:30 AM
...alright, alright, i get the point. i made fun of your boyfriend daver and that upset you, i apologize. i just hope he's not too mad at you for you admitting that he was wrong.........lord knows he wouldn't admit it.

Huh? I don't think anyone here minds a debate and/or a substantive argument, but why sink to this level?

:tsk:

balke
11-16-2007, 09:38 AM
Its all interpretation anyways. I remember the Garcia trade for the Sox they got Reed, Olivo, and Matt Morse.

Morse was referred to as "the throw in" by most people, and by others he was referred to as the steal of the deal. He didn't really end up being either. There was thought that he'd end up being a good SS I believe, but Daver even then said he was going to end up at best being a below avg. 1Bman.

balke
11-16-2007, 09:40 AM
alright, alright, i get the point. i made fun of your boyfriend daver and that upset you, i apologize. i just hope he's not too mad at you for you admitting that he was wrong.........lord knows he wouldn't admit it.

:hawk:

*adjusts cap*

spawn
11-16-2007, 10:18 AM
I think I'm going with Daver on this one.
Ditto.

rdivaldi
11-16-2007, 10:54 AM
Rasner was definitely not a "throw in"; however, Danks and Masset were the more important pieces of the McCarthy trade in terms of current value. This thread is too nit-picky...

chisoxmike
11-16-2007, 10:56 AM
This thread is too nit-picky...

Well, this is WSI. :redneck

rdivaldi
11-16-2007, 10:59 AM
Well, this is WSI. :redneck

Point well taken...

:D:

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 11:00 AM
Ugh....who ****ing knows what he is.

Was he a throw-in in the deal? Of course--any deal w/ Danks and Masset and a 20 year old project, guess who's the throw-in....

However, that doesn't mean that

a.) the kid can't throw
b.) the kid won't end up being the best of the three

I doubt that b.) will happen though, since I expect HUGE things from Danks

chaerulez
11-16-2007, 12:58 PM
The way I see it:

Danks was the centerpiece of the deal for the Sox.

Rasner is not a top ten prospect.

Rasner was not a "throw in" because it seems he has potential can we can assume the Sox/KW targeted him.

Because Rasner has done badly in the minors, does not reflect his MLB potential. He was drafted out of high school. Some pitchers don't break in until age 24 to 26...

102605
11-16-2007, 01:14 PM
Stats tell about 50% of the story for minor league baseball.

upperdeckusc
11-16-2007, 01:27 PM
Ugh....who ****ing knows what he is.

Was he a throw-in in the deal? Of course--any deal w/ Danks and Masset and a 20 year old project, guess who's the throw-in....

However, that doesn't mean that

a.) the kid can't throw
b.) the kid won't end up being the best of the three

I doubt that b.) will happen though, since I expect HUGE things from Danks

well said. my thoughts exactly.

Daver
11-16-2007, 07:27 PM
Stats tell about 50% of the story for minor league baseball.

More like 33% with guys drafted out of high school, since none of them have even finished growing.

WhiteSox5187
11-16-2007, 07:36 PM
More like 33% with guys drafted out of high school, since none of them have even finished growing.
Oh I was done growing my sophmore year, christ, I haven't grown an inch since eighth grade. :redneck

I think we use the term "throw in player" rather carelessly around here...I don't think any GM thinks "And what the hell, I'll give you so-so too!" I think that some players are more wanted than others, but it's not as if this was a player that neither Kenny or the Texas GM didn't care about.

itsnotrequired
11-16-2007, 07:38 PM
More like 33% with guys drafted out of high school, since none of them have even finished growing.

Aren't you still wearing the same pants from high school?

:redneck

Daver
11-16-2007, 07:50 PM
Oh I was done growing my sophmore year, christ, I haven't grown an inch since eighth grade. :redneck

I think we use the term "throw in player" rather carelessly around here...I don't think any GM thinks "And what the hell, I'll give you so-so too!" I think that some players are more wanted than others, but it's not as if this was a player that neither Kenny or the Texas GM didn't care about.

Aren't you still wearing the same pants from high school?

:redneck

When you become a pro athlete, your workout regimen changes just a tad.


One of the guys I caught in HS was drafted by the Reds, and gained twenty pounds of muscle in three years, be fore having his shoulder explode

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 08:17 PM
When you become a pro athlete, your workout regimen changes just a tad.

I guy I caught in HS was drafted by the Reds, and gained thirty pounds of muscle in three years, before his shoulder exploded.

One of the guys I caught in HS was drafted by the Reds, and gained twenty pounds of muscle in three years, be fore having his shoulder explode

Sounds like the Reds of the...70's?....had a worse track record with prospys' shoulders than the White Sox of the early 00's

upperdeckusc
11-16-2007, 08:21 PM
When you become a pro athlete, your workout regimen changes just a tad.

I guy I caught in HS was drafted by the Reds, and gained thirty pounds of muscle in three years, before his shoulder exploded.

One of the guys I caught in HS was drafted by the Reds, and gained twenty pounds of muscle in three years, be fore having his shoulder explode

so you're saying we shouldn't look at trading crede or garland or anyone to the reds for any of their minor league arms......got it. :D:
seriously, that's unbelievable though.

KRS1
11-16-2007, 08:27 PM
seriously, that's unbelievable though.

What's unbelievable? That a MLB prospect put on muscle after the age of 18? If so, perhaps you need to look around at what some of the guys in the bigs(or even the high minors) weigh now compared to when they were 18.

upperdeckusc
11-16-2007, 08:30 PM
What's unbelievable? That a MLB prospect put on muscle after the age of 18? If so, perhaps you need to look around at what some of the guys in the bigs(or even the high minors) weigh now compared to when they were 18.

actually......
i was referring to that fact that someone actually caught for these two different people, having both of them drafted by MLB teams, the same team for that matter, they both get huge, and both deteriorate and have really bad injuries. that type of a situation is unfortunate, and not that common.
easy tiger......

upperdeckusc
11-16-2007, 08:33 PM
in the original post, it made it seem like there was 2 people with that same situation (caught for them, drafted, got huge, and shoulder exploded), but it looks like its been edited since then. if it's only 1 person, then yea i can imagine that is pretty common.

Daver
11-16-2007, 08:35 PM
Two of the guys I caught in high school were drafted, one by the Reds and the other by the A's, the one drafted by the A's never made it and retired at 28. I corrected the typo in my original post where I duplicated the same thing, after taking a phone call and losing my train of thought.

KRS1
11-16-2007, 08:36 PM
actually......
i was referring to that fact that someone actually caught for these two different people, having both of them drafted by MLB teams, the same team for that matter, they both get huge, and both deteriorate and have really bad injuries. that type of a situation is unfortunate, and not that common.
easy tiger......


I'm pretty sure it is just one guy. I don't want to speak for Daver, but I think he just looked at the way he had it typed out the first time, didn't like how he phrased it, re-typed it, and forget to delete the one he intended to omit.


EDIT:Well, I was close I guess.

upperdeckusc
11-16-2007, 08:40 PM
ok NOW this is starting to make sense :D:

KRS1
11-16-2007, 08:52 PM
I'm going to chime in on this discussion with how I feel about Rasner. To me he is the same type of guy that Daniel Cortes was to our system(BTW, the royaleswithcheese blog myspace article on him is hilarious if you haven't read it). One of the young kids who you like to have because of their projectable frame, and a good arm. Someone who is a bit raw in their pitchability, but has the tools that can be worked with. He also has a good bloodline, so that is another plus.

rdivaldi
11-17-2007, 01:44 PM
To me he is the same type of guy that Daniel Cortes was to our system.

Excellent comparison, that's exactly who I was thinking of when this thread started...

:thumbsup: