Good read on Phillip Hughes with comment on Ohlendorf

[Gainzo]

If you happen to make the mortal sin of disagreeing with madmike you get this type of response:

blah, blah, blah, NOT, blah, blah, STUPID, blah, blah, f'n blah.

[Sharrow]

Personally, I will hound him about Mike Gonzalez vs Ron Villone forever. That is all.

[madmike1]

Personally, I will hound him about Mike Gonzalez vs Ron Villone forever. That is all.

I'm happy the yankees never made that trade. It was more then villone involved. Villone did his job for the yankees last year and i'm very happy with the yankee bullpen this year i really think it could be one of the best in baseball.

[AFJF]

Personally, I will hound him about Mike Gonzalez vs Ron Villone forever. That is all.

Excellent point....Mike Gonzalez spent the off-season being chased by penant contending teams (granted none of their GMs are as smart as madmike) and Ron Villone spent the off-season begging somebody to invite him to spring training. "I"d rather have Villone that Gonzalez" is easily one of the most riddiculous things I've ever heard. What makes it worse is that no matter what happens, mike will never admit that he was wrong about that (or anything else for that matter). Wanting to keep any player around because he had two or three good months over a young 20 something pitcher is just...well I dont know if there's a word to describe exactly how riddiculous that is but we'll go with "knows nothing about baseball".

[madmike1]

Excellent point....Mike Gonzalez spent the off-season being chased by penant contending teams (granted none of their GMs are as smart as madmike) and Ron Villone spent the off-season begging somebody to invite him to spring training. "I"d rather have Villone that Gonzalez" is easily one of the most riddiculous things I've ever heard. What makes it worse is that no matter what happens, mike will never admit that he was wrong about that (or anything else for that matter). Wanting to keep any player around because he had two or three good months over a young 20 something pitcher is just...well I dont know if there's a word to describe exactly how riddiculous that is but we'll go with "knows nothing about baseball".

what i said was i would rather have villone FOR ONE YEAR (last year) in the middle of him having a GREAT year as a set up man while gonzalez had not proven he could fill that role and the yankees didn't need a closer. thats what you keep leaving out.

The pirates raped the braves in that deal by the way, a rare good trade by that franchise.

[AFJF]

Maybe he meant that they were at the same spot in regards to being ready for a callup. He couldn't have meant that they were equals when it comes to talent.

DING DING DING....we have a winner. Nowhere in the comment did Cash say one had better stuff than the other because that's not the case. As the guy who makes the decision as to who gets called up and sent down Cash was referring to who's next to get the call and at this point they're dead even. I'm glad some folks were able to get this.

[madmike1]

When i made the Villone comment it was around the all star break of last year and the question was who i would rather have FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR, not for the rest of their careers.

here are villone's first half stats last year.

44.2 IP (Thats less then 10 fewer innings then Gonzalez's CAREER HIGH in a half a season.)

31h

35k

201baa

Thats great numbers right there. I had no way of knowing that Torre would basicly run Villone's arm into the ground in the 2nd half of the season by pitching him a hefty 17 IP in july and an OBSCENE 22 IP in august. I also had no way of knowing how Gonzalez would react from being moved out of the Closer role and into the role of a set up man where you have to pitch A LOT more and more innings then he had been used to his whole career. I said i would take Villone FOR THAT YEAR ONLY because i felt he was better equipped to handle that role.

[AFJF]

When i made the Villone comment it was around the all star break of last year and the question was who i would rather have FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR, not for the rest of their careers.

here are villone's first half stats last year.

44.2 IP (Thats less then 10 fewer innings then Gonzalez's CAREER HIGH in a half a season.)

31h

35k

201baa

Thats great numbers right there. I had no way of knowing that Torre would basicly run Villone's arm into the ground in the 2nd half of the season by pitching him a hefty 17 IP in july and an OBSCENE 22 IP in august. I also had no way of knowing how Gonzalez would react from being moved out of the Closer role and into the role of a set up man where you have to pitch A LOT more and more innings then he had been used to his whole career. I said i would take Villone FOR THAT YEAR ONLY because i felt he was better equipped to handle that role.

You had no way of knowing? Well I did, and I tried to explain it to you. What I did was I went back and looked at the horrific career numbers Villone had posted to that point. You of all people Mike should understand that since you love to throw around "sample size" all the time. Well you were being naive enough to let a couple of good months overshadow a career of being a JAG at best. I knew Gonzo was better and I tried and tried and tried to explain to you that Villone was pitching over his head. You constantly blame Joe Torre for the fact that Ron Villone fell apart...who's fault was it that he was a scrub for the decade leading up to that. You let three good months fool you in to thinking that a lifeling journeyman was better than an up an coming closer who had established himself as a stud.

[madmike1]

You had no way of knowing? Well I did, and I tried to explain it to you. What I did was I went back and looked at the horrific career numbers Villone had posted to that point. You of all people Mike should understand that since you love to throw around "sample size" all the time. Well you were being naive enough to let a couple of good months overshadow a career of being a JAG at best. I knew Gonzo was better and I tried and tried and tried to explain to you that Villone was pitching over his head. You constantly blame Joe Torre for the fact that Ron Villone fell apart...who's fault was it that he was a scrub for the decade leading up to that. You let three good months fool you in to thinking that a lifeling journeyman was better than an up an coming closer who had established himself as a stud.

Wrong. What your argument was was that Villone was a bad player who would collapse. 44 innings is a decent sample. But he collapsed not because he sucked but BECAUSE of overuse. If he was used properly then he would've pitched MUCH better then 2nd half. He was BADLY abused by torre. try to find another RP who pitched 22 IP in one month. You still have no answer for the fact that Gonzalez has never proved he could pitch the innings load thats required to be a set up man.

[mbn007]

I guess all the people who release prospect lists are morons too becuse they view Ohlendorf as a marginal prospect at best. You'll NEVER find him ranked higher then Sanchez, Batances and Chamberlain let alone Hughes.

Maybe you should read up on Ross a bit. He is not a Marginal Prospect in any sense of teh word. He has a Wang-like sinking fastball, that comes in a few ticks below Wangs, but is just as effective. He has outstanding control, and his secondary stuff is at least average, if not better.

He would have probably been the #5 in Arizona if he was not traded for Randy.

He does not overpower folks like Sanchez, Hughes, Betances, et al, but he is darn good.

And Cashman is referring to who will be called up first, not who is better, or who has a higher ceiling. Hughes may become a star, a stud #1 Ace in any rotation. Ross O. projects to be a #3, which is quite good.

[madmike1]

Maybe you should read up on Ross a bit. He is not a Marginal Prospect in any sense of teh word. He has a Wang-like sinking fastball, that comes in a few ticks below Wangs, but is just as effective. He has outstanding control, and his secondary stuff is at least average, if not better.

He would have probably been the #5 in Arizona if he was not traded for Randy.

He does not overpower folks like Sanchez, Hughes, Betances, et al, but he is darn good.

And Cashman is referring to who will be called up first, not who is better, or who has a higher ceiling. Hughes may become a star, a stud #1 Ace in any rotation. Ross O. projects to be a #3, which is quite good.

If you're not on ANY top 100 prospect lists you're probably not a very good prospect. I don't think he's crap and i was actually impressed with what i saw of him but his ceiling isn't very high. I'd throw him into the Karstens/Rasner group.

Pitchers who pitch like Wang fail 99% of the time.

[mbn007]

Personally, I will hound him about Mike Gonzalez vs Ron Villone forever. That is all.

Why, because he is better, younger, et al?

But his WHIP is worse!!

[mbn007]

If you're not on ANY top 100 prospect lists you're probably not a very good prospect. I don't think he's crap and i was actually impressed with what i saw of him but his ceiling isn't very high. I'd throw him into the Karstens/Rasner group.

Pitchers who pitch like Wang fail 99% of the time.

Every team has 6 or 7 minor league teams. This is besides the players who are not on any roster, but under a teams jurisdicytion, like injured players, or guys in thje Dominican League, et al. At roughly 23 men per roster, times 6, there are at least 138 players in every teams Minor League System. Add in the missing ones (injuries, DSL, et al) and you have 150+ players.

There are 30 teams out there. That means there are at least 4,500 players in the Minor League systems, today.

To be rated not in the top 100 does not mean the player is in the same category as a Kartsens/Rasner. You make it sound like there are pitchers like Hughes, Sanchez, Chamberlain (who may be right there with Hughes, but is not in most top 100 lists) Clippard. Everyone else is a Kartsens/Rasner.

Sorry, but you are way off base on this. Ross O. is a second tier pitcher. He is not an ACE, but projects as a #3 type. That is more then 95% of the pitchers currently in the Minors.

[madmike1]

Every team has 6 or 7 minor league teams. This is besides the players who are not on any roster, but under a teams jurisdicytion, like injured players, or guys in thje Dominican League, et al. At roughly 23 men per roster, times 6, there are at least 138 players in every teams Minor League System. Add in the missing ones (injuries, DSL, et al) and you have 150+ players.

There are 30 teams out there. That means there are at least 4,500 players in the Minor League systems, today.

To be rated not in the top 100 does not mean the player is in the same category as a Kartsens/Rasner. You make it sound like there are pitchers like Hughes, Sanchez, Chamberlain (who may be right there with Hughes, but is not in most top 100 lists) Clippard. Everyone else is a Kartsens/Rasner.

Sorry, but you are way off base on this. Ross O. is a second tier pitcher. He is not an ACE, but projects as a #3 type. That is more then 95% of the pitchers currently in the Minors.

Most minor league players are just roster filler that have no chance of ever being impact players in the majors. If you're saying that Ohlendorf's ceiling is a no 3 starter, I'd probably agree with that but Rasner's ceiling is a no 3 too. The chances of those guys reaching their ceilings however is very small. The truth is that Karstens and Rasner have much more of a major league future then 90% of the pitchers in the minors.

If Chamberlain isn't on some lists it's because he's yet to throw a pitch in a full season pro league... But the fact that he's on some lists before throwing a pitch in a full season league and Ohlendorf isn't on any of them shows the difference.

[Maxman]

Maybe you should read up on Ross a bit. He is not a Marginal Prospect in any sense of teh word. He has a Wang-like sinking fastball, that comes in a few ticks below Wangs, but is just as effective. He has outstanding control, and his secondary stuff is at least average, if not better.

He would have probably been the #5 in Arizona if he was not traded for Randy.

He does not overpower folks like Sanchez, Hughes, Betances, et al, but he is darn good.

And Cashman is referring to who will be called up first, not who is better, or who has a higher ceiling. Hughes may become a star, a stud #1 Ace in any rotation. Ross O. projects to be a #3, which is quite good.

Wang projected to be a # 3 as well. He has already surpassed that.

[madmike1]

Wang projected to be a # 3 as well. He has already surpassed that.

And as i've said, the chances of a guy who pitches like Wang being as good as he is are astronomical. He's the exception not the rule. You can't assume that Ohlendorf will be another exception.

[mbn007]

Wang projected to be a # 3 as well. He has already surpassed that.

Thank you.

This is further proof that most projections are not accurate. Many publications will down-grade guys, since who wants to predict a guy as a ACE or 50 HR guy, only to have him be an average joe (JAG).

If Ross. O. is projected to be a #3, that's good enough in my book. Hey, many guys project Clippard to be a #4-#5, and he is on a few top 100 lists.

[madmike1]

Thank you.

This is further proof that most projections are not accurate. Many publications will down-grade guys, since who wants to predict a guy as a ACE or 50 HR guy, only to have him be an average joe (JAG).

If Ross. O. is projected to be a #3, that's good enough in my book. Hey, many guys project Clippard to be a #4-#5, and he is on a few top 100 lists.

Wow is this a stupid statement. What about all the pitchers (and there are MANY more of these then there are Wang's) who are projected as no 3 starter ceilings but never even make the majors? Using Wang as an example makes ZERO sense. He's the exception not the rule.

You're also wrong about downgrading from publications. They are talking about Ohlendorf's CEILING not his projection. That means the BEST he can be is a no 3.

[Scott Dierking]

Wow is this a stupid statement. What about all the pitchers (and there are MANY more of these then there are Wang's) who are projected as no 3 starter ceilings but never even make the majors? Using Wang as an example makes ZERO sense. He's the exception not the rule.

You're also wrong about downgrading from publications. They are talking about Ohlendorf's CEILING not his projection. That means the BEST he can be is a no 3.

What were the ceilings on Greg Maddux when he was drafted? Mike Piazza? I can go on and on with these.

be careful what you do with "projections"

[madmike1]

What were the ceilings on Greg Maddux when he was drafted? Mike Piazza? I can go on and on with these.

be careful what you do with "projections"

As a player gets closer and closer to the majors it becomes clearer what they canl become. By the time Maddux and Piazza had played full years in AA (As Ohlendorf has) their ceilings were pretty clear. Piazza was the best prospect in baseball by the time he hit AA...

[Scott Dierking]

As a player gets closer and closer to the majors it becomes clearer what they canl become. By the time Maddux and Piazza had played full years in AA (As Ohlendorf has) their ceilings were pretty clear. Piazza was the best prospect in baseball by the time he hit AA...

When Greg Maddux was in AA, trust me, there was no one stating that he woulsd be a 100 game winner in his career, let alone a 300 game winner.

Please don't make stuff up to support your argument. Greg Maddux was no stud hurdling his way through the minors

[madmike1]

When Greg Maddux was in AA, trust me, there was no one stating that he woulsd be a 100 game winner in his career, let alone a 300 game winner.

Please don't make stuff up to support your argument. Greg Maddux was no stud hurdling his way through the minors

So you're comparing Ross Ohlendorf to Greg Maddux? The chances of that happening are about a million to one.

And you're wrong again because Maddux dominated A- to the point that he SKIPPED A+ AND AA at TWENTY YEARS OLD (thats 5 years ahead of Ohlendorf.) Maddux was a GREAT prospect. Did they know he would be a hall of famer? No. But they knew he would be a very good major league pitcher.

[Scott Dierking]

OK Mike-Humor me-

Lets examine what top "prospects" accomplish in Major league baseball.

Lets-Go back to a reasonable date and examine- how top prospects, as they were defined at that time, faired in the ML and what the success rate was as defining them as such.

Go back to 1998-List any baseball prospectus that you want and let's examine the top 20 prospects as listed that year:

-how may became Superstars

-how many starters?

-how many even made ity in the majors?

I don't know the results. Let's see.

[Thor99]

OK Mike-Humor me-

Lets examine what top "prospects" accomplish in Major league baseball.

Lets-Go back to a reasonable date and examine- how top prospects, as they were defined at that time, faired in the ML and what the success rate was as defining them as such.

Go back to 1998-List any baseball prospectus that you want and let's examine the top 20 prospects as listed that year:

-how may became Superstars

-how many starters?

-how many even made ity in the majors?

I don't know the results. Let's see.

Let me know how that Brien Taylor experiment worked out.

[madmike1]

OK Mike-Humor me-

Lets examine what top "prospects" accomplish in Major league baseball.

Lets-Go back to a reasonable date and examine- how top prospects, as they were defined at that time, faired in the ML and what the success rate was as defining them as such.

Go back to 1998-List any baseball prospectus that you want and let's examine the top 20 prospects as listed that year:

-how may became Superstars

-how many starters?

-how many even made ity in the majors?

I don't know the results. Let's see.

The success rate for prospects in the top 20 is usually about 60% to become a solid starter depending on what list you look at but i assure you that the success rate for guys who ARE NOT on any lists (like ohlendorf) is a lot less.

[Scott Dierking]

The success rate for prospects in the top 20 is usually about 60% to become a solid starter depending on what list you look at but i assure you that the success rate for guys who ARE NOT on any lists (like ohlendorf) is a lot less.

Pick a couple year's and let's go through it

[madmike1]

Pick a couple year's and let's go through it

I've just looked at a few it's about 50%-60% for top 20 prospects but i'm not sure what that means because i'm only looking at one list and it is of course subjective.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/26983.html

[Sharrow]

Sorry to get off topic again, but with statments like "we have a better version of Mike Gonzalez on the yankees. His name is Ron Villone", "Gonzalez isn't anything great", "Villone is BETTER then him", he's "not a good closer", etc. you're going to catch some heat from people who know anything about Gonzo. Villone would have broken down whether he was overused or not, go take a look at how he did in the second half of 2005 compared to the first half, and in 2004, and 2003. Its been the same for the past 4 years.

Gonzo should be able to handle a respectable amount of innings for the Braves this year, he used to be a starter in the minors, I'm sure he can handle it. Just because it would have been inevitable that Torre would have abused him doesn't mean that he can't flourish in a setup role under a smart manager. I think Bobby Cox will know how to use him the right way.

Gonzo had 24 appearances in 1 run or tie games last year and only allowed 2 runs in those games and in 10 more games that were within 2 runs, he only allowed 2 more runs. Only Francisco Rodriguez was better. Bob Wickman should be on a short leash this season.

[madmike1]

Sorry to get off topic again, but with statments like "we have a better version of Mike Gonzalez on the yankees. His name is Ron Villone", "Gonzalez isn't anything great", "Villone is BETTER then him", he's "not a good closer", etc. you're going to catch some heat from people who know anything about Gonzo. Villone would have broken down whether he was overused or not, go take a look at how he did in the second half of 2005 compared to the first half, and in 2004, and 2003. Its been the same for the past 4 years.

Gonzo should be able to handle a respectable amount of innings for the Braves this year, he used to be a starter in the minors, I'm sure he can handle it. Just because it would have been inevitable that Torre would have abused him doesn't mean that he can't flourish in a setup role under a smart manager. I think Bobby Cox will know how to use him the right way.

Gonzo had 24 appearances in 1 run or tie games last year and only allowed 2 runs in those games and in 10 more games that were within 2 runs, he only allowed 2 more runs. Only Francisco Rodriguez was better. Bob Wickman should be on a short leash this season.

As i explained, at that time i felt that Villone would be better FOR THAT ROLE. FOR THAT SEASON. Thats it.

[Sharrow]

As i explained, at that time i felt that Villone would be better FOR THAT ROLE. FOR THAT SEASON. Thats it.

So Ron Villone isn't a better version of Mike Gonzalez? Or were you just talking out of your ass?

[madmike1]

So Ron Villone isn't a better version of Mike Gonzalez? Or were you just talking out of your ass?

I felt he was better FOR THAT ROLE as i've said.

[Sharrow]

"We have a better version of Mike Gonzalez on the yankees. His name is Ron Villone."

That doesn't sound like you were comparing how they would fill a roll on a team. In fact what is saying is that if Villone was in Gonzalez' role, he would be better.

[madmike1]

"We have a better version of Mike Gonzalez on the yankees. His name is Ron Villone."

That doesn't sound like you were comparing how they would fill a roll on a team. In fact what is saying is that if Villone was in Gonzalez' role, he would be better.

If thats the impression i gave then thats not what i meant to say. I have no idea how villone would fair as a closer just like i have no idea what Gonzalez would do as a setup man with that innings load and that unknown factor worried me.

[Sharrow]

Ron Villone is a better version of Mike Gonzalez. That can't mean anything else. At the time, you felt that Villone was the better player and that Gonzalez was nothing. Then over the course of the rest of the season, you were proven wrong. Just admit it like a man!

[madmike1]

Ron Villone is a better version of Mike Gonzalez. That can't mean anything else. At the time, you felt that Villone was the better player and that Gonzalez was nothing. Then over the course of the rest of the season, you were proven wrong. Just admit it like a man!

No. thats NOT what i meant. I'm not gonna say i meant something i didn't. I was looking at the trade from the yankees perspective for the rest of the year and at that time i would've rather had villone be a setup man then gonzalez. i made it VERY clear it was a single year single role issue.