| By Chris Crawford |  | By 08-15-2010 |
Having lived in the Olympia area for all but the last year and a half of my life -- I've come to regret that I didn't spend more time going to the Tacoma Rainiers games. Though only a 30 to 45 minute drive (I didn't miss I-5 traffic), my interest in minor league baseball was iffy at best due to naive beliefs that every prospect ended up like lefty Ryan Anderson -- a nothing.I got a chance at redemption last night -- and while the game itself was a Rainiers loss -- there were plenty of things to see that could make Seattle winners in the future, some soon.
Blake Beavan's line was good, seven innings and one run with five k's -- but the results come with an asterisk. Round Rock's best hitter was Chris Shelton. I don't think I need to go more in depth then that. The fastball early on showed very little movement and was was easily picked up by the Round Rock "hitters", but the right-hander did get stronger as the game went on and maintained velocity (89-91)throughout his seven innings. Beavan's best pitch was his change-up, which he was able to bury out of the strike zone and miss bats with. More than likely a No. 4 starter, but at his age that could change if his slurve improves.
The stars of the show were Josh Lueke and Dan Cortes, however. Lueke threw three scoreless innings and did give up three base-runners, but the two hits were weak ground-balls and the walk was on a pitch that looked like a strike to all but one. The right hander's velocity wasn't what I had expected, sitting in the 93 mph range, but the command he had of it -- as well as the slider and the split -- was downright silly. Lueke should -- and most likely will -- be the eight inning man in Seattle next year, and might just earn the closer's role with a good spring training if David Aardsma is traded this winter.
Cortes was making his Triple-A debut, and it became evident early that the right-hander was looking to make an impression. He did. Cortes' fastball was clocked by the stadium scoreboard at 101 mph. That might have been a tick or two fast, but it doesn't matter. Cortes brings gas. He was predominantly throwing fastballs, but the few times he did bring his curveball it was devastating, getting both of his strikeouts on the pitch. There were some command issues, but I'm going to attribute that to being nervous and a long flight to Tacoma. Cortes and Lueke are going to be the back-end of the Seattle bullpen for a long time. It's not the same thing as a dominating middle-infield or a 1-2 in the rotation, but there are worse things then having young, cheap, and exciting arms to end games with.Draft Notes -- Jason A. Churchill
Sixteenth-round pick Jordan Shipers, an undersized left-hander, was inked Friday for what amounts to sandwich-round money at $800,000, the same amount given to right-hander Taijuan Walker, the No. 43 overall pick.
Shipers sits 87-90 with his fastball and his slider has flashed good enough to project as a plus pitch, but he's 5-foot-10 and 170 pounds, which may be the only reason he wasn't a top 50 pick.
Shipers turned down Missouri State to sign.
Prospect Insider has learned that Marcus Littlewood is a "great bet" to sign, as the M's are almost certainly going to bust slot for him. Whether it will be high enough remains to be seen but Littlewood is Scouting Director Tom McNamara's kind of player, the same way Nick Franklin was a year ago, and it'd be a big upset if they didn't get him signed.
Ryne Stanek is asking for first-round money, won't get it, and if he doesn't come down well under $1.6 million, the M's may pass, or may lower their best number for lefty James Paxton, who is NOT subject to Monday's deadline.
For the record, I'd give Stanek the $1.5 if that is what it takes. He's good, and may be better than Walker already. I have a feeling the Mariners agree.
Stay tuned for notes on the Arizona Fall League, more draft signings, a mid-week podcast and a chat next weekend.
tacoma-venture,-m\'s-open-wallet
Comments
The following 35 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-15-2010 16:01:42 This is for Jason or Chris ONLY, I don't want random conjecture, I want gronded facts based on scouting reports or personal observation of Jordan Shipers. If you guys don't know, I understand, I was surprised you had even this scouting report on him because of where Shipers was selected. Shipers $800K in the 16th round sets a high watermark of some kind. For all the guys to waste money on, why Shipers?? From your scouting report, he doesn't look that impressive. I mean sure he could grow into his frame maybe or he could add 3-4 mph and turn out to be an awesome find, or he could be another Brian Moran, which has minimal value, since we already have Moran. His size reminds me of Chris Snelling for some reason. Was he maybe drafted for his outfield play/hitting and less so for his pitching? If he's only a pitcher, I think I'd rather them pass on Shipers and give that 800K to Stanek and Paxton, but what the hell do I know, I just figure that if we miss signing Paxton and Stanek by around 800K and we are trying to stay within an imaginary budget, why they hell would they choose Shipers over two of the best arms in the draft? Shed some light, please. |
| 2. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-15-2010 16:02:10 grounded |
| 3. By: marinermutt on 08-15-2010 16:54:27 I sure hope Stanek price goes down some and the M's raise their offer. Really would like to see both Stanek and Littlewood sign. Jason, is there concerns about Paxton's health? Average results in indy ball dropping him to the 4th round, and now holding out or is this just Boras trying to milk the M's for as much as he can get. Thanks, |
| 4. By: rjfrik on 08-15-2010 16:57:07 My guess is they are trying to sign them all. Shipers slid down the draft because of worries he was fully committed to college and that he was a bit small framed. The M's took a gamble on him and threw out a number and he took it. Not a bad gamble at all. In two years when he would become eligible to be redrafted Shipers would be a first round guy unless he blew out his arm. Oh wait. I wasn't supposed to comment on this. Sorry |
| 5. By: Edman on 08-15-2010 18:07:44 #1, if you want it to be for Jason and Chris only, send them an email. This is an open forum. There are a lot of informed people here that you're overlooking. |
| 6. By: Slurve on 08-15-2010 20:49:43 "Jordan Shipers, 18, of Bethany, Mo. is very close to being drafted into Major League Baseball's First Year Player Draft that starts on Monday June 7th, despite the fact that Shipers has never played a single game of high school baseball. South Harrison High School in Bethany doesn't have a baseball program so Jordan has developed his talent and strength as a pitcher on his own and traveling all over the United States on various competitive non-school affiliated teams, "I've never played on the same team twice... I'm always the new guy..." Jordan said." That contributed to his relatively low stock too I guess. |
| 7. By: The Great Pumpkin on 08-15-2010 21:30:21 Shipers dropped because he was going to be a tough kid to sign. He wanted lots a bunch of cash and had committed to Missouri State. Shipers is a prospect to be excited about, from what I've read. |
| 8. By: rjfrik on 08-15-2010 22:38:47 Here here Ed!! |
| 9. By: PositivePaul on 08-15-2010 23:10:54 Again - as Edman stated - if you have a specific question you only want Jason or Chris to answer, feel free to ask it in the "Contact" box above: http://prospectinsider.com/contact.php Or if you're on Twitter you can find them at: http://Twitter.com/ProspectInsider http://Twitter.com/ChrisCrawfordPI We'd like to keep the discussion in the comments open and communal. Just don't pee in the pool or you run the risk of having your comment turned into a random lyric from a random boy band... |
| 10. By: Lonnie on 08-16-2010 02:04:09 I did some searching around on the net looking for some stuff on Shipers and found some interesting stuff. One thing in particular was a video of him pitching in a game (ignore the bullpen vids that are out there, they won't tell you anything about him). His mechanics look near flawless. The kid generates a goodly amount of power in his pitches through correct motion. I'm not overly worried about his stature, in fact I'm not worried at all. He, most likely, will never become a MLB starting pitcher, but from what I saw I can well imagine seeing him in some sort of setup role down the road. Lonnie |
| 11. By: Lailoken on 08-16-2010 09:28:32 With Robles, Saito, & Shipers we could possibly have the tallest left-handed bullpen trio in MLB history! |
| 12. By: rjfrik on 08-16-2010 09:30:30 Lonnie, I think it's a bit too early to put the "He, most likely, will never become a MLB starting pitcher" label on the kid. Yes he has a small frame, but as you said his mechanics are great. If he develops another pitch, which is entirely possible, he very well could be a good MLB starting pitcher. Remember that Lincecum kid from Seattle, people said the same thing about him. On another note. It's looking like Boras and Harper are playing hard ball and it's going to come down to the final minutes before midnight if a deal gets done at all. What a boon for the M's if they hold out, which is looking more and more possible today. If we finish second there is a great chance that the team with the 1st pick takes Rendon. You won't have the contract issues with Rendon and he of the same caliber of hitter as Harper, sans a little less power. The nationals will not be able to take Harper with the second pick and he could slide to us. There's the left handed power bat everyone has been waiting for. Literally an 80 power on the scale. Put him behind Smoak and the M's could be dangerous in four years. |
| 13. By: slamcactus on 08-16-2010 09:37:52 I will be shocked if Harper doesn't sign. There is literally no way to push his stock higher, and with Pittsburgh and Baltimore likely owning the top 2 '11 picks it's not like he can look forward to deeper pockets to exploit next year. |
| 14. By: Blowgun7 on 08-16-2010 09:49:08 The M's didn't just bust slot by a ton of money to invest in a guy who most likely will be a setup man. I imagine they feel pretty strongly that he has a chance to be a pretty good SP. |
| 15. By: Edman on 08-16-2010 09:53:56 I tend not to dream unrealistic thoughts, so as not to be disappointed. However, if some of you want to dream, dream big. But don't complain when reality sets in. |
| 16. By: Edman on 08-16-2010 10:42:16 #11.....just saying, but Shippers is 5'10", not 6'10". |
| 17. By: masonb on 08-16-2010 11:01:04 Edman, he's being sarcastic. All of those guys are tiny |
| 18. By: rjfrik on 08-16-2010 11:17:58 I'll dream big for the both of us Edman. I promise not to complain if the dreams don't materialize. But one can hope!!! By the way Slam, no way Baltimore finishes the season with a worse record then us. I fully expect them to win 2 of 3 or a sweep in the next three days. Hoping for the sweep, especially if Harper doesn't sign |
| 19. By: bcsimons on 08-16-2010 11:42:39 You know i find it hard to root against the Mariners to win. I mean I'm smart enough to know their chances arent as good as most other teams but still I'd rather them win, but that said if they end up with a top 3 draft choice you better well know I'll be excited to see who we draft. |
| 20. By: StandinPat on 08-16-2010 12:08:51 Can't stand the whole rooting against the M's thing either. Especially when there is no guarantee that them losing will still garner them the #1 pick, and that said pick, most likely Rendon, will be a surefire star. The past 20 years are littered with #1 picks that range from wash out to simply decent mlb'r, with really only a little more than a handful of actual star quality players(I think I counted 7). Further more, it's not like Rendon is our only hope to be a successful ballclub. Sure, getting a power hitting 3B of the future would be great, but it's not like that is the one and only spot where we can get better. Would I love to get Rendon? Sure. Do I root for the M's to win every game? Ofcourse. Do I think this FO can continue to build this organization into a perennial playoff contender even if they don't wind up with Rendon? Absolutely. |
| 21. By: Edman on 08-16-2010 12:24:45 rjfrik, really, no way at all that Baltimore has a worse winning record than Seattle? Based on what? Back it up with more than "conjecture". That's why I have a problem with what you post, you speak as if your word, is final and absolute. There is every possibility that Baltimore finishes with a worse record than Seattle. Because the got initially better, after Buck took over, doesn't mean that it carries out through the season. Just as I don't believe that the Mariners are magically transformed with Brown at the helm. Teams and players tend to get short bursts that after after a trade or a major move. It is seldom sustained. |
| 22. By: Edman on 08-16-2010 12:26:40 OK, I missed the sarcasm, mason...I stand corrected. |
| 23. By: rocketdawg31 on 08-16-2010 20:57:59 I think this infatuation with Anthony Rendon is best left on the curb. I like his swing myself. But he's not likely to be a Mariner. I personally estimate we'll be somewhere at #4 or #5. And there is a ton of talent besides Rendon that would suit us well. |
| 24. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-18-2010 08:15:35 #4, love this quote. "In two years when he would become eligible to be redrafted Shipers would be a first round guy unless he blew out his arm." Yeah 5'10 and an 88 mph fastball with mediocre offspeed offerings screams projectible 1st rounder. Could he be a 1st rounder? Sure, but count how many 1st rounders throw under 94 mph and of those how many are under 6 ft. Not one scout thinks Shipers as he is right now has even an outside chance of being a 1st round talent in two years. The money he got wasn't because he's a future 1st rounder, it's because Zduriencik and co. think he'll be a 3rd or 4th rounder in two years, which makes $800K seem high, hense my question, which you still failed to answer. |
| 25. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-18-2010 08:20:26 #5, yes sending them an e-mail for a question not about the topic is one thing, but when it's a question others are sure to ask, why not allow them the chance to answer it ONE TIME in the comment threads, rather than reply directly to an e-mail 20 different times? Oh, because somebody doesn't like the fact that they feel excluded? I didn't realize this was like little league and everyone has to play. I'll try and remember your emotional sensitivity in the future. Again, recap, I want a scouting opinion, it's a question that applies to all the readers as others are going to ask the same question, and if you or anyone else was knowledgable about the question I'm asking you'd have your own site instead of living on Jason's. |
| 26. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-18-2010 08:24:08 #6, I appreciate that information it's something I had not heard before, but if anything that would go against giving him $800K, rather than supporting what I feel is a ridiculously high number, especially with them feeling their 3rd round guy wasn't worth 700K extra. Seems like if I was to throw 700K over-slot, I'd do it on my 3rd rounder who is legit and throws 95, not the pitching midget with mediocre stuff. |
| 27. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-18-2010 08:33:19 #7, he dropped from between the 6th and 8th round all the way to the 16th. He may have some talent and may be some what projectible, but we aren't talking Phillippe Aumont who picked up a baseball for the first time at like age 15. He's been playing for a while and he's simply not that raw. There's no real formula for the way prospects fall in the draft, but 6th to 16th is not a future 1st rounder and giving him 800K now is like buying out arb. years and saying you feel he'd be worth $1.3MM in 2 years and simply put, I don't think he will be, as that's a 2nd round or higher pick, which he's got a less that 5% chance of reaching. That's horrible odds that he justifies this bonus. |
| 28. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-18-2010 08:38:29 #9, I didn't say it wasn't open for discussion, but I wanted a very precise answer and it was applicable to everyone else. Giving them a chance to answer it for everyone at one time is being considerate. Once they give the answer, feel free to talk about it, but has anyone here seen him live? How many times? Where? Sure you aren't just saying you have to be argumentative? Are you a scout, what credibility do you have? Do you have friends that are scouts or work in front offices? I'm sorry, but anybody else on here who tries to answer it is no more informed than myself. I think all of you that tell me to ask Jason personally in an e-mail so that he can answer 20 times to the same question are terribly selfish. |
| 29. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-18-2010 08:48:45 Lonnie (#10) says his mechanics are near flawless, which means two things one if he doesn't add 4 inches, he's not going to add a noticeable amount of velo. and the second is that he'd never be much higher than what he is now as counting stats in college have almost no value, what he is today is what he would be in 2 years more or less. He projects as a 6th round today, you can hope he's a 4th round in 2 years and that's a $200K bonus tops. We way over paid for what rjfrik (#12) labels accurately as a future bullpen arm. Seriously, I'm no scount and I know that he's never going to be anything more than a LOOGY, why pay $800K for the chance to develope one, when you can sign a proven LOOGY for 3 years at about $1.5MM more than what you'd pay Shipers and there's no development risk. Like Moran, he's nothing more than a LOOGY, period. Which makes both of their signings seem over-priced and ridiculous. Shippers, salary for pre-arb years (if he makes it in the majors) $450K x 3 = $1.35MM + $800K (signing bonus) = $2.15MM, reliable LOOGY = $1.5MM/yr. on a 3 year deal = $1.2MM/yr. (discount of about 300K per season for long term stability, typically 20%) |
| 30. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-18-2010 09:19:29 I want to clarify two things... When I talk about buying out arb. years, I am saying that long term deals to buy out control years (Ryan Braun deal) is like going over-slot with a draft bonus. You are paying them more than they are worth today and less than what you feel they will be worth on a future date of relevance (in this case 2 years from now), so you can get a discount and strengthen your farm system. If the Mariners are paying $800K, they think he's worth more than slot today and that he'll be worth more than his bonus after 2 years of college ball. That means they have to be more than 50% sure he'll be worth $1.3 to $1.4MM to justify that bonus. There's just nothing in what anyone has said to justify this thinking, which points to a huge problem in our front office that twice in consecutive drafts, they have over-paid and/or over-valued a LOOGY (Moran then Shipers). I love that they are going over-slot, I just wish they did it with justifiable talent. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The 2nd point was about Stanek. I said we should be paying him the $700K over-slot, but I meant over what we offered him. If the Mariners were offering $1.3MM to Stanek and $800K to Shipers, I would rather they offer Shipers $100K and risk him going to college and offer Stanek $2MM. At the end of the day, maybe they were willing to offer $2MM for both guys to be a part of the org., but I think Shipers will have so little value over time that we'll look back on Stanek and say we allocated our resources poorly and we should have pushed a bigger pile to Stanek and a smaller one to Shipers. If they have a budget or limited resources, no problem, but you don't go way over-slot on the 16th round pick, and then get tight fisted with a guy that is DRAMATICALLY better and far more projectible. Stanek sits low 90s and touches 95 at 18 with a big frame. He'll add velo. even a little bit with his already above-average slider makes him twice the prospect of Shipers, yet we went way over-slot for the lesser guy. Sounds like Bavasinomics to me. |
| 31. By: rocketdawg31 on 08-19-2010 07:18:03 Rosterbator- Valid viewpoint. Interesting alternative scenario you present for the negotiations. But I think you're dismissing Shipers too readily. There are too many 6'5" (and over) stallions to count that have become broken-down nags while being professional pitchers, and plenty of examples of under-6-feet pitchers thriving. Not to foment any argument that this org always knows how to allocate their draft funds wisely- it still chafes my hide that they gave Steve Baron nearly a mil last year to be the classic "great-defense-no-bat" catcher that stands to be out of pro ball in five years. But there's nothing saying Jordan Shipers doesn't gain size and strength as he heads into his last teenage year, and his early 20's. Your argument that he's destined to be a LOOGY if anything seems to be predicated on his frame as it stands right now. I haven't seen video of Shipers, I'd have to trust Lonnie's judgment on how flawless his mechanics are- but what if Lonnie's wrong and there are some significant flaws that could be addressed, and velocity gained? I think it's just not that wise a course to take an 18-year-old athlete and say "there's only so far he can go due to his size right now". Heck, myself? I gained 1 1/2 inches and 35 pounds (on a 6'1" frame out of high school) and SIGNIFICANT amounts of power when I turned 21- 2 1/2 years removed out of high school. And even if Shipers has already achieved his height-weight plateau with minimum variance from here on in- so what? Pedro Martinez was never taller than 5'10" (and I know his bio lists him at 5'11"- players fudge their height and weight quite commonly). And he also wasn't close to the dominant Pedro we remember when he was 18, either. Billy Wagner's no taller than 5'10", and he could crack concrete with his fastball. Mike Hampton is MAYBE 5'10". Ron Guidry was 5'9" and never weighed more than 175 pounds when he played. Jordan Shipers is like any other prospect- we'll have to wait and see if the money was well-spent. I have no grievance with the money it took to get him into the fold. |
| 32. By: StandinPat on 08-19-2010 13:34:31 The idea that an 18 yr old wont get bigger/stronger over the next couple of years is an absurd one. Every single HS kid drafted is looked with the idea that they will physically mature and that will inherently make them a different player than they are today. Mechanics are only one way a young pitcher can add velocity, physical growth and work regimen play a huge part as well. |
| 33. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-20-2010 02:01:25 My point is two-fold: mechanics = 1-2 mph, Lonnie says he's nearly flawless and Jason has educated everyone here pretty well about mechanics, so I'll say that even if he's not "near flawless", he's probably pretty advanced in his motion. growth = maybe 1-2 mph or maybe he reverts with the loss of flexibility and he's already 19 as of June 27th. I don't know about you but when I was 18, I was 5'5, 160 lbs., when I reached my physical peak at 22-23 y.o., I was 5'7, 185 lbs., yes he can add weight and maybe two inches, which makes him 6 ft. and 185 lbs. tops. My point is not that he can't be a starter or that he can't be a LH setup arm, my point is that it's not likely. Now let me just put it out here like this... Shipers, decent arm, decent mechanics, decent offerings, undersized, and LH. That's an 8th round pick to me. Signability issue makes him 15th+ round pick. I love the place where they take him. I think they should've offered him 400K and stuck to their guns, he would've signed. For him to be more than a LOOGY, he needs a series of things to happen between now and 22 y.o. (roughly when we have to decide to add him to the 40-man or risk losing him in the Rule 5 draft). Here's the list in no order: Add height (minimum 3 inches more or height increase is indifferent, needs the height to get more downward plain, keeps his pitch from flatening out) Add weight (increase velo and durability, needs to be 25-40 lbs. bigger to last as a starter) Add velocity (no velo increase will absolutely stick him in a LOOGY role) Add pitches (needs at least 3-4 pitches w/o more velo to be a starter) Improved mechanics (would need plus control/command w/o increasing his velo dramatically to make it as a starter) Can a couple of these things happen? Sure. Will enough of them happen to change his status? Probably not. Which is my whole point. Does the bonus justify the greater developmental outcome? No. He's MOST LIKELY not going to be more than a LOOGY with a ceiling of turning into a middle reliever or long reliever. Neither of which justifies throwing around 800K as the failure rate is too high to promise that kind of guaranteed money. Stanek by the way wanted $1.5MM and we walked after offering probably $1MM or so. Which comes back to my main point... Given this information, would you rather have Stanek at $1.5MM and give Shipers $300K take-it-or-leave-it offer, with the worst case being you spent $1.5MM on the 3rd round pick and let Shipers walk as a 16th rounder with a 4th-6th round ceiling? Or would you rather give your 3rd round pick a $1MM take-it-or-leave-it offer and pay $800K to your 16th rounder? Glad we took the 2nd option and pissed away a guy we thought was good enough to pass on Paxton until the 4th round. We need to all think about this, we have one of the best draft departments in baseball and we left a 3rd rounder in the wind who was good enough to draft ahead of Paxton this year. So where's the breakdown in communication coming? Jack Zduriencik, Chuck Armstrong, Howard Lincoln? Somebody screwed up and didn't do their homework. You don't miss on your 3rd rounder by less than 500K and overpay your 16th rounder by 700K, makes me sick. Moran already being in the system only adds to the irritation as Moran = Shipers, more or less. Simply put, throwing 800K at Shipers feels like doubling down on a hard 18. Sure you could get ace, two, or three to win, but there's 10 other ways you can get screwed. What's worse is that Stanek will probably end up being a 98 mph arm coming out of college and a top 15 pick, we'll all look back at this as one of the biggest misses in the draft under Zduriecik's reign, guaranteed. |
| 34. By: StandinPat on 08-20-2010 17:05:44 Roto, where on earth are you getting your info? How are you coming up with "mechanics = 1-2 mph, growth = maybe 1-2 mph?" There are numerous examples of prep kids adding 4-5mph of velocity as they mature and get proper instruction, and you do realize that the HS Shipers went to doesn't even have a baseball team? For an 18 yr old kid who has yet to see proper instruction or get on a real throwing regimen, high 80's velocity is in no way a future bullpen sentence for him. Even if he only adds a couple of mph and sits in the low 90's, that's still enough to be a solid LH starter as long as his secondary offerings come around. How hard does Vargas through again? "Shipers, decent arm, decent mechanics, decent offerings, undersized, and LH. That's an 8th round pick to me. " That's interesting considering 30 MLB scouting departments see him in a completely different light. |
| 35. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 08-20-2010 20:43:25 "Roto, where on earth are you getting your info?" First off, I read an article that talks about human physics and baseball. Trust me, players that don't fall into that assumption of 1-2 mph for growth and mechanics are so infrequent that it's not even worth calculating. There's a reason Lincecum at 5'11" and 175 is called "The Freak" and there's also a reason he's lost velo and movement every year since reaching the majors. "There are numerous examples of prep kids adding 4-5 mph of velocity as they mature and get proper instruction" So when a player grows 3 inches and gets better instruction, we'd assume that's 1-2 mph from growth and 1-2 mph from mechanics, which is 2-4 mph, thanks for supporting my statement. "you do realize that, the H.S. Shipers went to, doesn't even have a baseball team?" You realize that he played select baseball which from previous experience, I can almost guarantee has better coaches and better competition than a public h.s., so that's not a negative. In fact, he's probably closer to his ceiling for the reason you listed. By avoiding the curse of inferior h.s. coaches, he doesn't need to unlearn as much when he's at college or in the minors, like a lot of other kids playing high school ball. "For an 18 yr old kid who has yet to see proper instruction or get on a real throwing regimen, high 80's velocity is in no way a future bullpen sentence for him." He has seen proper instruction, you are taking a biased view, based on no concrete information, and he's 19, his DOB 06/27/1991. He's almost out of his growth stage and he's only 5'10 and 160 lbs. soaking wet. "How hard does Vargas through again?" (it's throw just so you know) Vargas can throw 91 and he's 6 ft and 215 lbs. There is no way in hell that Shipers ever gets more than 185 lbs. on his frame, ever. Also, Vargas has a plus changeup and plus control. Neither of which are guarantees for Shipers. "That's interesting considering 30 MLB scouting departments see him in a completely different light." Which scouting departments? The ones that passed on him for 500 or so picks in this draft? The ones that didn't pick him for 16 rounds? Or the ones that thought he was a 6th round pick at best with signability issues? You sound like a fool when you start telling me that everyone saw him in a completely different light, when my description is a recap of what Jason said. So you know more than Jason? Let's review your failed assertions: 1) mechanics + growth don't equal 2-4 mph of increased velocity, but proper instruction does? Hmmm. Also, I love how you call bullshit on my statement of 1-2 mph (which is based on a huge scientific analysis that was posted on lookoutlanding.com) and then turn around and oppose my statement with your own unfounded fact of 4-5 mph based on instruction. You are a comedian, right? 2)Shipers didn't play H.S. ball and despite the inferior instruction by a coach of a select team where he played all over the region, somehow managed to throw 90 mph with the frame of a 15 year old? Additionally, playing on a select team with a well-paid coach is not as valuable as a science teacher trying to make an extra $200 per month by coaching the baseball team at the local h.s., right? Wow x2. 3) Shipers is 18 years old and has so much more to grow? He's 19 years and 2 months old, so he's pretty much done growing at this point. 4) Again with the proper instruction and that's going to make his stuff good enough to cut through a lineup 3 times without getting hammered in the majors? Right! 5) He only needs to add velocity, improve his mechanics and improve his secondary stuff and he could be a solid LH starter? Really? That's all? Sounds like the same thing I said, which is a lot of things need to go right for him to be a starter, which goes back to me saying, I don't think you have a strong enough guarantee that he will make it to the majors as a starter to justify a signing bonus of $800K. 6) Vargas is the definition of what Shipers is as a pitcher? Vargas is a starter despite all the things that went against him and even he doesn't have the stuff to get through a real MLB lineup three times without getting tagged. Vargas is more than 50 lbs. heavier than Shipers so there's less durability issues. How many teams gave up on Vargas by the way? Lots! I want to point out that should Vargas lose his command or his velocity by even a little bit, he won't be a starter anymore, so look at the odds of Vargas being a starter in the majors today when you start analyzing the odds of Shipers reaching it at 30 lbs. less. You might want to pick your comparisons better. 7) You try to discredit my summary of him, without even correcting it. Furthermore, you can't argue he's a lefty, or that he's undersized. He does have decent mechanics, I've seen them on video and you yourself said his mechanics are crap otherwise where is he getting this magical 4-5 mph of velocity? So without you being totally full of b.s., he can't have better than decent mechanics. Sitting 88 is lucky to be labeled a decent arm, it's technically below-average by MLB standards today. And finally, how else do you describe his offerings besides decent when he has a below-average fastball, a developing but inconsistent slider, and almost no third pitch to speak of? You are arguing just to argue. This is not about saying he can't or won't be effective. What I am saying is that he made more money to sign than just about everyone after the 4th round. There are guys that deserve that kind of money and Shipers is not one of them. He maybe was deserving of over-slot, but over-slot for a 16th rounder is $200K, not $800K, and even $200K would have been huge for a 16th rounder. Learn to read before you attack someone, especially when everything I said is as accurate as one can be under the circumstances, without having a job as a scout or working for an organization. Let's also be clear about something, I've seen Shipers workout videos and he's good, which isn't a positive, because there really isn't much more he can do to develope besides add 20 lbs. and hope that he can sit 90 with his fastball while also developing his other offerings. He's not going to grow a lot and he's not going to add a ton of weight to his frame, so he's pretty much reached his ceiling more or less. You can't get blood from a rock. He'll be 20 next year when he starts his career, he's got almost no growing to do, he's only going to add a minimal amount of weight to his body, his mechanics are sound although not perfect, but I will say he's more advanced mechanically now than Aumont, Ramirez, or Pineda were last year. There's just not a lot of ways to improve him besides add to his secondary stuff and that's not going to make him a starter. When you are ready to stop running in circles, we can both agree that he has a less that 10% chance of becoming a starter and that's not worth $800K and letting your 3rd rounder go to college who is legit because all of a sudden you realize that you blew your clothes money at Spencer's Gifts. He is what he is and that's a guy who will in all likelihood end up in the bullpen. Robles has a huge fastball one that Shipers can't develope, ever. Robles is also what Shipers will be physically when he developes and he's destined for the bullpen too. So there's your real life comparison, he's Robles without the bad ass fastball and the knee-buckling slider. Yet Robles can't stick in the rotation, that should tell you something right there. It's just terribly unrealistic to wish on Shipers to be more than another arm in the 'pen. Could he surprise us? Yes, but it would be a surprise because we aren't expecting it to happen. And there in lies my point. The money was too much and especially for the low-balling of Stanek. Sorry if you can't take a negative view of Jack Z. and our front office, but they screwed the pooch on this one, as this stinks of indecision and stupidity by the Mariners organization. There's no way to justify the bonus for one without looking at the same time to the bonus not offered to the other. As much as Stanek signing shouldn't have been about Shipers, there's no way it wasn't. If Shipers goes to school Stanek gets signed for probably $1.4-1.5 million. Given the choice, I'd take Stanek 11 out of 10 times over Shipers, even for the difference in money. Let me put it a new way. Is Stanek worth 700K more than Shipers? Hell yes. So how do you miss signing Stanek by less than $700K yet sign your 16th rounder for $800K? Either they paid Shipers too much or offered Stanek too little, which has been my point the whole time. If you want to justify the stupid money for Shipers, than spend the money to get Stanek and Paxton sign and stop f***ing around. You can't tell me we can spend money like we found it on the street for Shipers and have to start doing a statistical analysis of Stanek before we can offer him a miniscule $700K more than Shipers got. The only way this makes sense is if the Mariners F.O. had second thoughts about Stanek and wanted the pick back, but then how do you draft a guy and change your mind on him after draft day. By draft day, you should know how many times per week Stanek changes his underwear. This is all I got, but every one of these words was justifie for your ridiculous assertions. I just hope everyone else doesn't waste the time on the recap of what was already said. But maybe you'll see how stupid some of the things are that you said. Or maybe not, but here's to hoping. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
| Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |