TT: Why is pitcher one considered a potential TOR and pitcher two a 5th starter/reliever by some?

[Tony-OH]

Pitcher one:

AAA stats at Norfolk from age 22-24

3.29 ERA 93IP 87H 33BB 91K 8HR (8.4H/9, 0.8 HR/9, 3.2BB/9, 8.8K/9, 2.76 K/BB)

Has a swing and miss changeup but well below average slider. Throws 94-99 MPH. Drafted in 1st round.

Pitcher two:

AAA stats at Norfolk age 22

2.84 101.1IP 91H 33BB 81K 4 HR (8.1H/9 0.4 HR/9 2.9BB 7.2K/9 2.45 K/BB)

Throws four pitches for strikes and has a swing and miss changeup plus a flash plus curveball that gets strike outs. Throws 88-92. Drafted in 26th round but given 3rd round money out of highschool, probably 1st or second rounder if coming out of Arizona State in last year's draft.

Pitcher two at a younger age allows less hits, home runs and walks per 9 innings and strike out just 1.8 batters less per 9.

So someone tell me besides pure velocity and draft status, why is Kevin Gausman (pitcher one) an untradeable top of the rotation candidate and Zach Davies (pitcher two) a 5th starter/middle reliever who was worth a 2 month rental for a .500 ball club?

Oh wait, Gausman looks the part while Davies looks like the clubhouse attendant. I forgot that part.

[luismatos4prez]

Hey Tony, are you a fan of Zach Davies? I'm finding it difficult to decipher from your posts.

[TINSTAAPP]

Doesn't Zach Davies have pretty mediocre stuff? I mean John Stephens put up a 3.03 ERA, 1.04 WHIP with a 5:1 strikeout to walk ratio in AAA at age 22. Stats don't tell the whole story about the potential of a pitcher.

[bradyrocks]

Because for whatever reason, people are enamored with "stuff". Moment and velocity. The stuff you cant really teach. They think the control and pitching IQ can either be taught or will come with experience. And it may, but its way more frustrating waiting for a super talent to gain some IQ and command, than a guy that pitches to the situation, hits his spots, but sometimes just gets beat...but will never be able to reach back for that sure out.

Just preference I guess. A two pitch 70-80 rating each, type pitcher seems like the preference of someone who gambles or plays the lottery to me. The 50-60 rating 4 pitch mix with command seems like the conservative investment type at the other end of the spectrum.

I think its great for an organization to have some of each and diversify. But certainly as a whole, the former seems to hold more value, and i disagree there.

For the record, I view Gausman as a future dominant closer, and I wouldnt have traded him for any rentals, but maybe a Jay Bruce or C. Gomez straight up.

I do feel Parra was a good trade for Davies. We get exceptional defense IMO, and a league leading avg hitter which we desperately needed. It will look much better if we can extend Parra, but I am not upset with the trade. I only valued Gausman higher in this instance because the market itself values him higher, combines with the fact we have a few more Davies types in the system in Wright and Wilson.

[notyourbuddy]

Pitcher two:

AAA stats at Norfolk age 22

2.84 101.1IP 91H 33BB 81K 4 HR (8.1H/9 0.4 HR/9 2.9BB 7.2K/9 2.45 K/BB)

Lets not forget Pitcher three:

AAA stats at Norfolk age 23

3.16 128.0IP 95H 39BB 120K 13HR (6.7H/9 0.9HR/9 2.7BB 8.4K/9 3.08K/BB)

That'd be our boy Garrett Olson!

Now I haven't ever seen Davis pitch and I was against the trade, but... the scouting reports seem to suggest his stuff is just okay... and okay usually gets hammered in the Majors.

[Rockford]

For Tony, is this Zach Britton, Part II? If I remember correctly, he was about the first to start touting Britton when no one else knew his name. Same with Davies, seems like he was praising him long before anyone else was.

And Tony must really like him because I know he hasn't been shy in the past about ribbing smallish ballplayers (Fahey, Kawasaki), although those guys couldn't/can't play.

[ArtVanDelay]

I said before the trade that I considered Zach Davies our top prospect because of the Harvey and Bundy injuries. Trading your top prospect for a 2 month rental who would be a slight upgrade at best (and he's been a downgrade so far), is monumentally dumb.

[Frobby]

I agree with the tenor of the OP. It must be conceded that Gausman's performance at the big league level in 2014 gives him a lot of credence. Also, I have to say that the development path of these two pitchers could not be more different. We took it slow and steady with Davies and let him develop at every level. He never changed teams during a season, moving up the ladder one patient step at a time and being used solely in the starter role, pitching regularly. Gausman has been a human ping pong ball. I think his AAA numbers would be better if we had handled him differently, but there's no way to prove it.

[Malike]

I said before the trade that I considered Zach Davies our top prospect because of the Harvey and Bundy injuries. Trading your top prospect for a 2 month rental who would be a slight upgrade at best (and he's been a downgrade so far), is monumentally dumb.

You're like the only person on the planet who think we traded our top prospect.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

[Tony-OH]

Just wanted to highlight something here, I'm not syaing Davies is going to be better than Gausman or not, I'm wondering why so many people seem dismissive of Davies when he's performed as well as Gausman or better at the same age?

Gausman is a two-pitch pitcher, Davies is a four-pitch pitcher who commands four pitches while Gausman lives off pure stuff.

[Tony-OH]

Tony, it's not really "some" people. Almost everyone says Davies is a back of the rotation starter but you. Having said that, it's not a criticism just what's out there. No doubt that Davies has better command and secondaries, IMO. BUT, you can't teach 97-98 mph. Gausman's ceiling is just higher. I would not be shocked if Gausman never became better than a #3 starter and Davies became a #3 starter. However, I think that's a somewhat disappointing outcome for Gausman and a best case for Davies.

Gausman looked great today. I stopped watching after the 3rd inning or so. Terrible pitch choices in the inning where he gave up the two runs. Walking a weak hitter and then throwing curveballs and low fastballs to a hitter (Guttierrez) who couldn't touch 3 fastballs above the belt in his first plate appearance. Gausman needs experience. He should be a #3 pitcher by accident. As good as Davies looks to me, I think he's going to have trouble going deep in games in the majors and he's going to have to make ML hitters respect his fastball if he's going to get them to chase the changeup and curve.

All that being said, Davies is a cheap rotation piece and I hate giving those up. I think we are going to miss Eduardo Rodriguez a lot more (especially pitching for an AL East opponent) more than Davies.

I don't disagree with this at all.

[Can_of_corn]

You're like the only person on the planet who think we traded our top prospect.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't trade Reyes for four Davies.

[ChuckS]

Doesn't Zach Davies have pretty mediocre stuff? I mean John Stephens put up a 3.03 ERA, 1.04 WHIP with a 5:1 strikeout to walk ratio in AAA at age 22. Stats don't tell the whole story about the potential of a pitcher.

Didn't Stephens top out in the mid 80's?

I think it makes a big difference when you can get the fastball into the low 90's. Davies is not lighting the gun up by any means, but he's not a Jamie Moyer/Mark Beuhrle type either. He has a passable fastball.

I think the OP makes some good points. Gausman has a great fastball. But his overall stuff is meh and his command is also meh. Davies seems to have Gausman in every category but fastball velocity.

[Tony-OH]

Didn't Stephens top out in the mid 80's?

I think it makes a big difference when you can get the fastball into the low 90's. Davies is not lighting the gun up by any means, but he's not a Jamie Moyer/Mark Beuhrle type either. He has a passable fastball.

I think the OP makes some good points. Gausman has a great fastball. But his overall stuff is meh and his command is also meh. Davies seems to have Gausman in every category but fastball velocity.

Stephens topped out at 82 MPH. As most you know, I'm well aware of the scouting aspects which is why I talked about the amount of pitches and command of those pitches that Davies has normally.

[SteveO]

Didn't Stephens top out in the mid 80's?

I think it makes a big difference when you can get the fastball into the low 90's. Davies is not lighting the gun up by any means, but he's not a Jamie Moyer/Mark Beuhrle type either. He has a passable fastball.

I think the OP makes some good points. Gausman has a great fastball. But his overall stuff is meh and his command is also meh. Davies seems to have Gausman in every category but fastball velocity.

At the end of the day, when you have to give up a talent like Davies, regardless if you believe he is a #3 starter or a #5 starter to fill a position that everyone and their brother was stood pointed at and screaming we insufficiently filled during the offseason, its a bad thing.

Its bad even if you have a lot of talent in your system, its almost a criminal offense when your minor league system is in the state ours is in. It is a complete and utter waste of resources that could have addressed and cost only money in the offseason.

I do not get the whole idea of filling holes with meh players then trading talent to properly address them later. Its a pattern and its a disturbing one at that IMO.

That folks is how you end up with a minor league system that is a mess.