Jump to content

#13 Prospect - LJ Hoes


Tony-OH

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not a fan of this selection.

The draft position and respective signing bonuses were reflective of the values of Avery, Hoes and Bundy in June. I am glad we have all three in the fold, but I think it's a bit early to be re-setting the prospect order of these three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that doesn't seem too exciting...I am a little curious about this pick..I like the BB/K ratio' date=' but isn't this guy a slap hitter?[/quote']

No, he squares-up on the ball well. He's just a little undersized. His power-potential comes from incredibly strong wrists and hands, and a very quick bat. Regardless of whether or not he hits his power ceiling that Tony described (15-20 HR), he should have good gap-to-gap power. His advanced approach at the plate will help him to make the most out of his physical attributes, which I see as a 8-13 HR guy with plenty of doubles a plus-speed on the bases. Good first-to-third (on a single) and first-to-home (on a double) type of base-runner.

EDIT - To be clear, I agree 15-20 HR would be his target ceiling. Further, he has the baseball acumen and physical ability to reach that if he maxes out on his frame and his swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he squares-up on the ball well. He's just a little undersized. His power-potential comes from incredibly strong wrists and hands, and a very quick bat. Regardless of whether or not he hits his power ceiling that Tony described (15-20 HR), he should have good gap-to-gap power. His advanced approach at the plate will help him to make the most out of his physical attributes, which I see as a 8-13 HR guy with plenty of doubles a plus-speed on the bases. Good first-to-third (on a single) and first-to-home (on a double) type of base-runner.

Thanks Stotle...I am a little more at ease with this selection. His defense must be pretty good as well (I don't have "Plus"). We need some power in the minors! We sure didn't get much this last draft. Were you happy with the draft so far? I must admit, I was a bit dissapointed after Matusz (bundy was a bonus though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that doesn't seem too exciting...I am a little curious about this pick..I like the BB/K ratio' date=' but isn't this guy a slap hitter?[/quote']

Vidro was a GREAT player for about a five year run.

This Hoes pick certainly is a flyer, as any high placement of an 18 year-old fresh out of the draft and the GCL would be. But here's the logic, I think:

If you believe Bergesen and Montanez are both pretty close to being known quantities, and they might help the MLB squad but they're nothing special, then who would you rather have in your organization? Would you rather have the easily replaceable okay 4th OF'er? Would you rather have the easily replaceable half way decent reliever? Or would you rather have the 18 year-old who has a very good chance of being less of a player than Bergesen and Montanez, but who just might be significantly better?

If I could only have one of the three, I'll take the kid. And I won't be embarrassed by that pick if he turns out to be nothing.

By the way, it isn't my intention to stir a debate about projections for Bergesen and Montanez. The premise is, "If you believe this projection for Bergesen and Montanez, then you might consider Hoes to be the better prospect."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vidro was a GREAT player for about a five year run.

This Hoes pick certainly is a flyer, as any high placement of an 18 year-old fresh out of the draft and the GCL would be. But here's the logic, I think:

If you believe Bergesen and Montanez are both pretty close to being known quantities, and they might help the MLB squad but they're nothing special, then who would you rather have in your organization? Would you rather have the easily replaceable okay 4th OF'er? Would you rather have the easily replaceable half way decent reliever? Or would you rather have the 18 year-old who has a very good chance of being less of a player than Bergesen and Montanez, but who just might be significantly better?

If I could only have one of the three, I'll take the kid. And I won't be embarrassed by that pick if he turns out to be nothing.

By the way, it isn't my intention to stir a debate about projections for Bergesen and Montanez. The premise is, "If you believe this projection for Bergesen and Montanez, then you might consider Hoes to be the better prospect."

Good point. Problem is we don't know what the future holds for the other two. And Hoes has a long way to go with not an extraordinary amount of upside. If you are going to pick a guy for his upside/possible ceiling..why not really take a flyer on a power hitter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Stotle...I am a little more at ease with this selection. His defense must be pretty good as well (I don't have "Plus"). We need some power in the minors! We sure didn't get much this last draft. Were you happy with the draft so far? I must admit' date=' I was a bit dissapointed after Matusz (bundy was a bonus though).[/quote']

I'm happy with the draft but I would have liked to see Brady and Landers signed -- I assume the right amount of money was offered and turned down.

I would have gone a different route. Since the draft was heavy on college bats, there were some opportunities to grab some guys that were further along in development. I also think missing out on Melville is kind of a big deal.

I would have gone Matusz/Melville/Keischnick/Crawford in the first four rounds. After that I'm pretty okay with what Jordan did (though Crawford eliminates the need to draft Miclat and allows you to maybe grab a more refined college arm with mid-rotation upside and fairly safe back-end capabilities like Jacob Thompson). Boston was able to grab and sign Westmoreland in the fifth, which was very good value, even at the $2mio it cost them.

Back to the thread topic, I think Hoes is a solid pick, but 4 years is a long time to put into developing a ML-average 2b. I absolutely agree with Tony and the staff placing him here, though. I think his upside/current status is higher than the rest of the options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow..that is a well studied answer, Stotle. I will have to study up to understand it as I have not put the time in to recognize all of the names.

I am, however, a big fan of taking someone closer to the bigs early in the draft..unless there is a HS talent you just can't pass up. If we want to compete in 2010, we need to set ourselves up for it.

Hoes doesn't fit that mold for me. I think he is a bit high on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow..that is a well studied answer' date=' Stotle. I will have to study up to understand it as I have not put the time in to recognize all of the names.

I am, however, a big fan of taking someone closer to the bigs early in the draft..unless there is a HS talent you just can't pass up. If we want to compete in 2010, we need to set ourselves up for it.

Hoes doesn't fit that mold for me. I think he is a bit high on the list.[/quote']

Basically, best college arm, one of the better HS arms (whose stock dropped over the Spring), fairly refined college bat with plus-power potential and five tools and a very good defensive SS who was awful at the plate but experienced offensive success earlier in his college career.

Melville went to KAN

Kieschnick and Crawford both went to SFN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, best college arm, one of the better HS arms (whose stock dropped over the Spring), fairly refined college bat with plus-power potential and five tools and a very good defensive SS who was awful at the plate but experienced offensive success earlier in his college career.

Melville went to KAN

Kieschnick and Crawford both went to SFN

I like the plus power potential..perhaps another reimold...or he may "figure it out" as they say..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...