Thoughts on Jacob Turner at # 5

[LookinUp]

Are we talking current pitch ratings or potential ratings? And Stotle and Craw, I'd need some help with that one.

I'd let you experts answer that one. I assume that Matzek doesn't really already have two pitches that are 9's, so I think the projection is what matters. I also doubt that you'll be using a ten point scale.

Really, any comparison like would just be awesome to see.

[allstar1579]

I'd let you experts answer that one. I assume that Matzek doesn't really already have two pitches that are 9's, so I think the projection is what matters. I also doubt that you'll be using a ten point scale.

Really, any comparison like would just be awesome to see.

Ok, I'm missing a bunch of data so some of this stuff is educated guesswork, and I'm missing some stuff, so don't tear me apart too much here (you know who I mean) But something like this (on an 80 scale).

Name	    FB	CV	CH	SL	Sinker	NotesMatzek	55	70	70	50		kills with command and secondaryGibson	60		45	65		steady, solid, not spectacularPurke	    70		55	65		another Texas HS power pitcherSchep.    65			60		injury concerns risk/rewardCrow	    70			65		power arm, mechanics flawTurne     80	65	40			super power arm, could use collegeWhite     60	45	50		75	underperforming to potentialLeake	     60		70			underrated, bulldog mentality

[LookinUp]

Very interesting. Even with that information it's hard to draw conclusions.

[allstar1579]

Very interesting. Even with that information it's hard to draw conclusions.

Welcome to Joe Jordan's life.

[crawdad]

Along the same topic . . . MVN asked us to take part in a mock draft with them.

Jacob Turner was taken 2nd by the Mariners (Jason Churchill - ESPN Radio 710).

We selected Tyler Matzek at the 5 spot.

I think it is ongoing and will conclude by the end of May.

http://mvn.com/outsider/2009_mvn_mlb_mock_draft.html

To be clear . . . we (Stotle or myself) are not part of MVN.

[allstar1579]

Along the same topic . . . MVN asked us to take part in a mock draft with them.

Jacob Turner was taken 2nd by the Mariners (Jason Churchill - ESPN Radio 710).

We selected Tyler Matzek at the 5 spot.

I think it is ongoing and will conclude by the end of May.

http://mvn.com/outsider/2009_mvn_mlb_mock_draft.html

To be clear . . . we (Stotle or myself) are not part of MVN.

Totally agree with that one. I lose more respect for Churchill every day, I swear.

[crawdad]

Totally agree with that one. I lose more respect for Churchill every day, I swear.

Yeah, I thought Turner was a peculiar selection. Even if you ignore his signing bonus demands . . . I have a hard time seeing him as a top 5 talent. I think he barely breaks into the top three HS pitchers.

[allstar1579]

Yeah, I thought Turner was a peculiar selection. Even if you ignore his signing bonus demands . . . I have a hard time seeing him as a top 5 talent. I think he barely breaks into the top three HS pitchers.

Yeah, if I were thinking of him as the next Papelbon I might take him after Matzek, Purke, but that's high to take a closer, and he's got a lot of work to make on that 3rd pitch before I'm ready to say he's anything more than that.

Isn't Churchill one of those guys that falls in love with the power arm, no matter how much work they need?

[crawdad]

Yeah, if I were thinking of him as the next Papelbon I might take him after Matzek, Purke, but that's high to take a closer, and he's got a lot of work to make on that 3rd pitch before I'm ready to say he's anything more than that.

Isn't Churchill one of those guys that falls in love with the power arm, no matter how much work they need?

I really do not pay a lot of attention on specific scouts. I do more of a listen to the consensus and then look at prospects to figure out what I think. I've found that individual commercial scouts seem to not be challenged enough by dissenting views. I think they sometimes stagnate and have backwelling perspectives. For instance, some people seem to love a big breaking curveball . . . but fail to see that command will be problematic. Or . . . they see a big fastball and drool overlooking the flatness of it. I figure if I use a consensus approach, it will weed out the personal eccentricities of each evaluator.

For instance . . . I know my weakness is that I am incredibly reserved about raw tools guys.

[allstar1579]

I really do not pay a lot of attention on specific scouts. I do more of a listen to the consensus and then look at prospects to figure out what I think. I've found that individual commercial scouts seem to not be challenged enough by dissenting views. I think they sometimes stagnate and have backwelling perspectives. For instance, some people seem to love a big breaking curveball . . . but fail to see that command will be problematic. Or . . . they see a big fastball and drool overlooking the flatness of it. I figure if I use a consensus approach, it will weed out the personal eccentricities of each evaluator.

For instance . . . I know my weakness is that I am incredibly reserved about raw tools guys.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I agree about the raw toolsy guys, too much projection and you never know where they are going to end up, I've never been too much of a fan of too high of risk/reward picks.

It's funny you say that though, that is exactly what I am trying to explain right now about the draft "experts" just in reverse. Like you said, with scouts its better to get the consensus and go with more than one opinion, or a composite view. With these experts, one of them will say something, and then the next 10 guys will just agree with him sight unseen and start questions and concerns about guys that could end up being completely unfounded, just because guys want to seem like they know more than they do.