With the Indians signing of fifth rounder RHP Zach Putnam yesterday, I thought I would take the time to provide some thoughts on him. I was able to get into contact with an amateur scout for an AL club this morning and this is what he had to say about him:
“Strong track record before going through the minor shoulder problem and then the whole throat/stomach thing he had late. If you needed a big hit in a crucial situation, if you needed a quality start against another team's ace, this was the guy. The ultimate college baseball player. You can't really put into words what he meant to Michigan's program the last three years. Hard to say he's an overdraft when he was slated to go in the late first or first supplemental round and slid to the fifth. Extreme value in that round. Probably profiles as more as a late-inning reliever, but he's got enough stuff--five pitches--to start. Power FB with arm-side run and sink to it; split is second-best pitch. SL got better as the year progressed and was his go-to pitch when he didn't have the power to the FB after losing 19 pounds with the viral infection. CB is kind of an afterthought--gave hitters a different look in college, but is a well below-average ML pitch.”
Also, the Indians have unofficially signed LHP T.J. House, RHP Trey Haley, and RHP Bryce Stowell to signing bonusues between $750K to $1M. House is the only one of those three who is a confirmed signing as he is in Cleveland for a physical and should officially be announced as a signing today. Stowell and Haley are rumored to be signed today as well.
Here is a quick scouting report that I have put together for all three players:
TREY HALEY, RHP, Age 18
- Fastball sits around 91-94 and tops out at 95 MPH with good movement.
- Plus curve, average change.
- Good command at young age, intelligent and has good poise on mound.
- Projectable frame, good delivery and two outstanding pitches.
- Clay Buchholtz comp
TJ HOUSE, LHP, Age 18
- Left-handed high school pitcher with plus arm strength an above average fastball that consistently sits in the low-90s.
- Slid in draft because of high pricetag, deemed unsignable. Projected 2nd-5th round.
- Also throws a slider and curveball that are projected to be at least average.
- Some comps to Mike Hampton because of ability and athleticism.
- A competitor on the mound.
- Baseball America rated him as the 100th best pitching prospect.
BRYCE STOWELL, RHP, Age 21
- Fastball consistently 91-93 and tops out at 94 MPH with an ability to add more velocity.
- Also throws a sinker, circle change, and his out pitch is his slider. He’s also been working on a 12-6 curveball this year, so it remains to be seen if the Indians keep the pitch or not.
- Some command issues, but something time that can be worked out with coaches.
- A competitor, leader, and ultimately may be an impact player in the bullpen.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Scouts Take On Putnam
Everything on this site is free, but for those interested in making any monetary contributions to help support the stability and growth of this site please click on the "Donate" button below.
10 comments:
House was BA's 100th prospect overall, not just for the pitchers.
BA had Haley's fastball as sitting at 88-89 after the first inning.
Stowell said that his fastball range was 89-94 when I interviewed him.
From these comps it is hard to imagine any of these bonuses except Putnam's, which was by far the lowest of these.
Dennis
The bonuses paid is almost a non-factor. I understand you weren't happy with the draft and I know you feel different guys should've been drafted, but that's an old debate that we've moved on from now.... you can't change who we did draft.
How much bonus it took to sign them is not an issue, as signing them is obviously better than not signing them, as long as it doesn't effect your future budget by going over-slot (or overpaying as you've put it).
As it seems the trade of Byrd was to bring in extra money to sign these guys then I don't have a problem with it. Whether you think these 4 guys were an overdraft or not, getting all 4 of them is much better than any prospect you could've gotten for Byrd by taking on money.
The way I see it is simple..... I've accepted these guys are the guys we drafted, I'm happy that they've signed and I'm confident their signing will not cause any budget constraints in the future.
Darren,
Agree with almost everything that you said. Agree with Tony that, in the end, since we had already drafted these guys you sign them IF you have no other reasonable options for that money. You and I and Tony have, believe it or not, always been in agreement on this. I always believe in signing as many draft picks as possible, even for over slot.
There are some caveats to this, however:
1. Were there any remaining international free agents who were better than these guys who we could have signed? (Edward Salcedo is still out there, I think. Not knowing if he was a better prospect, just saying.)
2. Were these guys the best, dollar-for-talent, of the remaining draft picks (or undrafted free agents, like Barton was the year we signed him) we could have signed? (I had heard some good things about Michael Goodnight. Not saying that there was anyone but it is a fair question).
You seem to be making the assumption that this was the best use of this money right now which has to be taken into consideration as much as next year's budget.
So, while I think we should have spent this money and these draft picks are the obvious way to spend it and get some return for Byrd, it doesn't excuse the way we drafted or if, now, we didn't spend this money the best way we could have. Don't know if we did or didn't. Just saying.
One more thing: the natural inclination of some is to want to try to hype these guys based on their bonus rather than their talent. We have already seen one person here call these guys all first or second round talents which, to me, is a real stretch. Putnam is a clear example of a balanced approach, as the scout says, of someone who has significant value as a 5th round pick as I said in my article on draft day, ESPECIALLY at his bonus amount he agreed to (my concern was paying him $1 million or so).
As long as people are balanced in how they describe these prospects and don't go overboard trying to justify their bonuses with inflated stuff on their quality, then I have no problem with the results of this situation, given that the draft is what it is.
I still would like to get scouting reports from one of Tony's scouting friends about the other guys we signed.
Oh, BTW, Tim Mehlville just signed with the Royals.
Tony,
What would your scout friend say about Haley at $1.1 million or House at $860,000 vs Mehlville at $1.25 million?
He actually settled for end of first round money showing me what I had heard through the grapevine: he wanted to turn pro AND his family was very reasonable and did not make unreasonable demands on teams.
So, while we are paying over slot to 2nd and 3rd round talents the Royals pay under slot for a first round talent!
Putnam was a supplemental round talent. BA had him at 50 overall. For what he signed for, he was a steal.
Dennis, while I appreciate your passion for this stuff, I don't have the energy to debate this topic because frankly I don't care. We signed the guys, that is all I care about. When a team drafts 50 players and there are over 1500 players taken in a draft it offers A LOT of room for hindsight and armchair GMs. Just my opinion.
Anyway, I got word from an amateur scout on Putnam today as I posted. He didn't have anything on Haley, House or Stowell as he didn't see them (they were not in his area of coverage). Not sure I will have any luck with the other guy I contacted....we'll see.
Tony,
You said:
"When a team drafts 50 players and there are over 1500 players taken in a draft it offers A LOT of room for hindsight and armchair GMs. Just my opinion."
That's really not fair and you know it. The only problem with what you said is that I said all these things before and during the draft, as well as afterward. So, no arm chair or hindsight stuff here, but I would expect that you would know that since most of what I wrote was also posted here.
(Edward Salcedo is still out there, I think. Not knowing if he was a better prospect, just saying.)
come on you are going to bring up salcedo has anyone ever seen this guy, I am not sure he even exists, hes the bigfoot of specs
Denny, my point is, with the Indians draft or anything for that matter such as ranking prospects....we can sit here and pat ourselves on the back for "calling it right" with the few things we got right out of the 1000 things that happened. Sorta like the horoscopes. They say 7-10 things, and usually one thing comes out right or relates.;-)
Anyway, I know your stance on the draft. You wrote your feelings down after it happened and provided some thoughts before it as well. My point is there is just so much virtual GMing these days and it is always easier to say what they should have done. When we look at the draft in two to three years there will ALWAYS be hindsight on a player in each round we shoulda taken.
I gotta see how these players shake out. If they struggle, then I'll be the first to give you props.
Post a Comment