Keith Law Prospect Q&A
Jason Parks
What does Keith Law think of Michael Main? - Emily J. Smith/Flick
A former member of the Toronto Blue Jays front office and current ESPN Scouts, Inc. senior writer, Keith Law is held in extremely high regard for his work in the field of prospect evaluation on a national scale.
Law was generous enough to devote some of his valuable time to answering prospect-specific questions on the Texas Rangers' top-ranked farm system last week. Apologies if your question wasn't answered.
● ● ● ● ●
Q: Last spring after seeing both [Neftali] Feliz and [Wilmer] Font, you wrote that Feliz was "just the opening act for the star attraction, 17-year-old Wilmer Font." I was there that day too and I agreed with you. In light of that, I have to ask: why didn't you mention Font in your list of guys who could break into the Top 100 in 2009? Is his upside not top-20 material?
Mike Hindman
Keith Law: He didn't pitch. Without any performance data, any firm information on his health, and a lost year of development time, he just didn't make sense to highlight over someone like [Wilfredo] Boscan. If Font had thrown 80-100 innings this year and performed like you'd expect someone with that kind of stuff to perform, he would have been on the Top 100 -- you don't find that combination of youth, size, velocity, and stuff every day.
Q: In your opinion, who are the most overrated and underrated prospects in the Rangers' system? Why?
Keith Law: I don't know that there's anyone who's overrated in the Rangers' system; I suppose you could say [Taylor] Teagarden, who didn't hit at all this past year and whose arm problems might be a permanent issue. By my count, he only caught on back-to-back days 31 times all season, across all three levels.
Underrated ... [Michael] Main, certainly. [Kasey] Kiker. [Robbie] Ross. All three are dinged because they're not tall, but Main's a great athlete with huge stuff, and all three are excellent competitiors with Kiker and Ross showing good feel for pitching.
Q: Which Rangers prospect in your minor league Top 100 did you struggle with the most? Who did you want to rank higher but just couldn’t justify it?
Professor Parks
Keith Law: I'm a huge Michael Main fan -- have been since before the '07 draft -- but he just didn't pitch enough to justify a higher ranking, and I'm concerned about lost development time, since he's not going to go out and throw 160 innings in 2009 after such a short 2008 season. But I do still believe in the arm and athleticism.
Q: Keith, how much of the commotion raised over Blake Beavan's drop in velocity in 2008 was actually warranted? Approximately where does he rank in the Rangers' farm system in your estimation, and what is your long-term prognosis for his career?
Joey Matschulat
Keith Law: He lost velocity. That's … not good, especially since his calling card in high school was velocity; his delivery was rough and his secondary stuff wasn't that advanced. He's somewhere in the 15-20 range in the Rangers' system, behind Ross, Kiker, Boscan, [Neil] Ramirez, etc.
Q: Scouts and executives love tall pitchers, but occasionally, the short guys turn into something really special. When you evaluate players like Joseph Ortiz, Robbie Ross, and Kasey Kiker, how much does their height affect your opinion?
Trip Somers
Keith Law: I'm only concerned with height for one reason -- the ability to generate downhill plane on one's fastball. Pitchers who try to pitch up in the zone with their fastballs, especially if they're throwing four-seamers that lack movement or "life," are going to end up homer-prone far more often than not. The idea that tall equals durable does not, in my opinion, hold much water. I think thickness and delivery are far more important variables.
Q:You rank Martin Perez as the number 13 pitching prospect in all of baseball. The buzz on Perez among Rangers fans is heavy, but you're the first to key on him to that extent nationally. You suggested he has a chance to "shoot up the system" -- at age 17, what sort of track would you put him on if you were calling the shots?
Jamey Newberg
Keith Law: It really depends on his performance -- I doubt anyone suggested last winter that [Neftali] Feliz should finish 2008 in AA, but his performance clearly merited it. Perez should start 2009 in Low-A [Hickory], and if he's dominating, there's merit in skipping him over the [High-A] California League, especially if he's showing great command.
Q: Put yourself in Jon Daniels' shoes for a moment. What is going to be the biggest obstacle in taking this team from No. 1 farm system to perennial contender?
Todd Trice
Keith Law: That's fairly obvious, no? Developing pitching. They've had some decent arms before, but there's no track record in franchise history of developing any substantial amount of homegrown pitching. They've been a run-scoring club rather than a run-prevention club for most of their 40 years in Texas, but it does seem that run prevention is more important when talking about perennial contention or post-season success. The defense will improve - [Elvis] Andrus, [Julio] Borbon, and [Justin] Smoak are all plus defenders -- but developing quality pitching and keeping it healthy is about more than just stockpiling arms.
Q: Is there one thing that the Rangers are doing better than any other organization right now (maybe Latin American scouting)? As far as player development, they have improved a lot recently. What area(s) still need to be better?
t ball
Keith Law: They have integrated their scouting and evaluation across all areas -- draft, international, pro -- better than any team in baseball. They were the first team to target Latin American signees as throw-ins in trades while those players were still in short-season ball, often within a year of their original signing dates. You can't do that unless your international scouting department is talking to pro scouting and to the GM, or unless the information is all readily accessible to the GM when he's conducting the negotiations. In a league where the best teams are increasingly the best-run teams (Boston, Tampa Bay), staying ahead of the operational curve is obligatory.
Q: The John Danks-for-Brandon McCarthy trade looks to be a huge bust for the Rangers. Did the White Sox just do a better job of evaluating these two pitchers, or did McCarthy's stuff take a big step backwards upon switching organizations and Danks's stuff moved in the other direction? And is there any hope that McCarthy can salvage a career as a contributor in a big league rotation?
Todd Trice
Keith Law: Danks added a cutter, which serves as the breaking ball he was really missing in Texas. He was a lefty who was more effective at getting righties out, coming up in a system (Texas) where the big league ballpark favors left-handed power hitters. Until he went to Chicago, he didn't have a legit weapon to get lefties out.
McCarthy may have been damaged goods when the Rangers acquired him. He wouldn't be the first pitcher Kenny Williams has traded who was already hurt when he got on the plane (Mike Sirotka and Freddy Garcia come to mind). If McCarthy's shoulder is 100 percent, he can absolutely be a contributor in the middle of a rotation, but that's a conditional I can't really assess from afar.
Q: I'm intrigued by the acquisition of Greg Golson. I agreed with the move to swap prospects, seeing as the Rangers already have an ample amount of power prospects. I read he automatically comes in as the best defensive arm in the system along with the best speed. I'm curious as to what type of player he resembles. I've read that he's similar to Mike Cameron and Torii Hunter. Do you think, with the help of Rudy Jaramillo, he can develop the plate discipline to become a Torii Hunter-esque center fielder?
Tim from Dallas
Keith Law: Fifth outfielder type. He's similar to Cameron and Hunter in that all three are black. That's about the end of it. I have never seen a first-rounder with less feel for the game than Golson has.
That said, I'd rather have him than [John] Mayberry.
Q: Which current Ranger minor leaguers, besides the likely untouchables of Feliz, [Derek] Holland, Andrus and Smoak are the most attractive trade targets of other MLB teams? Can you put these players into one of two categories - near-major league ready and two-plus years away?
Mike From Dallas
Keith Law: I'm not sure why Andrus would be untouchable -- or even Holland. But to answer your question, outside of those guys, Borbon, and Max Ramirez (and possibly Teagarden), there's little trade value in the Rangers' system right now. Their best prospects are all too far away to be more than second or third guys in a major deal. Engel Beltre has enormous upside, but no one is going to give you a major league player of any worth for him.
Reader Comments (33)
Many thanks to Keith and BBTIA, great read. I'd have to say I'm more optimistic about Beavan than he is. I think it's quite remarkable that he was able to pitch with a great K/BB ratio despite making changes in his delivery, and his K rate trended up as he settled in. His "calling card" in HS may have been velocity, but it was control this past year. We all need to hope that continues this summer and that the velo ticks up a couple of mph.
Ross over Beavan at this point seems like a big overreaction on his part, imo.
I apologize to everyone for asking the esteemed Mr. Law such an obvious question.
I was hoping for a slightly more illuminating answer than "developing quality pitching and keeping it healthy is about more than just stockpiling arms."
Also, re. the Danks response, I'm not sure why he is saying that Danks was "a lefty who was more effective at getting righties out". The statistics do not bear this out.
Anyway, I enjoy reading Law's takes, he's very sharp. And as always Jason Parks delivers another outstanding product. Great job.
I think Keith is going to have to eat some crow concerning Beaven. Imagine where he will rank next year after his velocity returns to a consistent 93-95mph. Looking back to 2008 I think people will say that it was a bleesing for Beaven in that he learned how to pitch and was not just a thrower. With a plus FB and the knowledge gained this past year on how to get batters out, I think he could move very fast in the Rangers system. (And I wasn't a big fan of his when he was drafted.)
He's similar to Cameron and Hunter in that all three are black.
Great answer Keith! I do not understand where all of this love is coming from for Golson. The guy has done nothing ever to warrant it. Hopefully, Law has opened some eyes to the silly notion (espoused by the likes of Hindman) that Golson will somehow become a better MLB player than he has been in the minors.
Ross over Beavan at this point seems like a big overreaction on his part, imo.
Right, because I'm known for big overreactions rather than measured assessments. Give me a break.
Tricer, I only answered what was asked. Any other answer to your question would have been misleading.
thanks keith, appreciate your incite. I wonder with the way the market seems to be going now, if teams would consider giving up more major league players entering arbitration or after that point for alot of the Rangers Prospects. It seems like the MLB is turning the tide in the valuation of players, making prospects more valueable now more than ever/
also, any thoughts on the Andruw Jones signing, good or bad move by the Rangers? does it create a problem with the evaluation and development of the other young Ranger OFs?
Right after t ball's (first) post, I had this to send, when my phone died:
(Re hope for Beavan): Yep. But you've gotta love it (whether or not we want to hear it regarding some of our own prospects) how decisive KL is-- how far out on a limb he goes-- regarding the future, based on what he has seen in the past and present, and yet how he stops himself from opining about what he hasn't. He knows what he doesn't know.
This is why I trust him, and therefore why some of his insights cut to the quick.
Good questions, guys, that led to really good food for thought. Thank you, J,J,J, and Keith.
"I have never seen a first-rounder with less feel for the game than Golson has."
That's a troublesome assessment. What, if anything, can coaches to do address this deficiency?
Have him help Chuck Morgan prepare a documentary on Roberto Clemente.
It might inspire that love that leads to "feel" which, in turn, could finally lead to an employment of all that athleticism.
The thought Golson + Rudy still intrigues me. But "feel" comes with love and experience, so they better get creative if that's really the problem.
There's always a chance Golson could be a late bloomer, but its doubtful. I'm still glad the Rangers grabbed him for Mayberry though. If something happens to Vallejo, Golson could be a valuable pinch-runner in the playoffs.
I'm somewhere in between on Beaven. I'm not as down on him as Keith Law, but the loss in velocity is disturbing. Maybe as his arm strengthens and he gets used to the rigors of pro ball his velocity will get back into the mid-90s.
I don't think Beavan's velo is a huge issue right now. His heavy two-seam fastball will play in the low 90s. Velocity is a plus, but not when it comes at the expense of movement or command.
I think Beavan's biggest issue is the development of his slider. An upper 80s/ low 90s, groundball inducing fastball is fine, but if your comps are below average you aren't going to find success at the higher levels. Beavan's slider was not the out pitch it was in HS and that, in my opinion, is the biggest concern in his game.
Jason, thanks for that point, that rounds out the picture. While most are keyed in on his velocity, we should apparently watch for reports on his secondary pitches developing.
I never really understood why so many were so high on Golson in the first place. All his scouting reports said he was a fine athlete, but that he seemed lost at the plate, one went as far to say his brain was still in the clubhouse when he was batting. That is a huge slam on his offensive game. Not to mention how much the guy strikes out, swinging at anything, which shows a lack of patience which means he won't get on base.
I think of Michael Jordan trying to play baseball when people mention Golson. Jordan was a great athlete, but not a baseball player. It will be monumental if Rudy can make something of Golson.
People were so high on Golson because his raw tools suggested a player with superstar potential. His lack of baseball instincts have limited him thus far, but when a player has an 80 grade arm, 80 grade speed, 70 grade power, and 65-70 grade fielding you keep them around in case the light goes on.
when a player has an 80 grade arm, 80 grade speed, 70 grade power, and 65-70 grade fielding you keep them around in case the light goes on.
I agree with the sentiment, but I thought we were talking about Greg Golson.
I didn't see Beavan during the regular season in 2008, but you guys are citing better velocities than what I heard in secondhand reports.
Jason where do you get the estimation of 70 grade power?
I've read that Golson has above average raw power, above average to me suggest a moderate increase from 50, which to me screams a max of 60, or maybe 55 once you calculate the "raw" side of it.
Golson certainly hasn't put up 70 power in the minors.
KLaw: Good one. The arm/speed/fielding grades are from BA. The power grade is from another source.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/scouts-view/2007/265038.html
I agree with the sentiment, but I thought we were talking about Greg Golson.
Not sure if that was the real Keith Law, but that's another fine comment.
C'mon Rangers: Raw tool grades and production don't have to co-exist. Golson has tremendous raw power. The scout I spoke with graded it at 70. I think that might be a tad high, although I'm not a professional scout. I would probably grade his power as plus.
I will say that I have seen Golson in person and his tools are very evident. He is extremely fast and his arm is just sick. His power is also pretty impressive, although his power might be better classified as 5 o'clock power because it doesn't always translate to game action.
Good post Jason. And thanks to Keith.
But I have one qualm: Dirkatron's suggested question from lonestarball.com wasn't answered.
This is what I want to know also...
It seems Golson has fine tools, that I agree, I'm hoping he can put it all together, I'm just not counting on it. The foot work problems, holes in his swing, all can hopefully be corrected. His 4.0 second time to first is really exciting, I have no problem with him in the Rangers system, it's just those strike outs.
I wonder if he would have been better served going to college. 70 still seems high on his power, that is really knocking the cover off the ball, and so far that hasn't translated into his numbers. It would be great if his power, in fact, ends up to be so high. I do like the trade though to acquire him.
C'mon Rangers: You can't determine scouting grades from stat lines. 70 might be high, but I think you have to see him play to make that determination. As I mentioned, his power might be closer to plus. When I saw him his power was impressive, but I only saw a few games so my analysis is snapshot.
I've been "klaw" to friends since I was about 15. Never "the klaw," though. I'm not The Justin Upton.
One thing I hate about anonymous scouting reports is the lack of accountability. You can say something outrageous - which makes it more likely to end up in print - and never have to face up to it if you were wrong. There's no way you could put a 70 on Golson's raw power. I've seen him several times, including at least 4 BPs. It's just not close.
I'm not determining his power from his stat lines, I'm reading evaluations just like everyone else! I'm just saying 70 is Smoak power, and to say Golson has Smoak like power is crazy, otherwise the guy would of been a top 10 and not a 21 in the '04 draft especially with his combination of the "five tools". If he hits big in BP, that is one thing, and obviously he's not a 70 when the game starts. Only time will tell.
I think the real question that needs to be answered here is: when will David Murphy get his plaque in Cooperstown?
Joey: right after Bonds!
I'm not a fan of anonymous reports either, but when BA puts their name on it should carry some legitimacy. Of course, I had numerous problems with BA's best tools list so perhaps their credibility isn't what it used to be. That said, I basically agree with their grades for speed/fielding/arm. Also, as I mentioned, I think Golson's power grade is closer to plus than plus-plus. His approach is terrible and it prevents consistent hard contact, but I thought his raw power was impressive.
I have a Golson OFP report coming out soon. I'm obviously not a professional scout, but I'm fairly confident in my ability to judge talent. I'll make sure to put my name on it.
Edit: I just spoke with Kevin Goldstein and he said his power grade for Golson was 55-60.
Props to Keith for taking questions, and Jason for putting this all together. Great stuff.
I gotta say, I was really surprised at his damning description of Teagarden in question #2. I'm not very high on Teagarden myself, but that's been mainly because I have my doubts about his bat - I wasn't aware his durability issues had translated onto the field that much 2008. That's concerning.
golson sounds like a combine superman right before the draft. a player that really doesn't know how to play but is fast as hell. there's no beating intuitiveness in a linebacker or a smooth swing in a hitter. i just don't expect anything from golson.
as for teagarden, it's just the opposite. durability is paramount, particularly re-gaining his once plus arm strength. but by all accounts, he has the instinct to shepherd good pitching and call a good game. he's the prototypical catcher - before pudge juiced the archetype into oblivion. i'm willing to accept a .260 hitter, frankly. i'm just hoping he can punish lefties and maybe top out at .280.
side note: i don't hear that feliz has a lot of instinct on the mound, which is concerning. i'm thinking more highly of holland, myself.
great answers from 'klaw'
Thank you Keith and BBTiA
"I'm not sure why Andrus would be untouchable -- or even Holland. But to answer your question, outside of those guys,
Borbon, and Max Ramirez (and possibly Teagarden),there's little trade value in the Rangers' system right now."Doesnt that answer why Holland would be untouchable?
another outstanding q&a by bbtia!