Author Topic: Ranking the New Guys  (Read 1123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1245
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #25: June 09, 2011, 11:52:08 PM »
Cole was mentioned as a potential high first rounder entering his senior season, but as the season went on he slid a bit. Id say he was probably the 4th best HS arm in last years draft, after Taillon, Whitson, and Covey. Still HIGHLY regarded, but he wasn't a true elite prospect.

I suppose in the end he does have #1 potential, but so does anyone with a power arm. There's probably 25 pitchers in this draft that people label potential #1's. I think realistically, there are only a handful of true aces. I guess it comes down to your opinion of an ace.

I think of Felix, Lincecum, Halladay, guys of that ilk. Some might consider Matt Cain an ace. He could be a good #1 on most teams - I wouldn't say a true ace though. So maybe Im a bit more strict on a #1/ace. I definitely think Strasburg has that. I think Purke has that, if healthy. Zimmermann is awesome, but I don't think he's a true ace. I think Ray, Cole, and Meyer could be up there with a Zimmermann type ceiling, but I wouldn't put them near a Strasburg.

Offline d_mc_nabb

  • Posts: 778
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #26: June 10, 2011, 12:01:57 AM »
Cole was mentioned as a potential high first rounder entering his senior season, but as the season went on he slid a bit. Id say he was probably the 4th best HS arm in last years draft, after Taillon, Whitson, and Covey. Still HIGHLY regarded, but he wasn't a true elite prospect.

I suppose in the end he does have #1 potential, but so does anyone with a power arm. There's probably 25 pitchers in this draft that people label potential #1's. I think realistically, there are only a handful of true aces. I guess it comes down to your opinion of an ace.

I think of Felix, Lincecum, Halladay, guys of that ilk. Some might consider Matt Cain an ace. He could be a good #1 on most teams - I wouldn't say a true ace though. So maybe Im a bit more strict on a #1/ace. I definitely think Strasburg has that. I think Purke has that, if healthy. Zimmermann is awesome, but I don't think he's a true ace. I think Ray, Cole, and Meyer could be up there with a Zimmermann type ceiling, but I wouldn't put them near a Strasburg.

I agree with you- I think you can be more liberal with the #1 label, but strict with the ace label. Certainly none of them are near Strasburg. I definitely do think that a rotation of those four would, if they pan out, stand toe to toe with the Phillies. Having a Ray, Cole, or Pea**** as a fifth starter (with the other presumably in the 'pen) pushes them over the top. I really don't believe that Clif Lee is an ace. Yes, he has a great K/BB ratio, but you have to have the ERA also. His is good, but not great.

Online KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14373
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #27: June 10, 2011, 01:07:31 AM »
Cole was mentioned as a potential high first rounder entering his senior season, but as the season went on he slid a bit. Id say he was probably the 4th best HS arm in last years draft, after Taillon, Whitson, and Covey. Still HIGHLY regarded, but he wasn't a true elite prospect.

I suppose in the end he does have #1 potential, but so does anyone with a power arm. There's probably 25 pitchers in this draft that people label potential #1's. I think realistically, there are only a handful of true aces. I guess it comes down to your opinion of an ace.

I think of Felix, Lincecum, Halladay, guys of that ilk. Some might consider Matt Cain an ace. He could be a good #1 on most teams - I wouldn't say a true ace though. So maybe Im a bit more strict on a #1/ace. I definitely think Strasburg has that. I think Purke has that, if healthy. Zimmermann is awesome, but I don't think he's a true ace. I think Ray, Cole, and Meyer could be up there with a Zimmermann type ceiling, but I wouldn't put them near a Strasburg.

If A.J. Cole is another Zimmermann, I will take it!

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37353
  • LAC 8)
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #28: June 10, 2011, 01:16:02 AM »
I'd take Cole over Whitson and Covey.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1245
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #29: June 10, 2011, 11:21:08 AM »
I'd take Cole over Whitson and Covey.

Of course, he's a National.

The general consensus last year, would not agree with you. Without any signing demand, Cole was not going in the top 20 last year. Both of those kids did. One in the top 10. Cole was not rated that highly.

He's off to an impressive start and I wouldn't trade him for either right now either. At draft time, it was a completely different story. Both Whitson and Covey were more highly regarded.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37353
  • LAC 8)
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #30: June 10, 2011, 11:40:56 AM »
Of course, he's a National.

The general consensus last year, would not agree with you. Without any signing demand, Cole was not going in the top 20 last year. Both of those kids did. One in the top 10. Cole was not rated that highly.

He's off to an impressive start and I wouldn't trade him for either right now either. At draft time, it was a completely different story. Both Whitson and Covey were more highly regarded.

just from things i've read, i'd rather have cole.  he's going to fill out his frame more which will give him more durability and strength.  a mid 90s fastball that can top @ 97 plus a spike curve and a developing change will be a nice combo. 

obviously anything can happen, but i'd rather have cole than those two.  taillon is a different story.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1245
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #31: June 10, 2011, 12:15:00 PM »
Like I said though, you're judging that now. There wasn't anybody that had that opinion before or at draft time last year. Cole was in the 91-93 range as a senior. He had touched 96 leading up to his senior year, but didn't get there during the year, so it had him down further on boards. Covey and Whitson both had better fastballs as seniors, along with good size - sturdier frames. Sure, Cole has some more projection, but that doesn't always pan out. Lets hope for our sake it does.

You're letting him being a National, doing research on him, him having success, and a little hope of him being a National cloud your judgement. Nothing wrong with that, I do that as well. Ive done that with Robbie Ray. Just sayin ...

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37353
  • LAC 8)
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #32: June 10, 2011, 12:23:11 PM »
Like I said though, you're judging that now. There wasn't anybody that had that opinion before or at draft time last year. Cole was in the 91-93 range as a senior. He had touched 96 leading up to his senior year, but didn't get there during the year, so it had him down further on boards. Covey and Whitson both had better fastballs as seniors, along with good size - sturdier frames. Sure, Cole has some more projection, but that doesn't always pan out. Lets hope for our sake it does.

You're letting him being a National, doing research on him, him having success, and a little hope of him being a National cloud your judgement. Nothing wrong with that, I do that as well. Ive done that with Robbie Ray. Just sayin ...

haha i'm not being biased dude, i honestly believe he's the better player.  i've done my research on all those dudes.  

you can look back to last year's draft thread and i was ecstatic the nats drafted him because he was one of the best pitchers available. 

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1245
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #33: June 10, 2011, 03:39:16 PM »
Everyone was ecstatic at landing Cole last year. Getting a late 1st rounder/sandwich guy in the 4th is fantastic value.

He was one of the best arms in the draft. I just don't think you'll find anyone that isn't affiliated with the Nats in any way that would say he was the 2nd best arm in last years draft.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37353
  • LAC 8)
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #34: June 10, 2011, 03:44:46 PM »
I just don't think you'll find anyone that isn't affiliated with the Nats in any way that would say he was the 2nd best arm in last years draft.

good for them 8)

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3865
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #35: June 10, 2011, 04:45:33 PM »
Didn't Cole slide down the rankings because he committed to The U? Most considered him unsignable if I'm not mistaken, I don't think it had anything to do with his talent.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1245
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #36: June 10, 2011, 06:09:20 PM »
Signability was the main reason he fell to the fourth round. Teams didn't want to pay double slot for a late first rounder, so he fell.

But he slid from a potential top 10 pick to borderline first rounder over the course of his senior year. His stuff was inconsistent and his velocity was in the low 90's, not the mid he touched previously. I mention this slide only to say that he wasn't the 2nd best arm in the draft come draft time. He was behind a couple other guys, but still a definite top talent. Probably somewhere between 15-30 I would imagine.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1245
Re: Ranking the New Guys
« Reply #37: June 10, 2011, 06:14:18 PM »

From BA,
Quote
27. PHILLIES (John). I'm having a hard time believing Brentz is still available too. And yet I'm not going that way either, not with the Phillies' preference for more toolsy outfielders like Domonic Brown, Anthony Gose and Jiwan James. With the organization thinned out after trades for Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay, it's looking for high-upside arms. A.J. Cole has had inconsistent stuff this spring, but at his best he's a good-body guy with a plus fastball and potential plus breaking ball.


June, pre draft mock 2010
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draft-preview/2010/2610118.html

Final pre draft rankings:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/2010/06/final-top-50-before-the-draft/

All of this isn't to knock AJ - It was in response to the question earlier about him being the 2nd best HS arm in the draft. All I was saying is that he was not the #2 HS arm, which would've made him a top ten pick. Signability wouldn't have been an issue then. But he wanted double slot, based on a pick in the 20's, so his slide began from the 20's.