Comments on: Big Board Clean Up

By: Pilchard

Pilchard — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:23:51 +0000

Confident that minor league attendance issues will play no role as to the level where SS starts next season (fwiw, if impact on attendance is a concern, SS would start the season in DC as SS would generate more revenue by pitching in DC than at any other spot in the organization).

SS is the most valuable development asset in the organization, and what's best for SS's development as a pitcher will be the only factor in determining where he begins the 2010 season.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:22:17 +0000

I see absolutely no need to rush him, just place him where naturally belongs based on his performance. Last year I saw a little more restraint as far as promotions go. Most players will be promoted based on level domination PLUS orginizational need. With SS, I suspect, his promotions will be based solely on performance. I say start him at Potomac, and his dominance ought to be evident immediately.

By: Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:22:16 +0000

Appreciate the feedback. It's always thoughtful on NFA and I always learn something from the participants, particularly about roster/contractual issues.

Regarding where SS starts the 2010 season, I did notice on other blogs that there were some suggestions he start at Hagerstown or Potomac in order to pump up enthusiasm and attendance at these locations.

By: Sue Dinem

Sue Dinem — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:11:57 +0000

Scott :
...his raw stuff is better than almost anyone in the majors right now (maybe King Felix is better? Verlander?).

KC got this kid. Zack something-or-other.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's going on in the AFL. Getting smacked around will be good for Strasburg because (a) it will temper expectations (b) he will learn from it.

And if that happens to impel the organization to start him lower than AA... so be it ;-)

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:54:35 +0000

I agree with Rocket about Strasburg. The one bad game he had (and it was a “doosie”) really does not speak to his real stuff so far. He’s clearly improving, and has not given up a HR outside of that bad game and also has a 1.48 ERA outside of that game. Frankly, I’m glad he got shallacked – it gives him respect for the game and keeps him humble.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:42:34 +0000

Small sample size alert!

He's been fairly dominant in 3 of 4 starts in the AFL, as RS noted, his command has been shown to be excellent, and his raw stuff is better than almost anyone in the majors right now (maybe King Felix is better? Verlander?).

I think he could easily start in the majors for the Nationals next year (he'd obviously outperform Livan). If anything, they'll keep him down through June in order to push off his arbitration years, and while he's in the minors, starting off in AA I'd imagine, I'd hope they would only work with him on developing his change as an out pitch against left handers.

I don't think one bad game out of four says anything more than it's a huge advantage for hitters coming off full seasons to face a guy coming off a 4 month layoff.

By: Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:12:46 +0000

dd-Not to nitpick (ok, I guess I am nitpicking) but he only gave up 1 run yesterday (that set up by a diving catch attempt by the LF that turned into a double). If you discount his one bad start, he’s been dominant against advanced competition. I do agree with you, he’s got some learning to do but I don’t believe starting him below AA makes any sense. His raw stuff is unhittable and his command is superb. Once he hits his “groove” in setting up hitters, he will dominate anywhere he pitches, and that includes the majors.

By: dd

dd — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:38:27 +0000

Rocket Surgeon- While Strasburg had by far his best outing, giving up 2 runs in 5 innings, his 5.28 ERA and 3 home runs allowed in 15 innings shows he has more learning to do. It is somewhat good to see that he will not dominate anywhere he goes, after all, Stephen he is now a pro. Hope to see him adapt at evry level.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:20:29 +0000

At best, Mike MacDougal should be offered an incentive laden 1-year deal with maybe a vesting player option for a second year based on performance metrics. No way should he be offered arbitration, which would reward him for silly things like saves over more illustrative metrics of how he pitched like the fact he walked as many guys as he struck out for us.

He's simply not a very good pitcher anymore. His K-rate has plummeted, his BB-rate has skyrocketed, he got lucky last year with a BABIP of .291 against a career average of .320. I guess on the plus side he gives up lots of ground balls and few homeruns. That's something.

But we should count on a 4.50 ERA from him next year, meaning we should give him a contract (that's better than a lot of our relievers) but not a huge contract.

By: Brian Oliver

Brian Oliver — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:57:25 +0000

Since 2005? Absolutely. They are a more robust system. When I first started NFA, the names of the guys I was tracking as the Nats top prospects was not that impressive. No offense to Kory Casto, but when he is considered the #1 prospect, the organization has nowhere to go but up.

The thing is that I figured it would take 3-4 drafts before the team could realistically feel like it was truly on the upswing. The Bowden fisaco slowed that down a bit.

They really need to get the international pipeline healthier but in my opinion they are almost at the point where we won't see guys too old for their level (i.e. 25-year olds playing in the Carolina League).

By: Wallyball

Wallyball — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:52:34 +0000

That range feels appropriate to me. These things tend to get a momentum of their own, so someone could give a higher ranking because of SS and Storen, let's say, but it would feel inflated, kind of like the #9 ranking from a few years ago. It still bums me out about JZimm's injury, though.

Regardless of the ranking, right now feels like the best that the system has been since they moved here. Do you agree?

By: Brian Oliver

Brian Oliver — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:38:45 +0000

Wally - They were #21 in last year's ranking. I don't believe they would fall given some of the things you mentioned. I hope they push the top half (15 or better). A realistic range IMO is 13-17.

Keep in mind that I tend to be more conservative in these sorts of things.

By: Wallyball

Wallyball — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:34:39 +0000

Rocket Surgeon – that was a good article, thanks for the link. The ranking of the Nats farm system is going to see noticeable improvement this year, I think.

Brian – willing to hazard an early guess at their overall rank? My guess – just inside top half, 14 or so. SS alone probably drops them below 20, then add Storen, and improvements from Norris, Marrero, Meyers, Perez, Espy et al more than compensate for losing Zimm and some of the pitchers that graduated beyond prospects. I would also guess 3, maybe 4 Top 100 prospects.

By: Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:50:56 +0000

Check out this link-

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/stephen-strasburgs-afl-surprise/

By: Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:29:21 +0000

I heard that Rizzo and Kasten were in the stands yesterday in Surprise to watch the Nats prospects. I searched the Web for confirmation but couldn’t find anything of note. However, I thought it was intersting that all the Nats players saw action, particularly the pitchers. Especially since Storen had already pitched on Saturday. Anyway, if they were watching they had to come away encouraged.