Heyward and Hanson, BA First Teamers

by cbwilk on Sep 5, 2008 1:39 PM EDT Comment 30 comments

Baseball America named thier first and second team minor league all stars, http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/minors/awards/minor-league-all-stars/2009/266818.html, and Jason Heyward and Tommy Hanson were named to the first team. Freddie Freeman was apparently considered, but didn't make either team.

It's a pretty good list, hard to really argue with any of the picks, maybe except for David Price not making the first team. I think it's neat that I saw nine of the fifteen first teamers play this season.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hanson is definitely middle of the rotation

Uh-huh, that’s what I’ve read from a few “knowledgeable” posters. I think BA knows these guys a little bit better than the average poster. It’s good to know that we have at least 2-3 potential studs down on the farm.

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 5, 2008 1:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There's no reason to insult the intelligence of people who don't agree with you

If you remember, Baseball America left Hanson off their top 100 prospects list at the start of the season. Hanson has done a great job of upping his stock this season and he has good potential, but he’s more of a B+ prospect (which is still very good) instead of an A prospect like Buchholz, Kershaw, Bailey, Joba, Gallardo, and Hughes are/were.

A lot of people just prefer to be cautious about prospects to avoid the potential heartbreak. Remember when Kyle Davies and Dan Meyer were supposed to be future aces?

by VictorW on Sep 5, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm assuming...

…That you are one the people that I was talking about. I guess what I’m saying is that unless you’re a scout, or do this for a living and have some prespective and insight, it’s best to leave it to the experts. “Avoiding potential heartbreak” is not a good way to evaluate talent. Also, I did say that these are “potential” studs. Davies and Meyer were both potential studs at one point.

The other thing with Hanson is that he added velocity to his fastball this season. I think I read that last year the fastball was at 92 and this year it’s at 95. Pair this with improving secondary pitches and it seems that you have a potential stud.

Lastly, my post is a reaction to those posters who will “piss in one’s Cheerios” regarding prospects. This has been such an awful season, that I, for one, would like something to be hopeful about. So when there is a guy that has good stuff and is putting up the numbers to back it up, let’s just go ahead and be optimistic. I’m not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, I’m just trying to assert optimism for the future, even if that future might be several years away.

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 5, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with buzz. I read lots of posts that said they had read articles by scouts that projected Hanson to be a mid-rotation guy max. This kind of just shows that BA thinks he has top of the rotation stuff whether or not he was top 100 to begin this season. The kid is 6’6" he is a big projectable right hander. He has a great mindset from what I have read, doesnt back down from anyone, challenges hitters all game long. He has an improving slider, a plus curve, and at 6’6"i dont think it is unreasonable to beleive he can throw a fastball consistently 93-96 and dominate hitters. There is still a lot of projection with any prospect. But now a major baseball publication agrees that Hanson has top of the rotation stuff. You will see him in the top 50 next year for sure, if not top 25.

by gopherbroke on Sep 5, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah he's a big guy

It’s kind of hard to find good scouting reports on minor leaguers, and a lot of the reports people were referencing were probably written in the spring when his stock wasn’t up so much, and he was projected as a middle of the rotation guy.

I still think Hanson is a B+ guy, someone who will be a good/very good pitcher, as opposed to a flat out ace like Kershaw. Stupid semantics.

I really should focus more on the actual thread. Big props to Hanson for making the team along with Heyward.

by VictorW on Sep 5, 2008 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the record, I didn’t call him a middle of the rotation guy. I just don’t think he deserves labels like “ace” and “untouchable.”

So how many people here are scouts? If only experts should talk, then how many people should even be typing here? I thought that was the whole point of this place was for fans to discuss and talk about the team?

And like I said, if you remember, the experts kept Hanson off their prospect list, but he has raised his stock significantly during the season. He’ll definitely show up on it next year and it’ll be interesting how high he’ll be.

Last year, Hanson fastball averaged 90-91 MPH. This year. his fastball is not consistently 95. People juice radar gun readings or call off the top speed. Like how Brian Wilson is supposed to throw 100, and I’m sure he can sometimes, but he averages 97 on his fastball. Hanson probably averages 92, maybe 93, on his fastball. He has some nice movement too I hear, but that’s not a 95 MPH fastball. I guess it’s a preference, where some people prefer to talk in terms of average speed and others prefer to talk in terms of top speed. So he’s got an above average fast ball and a very good curve. He’s done very well in the minors too. To one person, that’s an ace, and to another that’s “a good/very good, pitcher.”

I don’t know enough about Meyers (he was the #1 lefty pitching prospect in baseball), but calling Davies a future ace was pretty generous IMO.

The more I think about it though, the sillier I feel. It’s really just semantics. Pitchers like Hudson, Nolasco, and Wang are aces to some people, but not to others. It’s kind of silly when it’s just semantics. The words that were being tossed around about Hanson are/were “ace in the making” and “untouchable” which is far more generous than front of the line starter, which means, to me, a #2 who could be a #1. Hudson in my eyes is a front of the line starter, but he’s not an ace, even if he is the Braves’ ace. Yeah, it’s just stupid semantics.

While you may think some people are too pessimistic about prospects, which is certainly fair, others people think people are too optimistic about prospects. Different ends of the spectrum. Undervaluing prospects based on pessimism (or preventing dissappointment or whatever) is no more or less valid than overvaluing prospects based on optimism (and wanting to look forward to the future).

I don’t think anyone is trying to rain on people’s parades. It’s just people have different perspectives on the value of a player and that’s what we’re here to talk about. I just think some people are too optimistic about our prospects in general and become unrealistic about it.

by VictorW on Sep 5, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree with you

There always room for optimism, its much better than pessimism, but i like to be a realist. Hudson Is our nbr 1 pitcher, but that does not make him an ace… Johan is an ace, CC is an ace, Peavy is an ace… in all of baseball there might be 10 ace…. so to say the Hanson isnt gonna be an ace, isnt exactly a slight against him. I have no doubt that Hanson could be our nbr 1 pitcher eventually, but that doesnt mean he projects to being an ace. If he was an ace, he would be in the top 15 best prospects in baseball, IMO.

What’s important is not whether he is going to be an ace or not, its merely that he is a good pitcher who can definately help the big league team in some fashion…

and as far as untouchable, I dont believe anyone should ever be untouchable… theres always some GM who is willing to give up way more for someone than he should… i.e. Ned Colleti

"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."

by Swo12bv on Sep 5, 2008 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I certainly don't think one has to be a scout or professional to comment

And I hate it when people will say that just to be an a-hole. What I am saying is that we should trust the people who are professionals when it comes to scouting young players. I never said Hanson should be untouchable, and I never said I thought he would be the next John Smoltz. I said “potential stud”. Take that however you want. I would think that if what I’ve heard about him is true – low to mid 90’s fastball, excellent curve, improving change and slider – he sounds like he could be a front of the rotation starter. And a lot of this improvement has ocurred this season, so that’s why he was left off of the top prospect lists. But either way, I really don’t think we’re disagreeing – at least not by much. And I have a lot of respect for your opinions, as I consider you to be more knowledgeable than most posters, hence the additional post to at least attempt to clarify my point.

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 5, 2008 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I apologize if that came off asshole-ish. I just thought “leave it to the experts” wasn’t something that applied here, since obviously we’re all here to talk about the team we love. And clearly you agree.

I know you didn’t say he was untouchable, but I’m just telling you why I thought people were overvaluing him. Basically untouchable and ace were floating around which is when people start saying “Wait a sec, he’s not that good.”

Yeah, like I said, the more I think about it, the stupider I feel about typing so much. It’s just semantics. We all think Hanson will be an good or really good pitcher and hopefully in a few years we’ll get to watch the opposing team look stupid swinging at curveballs in the dirt.

by VictorW on Sep 5, 2008 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No no

I didn’t mean that YOU were being an a-hole. I meant when people act like since they played a season of JC ball (as an example) that their opinions should be valued higher than others. I wasn’t trying to be one of those guys.

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 7, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bailey? Homer Bailey? He might have been an ‘A’ prospect once, but there’s no way he still is after this year.

by cbwilk on Sep 5, 2008 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah the were was mostly for him

Used to have a crazy hook. Wonder what happened to him.

by VictorW on Sep 5, 2008 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Talking to him and some of his teammates, I’d have to say attitude. He thinks he’s perfect and that leads him to not work as hard. His curveball flattened out cause he didn’t work on it and his fastball has slowed down a little and he’s getting hit. He never really learned how to pitch and he’s to conceited to learn it now. I don’t see much in his future.

by cbwilk on Sep 5, 2008 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think he just didn’t wanna play with the reds. because the reds suuuuuuuuuck

Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.

by bigjoe on Sep 5, 2008 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think you were referring to me

I was one of the people who said Hanson projected as a middle or the rotation guy in a previous post.

Listen, I’ve never insulted you or anything, or tried to rain on anyone’s parade. I’m just trying to pass on information that I’ve read from my BA and BP memberships. I didn’t know if I was allowed to directly quote them at the time, and there’s no longer any purpose as yodamine has tracked down the relevant information below.

We’re all obviously entitled to our opinion, but I’d prefer you not insult me, especially when it’s based on information that is apparently not accurate or really just your opinion. For one, I think you are misreading the BA all star team. For one, it’s not a statement of how these guys project, but more a function of their stats this year. For instance, you wouldn’t say that Hanson is a better prospect than David Price, just because Price as on the 2nd team. Hanson simply put up better numbers this year.

Secondly, this isn’t written in stone. Different BA writers have different interpretions of the numbers and what scouts report. Matthew Eddy, who wrote this, is one that many readers and other sources often disagree with.

So listen, all I was trying to say is that most of the sources I have read put Hanson as a middle of the rotation guy. But really, that’s quite a good thing. I’d be thrilled if he became an effect middle of the rotation pitcher, these guys are hard to come by in major league baseball.

by son.of.sourman on Sep 6, 2008 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a shame

What a waste of potential. But then again, he sounds like a dick so screw him!

by VictorW on Sep 5, 2008 8:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oops

Was supposed to go under the thing about Bailey

by VictorW on Sep 5, 2008 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, he’s a total dick. Actually, the word one of his teammates used was ‘prick’. Absolute waste of talent and the Reds have no clue how to fix it.

by cbwilk on Sep 5, 2008 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Marlins.

Three of the position playing prosects on the first team belong the the Fish and, while only one has seen the high minors, that’s still impressive.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Sep 5, 2008 11:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I got to watch Coughlan a bunch this season and as much as I’m not a fan (poor personality), he’s a darn good player. He doesn’t really do any one thing great, his defense is average, his speed is average, his power is probably a little below average, maybe only his hitting is above average, he does a great job of producing. I didn’t see much from him in the way of getting big hits though and he tended to let other guys do the leading on the team.
And Michael Stanton is a freak of nature. The kid is like 20 and he’s huge and drops bombs. His own teammates that see him every day are amazed by him.

by cbwilk on Sep 6, 2008 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey LOOK BASEBALL AMERICA SAID IT!!!! IT MUST BE TRUE

I’m just gonna quote this real quick…….

Tommy Hanson

The Future: A potential middle-of-the-rotation starter, Hanson has moved quickly while making adjustments against experienced competition. He will likely return to Myrtle Beach, but could earn a midseason promotion.

-Bill Ballew, 2008 Baseball America Prospect Handbook

Also from Bill Ballew in the chat-wrap for the Braves Top 10 List:

Q: clv from way back in the hills of nc asks:
It’s great to see that you think so highly of Jurrjens. The bigger question is what type of a ceiling do you see Tommy Hanson having?
A:

Bill Ballew: Well, howdy, pardner. Ol’ Tommy is one tenacious pitcher. He doesn’t have an overpowering pitch, which brings him down a notch in some people’s book, but he can throw four pitches for strikes. I believe he has a chance to be a solid middle-of-the-rotation pitcher in the big leagues.

Yeah the scouts people have been quoting were, in fact, Baseball America’s own scouts. In fact, it was Bill Ballew. For those that don’t know, BA assigns their scouts to teams and those guys track the players of their assigned teams for the entire season and when it is all said and done and the put the book together, that scout writes the report for the team(s) he was assigned. Bill Ballew has been the editor for the Braves since at least 2003 (when I started reading BA). I would think if anyone knows Braves prospects (outside the Braves scouts), it would have to be Ballew.

Now with that said, I know a lot of people have quoted scouts and what not who say that Tommy Hanson has middle of the rotation stuff and middle of the rotation potential all season, but the big thing with Hanson has been that he has added some pretty good velocity this year. Hanson also started throwing a slider which has quickly become a go-to outpitch. So some things have changed for Hanson this season.

Consider this: most of these people who have been quoting these scouts are quoting people from last offseason. Tommy Hanson absolutely exploded this year so there is a lot of talk, and so since we all don’t get to see Tommy Hanson pitch, we use what we have read about him last offseason. Now we have to wait for the real scouting reports to start trickling in this offseason after everyone has been able to see him in person and come away with their impressions.

Anyways, point being, don’t start bashing people about what they have read when your source contradicts itself.

by yondaime4 on Sep 5, 2008 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Also from BA on April 11 of this season:

Q: Bill from Traverse City asks:
Am I off base to think Tommy Hanson is a back of the rotation guy while Masterson might be a front guy? Masterson’s sinker can be straight nasty at times and Hanson doesn’t exactly light up the gun.
A:

Ben Badler: No, not at all. The Hot Sheet is our weekly snapshot of the prospects in the minors with the best weeks, not how we would rank them on overall future value to their teams. Hanson’s FB was 92-93, touching 94, and it sounds like his CB is tighter now too. So the stuff might have improved there. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that either of these guys end up as back-of-the-rotation guys, especially is Masterson can’t develop a second pitch to complement his sinker.

by yondaime4 on Sep 5, 2008 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think people get too worked up too fast

If you want to re-read myoriginal post, you could probably interpret it to mean that some posters on here have Hanson’s ceiling locked in at middle of the rotation, and that might not be written in stone. I read a piece of information and took the positive viewpoint. But it’s interesting that you pulled sources from the pre season and April 11 to support your point. Then you point out that reports from mid-season are much more positive. The bottom line: some people think that the best he can be is middle of the rotation, and I think that’s probably not the case. But there’s no sense getting all bent out of shape about it. As I said in an earlier post, I wasn’t trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, I was merely pointing out that there could be bigger things in store for Mr. Hanson.

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 7, 2008 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

this thread has gone to hell pretty fast, but lemme just say that it was a crock that flowers didn’t get on the second team

Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.

by bigjoe on Sep 5, 2008 11:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

amen

by yondaime4 on Sep 5, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Tyler Flowers (A+): .288.427/.494 in 315 AB
Carlos Santana (A+/AA): .326/.431/.568 in 463 AB

Before you point to the reputation of The Beach as a pitcher’s park, you should consider that Flowers has actually been better at home (.957 OPS) than on the road (.887). Santana is also a switch hitter and more likely to remain at catcher. Tyler is certainly worthy of consideration and I don’t think it’s out of the question that he’s the minor’s second best catcher, but it’s not ridiculous to select Carlos above him.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Sep 6, 2008 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs