Prospect #1: C Chris Knight
Background with Player: Video analysis.
Who: Catcher Chris Knight, the former top pick in the draft who many consider the best prospect in recent memory, has let his off-field issues and indiscretions affect his on-field focus. As a result, his overall production hasn’t lived up to his enormous ceiling. His raw tools are so electric that boredom has become an intrinsic byproduct; the developmental staff takes the brunt of Knight’s ennui, which usually forces the former prodigy to seek attention through histrionics. When he’s on point, there isn’t a prospect that can match his combination of tools and feel for the game.
What Could Go Wrong in 2012: Professor Jerry Hathaway, director of player development and de facto mentor to the future star, has been adamant that Chris Knight won’t graduate to the majors until he finishes what he started in the minors. Knight lacks the motivation to achieve for the reductive sake of achievement, so the extra pressure being applied to the promising backstop will either propel the prospect to the heights his tools suggest are possible, or the immature talent will withdraw from the forced responsibility, and instead choose to live in the frenzied moments of his own arrested development.
Prospect #2: SS Mitch Taylor
Background with Player: Video analysis; industry sources.
Who: Taylor was signed as a 15-year-old and tasked with following in Chris Knight’s footsteps as the next great prospect in the Pacific Tech system. He has moments of incandescent brilliance coupled with emotional doubts and insecurities so cavernous that they threaten to derail his genius. His tools are immature, but the flash of promise can be so bright that several talent evaluators I spoke with said Taylor’s ceiling could eclipse all others that came before him.
What Could Go Wrong in 2012: Despite owning an adult’s on-field skill set, Taylor is still very much a child off of it. He is struggling to assimilate into Pacific Tech’s pressure-cooker culture, finding his introverted and solemn personality to be at odds with the majority of his contemporaries. Because of his youth and his status coming into the organization, many find the whiz-kid prospect to be foreign and distant, a talent whose ego is out to kill all others with its quiet gaze and unassuming approach. In an almost unheralded move, Professor Hathaway elected to give Taylor his first professional assignment at that Laser level, the most distinguished assignment at Pacific Tech, putting him amongst the cream of the crop, including Chris Knight, the top prospect in the sport.
Prospect #3: RHP Addison Reed
Background with Player: My eyes; industry sources.
Who: Reed was a third-round selection in the 2010 draft. He’s a big-bodied reliever who made the improbable journey from Low-A to the majors, dominating in short-bursts at every stop along the way. Armed with a plus-plus fastball that can work in the mid- to upper-90s with some life and a slider that unleashes a world of two-plane hurt on opposing hitters, Reed missed 111 bats in only 78 innings in 2011, and allowed only 14 free passes. He is a legit closer candidate at the major-league level, with two plus-plus offerings and sharp command. As a reliever, Reed doesn’t have many weaknesses in his game.
What Could Go Wrong in 2012: Reed can get a little fastball-dependent, which doesn’t usually matter because his fastball is an explosive pitch with near-elite velocity that he can spot on either side of the plate. He could struggle if his command wavers, or if his slider flattens out a bit, which it did at times in 2011. If he loses the slider, even for a sequence, he becomes more of a one-dimensional arm, and major-league hitters can square up velocity when they know that’s all you have in the tank. To find sustainable success, Reed needs to keep that slider sharp and in sequence while maintaining his command. If that happens—and it should—there is very little to worry about in his immediate future.
Prospect #4: LHP Lazlo Hollyfeld
Background with Player: Video analysis; industry sources.
Who: Once considered the best pitching prospect in the sport, Hollyfeld let the pressures of the game swallow him up, removing himself from the field and allowing his once off-the-chart skills to sour into solipsism. The reclusive southpaw bucked against convention and lost all of his prospect shine by refusing to speak with the media and building a wall (closet) between himself and the developmental staff. While he’s technically still a prospect, Hollyfeld lacks the youth and the sanity for a team to build around. However, the skills that once made him the most talked-about prospect in the game haven’t diminished, so any positive contribution on his part would be welcomed by the organization, albeit with a hesitant hand and a skeptical eye.
What Could Go Wrong in 2012: Hollyfeld is a complete wild card, capable of brilliance one moment and destructive reclusion the next. As with Chris Knight, the organization looks to control Hollyfeld’s influence on the rest of team, hoping the electricity of his skill set will rub off on the younger prospects and that the damaged social approach touches them not. As an older “prospect,” the projection and ceiling that once existed have eroded, with refined skills and a representational form giving scouts a clear picture of who Hollyfeld is and what he can contribute. That’s also the problem, as there are multiple layers to Lazlo; trying to identify and utilize them for professional gain will only result in the peeling and molting of the representational man, with yet another layer of complexity living underneath. You want him on your team, but the price you pay for such a luxury might be more than you are willing to spend.
Prospect #5: OF Kent
Background with Player: Video analysis.
Who: He’s an outfield prospect who has been in the system for several years; he started his career as a promising middle-of-the-diamond talent but later shifted to a corner, where his skills at the plate limit his overall value. Many in the organization question Kent’s roster spot on the Laser team, with whispers that his long-standing relationship with Professor Hathaway is the reason for the preferential assignment. On the field, Kent is sharp but always looking over his shoulder; his skills peaked early and he has since seen his name trend downward in the prospect queue. Off the field, Kent is known to be a tattletale and a troublemaker, taking the ascension of others personally, with a specific scorn toward Mitch Taylor and his relationship with Professor Hathaway.
What Could Go Wrong in 2012: Kent is going to play at the next level, but he isn’t a star and hasn’t accepted that reality yet. He walks to the field like a five-tool center fielder, but he is merely a man wearing the costume of his former self. With such an intense focus on the rise of the youth in the system, Kent’s priorities have turned from skill refinement to sabotage; he looks to discredit Taylor and Knight in the hopes of regaining the singular admiration of his mentor, Professor Hathaway. The zeal to halt his contemporaries’ progress has retarded and exhausted his own forward progress, making his role on the Laser team a casual formality based on his age and experience rather than a position of merit justified by his on-field production.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
2.)I will try to watch Real Genius. It has Val Kilmer in it, so it's legitness is ten-folded.
3.)I hate the way the White Sox run their business.
I'd love to see a BP piece just ripping Reinsdorf (and Selig) to shreds.
As for Kent, he needs to up the voltage.
No comment on hammering a six-inch steel spike?
I also write a bunch of ridiculous stuff, which I'm not always serious about. But when it comes to the evaluation of talent, I would argue against a -1 in the credibility department. My delivery isn't always on a straight-line, but the observations are always authentic and I believe them to be quite credible.
It is highly credible that you believe your observations to be credible. Some would say INCREDIBLY credible. I think that's why those same some say you're a verifiable virtuoso. An extant prodigy? Nah, something similar, but with fewer syllables...
That's what I mean about credibility. Generally a writer establishes a framework with their audience within a particular article about what the "rules" and "tone" of the piece would be. Lighthearted? Serious? Satirical? For some reason, I can't feel confident in those rules and I feel like I'm hoodwinked for reading something seriously that was supposed to be funny (or completely made up) or vice versa. This comes across most in the BP "collaboration" pieces where it seems each author addresses their choice seriously and yours goes off-the-wall... but even within articles fully written by you, I have to take things with too many grains of salt. For example, I opened this expecting to read about prospects (as I have before). Turns out only one of them was real. By the time I got to the end, I was going to point out that Kent was missing a first name... until I saw the comments and realized the Real Genius connection. I heard the whole article as being a serious evaluation of prospects. So yeah, I felt conned which is a shame because I love Real Genius and if other writers bring in "obscure" references that I like, I usually catch it and, in addition, keep the "tone" going in the comments section.
As I've said before, I should like you more than I actually do and I keep trying to like you more. But I keep failing..
Yeah, Jason obviously didn't write about what could go wrong with the Sox real propsects (except for Addison Reed), but why can't he write an extremely creative/fictional piece without
being put through the ringer by you (someone who, to me, has come across as a poster who ALWAYS has something to say, whether or not people want to hear it).
If there's anyone on this site who should be ENCOURAGED to mix in creativity/fiction with his pieces, it's Jason. He is far and away one of the most unique and talented writers this site has seen. Don't take that away from him.
I rarely comment on what he writes. True, I'm the most frequent BP commentator on here but if you take a glance, I probably comment on about a quarter of the articles at most and there are times where I don't comment for weeks or months.
So why did I comment? Because I want to like Jason as much as other members of the BP audience does and I'm trying to provide feedback on why I am encountering difficulty. I want to engage in discussion on his articles but for some reason, it hasn't been my cup of tea so far which is why i rarely comment on his articles and because I have personally found frustrating because I really _want_ to like him. Thus, I thought the comment was necessary to try to provide some feedback on what I liked (notice how I did say I liked his creativity) and what I am struggling with.
Maybe I'll just blame you because I'm more familiar with the NL and you had me join an AL keeper league, so I'm trying to scrounge for any information I can ;)
Anyway, as a bit of a writer myself, I know an author can't please all the people all the time. Jason's the type who will write something someday that will really make me go "Wow! I'm now a fan!", so until then, I'll eagerly await.
I think the Sox are anticipating some steady improvement in his eye and his footwork behind the plate, but a best case scenario would see Knight in sun-robes on top of a pyramid with a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at him.
It's that pyramid-topping, pickle-hurling upside that not many in the game have. No disrespect intended to either Reed or Taylor intended; I just see them amassing a writhing nude horde of like 100-120 women at the most.
He held his own despite being extraordinarily young for his league, but that team revolved around Knight because it had to. You think there's a lot of projection left and that he can grow into that role, and while I can't prove a negative, I'd tend to bet on a safe, productive but unremarkable career in industry.
Basically, you think his experience will spur him on to bigger and better things, whereas I worry they'll languish as a reservoir of humorous stories he'll tell his disbelieving colleagues at after-work pub crawls following full days trying to shave 1/10 of 1% in weight off the fuselage of passenger aircraft.
#1: Reed
#2: Molina
#3: Castro
#4: Petricka
#5: Thompson
Molina: Command/control type that is good at manipulating his fastball and using his splitter to miss bats. Doesn't have a crazy ceiling because the fastball itself isn't anything special and the secondary offerings outside of the splitter are inconsistent and don't project well. I think Molina pitches at the major league level in 2012, but his ultimate role is still up in the air.
Castro: He has the largest hands I've ever seen in my entire life. He has a good fastball, with near plus velo and life, but the secondary stuff is inconsistent and the intensity of the arsenal comes and goes. I think he's a reliever in the end, and possibly a decent one, but not a special one.
Petricka: Lots of arm strength and a very good fastball, with plus (to plus-plus) velocity and natural weight. He gets good angle on his pitches and can throw strikes, but lacks a strong secondary punch. I think he's a reliever as well. Could be a decent one if the curve becomes an above-average offering.
Thompson: He has tools, so that separates him from the majority of the players in the system. Lots of swing and miss but lots of raw power. Not a star, but has the potential to reach the majors as a platoon crusher or solid-average regular if the contact improves without sacrificing too much of the big raw power.
With Dunn, I see a bat speed issue. Until he can show the ability to get inside of fastballs, pitchers are going to continue to challenge him. When he triggers early to compensate, off-speed stuff will eat his lunch. He still has a good approach and he still has tremendous strength, but the longer and slower that swing gets, the easier it will be to get Adam Dunn out.
How were his secondary offerings? I've seen the curve flash, but he struggled to stay on top of it and it turned slurvy.
Next time BP decides one of their authors can have a temper tantrum because the material he is asked to analyze is beneath him, let me know so I can arrange my discount with (you should excuse the expression) management in advance.
I also don't understand Peter's logic for feeling entitled to a discount. Jason's "Prospects Will Break Your Heart" is a new feature - a welcome additional take on something that is continuously and thoroughly already provided for in BP by Kevin Goldstein. What's to refund, if it is a bonus to begin with?
What Jason provides more than any other BP writer or any other sports writer anywhere that I know of, is his keen humor. However, not everyone has the same sense of humor, but the nice thing about reading is that you can skip over what you don't want to read. There: problem solved.
Just to throw in my two cents - I was kind of torn over the article. I read Baseball Prospectus because it's different and clever. I also respect the stones it took to write, and then post, the article. On those points, I wholeheartedly approve. The frustrating part is that we don't have our system summarized many times over the course of a year, and we look forward to the insight. This just reduces that already small number.
Ultimately, I think I approve. It was a good - and creative - way of expressing the frustration most of us rightfully feel.