Minor League Games - Monday, August 14, 2017

Lucky_Beagle 2017-08-15 01:26:25 UTC #21

I found it interesting even if it doesn't really mean a lot.

California_Dreamin 2017-08-15 01:41:31 UTC #22

Lucky Beagle...that was my only point. And the fact that Clearwater is now on a 7 game losing streak seems somewhat important to me, especially given they have recently added several of the young hurlers we now mention on almost a daily basis.

I understand that my views are different on this than others...I still hold that winning at the minor league level IS important, it is never too early to develop a winning attitude about things. Interesting that one of the flaws of our current day Phillie players seems to be fundamentals...things that A] should be taught at the minor league level and B] in my mind, lead to winning games.

So, while it may not be of utmost importance that Gomez is 0-9 as a Phillie, it certainly seems at least a tiny bit important that his team, Clearwater is very much a part of that 0-9 record. At least to me,

allentown 2017-08-15 01:55:54 UTC #23

Well, it means our CLW team has been losing a lot lately. Today it means Seranthony Dominquez was touched up for 6 ER on 9 H and 4 BB in less than 4 IP.

California_Dreamin 2017-08-15 01:57:21 UTC #24

Bingo.

bigegypt0417 2017-08-15 03:51:49 UTC #25

you mean 0-9 is losing a lot?

was that really the point or is this again about the fragile egos of baseball players?

California_Dreamin 2017-08-15 04:12:35 UTC #26

Well, since I said it, I know what I meant...a record of 0 wins and 9 losses is losing a lot. I have no idea about the ego of Gomez but I do know that Clearwater has lost 7 in a row and thats a lot of losing.

bigegypt0417 2017-08-15 13:11:02 UTC #27

3 hits for Cornelius Randolph and his second consecutive multi hit game...hopefully he's turning his August around.

If you take out his horrible start since 6/1 his slash line is .275/.373/.414 with a .787 OPS

California_Dreamin 2017-08-15 13:44:13 UTC #28

BE..no doubt Randolph has turned it around some since June. Thats a good thing. But, and I admit that perhaps I am being a bit harsh, I hoped for more since A] he plays only left field and has to hit to make it and B] we were told he might be the best high school hitting prospect in the nation and that his bat would carry him.

I guess that all I am saying, and my sense is that others agree with this assessment, is that right now Randolph, Moniak and Haseley all look pretty pedestrian to me. Will they likely get a cup of coffee in the big leagues? Probably. Are they currently playing like future major league stars? No.

And, frankly, considering all were Top 10 picks in the entire nation, at least 1-2 of them should be. Nola looks like a potential star to me. Crawford has turned it around and is playing like a potential future star to me. Hoskins looks very special to me.

Randolph? Not so much. Of course, I was happy to see his 3 hits last night still understand he is young for his league, and am hopeful that he will soon have a breakthrough season. But right now, I am simply not seeing it.

bkox 2017-08-15 14:48:59 UTC #29

Interesting stats for Randolph. While he is 27th in BA, only 2 players ahead of him are younger then him. Hes in the top 15 in HRs, RBIs, OPS, SLG, hits and walks. All this while being one of the 15 youngest players in the FSL at the start of the season. Hes 2.8 years younger then the average player in the FSL according to BBREF

bigegypt0417 2017-08-15 14:52:36 UTC #30

Exactly, His numbers don't pop out but when you realize just how young he is you would imagine he gets a little leeway. he's even showing some of the power he is going to need to get to the majors.

California_Dreamin 2017-08-15 15:24:47 UTC #31

Good to know! And compelling.

zambonir 2017-08-15 19:01:22 UTC #32

I dunno, we heard at the time that Moniak's ceiling was Steve Finley. I was always going to be okay with that. Some people weren't. But I never heard anyone say he looked like a future star. It was a bad year to have the 1-1 and it was never clear they took the BPA.

Same thing with Randolph, even on the day he was picked the best-case scenario as I remember it was, if he really, really hits, and finds a little power, he could be a decent (but not prototypical) major league LF.

Of course we know nothing this early. Hey, look at Herrera, a young bust in AA and even after he did well repeating, got Rule V'ed.

andyb 2017-08-15 19:26:45 UTC #33

The fundamental question for me on both the Moniak and Randolph picks was whether we were getting proper value for the draft slot. On Moniak we just did not get a big enough discount if we did not think he was the BPA (regardless of Gowdy who I like as a prospect if he could ever be healthy). He just seemed more like a $5 million bonus guy than $6.1 million.

Randolph was also drafted a little higher than every rating service I saw that mostly had him in the mid-teens rather than #10 overall. I still like him as a potential offensive prospect but the lack of defensive ability means the offensive bar for him is higher. He'll need an OPS of close to 850 to be as good as a OPS 750 plus defensive outfielder (like Tocci may be). I just think we could have gotten more value out of the 10th pick.

bigegypt0417 2017-08-15 20:18:01 UTC #34

Obviously it's pretty early but the names drafted after Randolph, with the exception of Allard aren't exactly lighting the world on fire...

andyb 2017-08-15 20:34:11 UTC #35

But most of the half dozen players drafted after Randolph probably outrank him as prospects. Stephenson is a catcher on a slower track. Naylor is close to Randolph. Allard and Kaprelian are pitchers that outrank him. He is probably ahead of Whitley but behind Trent Clark. Speed and defense matter and that lowers any projection one can have of Randolph. Maybe there was not a great and obvious pick at that point in the draft that year, but Randolph also was probably not the BPA either.