Adam Miller on BA
Howdy, All.
Baseball America posted a Q&A with Adam Miller today. Among other things, he credits pitching coach Scott Radinsky with helping him with the development of a 2 seam fastball. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that contribution may someday eclipse the value of that wonderful year Scott pitched in relief for the tribe (2001: 2 IP, 27.00 ERA).
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/news/262450.html
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
AM: I've mostly used it against lefties, but lately I've been fitting it in against righties a little more. Of course, it's important to pick your spots, because in certain situations you don't want to get beat with your third-best pitch.
Miller seems to be learning how to pitch in addition to how to throw the ball really hard.
That's why he's arguably better than he was in...
Hello everyone,
Thanks for the info., Thommy - greatly appreciated!
APV - that's the main reason why I think he's a better pitching prospect now than he was in 2004. Granted, the 101 MPH velocity was impressive, but it was likely straight. His 94-98 MPH fastball now has more movement, which will make it tougher to hit than the 101 MPH fastball he had two years ago. In addition, his changeup has greatly improved and his 2-seam fastball is a solid pitch as well. Of course, his slider is still a devastating pitch.
That's why I'm really excited about Miller's potential and why I wouldn't trade him for ANYONE, no matter who is discussed.
Re: Adam Miller on BA
by ghostofjuniornoboa on Sep 18, 2006 7:52 PM EDT reply actions
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Let me clarify my comment!
When I made that post, I meant "realistic" trades - so if Santana was available via trade, sure, I would trade for him. However, not Halladay or Carpenter - see below.
Adam Miller is a special pitching prospect that we haven't had since Sabathia several years ago. In our market, we can't afford to pay for frontline, dominant starting pitchers, and that's the one element that is missing from our rotation. When you have someone like an Adam Miller in your system, unless you're bowled over (and I do mean, bowled over,) you don't trade him.
With that said, if Santana were offered straight up for Miller, I would certainly consider it and probably make the trade, but he's the only one of those three you mentioned.
Halladay, believe it or not - no. Halladay has only struck out 131 in 216.2 IP, while giving up a BAA of .251 this year. His K rate has fallen from 6.86 K/9 IP in 2005 to 5.44 K/9 IP in 2006. Also, his H/IP has increased from 7.5 H/9 IP in 2005 to 8.52 H/9 IP in 2006. Both of those rates going in the wrong direction would lead me to not trade Miller for him; Santana's ratios are far superior to Halladay's and he's 2 years younger, as Halladay will be 30 early in the 2007 season. Combine that with his injury history, and I've have to say no to trading Miller for Halladay.
I agree with tyler - Carpenter is NOT in that group with Santana or even Halladay. He didn't dominate the AL when he was with Toronto, and he has been unspectacular against the AL the past 3 years - 3 solid starts, 3 poor starts, going 2-3. In 40.2 IP, he's given up 42 H and 24 ER, which translates into a 5.32 ERA. That may be a small sample size, but I think it would be fair to say that Carpenter would not dominate the AL on a regular basis like he has the NL. In the AL, he'd likely not be an ace, which is what Miller projects to be, and the main reason why I would not trade Miller for Carpenter.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Re: Let me clarify my comment!
Nice idea; a possible trade proposal!
Ervin Santana is highly regarded and a pretty good prospect in his own right. He's had a few rough starts (including his last one,) but he's been pretty solid for the most part, and being that he's only 24 in January 2007, it's reasonable to presume he'd get even better than he is now. I certainly think he'd be an upgrade (especially in time) over the LWB trio.
The question is, what would be a reasonable package to get him? Maybe the following?
3B Kevin Kouzmanoff
OF Franklin Gutierrez or OF Shin-Soo Choo
One of the three following pitchers:
RHP Jake Westbrook
LHP Cliff Lee
RHP Paul Byrd
I wouldn't want to trade Miller, Lofgren, or Martin if at all possible. Being that none of those three are ready yet, the Angels are in "win now" mode, and they have two other youngsters in the rotation (Weaver and Saunders,) I would think a solid veteran starting pitcher like one of the LWB trio could complete the package and bring Santana to the Indians.
Just a thought.
Re: Nice idea; a possible trade proposal!
by homelytourist on Sep 19, 2006 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd say "no" then!
If that is the case, then I'd say "no" - I'd think you'd weaken the Indians too much in a year or two, and let's face it, we could use Crowe and Lofgren in the future; Santana is not going to fill that many holes. We may fill one hole in the rotation, but have at least one other one, not to mention a hole in the OF and possibly one on the IF.
I don't recall the exact Baltimore trade, but I don't think it was "that high" of a price, so I thought that my trade proposal came close to the package they were proposing. If someone remembers the trade proposal Baltimore proposed to acquire Santana, please feel free to post it - I'd be curious to see how much more I would have to add to my package, but Lofgren and Crowe, I wouldn't do that. I'd say "no deal."
Re: I'd say "no" then!
by homelytourist on Sep 19, 2006 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: I'd say "no" then!
by homelytourist on Sep 19, 2006 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: I'd say "no" then!
The Angels are smart. They're theoretically in 'win-now' mode, but they'd look to add depth this offseason just as any team would. Lofgren and Crowe might intrigue them, as there's the chance that either or both of them could become special players... I don't think Gutierrez, Choo, Byrd, have a lot of trade value right this moment (or any in this particular scenario), though they're still valuable to us. Santana has number one starter potential; if they're going to take the chance that he develops into a dominant player in the Indians' organization, they're going to want some players in return with might similar, and if we're not going to include Adam Miller in such a deal, then I think there would have to be a very solid player/asset such as Westbrook in addition to our lesser prospects(probably not Lee and def. not Byrd).
What it comes down to is E. Santana is the kind of player that's next to impossible to trade for, unless it's Miguel Tejada straight-up at the trade deadline (That one was plausible and probably should have been done by the O's)
by homelytourist on Sep 19, 2006 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: I'd say "no" then!
The Angels have more position talent then they know what to do with and yet they hoard these guys. It's downright cruel.
by homelytourist on Sep 19, 2006 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see Santana as an ace!
No offense, but I don't see Santana as an ace; that's probably why I think it wouldn't cost THAT much in a trade to get him. Plus, while the Angels don't have to trade Santana, the Indians don't have to acquire him either, since I think most would agree that the starting rotation is not our #1 priority. Drerikbrady's idea was a good one, but being that it's not essential we upgrade the rotation as much as our bullpen and our 2B position, I think that neutralizes the Angels' advantage of not having to trade Santana; neither side is pressured to make this trade.
I see Santana as more of a good to great #3 or a solid to good #2, but not an ace. Looking at his ML numbers the last 1.5 years, he's averaging about 3.1-3.2 walks and 6.5-6.7 strikeouts; solid numbers, maybe even frontline starter numbers, but an ace? I think he falls a little short.
Granted, he could get better, but looking at his Minor League numbers, he was averaging around 7-8 Ks most of his recent years (outside of his first exposure to AA, where he struck out nearly 10 batters per 9 innings,) so I would expect him to settle in around 6-7 K/9 IP in the Majors, which is solid, but not an ace in the mold of a Johan Santana or even a C.C. Sabathia, both of which were striking out 10+ batters in the Minor Leagues, even the upper Minors.
It's likely next year that even if Colon isn't in the Angels rotation, it's likely Santana will be the #3 pitcher behind Lackey and Weaver, which is about where I see he'll fit best, based on what I have seen of him and his track record.
Plus, my proposed trade does fill some holes for the Angels; Gutierrez has the chance to be that "special" player you were talking about, especially if Jay is correct about his gaining more power. While Chone Figgins is a nice player on their team, Figgins might be better served playing all over the place, rather than just CF. Gutierrez, a standout defender, would upgrade their defense out there, plus give them an intriguing offensive player (offense is another area they could use some improvement in.)
Kouzmanoff could fill that 3B hole, since Dallas McPherson is a question mark, both in terms of his health and in terms of his making consistent contact at the ML level. Kouzmanoff in time should be able to hit .280+ with 15-25 HRs, certainly solid numbers and better than they are getting there now.
One of the LWB trio would give them a solid veteran starter in a mostly young rotation.
So, I see my trade as being a fair one in terms of value, since I don't see Santana as a likely ace like a Santana, Liriano, Verlander, Sabathia, Hamels, or Felix Hernandez. A good to great #3 or a solid to good #2, yes, but an ace - I don't think so.
Re: I don't see Santana as an ace!
I just finished reading Gammons' latest article, and it's a good one. Yep, he's back. Check it out on ESPN if you haven't already.
by homelytourist on Sep 19, 2006 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
My thoughts!
First, nice to see Gammons back; may he continue to have good health. :-)
Second, I agree that where the Angels place Santana in the rotation doesn't matter much; if Sabathia stays with us, Adam Miller will likely be the #2, even though he is projected to be a #1 pitcher. With that said, I still think Santana's a #2 or #3.
The main question to me is, do we really have to trade for Santana? As I mentioned, starting pitching is likely not our #1 priority, and while I would like to improve the LWB trio if possible, there are other areas that need upgrades first. Besides that, you have Miller, Martin, and Lofgren not that far away, not to mention Scott Lewis, Jensen Lewis, and Joe Ness right there as well. We have a considerable amount of young pitching already in our system.
While Santana is a solid pitcher, is he worth giving up some of our surplus for him? I'm not so sure - I don't think he's an ace; plus, you have Miller, who I think is projected to be better than Santana, probably only a year away at most. I think we have to question whether Santana is really going to make us better enough in 2007 to win a WS. Personally, I don't think so - we have too many holes and weaknesses that one young, solid starting pitcher is not going to be able to rectify. That's why I don't think it's worth trading for him, especially for the "price" you mention.
That's why I'd rather address the bullpen and 2B first via FA or worthwhile trades, then maybe consider upgrading the starting rotation if the deal makes sense. But, trading Crowe, Lofgren, and Westbrook for Santana doesn't make much sense to me. Just my opinion on that.
Re: My thoughts!
Now look at his age -- 23. Or look at it another way -- 4.4 years younger than Cliff Lee, and on the "right side of 27" from a development standpoint. He's got decent peripherals, so at 23, this guy looks like a very good bet to be a solidly above-average starter for a few years.
So he's under control for ages 24 to 28, which may well be the best years of his career, and he'll be lucky to make $5 million total for the next three seasons, and he's probably going to be above-average. That is why you'd have to give up a lot to get him in a trade.
By the way, I think the Angels would actually love to get a guy like Choo or Gutierrez.
Re: I don't see Santana as an ace!
by homelytourist on Sep 19, 2006 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Nice headline!
Re: Let me clarify my comment!
I know we all love Adam Miller because he's our best pitching prospect, but honestly, if the Twins offered us Johan Santana for him, there would be no "probably" about this. Johan is arguably the best player in baseball, and he's still only 27 (!). We'd gladly give up Miller and more to get him.
by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 19, 2006 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Let me clarify my comment!
You're right on that!
You're right on that - I should have been a little more affirmative in my statement. It's probably because I know that will never happen (not because we wouldn't trade Miller, but because the Twins will never give up Santana; heck, I don't think they'd give him up for Albert Pujols or Miguel Cabrera, so they'd certainly not give him up for a prospect, albeit, highly-regarded prospect in Adam Miller.)
You're right, though - that one I would do with no hesitation. Thanks for clarifying that! :-)
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
And anyway, Boston and Oakland wouldn't find themselves in the position of considering a Class A pitcher for their 25-man rosters!
I think.
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
I think it's interesting because it shows us who's theoretically valued by the organization and considered to have a potential future impact on the team.
Re: Adam Miller on BA
So it's the kind of thing you can go over for hours and hours and not really learn important to team's chances of winning, next season or ever. Obviously they won't protect anyone who doesn't need protecting. And obviously they won't let an A prospect go unprotected, or a B prospect who's close to the majors. And if there's a Santana or Clemente lying in the weeds, we almost certainly would not figure it out.
So what you end up discussing, at best, is B prospects who are not close to the majors. Not very compelling stuff in my book, but that's just my opinion.
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Re: Adam Miller on BA
There's always the diary option, too. I'd be anxious to read anyone's opinions on this stuff, and you seem to know your way around it well.
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 19, 2006 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Adam Miller on BA
Adam Miller
Chuck Lofgren
JD Martin
Tony Sipp
Scott Lewis
Jensen Lewis
Joe Ness
Sean Smith
Bear Bay
Mariano Gomez
Luis Valdez

by 















