Is Chris Dwyer Good?
by Freneau on Oct 17, 2011 2:54 PM EDT
in Kansas City Royals Minor Leagues
Email
Print
A simple question: Is Royal starting pitcher prospect Chris Dwyer good? That's not a nuanced way to look at it, but maybe it's worth using a shovel rather than a fork to filter through this one. Now, keep in mind, I'm a guy living in an apartment on the east coast, I don't have tons of information to work with. This is where we can lean on one another and find answers, because I know many of you follow this stuff closely. Because I must be missing something.
The Good:
- Very good stats through 2010. Numbers at Idaho Falls are insane (15.6 K/9, 8.3 BB/9) but he was very good at Wilmington in 2010. Of course, who isn't?
- Had some good things happen at NWA in 2011. Decent strikeout numbers (8.0 K/9) but the walks issue came back (5.0 BB/9).
- Was a 4th round draft pick in 2009 and earned BA's scouting blessing in 2011, ranked as the #83 prospect in baseball.
- Throws the baseball with left hand.
The Bad:
- Was seemingly pretty ineffective at AA in 2011. In his second season (more or less) at AA, he was hit pretty hard, walked too many batters, and gave up too many runs.
- Walks have always been an issue, he has a career 4.6 BB/9 walk rate, in the lower levels of the minor leagues. In 2011, Dwyer walked 5.0 BB/9 at AA. What will happen when he faces guys who can hit off-speed stuff?
- Will be 24 next season.
103 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Does he have any shot of competing for a shot in the rotation during Spring?
Best Farm System EVER
by tiquanunderwear on Oct 17, 2011 2:57 PM EDT reply actions
Dwyer's a hard-throwing lefty that gets a lot of K's
Guys like that are valuable. If his command improves, he’ll be a good big league starter. If it doesn’t, he’ll get a shot in the bullpen.
If his command improves…
How often does this happen? People say it all the time, and I just wonder…
On his career, Dwyer is striking out more than a batter per inning (K/9 = 9.07), but he’s also walking a batter every other inning (BB/9= 4.6). It pretty much goes without saying that if he keeps striking them out, and quits walking them, he’ll be a much better pitcher than he has been so far… but what does that actually tell us?
Just as an experiment, imagine that same K:BB ratio from a guy with much lower overall rates… say he’s striking out 4 and walking 2 per 9 innings pitched. We could say that if he learns to miss bats, he’ll be a good big league starter, right? Is that guy more or less likely to improve than Dwyer? And why?
I think I’d rather have Dwyer, because my gut tells me that a pitcher is more likely to improve his walk-rate than his K-rate… but is that true? Is there research on this somewhere?
How often does this happen? People say it all the time, and I just wonder…
Yeah, people gloss over this like it’s no big deal and that decent control should just magically materialize. It may never. For many pitchers, it never does.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Jeremy Jeffress is just a tweak away from dominating!
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.
by Matt Klaassen on Oct 17, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I know you're joking
But Jeffress’s control problems are on a whole other level.
Lots of ways to take that.
And they’re all true.
At least we're trying to get him lots of innings
We tried to convert him into a starter a couple of times last year. I don’t think it was a particularly successful attempt, but I’d like to see him stretched out at AA/AAA in 2012 as much as possible.
by moregritplease on Oct 17, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd guess that small improvements happen pretty often, but big cuts in BB/9 are more rare.
That’s why you want to get a bunch of guys with strikeout stuff, and hope that a couple of them work out their command. Dwyer’s not a great bet to succeed as an MLB starter, but if we had 10 of him, there’s a good chance that a couple would work out.
BTW...
Dwyer’s career K & BB rates seem unsustainable, but they aren’t that far from a HOFer’s MLB career line. For comparison, Dwyers rates are:
K/9 = 9.07
BB/9= 4.61
“Player B” (MLB career numbers):
K/9 = 9.55
BB/9= 4.67
I assume that strikeout rate gives it away pretty easily.
Are you comparing minor league to major league numbers there?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes I am.
I am not making any point here, and do not intend to be taken seriously. I just noticed the coincidence.
Well… let me make this one point: I wouldn’t expect a guy who walks a batter every other inning to have much success in the majors. Sometimes they do, though. As I mentioned, “Player B,” above, is in the Hall he was a starter. Also, there’s guys like Ryne Duren, who put up similar numbers primarily as a reliever… So, yeah, you can walk a ton of guys and still succeed… you just have to strike out enough of them, too.
I guess my point is that if a pithcer’s minor league numbers through AA are 9.6 K/9 and 5.7BB/9, then we should expect something worse in the majors. I’m not saying he’s not going to improve, but if one is comparing minor league numbers to major league numbers, at least some MLE’s should be used.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, I agree. I never intended that kind of comparison.
I was just wandering off on a tangent…
BTW, “Player B” up there now owns the Texas Rangers.
2:1 ratio
I’m fine with any pitcher who’s K rate is over 6 and has a 2:1 K:BB ratio.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Oct 17, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
He hasn't been able to manage that ratio above the A-ball level
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Best curveball in the system according to several reports
Had a very good 2nd half.
by royal_in_cincinnati on Oct 17, 2011 3:04 PM EDT reply actions
it's nice when that credit goes to a player with a good arm
it seems like that credit always goes to someone like blake johnson or someone who can’t hit 90 on the gun.
He will get a shot out of Spring Training,
but will most likely be in AAA to start the year.
by royal_in_cincinnati on Oct 17, 2011 3:05 PM EDT reply actions
Promotion to AAA before actually performing well at the AA level
If so, he’d be following the Mike Montgomery path. What could go wrong?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
hey
wouldn’t stun me if Odorizzzi ends up in Omaha to start 2012 under the same logic they’d use to start Dwyer there
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!
Wouldn't surprise me at all
Of late (and maybe always), Moore has been promoting players based on their tools with little or no regard to their actual performance. So maybe Odorizzi and Dwyer both start in AAA. Although they did wait a while to promote Odorizzi to AA because they were worried about his secondary pitches.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Dwyer or someone like that started the season in the Royals bullpen, as they did with Crow. Dwyer in the KC pen and Collins in the Omaha pen to start the season wouldn’t be a shocker.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The Royals have certain goals they want each prospect to meet
before promoting them. I don’t know what they are, and how it compares from pitcher to hitter. But if the Royals see that he met his goals, then he gets promoted. He had 12 very good starts in a row to finish the season. Does that mean he fine tuned something, or was that a small sample size of good results. Who knows.
by royal_in_cincinnati on Oct 17, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
What is the evidence for
“Moore has been promoting players based on their tools with little or no regard to their actual performance”?
Or is this intended as hyperbole?
That is how things appear.
When one looks at Montgomery, Moose, Crow, etc. we see guys who have unimpressive numbers that still get promoted, making it appear that they are promoted on tools rather than performance. What we don’t know, however, is whether the FO is asking these players to work on certain things that bring down there overall numbers because they are focusing on their weaknesses rather than simply relying on their strengths. I don’t know what the truth is, but I agree that it is hasty to assume that prospect performance is not a factor in their movement in the system.
Perez, Duffy
also.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Oct 17, 2011 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions
that's true, I guess I was thinking of the short amount of time he spent there
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Oct 18, 2011 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we've seen all types in the system this year
Monty, Crow, and Perez got promotions beyond what their aggregate stats would support.
Hosmer, Duffy and Giavotalla got promotions after posting impressive aggregate stats
Cuthbert, Cain and Odorizzi posted great numbers for weeks or months without getting promotions.
I don’t see a pattern.
I don't think he's very aggressively promoting every prospect in the system
But I think he’s certainly very aggressively promoting multiple top prospects without regard to their statistical record. It’s all about tools with Moore and his F.O. (I know this isn’t exactly a novel thought).
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
And he's failing to promote multiple top prospects who are dominating
Are Monty, Crow, and Perez really that much more compelling than Cuthbert, Cain and Odorizzi? This seems like a mind-reading than a data -observing exercise.
What?
Cain is the only one there which makes sense and promoting him to the bench would have been a terrible decision.
by WURoyal on Oct 17, 2011 11:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm talking about promoting them to the next level, not all the way to the majors
Monty is one of the prime examples for the case that Moore is promoting too quickly, and he didn’t get promoted to the majors.
I did not mean that this is the way Moore is promoting all prospects now. In my opinion he’s rushing too many prospects. And I think it is symptomatic of 1) a tools-based evaluative process, and 2) a rush to maximize wins right now.
Clearly, for the players he’s promoting who have poor stats, it’s all about tools. It can’t be anything else. And we’ve seen for a long time that they evaluate players based primarily (if not almost exclusively) based on their tools.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
3. Omaha was a wasteland and there were spots to promote people to start the year.
4. The Royals brought up the entire infield from Omaha.
4. When players got promoted to Omaha/KC, there were a lots of spots open in AA.
5. When players got promoted to AA there were lots of spots in Wilmington…
6. And so on
I think the promotions will slow down a lot after next year as the prospects take up more of the slots available at the higher levels. When you promote 13 rookies, other players get “aggressive promotions” because someone has to play there.
Go Royals!
That's a poor reason to promote prospects
There’s always organizational filler which can fill spots that open up because others prospects have been promoted. That’s why they are called “filler”. Prospects shouldn’t be rushed just because their are open roster spots above them. And, quite frankly, I don’t think the Royals promoted prospects just because their happened to be open roster spots. I think they moved prospects because they liked their tools and/or because they wanted to expedite their development (which is a nice way to say that they were impatient and wanted to get guys to (or closer to) the majors quickly.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
You have no way of knowing
what the Royals parameters are. Maybe these prospects met whatever goals the Royals set for them at that level. Maybe the pitchers were working on a certain pitch. Think Greinke in ST a couple of years ago working on his Change up. Or maybe the hitter was working on going the other way with pitches.
It seems like anything the Royals do is wrong to some of you guys. Either they left them to rot too long in the minors or they promoted them too quickly.
by royal_in_cincinnati on Oct 18, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Some prospects deserve/have earned/are ready for promotion. Some are not.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
If you exclude service time considerations, we're talking about how many players being rushed?
Monty (to AAA), Perez, Mous (?), and Crow?
Out of, what, 12 rookies on this year’s team? I get that rushing even one prospect may be too many, but it seems like you’re claiming that this is more widespread than it is. It seems to be the exception rather than the rule, so it can’t really be symptomatic of a larger problem.
It's a problem. Everyone can judge for themselves how big that problem is.
One of the reasons I think it is a significant problem is that I think it has just begun. I believe Moore thought we were in the process of getting close this year and he’s facillitating that by rushing some prospects. Now that he thinks the team is close, I think he’ll rush more prospects. I think this is particularly true of pitchers, including perhaps pushing some genuinely good SP prospects to the major league bullpen for short-term results. We’ll see what happens.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
there are plenty of examples of elite starters who were broken in as relievers
it may or not be the best strategy but its out there…and dayton is far from the first one to use it
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Oct 18, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s one thing to do it because you think it is the best way to develop a giving SP prospect. It’s quite another thing to do it because you want to improve the setup man on a non-contending team.
For instance, I don’t think for a second that Crow was moved to the KC bullpen because they thought it was the best way to develop him as a SP. They did it to improve the Royals bullpen in a rebuilding season. That is completely ass backwards thinking.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
except you have absolutely no reason to believe that other than a gut feeling....
or did i miss quotes somewhere?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Oct 18, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
If he were moved to the KC pen to develop him further as a starter, wouldn’t Moore have said that? Instead, what he’s been saying is that he’ll consider giving Crow a shot at the rotation in spring training. That’s all. When the Twins had Santana in the bullpen, they were quite clear that they were developing him as a starter. But Moore hasn’t been saying that. He hasn’t said that he’s given up on Crow as a starter, but he’s never said that this was about doing what is best for Crow’s development as a SP.
Is there any evidence that Moore was doing what he thought was best for Crow’s development as a SP? Given Crow’s particular weaknesses, is there any rationale for how this could help his development as a SP?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
there's no evidence either way...
there’s even less evidence that they’re planning on keeping him in the pen. you’re not a mind reader…im not a mind reader…why not just go with what information is actually out there and wait to jump all over them until they give you a reason…like say they dont give crow a legitimate shot at starting next year
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Oct 18, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
They haven't been talking or acting like this is just part of his SP development plan
If it were, he would have said so. It’s very telling that he hasn’t and that he’s only considering giving Crow any kind of shot as an SP in spring training 2012. No evidence either way? Come on; you’re being silly now.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe they understand
that he’s not going to be a major-league starter and that’s why they moved him to the bullpen. I just don’t see it happening with him. Set up man at best, IMO.
by Rufus R. Jones on Oct 20, 2011 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Or they really feel he is a bullpen option.
They are “trying” him as a rotation option this year, but they may have already made up their minds that he is a setup man.
by royal_in_cincinnati on Oct 18, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not a problem unless evidence says it is
The theory that the Royals are rushing players (because of a win now mentality) is hard to square with a lot of the observed facts. There are plenty of players who were promoted after they were performing very well at their previous level, and there are several more players who were not promoted even though they were performing very well.
You can disagree with some of the personnel decisions that Moore has made, but the general claim that the Royals are rushing prospects because of a win now mentality is not supported by the evidence.
but the general claim that the Royals are rushing prospects because of a win now mentality is not supported by the evidence
Only if you think the “general claim” is that the Royals are rushing all prospects now or that this is the team’s policy. Instead, what I have said quite clearly (after an initial more vague statement) is that the Royals have been rushing too many prospects and I fear this is a newish trend which will continue at least into the near future. No, they haven’t rushed every prospect. No, I don’t think that rushing prospects is the new policy of the organization and that every prospect is going to be promoted too aggressively going forward.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I can't really figure out what you're saying
You say he’s not rushing everyone, but then you say rushing guys is symptomatic of a win now mentality, which suggests a more general problem.
And even then, I can’t really understand how it applies to the particulars. I guess win now is why he didn’t bring up Cain to replace Francoeur, but then how to explain bringing up Mous to replace Betemit? Why not call up pitchers to shore up the weakest part of the team? Why not aggressively promote Odorizzi to AA after dominating High-A for two months? What about lesser prospects like Greg Billo and Edwin Carl?
What pitchers could have been called up to shore up the weakest part of the team?
And does a single statement made have to fit every situation available?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
If we were rushing prospects independent of performance?
Calling up the most highly rated pitcher in the system who wasn’t putting up great overall performance numbers at AAA would be super consistent with that theory. Promoting the hottest pitching prospect to the majors after a couple strong months at AA also would have worked. Stretching out young pitchers and pressing them into starting roles while replacing them in the bullpen with our best relief prospect seems like it also would have the sort of thing you’d expect if that were really happening.
And although formally, cause and effect relationships do need to be 1 to 1, or very nearly so, I’m not insisting on that. The problem here isn’t that Scott’s theory doesn’t explain every event. The problem is that several events are the opposite of what we’d expect under the theory. A theory that makes it harder to understand what we’re seeing is highly unlikely to be true.
Monty's year in AA last year wasn't very good
He was better relative to his league this year in AAA than he was last year in AA.
http://www.statcorner.com/pitcher.php?id=543557
There’s certainly a case to be made that he didn’t deserve to be in AAA until he showed he could dominate AA.
Moose???
this entire thread is a stretch to defend a stretch of a statement
All is well! All is well!
Ignore the mistakes. There were no mistakes! All is well!
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the Crow promotion was at least in part because he was on the 40-man
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Oct 17, 2011 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
He was costing the Royals money because of his multi-year contract was running without
getting any return for it.
Go Royals!
Tail wags dog
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 17, 2011 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Not saying it's right, per se,
but there were extenuating circumstances with his promotion.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Oct 20, 2011 5:03 AM EDT up reply actions
A minor league starter who gets converted into a reliever
Is almost always going to display stats which would merit a promotion as a starter. The more relevant question is what the pitches he’ll throw out of the bullpen have been performing.
by WURoyal on Oct 17, 2011 11:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Hos, Moose, Gia, Jake, Holland, Duffy
“Moore has been promoting players based on their tools with little or no regard to their actual performance”. Couldn’t disagree more.
I think the answer to your question is - No, he is not good.
The potential is certainly there, but in 2 of 3 seasons, the strikeout rate has not justified the walk rate. Right now, he looks like a 7-th inning reliever. That could be considered “good”, in the sense that most prospects would love to be at that level.
But until the walk rate is cut to under 10% (under 4 BB/9, more or less), he’s not a SP candidate, which is what I believe most of us would require to consider him a “good” player or a “good” prospect. I imagine Jeff’s Special Sauce agrees.
(FYI, his rates for his one season at Clemson 26.7% K, 9.3% BB, 2.9 K/BB (9.8 K/9 and 3.45 BB/9).)
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Oct 17, 2011 4:26 PM EDT reply actions
this sounds about right
Dwyer is also probably going to end up as more of flyball pitcher (he has been close to neutral in the minors, but groundball rates tend to drop as the pitcher climbs levels). He cannot make it as a starter in the majors without maintaining a 2 K to 1 BB ratio — and he has not come close to that in AA (1.6 K/BB, 8.3 K/9, 5.0 BB/9). He still has time to develop, so the organization is best to just leave him alone and let him work on his control and command.
by Gopherballs on Oct 18, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Control, control, you must learn control!
Go Royals!
by BabyBlues on Oct 17, 2011 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Best response...
…in this comment section.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
He is good in relation to compared to all of us because he would strike us all out...
But when compared to every other baseball player ever…eh.
But which one REALLY counts?
Has anyone seen Dwyer and Giavatella in the same room at the same time?
Nick Swisher is handsome. Johnny Giavatella close second.
by ChrisCEIT on Oct 17, 2011 5:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I was thinking the same thing.
Was it just the ‘make you look like a pasty 17-year-old’ lighting? These guys are by-and-large very tan from being in the sun a lot of the time – somehow this photographer has managed to make everyone look like the character from Powder.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Oct 17, 2011 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That would be awesome...
…a 2b who doubles as a LHP?
You could play him at 2b most of the game, and then… BAM, pitch to one lefty batter before going back to 2b. It’d be like having a loogy in the ‘pen that doesn’t take up a roster spot.
I don't know the rules on this.
But given the above hypothetical, could said position/ LOOGY be moved to pitcher multiple times in 1 game? Because if so I think Rick Ankiel’s value may be understated.
Chiefs, Royals, Twolves. Fun life.
There's no rule...
…against moving a player back and forth between one position and another as many times as you want during a game, except for DH.
Really, to do this right, you would need both a LHP and a RHP who each play a position in the field. Then you’d need a utility guy who plays both of those positions. You could then shuffle the three of them back and forth based upon the handedness of the hitter to always have the platoon matchup.
You wouldn't get warm-up pitches each time though, right?
It seems like there’s a potential for arm injury in moving a guy to the field and then back to pitch again, at least on a cool night.
That would be perfect, really.
I would think that someone could fairly easily LOOGY – it’s a platoon issue more than anything… Have the SP head out to CF for a batter, and let the CF come in and throw sliders away to the leftie that can’t hit them. Then switch back. I like it, really.
Nick Swisher is handsome. Johnny Giavatella close second.
My gut feeling is that Dwyer moves to the bullpen
and becomes the second LH along with Tim Collins for next few years.
Little Timmy Collins
Best Farm System EVER
by tiquanunderwear on Oct 17, 2011 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Collins is a workout warrior in the Boston area
I would like to see all of the KC players work as hard as he does.
It gives him power
Best Farm System EVER
by tiquanunderwear on Oct 18, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Is there a non-horrible necklace that he could have been wearing?
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Oct 18, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
It seems that there's an inverse relationship between sun exposure and muscle mass.
Chiefs, Royals, Twolves. Fun life.
Would it be a bad comparison to say that, right now, Dwyer looks like a left-handed Hiram Kyle Davies?
Has impressive stuff, but control is a real problem. Everyone drools over the possibility of him harnessing that control, but he may end up being more frustrating than anything.
Davies was a slider guy though
The plus curve is real, real nice.
by WURoyal on Oct 17, 2011 11:32 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
and can work against opposite-handed hitter
by Gopherballs on Oct 18, 2011 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
And being a LHP, there's more of a precedent for getting by with less stuff (though those pitchers usually have good control)
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Oct 18, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I had a dream...
Wil Meyers hit 2 home runs in the Royals opener. They beat Cleveland 4-2.
…And Dwyer could be a likely candidate to be moved, I think.
He's a pretty good prospect
But many prospects fail. I’d like to see him and Izzy start off the season starting in AA and take it from there. If Dwyer can cut his walk rate, he’ll be a pretty good pitcher. If he can’t, he won’t. He does have tools—throws hard for a lefty, throws the curve—so there’s some chance he’ll get better. I’d rather not trade him because we wouldn’t get anyone any better. Nobody would give us proven talent for an unproven guy like Dwyer.
Let’s let him prove he can pitch at AA. Our bullpen is fine right now, and the Omaha rotation is going to be full of Boom Boom and Mendoza and SOS and Suppan and Montgomery.
Meanwhile, if we BRING BACK BRUCE!, he’ll probably be our #1 #4 starter, with Hochevar as our #2 #4 starter, Paulino as our #3 #4 starter, Duffy as our #1 #5 starter, and some guy like Rich Harden as our #2 #5 starter.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
