Kyle Crick, RHP. DOB: 11/30/1992. 6'4", 220 lbs. B-L, T-R.
Low A: 7-6, 2.51, 111.1 IP, 67 BB, 128 K
If you judge these rankings by ceiling alone, Crick would rank above Brown and Panik and compete with Gustavo Cabrera for the #1 spot. He's got a classic pitcher's frame and his fastball tops out in the upper 90's. BA has his FB range at 94-99 MPH. Mark Hulett of Fangraphs ranked him #1 and posted a couple of quotes from a scout he talked too. "He is a great athlete for a big guy....and you can't teach that kind of velocity." "His delivery is pretty easy and the ball really jumps out of his hand.....the fastball is on top of them before they know it." "He tries to make the perfect pitch, but he doesn't need to. His stuff is more than good enough."
BA ranked him as the #7 prospect in the SAL and commented that he can throw his secondary pitches, a slider/cutter and a changeup for strikes and made great strides with the changeup during the year. His Augusta Manager Lipso Nava: "He's got a bright future ahead of him." "He is blessed with a great arm. He's raw, but we accomplished what we wanted for him this season. He got better for the next level. He's got a great head on his shoulders, and he will accomplish his goals pretty soon." Fred Stanley's comments on sjgiants.com: "Crick has a great arm. He's a good-sized kid with a lot of arm strength and stamina. That's a good combination to have. He pitches anywhere from 92-97 MPH. He can blow the fastball by anybody."
I would expect to see Crick in the starting rotation for San Jose to begin the season. Based on past history of similar prospects, the Giants could well promote him to AA by midseason if he gets off to a good start in SJ. If that were to happen, he would have a fairly airtight case for #1 Giants prospect by the end of the season. His ceiling is #1 starter. Think slightly bigger version of Matt Cain with a tad more velocity at the same stage of development, although I think Cainer was more polished even in Low A.
Some interesing statistical factoids: Take away a month of May when his ERA was 5.23, Crick's ERA for the other 4 months of the season was 1.76. Interestingly, May was one of his better K/BB months. He pitched 2 innings of relief in a September game to try to get enough innings to win the league ERA title, but gave up 2 ER to take him out of contention anyway. As it was, Clayton Blackburn and Edwin Escobar finished #2 and #3 among qualifying pitchers. Tyler Anderson won the title with a ERA of 2.47. He is a groundball pitcher. His GO/AO on the final stat line of his milb.com player page is 1.20, but but BA has him at 2.31 which agrees with my recollection of his boxscores, and which puts him in elite status.
So, what more does he need to do to be the #1 prospect? 1. Show he can keep his walk rate down. 2. Get it done at a higher level in a more challenging pitching environment. But yeah, the ceiling is clearly there and something to be seriously excited about. Remember when, after trading Zack Wheeler, Brian Sabean said it was his and Tidrow's job to find another Zack Wheeler? It looks like he's made good on that with Kyle Crick!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If I remember correctly, at the time of the trade, SabeySabes said something to the effect of "We made the trade because we have other pitchers in the org that are ready to step in for Wheeler as high level prospects" (paraphrasing, of course). This was before Blackburn had blown up for the prospect-hounds, so I think he was referring Crick AND Blacky.
ReplyDeleteWhile I like Brown and Panik, I get the tingle up my leg for Crick and Blacky. These are the guys that will continue the formula that has led us to be one f the top orgs in all of baseball over the last 5 years or so.
Yes he did say that and then added something to the effect of "frankly, it's up to us to find another Zack Wheeler." I think they have done that and more. Agree on the excitement over the young pitching.
DeleteSomething else Fred Stanley said in his sjgiants.com interview is the Giants have at least 8 pitchers coming up from the low minors who are in at least the 92-95 MPH range.
I did not remember that Sabean said that, thanks for the reminder! All I recalled was that the reporters were pressing on him regarding losing someone of the quality of Wheeler and that he stated what DrB noted, which is that it's up to them to find another Zack.
DeleteI agree that they have found at least two pitchers to replace him (I'm also really excited about Stratton and would add him already to the list if he had pitched more and better; I expect to add him this season). Very exciting on the pitching front once more, nice group of them rising together, should all be in San Jose's rotation at the start of 2013, but I can see the Giants moving Stratton up faster due to his age, while letting Crick and Blackburn percolate in Advanced A.
In power arms we trust, appears to be Tidrow and the Giants motto. Their selection of Lincecum showed how much differently our group of scouts and evaluators think than the groupthink (pitch limits, IP limits, age, mechanics) that pervades baseball. Thinking differently (and better) is the true Moneyball moments in baseball.
Great point. Draft was June 6-8, Beltran trade was July 28th. They had the entire month of July with Blackburn to evaluate, as he signed right away. Crick only had a couple of rookie ball skermishes, but they knew what they had already. I think Crick was a huge part of the reason they decided to part with Wheeler, but they had extended time with Blackburn as well.
DeleteCrick's fastball seems special. He can throw it and keep throwing it at the end of games. That is huge. He's definitely got the most upside outside of Gustavo. Juan Uribe was the gift that kept on giving.
I think that ERA title chase was one reason Blackburn got the nod to come up to SJ over Crick. Could also be the more advanced control. It'll be exciting to see how fast Crick can harness the big stuff, and develop the change. Great looking prospect.
I don't get that Juan Uribe gift comment.
DeleteOK, that's wrt the pick that got Crick, and not Gustavo.
DeleteWhile the Giants have done well in the drafts I think Crick is an example of a lost opportunity. I always felt that the Giants didn't do enough to game the system in the past CBA to produce Type B free agents, offer them arbitration and continue to get supplemental picks the way the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays did. The Giants easily could have flexed their financial muscles to get more picks to help the system.
DeleteIt's a mighty tough task to make much of a criticism of what the Giants have gotten out of the draft since 2006. Maybe you could point to some specific examples of players they should have offered arbitration to if you want to make that case.
DeleteI agree with DrB. The most recent examples of guys walking for type b picks would be our lefties. I think Sabeans bird in the hand worked nicely, and I'll take the championship trophy thank you very much. As a draftnik I do at times want more picks, but the cba is taking care of that for us, no more draft games.
DeleteThe big problem with the Giants was 2004-5, but at this point it's ancient history. Since 2006 they have focused on the draft and have the best record of success in baseball. 2007 was a big stock up year, it was a great success, and yet still there were busts. Jury is still out on the rays big stock up, but that isn't looking great either.
I have a slightly different view than OGC, I don't think a team should ever deliberately shed picks, but I do agree there are stiff odds at work. My example would be a inverted dart board, where the middle would be much bigger, that's your target for the first 5-10 picks. Then a smaller circle for the next 30, then a smaller circle for the next 100, then 300, then finally a tiny outside for the remaining 800. Chances to hit are very long. There are roughly 900 or so ballplayers, and nobody wants to give up a seat at the table.
Again, shoot the messenger...
DeleteAll I have stated is the draft odds are such that a team can legitimately punt a pick to use the money to get a viable major leaguer because the odds are so low of success of finding a good player. That is a business risk trade off that could be viable if the team needs to fill a starting position.
Would I do or want that? No, I would not and that is why I blame Magowan and the owners for not giving more money to Sabean so that he would not be forced to make that choice. That is why I made the call to bring in new ownership if they were not willing to pony up the money to win. That is why I put the current owner leadership on probation until they prove that they are willing to put up the money to keep this golden period going, to make the 2010's decade the Giants decade.
I also recognize that the team does not have a endless pot of money. So if the team skimps on the draft, maybe they had decided that there was a better area to invest in. Like this year, they got Gustavo, which they got by skipping a lot of picks in the later rounds by drafting seniors, A lot of people were in an uproar over that, but in the end, I think I would rather the Giants put up big money to get a top prospect like this than spreading that money across a bunch of high schoolers late in the draft. These people do not seem to understand that simply throwing money at high schoolers in the later rounds does not make sense if their scouts told them that they are not worth drafting. I can understand this outrage if these people have a track record of finding high schoolers that MLB teams do not recognize. But they do not, the rationale is that if the Giants do not throw money at high schoolers, then they are making a mistake. These people need to show me their great track record at finding high schoolers that late in the draft before I will buy the argument that the Giants made a mistake.
Hey I'm not trying to throw you under any buses here OGC, its just we like to argue back and forth about the draft. I'll admit I was one of those who was outraged at the lack of HS guys for 2012. One of the main reasons was Clayton Blackburn, a shining example of extreme value. But I've mellowed a fair amount because of not only Gustavo, but a continued assault on the IFA front. And I realize historically going back to 2004-5 its a factor of budget, and Sabean being forced to that point. I still hate those moves though, I really view the draft as the first and most important part of franchise building. When you cut off the lifeblood, you'll suffer. And to change the dialogue a tad, the Angels have a miserable farm system now, and they are dropping their picks left and right - but at least they are doing it for established stars, not the Michael Tuckers of the world.
DeleteBut enough already, I'll drop the punt draft picks. I would always like the Giants to get as many chances as possible, but I realize when winning the opportunities go down, because you are picking later and trying to find useful players, not shed them. And for whatever reason, Sabean just is not a restock the farm with trades guy. I actually like that. I would like the Giants to be a little more balanced with their ratio of college to jc to hs. When you cut off a portion of the available pool, you are limiting your chances. I don't think it is a factor of budget. The Giants are just conservative. You can get mad about that, or you can accept it and look to where they find value.
More important at this point, the Giants will be looking to grab MLB or almost MLB ready 26-30 year olds, hoping for that diamond in the rough like Jeff Kent or Joey Batts, somebody teams looked over. That's how they are going to get value and grab that player who will plug into their core. Just don't have time to wait for Gustavo. But its very, very nice they grabbed him and we have that on tap as well.
If the Giants were totally not looking for projectable talent, then I'd agree with you on the HS thing, Shankbone. Isn't loading up on a bunch of high velocity bullpen arms, some of whom might be converted to starting, the same idea but in a different hunting ground?
DeleteIt is quite possible the giants have found a undervalued area to exploit with the flame throwing relievers. I would add that Texas, everybody's development darlings, have had good success with the reliever starter shuffle. As has the cards, with their plus system.
DeleteI think youth is important, but I also think sometimes the age level studies get put on a pedestal. For me it's just a common sense issue - the very best talent gets recognized and pushed from an early age. No need to get hopped up about it, just go scout the best guys you can.
The Giants are just conservative - they seem to have high standards for taking a shot on HS. But pretty good results when they do take the plunge.
Crick vs. Wheeler one day - that's something to look forward to.
ReplyDeleteblast from the past
ReplyDeletegb on blogtalk radio from a year ago
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/clevelanddad/2011/11/13/hsbbweb-radio-garrett-broshuis
i believe that what marvin miller was to the mlb, gb may end up being to the minor league players...which will ultimately benefit both the bigs and the fans
although i really wish he had chosen to stick with writing...
bacci
I love Crick. BA said last year that as soon as he learns to use his lower half better, he can add more easy velocity. If he could get his fastball up to 100MPH and get his stuff under control, he could be amazing. Imagine having Crick, Cain, and Bumgarner all at the top of the rotation.
ReplyDeleteI think it's kind of funny, because as awesome as that sounds we've become so spoiled from the days of ONE ace, Jason Schmidt, plus a couple sneaky guys like Ortiz and Kirk, plus who knows what at the end of the rotation...some chunk of AWF probably...to now having 4 legit contenders for cy young votes on paper (Vogle included, Zito NOT). I mean, considering adding another number 1 is just, like, almost expected.
DeleteI guess what I'm saying is, this is the team I dream of rooting for: Consistently wining the West, plus great "upside" prospects to keep my eyes all glintey about "the future." Either way, the thought of Crick starting beside Cain is like learning that the girl you're dating has a crazy, single twin sister who's coming into town in a few weeks. No? Well, I thought that was a solid analogy anyways.
To be quite honest, I can hardly wrap my head around it. Looking at payroll and recognizing when your cheap player are going to become all expensive, what FA pitchers are going to cost, and how the costs are going to be balanced. Quite the job they do in the front office, and we're blessed, without a doubt, with one our the best in the sport.
Anyways, Crick looks mighty fine. Guys who lay down the hammer right out of high school have done well in my book.
-Rainball
Why are prospects that are closer to the MLB but don't have that much potential so highly rated? I understand players at A ball haven't been challenged as much as players at AA and AAA. But if it were up to me I would take a chance on a player in Low A that has the ceiling of a 2/3/4 starter over a player at AAA ready to be a 5 starter. The difference in money you save between a homegrown 5 starter or a free agent, to me is not worth giving up on 20% chance on a 2/3/4 starter.
ReplyDeleteI don't get your point. Who is putting an AAA tweener ahead of Crick?
DeleteNot Crick specifically, just generally in terms of valuing prospects.
DeleteHmm. I still don't get it. Who does that? Are you saying Gustavo should be rated higher? If this happened, I would be with you, but I am not sure this is a wide-spread issue, and certainly not one that doc falls prey to. He actually tends to rank younger kids higher than I would (generally), so I am not sure why this gripe was made here.
DeleteLogan,
DeleteIt's a balance and it's very subjective. I think, on average, I tend to weigh ceiling higher than proximity to the majors. Just on example: Over the years, I've consistently ranked Eric Surkamp lower than a lot of sites because I haven't thought his ceiling was all that high(my mind was changed on that after I saw him pitch in Spring Training, but then he got injured). I really don't think anyone out there ranks a future #5 starter ahead of a future #2. I think you can make a case for ranking a future #3 who's in AAA ahead of a high risk guy with a ceiling as a #1 who's still in rookie ball, but I would hesitate to do even that.
Comparing position players to pitchers is even harder because it's so apples and oranges.
In any event, as I've said many times, try not to obssess over exact rankings and enjoy getting better acquainted with what the Giants have in their farm system. Whether you rank Crick #1 and Panik #3 or Brown #1 and Crick #3, isn't it great that the Giants have 3 prospects we can have that discussion about?
I'm looking forward to Drb giving us a scouting report of a Kyle Crick pitched game for San Jose. i'm sure that fans will compare Wheeler vs Crick bcause both came through SJ..
ReplyDeleteI like both Panik and Crick but I'm a little more excited about Crick because of his ceiling. it would be huge if Crick progresses well enough to be their #1 prospect by this time next year. The Giants starting pitching is top notch but is also getting expensive.
LG
Oh man, I can't wait to go see Kyle Crick pitch a game for San Jose! In fact, it looks like I'm going to be mighty busy going to minor league games this year as there is a good chance every pitcher in SJ's rotation is going to be a must-see.
DeleteHere is a good first hand scouting report on Kyle Crick. And a little blurb from the article.
ReplyDelete"Crick generates a good bit of power from his legs, which are very tree trunkish. His biggest attribute, his arm speed, is what truly sets him apart. You can go through our video archives and watch as many videos of pitchers that you can muster, and it would be hard to find one or two pitchers with Crick’s arm speed. He primarily worked 92 to 94 MPH, maintaining that velocity throughout the seven innings he pitched. To me, as he continues to build strength and consistency, he will become a pitcher who primarily works in the mid 90s, touching the upper 90s. I would say that right now this is a plus offering, with the potential of becoming plus-plus as matures."
Here is the link...
http://bullpenbanter.com/scouting-report-giants-pitcher-kyle-crick/