Wow -- Lincecum

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 05:56:09 GMT, Jonathan Bernstein
<jhb.TakeThisOut@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>Greg Lentz <nodamnspam.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net> wrote in
>>>> Sabean drafted Lincecum. He must be a genius.
>>>
>>>Hey, Sabean deserves a ton of credit for this one. No sarcasm
>>>necessary, for a change.
>>
>> Well, time will tell on that. There was a time we could have said the
>> same thing about Jesse Foppert.
>
>No, I don't think so. Foppert was never remotely as well-regarded a
>prospect as Lincecum is.

Sure he was. Just not as early.
--
Greg Lentz
 >> Stay informed about: Wow -- Lincecum 

Greg Lentz <nodamnspam.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote in
> <jhb.DeleteThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>No, I don't think so. Foppert was never remotely as well-regarded a
>>prospect as Lincecum is.
>
> Sure he was. Just not as early.

Hmmm...are prospect lists out yet? I found three lists: Baseball
America had Foppert at #5 in 2003; Baseball Prospectus had him #13, and
Baseball Notebook (don't know it, just grabbing stuff) did not have him
on their top 100 list. Something called "Spring Training" had him #9.

So that's somewhat better than I remembered. OTOH, it counts that it
wasn't as early (and AFAIK he wasn't on any lists in 2002); Foppert
looked like a truly great prospect for just a very short time.

Of course, and knock on wood, Lincecum could have that happen too.

So far, what I have on him is that he's #10 from Baseball Forecaster.
We'll see where BP and BA slot him.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Wow -- Lincecum 

Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
> Greg Lentz <nodamnspam DeleteThis @speakeasy.net> wrote in
>> <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> No, I don't think so. Foppert was never remotely as well-regarded a
>>> prospect as Lincecum is.
>>
>> Sure he was. Just not as early.
>
> Hmmm...are prospect lists out yet? I found three lists: Baseball
> America had Foppert at #5 in 2003; Baseball Prospectus had him #13,
> and Baseball Notebook (don't know it, just grabbing stuff) did not
> have him on their top 100 list. Something called "Spring Training"
> had him #9.
>
> So that's somewhat better than I remembered. OTOH, it counts that it
> wasn't as early (and AFAIK he wasn't on any lists in 2002); Foppert
> looked like a truly great prospect for just a very short time.
>
> Of course, and knock on wood, Lincecum could have that happen too.
>
> So far, what I have on him is that he's #10 from Baseball Forecaster.
> We'll see where BP and BA slot him.
>
> JHB

If Lincecum had the stuff he has and was 6 ft. 5in and weighed 230 lbs. he
would be the top prospect. Putting him lower on the list, is his small
frame and rubbery type motion which seems to be what he uses to get so much
on the ball. Pedro Martinez, has been one of the top MLB pitchers for
years, yet fragile, and Ron Guidry for at least a short period of time was a
small guy with top stuff. Other teams did not draft this guy higher because
of prejudice against body type when it comes to pitchers. If he can remain
injury free, and still throw the ball the way he does, it will be a
tremendous rotation in a year or two with Lincecum, Cain, Zito, and we will
see who will make up the bottom 40 percent of the rotation. It is possible
that Sanchez will be the real deal, but obviously the jury is still out on
him. Lincecum just doesn't have Joe Nathan's physical status. But then
again, Brent Tomko has an ideal pitcher's build can throw 95 mph, has decent
control, and he still sux.
 >> Stay informed about: Wow -- Lincecum 

"Ah...I'm not really here" <Ah...imnotreally.TakeThisOut@asb.sfg> wrote in message
news:45b47d07$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.simon.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> JCain and Lincecum and pray for rain.
>
> JCain? Is that a spanish spelling too?

Matt Cain, nickname in high school, "junior"
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Wow -- Lincecum