The Scouting Skinny: Brendan McKay

If Greene's "attitude", assuming he does have one, is born from a desire to be the best, I'm OK with that. If it's ego and a long nose viewpoint of those around him, then I would have a problem. Not saying he has any issues, just responding.

What scares me about Greene is mixed results in his secondary stuff. I hear average slider that needs work, and I hear devastating slider. Which is it? And, more than likely, he is further away from helping any time soon, but I also don't believe in drafting simply for immediacy.

I'm starting to lean towards McKay, not as a negative towards Greene, but because a strapping, quality LHSP who is closer to helping with a floor of a #3 with the potential for better excites me. Those just don't grow on trees, and sorry for saying this, but he does have the feeling of being the "safer" choice.

The more I hear on McKay the less I like.  I know he's thrown a pitch here and there with more velocity but seems to work with a low 90's fastball and loses velocity as the game goes on.  A large Ted Lilly doesn't sound like anyone you would want to draft #1 overall.  Let's let go of the fantasy of him playing both ways, there is no chance a team is going to launch such an experiment with the #1 overall selection in the draft. I place near zero value on his bat if you draft him as a pitcher.  By the time he would wash out as a pitcher he would likely be 4-5 years removed from hitting.  Odds are he would reach the majors with a different team.  

Just my opinion but arguing for a guy due to his high floor is an argument for shooting for mediocrity.  If the high floor really was legitimate I'd be ok with him, but as we've all seen from these various "quick to the majors" types the floors for prospects that get thrown around are ridiculous and most do not arrive nearly as quickly as advertised.  Maybe the scouts see something else in him, maybe he's got just impeccable command of all his pitches.  I just worry the margin for error is going to be a lot smaller for him.  

Am not anything close to a pro scout but saw McKay pitch and hit in 2016 over a 3 game series. He is VERY sturdy and I believe could be whatever a team wants to him to be. His swing is great and exit velocity is exceptional. Just very polished.

As a pitcher very solid velocity with great depth on off spend. As stated by many his floor is #3. Probably never #1 but potential #2 and solid......low risk because he could do either. Not sure that warrants #1 pick in draft, but he would certainly leapfrog most of our current MILB pitchers.

Nope, nope, and nope. You take Greene, cross your fingers and try not to worry. Let the coaches and management evaluate his potential as a pitcher or as a position player. If the latter, he could become the next great right fielder in mlb. If the former, he could be the next Doc Gooden, without the partying. 

IMHO:  a selection of Greene is not an "instant gratification" type move.  If the plan is to use him as an RP would probably/possibly take 3 years.  And that might be on the low side.  Starter?  Well, more.  Gotta get those secondary pitches going.

If the Twins go Greene, then they should be backing it up with more, young pitching prospects.  Get them all together in one group.  Seems to be what the Mets do...

I do, however, have more confidence in Falvey and Levine executing a pitching development system than any other Twins leadership.

disagree. Pitchers have routines on off days, and messing with those routines is not setting McKay up to be the most successful he can be.

Isn't his routine right now being a two-way player?  I guess I don't see why that would be such a huge stretch to do the same thing in the minors and try it out.  Of course that might be a reflection of why my baseball career ended at 15 (actually it probably ended at 12 but it took me three years to recognize it).

In 1991 Jack Morris pitched a 10 inning shutout in the World Series. It wasn't the first time a pitcher had pitched into extra innings in World Series. Long ago a very talented young pitcher  named Babe Ruth pitched a complete 14 inning World Series game and won 2-1. Ruth (career 89-46 record to that point) was relieved of his pitching duties and moved to the outfield 4 years later (by some other team).

 

It will be one or the other. Not both.

Perhaps it was the Babe's physical conditioning playing a part in that?  I'm not sure the way things were done during Prohibition means it has to be the same way today.

 

 

Question.....if they don't need those routines, why do all the pitchers have the same routine?

I don't know that they have the same routine, it does seem like we are hearing about more and more variations.

One answer, which I don't mean to sound snarky, is that perhaps a lot of pitchers have the same routines for the same reasons a lot of players don't believe in them fancy new-fangled nerd stats.

 

Question.....if they don't need those routines, why do all the pitchers have the same routine?

Isn't that circular?

That's certainly possible, do you want to be the coach that completely changes the routine of the 1:1 pick, compared to how you've prepared every other pitcher in your career as a coach?

I think this is much closer to the "answer" here. At the top levels, you're not going to find many disruptors, because if they attempt to disrupt things and it doesn't work immediately, they get the hook.

Nope. 

 

There is a reason pitchers pitch on their off days, and chart pitches on their off days, and rest on their off days. I'd guess the cycle is nearly identical (within an org) for each pitcher. It's not random that they have these cycles, teams believe that this works for their players. Disrupting that by adding more batting practice, base running, fielding, etc....that's a disruption to a routine that MiLB and MLB have in place.

The question isn't why they say they do it, the question is why they all do it the same way. And the reason for why they all do it the same way simply cannot be because that's how they all do it. Nor can the evidence for its effectiveness be the mere fact of its being done.

I guess you could look for evidence that's the best way.....but that seems like a lot of unnecessary work to me. 

Kind of seems like what employees of major league clubs ought to be doing. Instead of just doing it the way everyone else does.

One thing is for sure. If the Twins pick the wrong guy and the guy they passed on becomes a star, we will never hear the end of it because of people like us on TD. I hope that doesn't happen.

I'd go with Greene. The Twins 1st round drafting luck/incompetence has to break right at some point, if only by the law of averages.

I always wanted a young Doc Gooden on the Twins.

If I am not mistaken, the general work out plan of a pitcher involves running and throwing. For hitters it involves hitting and lifting weights. Those are kind of opposite goal regimens.

I go with McKay. Make him a pitcher only. He and Green have equal chances of making the bigs. Tiebreakers for me are him being a lefty, a smooth looking delivery and his control of more than 1 pitch.

I don't really know why, but Greene scares me. No doubt he has the highest potential, but I have to say I've been unimpressed with everything besides his velocity in all the videos I've watched. I don't think he has a remotely usable secondary pitch as a pro, yet. He also doesn't have the #'s I'd expect from a high-schooler with that velocity, I don't know, they just seem 'meh' for a guy with this much hype (he also fell off as a hitter this year).

 

I'm more on the Mckay bandwagon, but he also might not be the college SP with the highest upside.

I know exactly why Greene scares you: Aaron Hicks 2.0. A supremely gifted high school athlete, but very raw. Let's draft this polite young freeeeeek, then teach him the finer aspects of baseball. What could possibly go wrong??

Perhaps, but I'm not such an employee, and can only go off what we know/read/hear.

What I'm getting at isn't what you personally do or don't know. What I'm getting at is that it isn't enough for me, nor should it be enough for a front office, to simply reject an odd idea out of hand.

It simply isn't enough to say "it won't be done because that's not how it's done."