Pick May Free up Trade

[rog]

The Giants chose 24-year-old southpaw reliever Travis Bergen in today's Rule 5 Draft.  Bergen gets out both lefties and righties, and he fortifies a bullpen in which considerable trade interest has been expressed in southpaw closer Will Smith and fellow southpaw Tony Watson.  Both pitchers have gotten out batters from both sides of the plate and have filled multiple roles.

Bergen is something of an equal opportunity whiff artist, fanning batters of either hand.  He has overcome an injury-filled minor league career, formulating a 1.02 WHIP and a 1.27 ERA.  He has allowed just 6.4 hits and 2.7 walks per nine while striking out 12.0.

Bergen regained his health last season, striking  out 74 batters in 57 innings between High A and AA.  Surprisingly Bergen is a distinct ground ball pitchers against lefties and a fly ball hitter to right-handers.

Here is Bergen's pre-draft profile:


If you want a single word to describe what Travis Bergen does on the mound, using the word “carve” might just be your best option. While he works in the low-90s with his heater, Bergen features an above average mid-80s cutter, and as does with the rest of his arsenal, shows complete command of it pounding both sides of the plate.

[sfgdood]

A rule 5 pitcher that can't bring the gas is a joke. If this guy was that good he would have been protected. Good work, Fargeek

[rog]

A rule 5 pitcher that can't bring the gas is a joke. If this guy was that good he would have been protected.


Rog -- The only negative is that he's just turned 25, a bit old for his classification. That he was drafted out of college and didn't have a healthy season until 2018 makes that a bit more understandable. Going into last season, he had pitched fewer than 30 innings of organized ball.

As a Rule 5 pitcher, clearly his likelihood of success is limited. But southpaw Johan Santana was also a Rule 5 pick. Certainly the odds aren't in Bergen's favor, but to say he's a joke without truly knowing anything about him is the joke here.

Randy, you talk about how you've pitched in college, but your comment here clearly indicates you don't understand major league pitching. You say Bergen is a joke because he can't bring gas, yet it appears he may throw as hard as Madison Bumgarner (90.9 mph) or Derek Holland (91.6). Probably not as fast as Tony Watson (92.5) or Will Smith (92.7), although likely not too far behind them.

Did you happen to notice in his scouting report that he carves up the strike zone, pounding the zone with pitches on both sides of the plate? Apparently you didn't.

Here is today's scouting report, by Eric Longenhagen of Fan Graphs:


Travis Bergen, LHP (from Blue Jays)- Bergen looked like a lefty specialist in college but the Blue Jays have normalized the way he strides toward home, and his delivery has become more platoon-neutral in pro ball. He has a fringy, low-90s fastball but has two good secondaries in his upper-70s curveball and tumbling mid-80s change. So long as he pitches heavily off of those two offerings, he could lock down a bullpen role.


The odds are against any Rule 5 pick, and those who understand major league baseball realize that part of the difficulty is that the drafted player has to be carried on the major league roster all season long. A team trying to rebuild as you are recommending, are often looking beyond that single season. They draft players to assess exactly where they are and to more clearly focus on their upsides.

If you truly understood major league baseball, you would be aware of that and wouldn't simply call a guy a joke without having a clue. You seem to be the master of the know-nothing negative comment. No one here is challenging you for that role, so congratulations on your success.

What I like about Bergen is that he appears to have three good pitches -- 90's fastball, 80's change up and 70's curve. He is said to be able to locate those pitches. Coming out of college, he also had a good cutter, so he might be able to even expand his repertoire, which is already big for a reliever.

If Bergen hadn't pitched above A ball, I would be more worried. It's a huge jump from A ball to the majors. But he was outstanding in AA this past season.

Bergen doesn't throw nearly as hard as the reliever the Giants passed over on waivers a year ago, but Farhan picked up J.T. Chargois, who despite a lot of injuries posted a 3.34 ERA for the Dodgers. Boly mentioned that Chargois had more stuff than a lot of the Giants relievers. When I recommend a guy, Randy, pay attention. I'm not right all the time, but I can quickly learn a lot more about prospects than you would likely know for a year or more.

Will Bergen make an impact for the Giants? Normally I would guess no, but since I value Farhan's judgment with players such as Chargois, Max Muncy and Chris Taylor, I'll give him close to an even shot. Let's call it one in three or two in five.

For a Rule 5 player, that's far from a joke. If you understood major league baseball better, you'd realize that.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4961/pick-free-trade#ixzz5ZbSOok70

[rog]

Bergen's AA ERA in 36 innings last season was 0.50. He struck out 10.9 batters per nine while allowing only 2.3 walks. He allowed only 6.6 hits per nine, and his WHIP was 0.98. He struck out 43 batters while allowing only 35 base runners.

Any time a pitcher strikes out more batters than he allows to reach base, he's worthy of consideration. Just about anyone who understands major league baseball realizes that. If not, well the joke's on them.

[sfgdood]

Anyone can pick out exceptions to any rule...if you don't have electric stuff and a team doesn't protect you, chances are very long that you have anything special enough to make it to the show

[holiday613]

"As a Rule 5 pitcher, clearly his likelihood of success is limited. But southpaw Johan Santana was also a Rule 5 pick. Certainly the odds aren't in Bergen's favor, but to say he's a joke without truly knowing anything about him is the joke here.

Randy, you talk about how you've pitched in college, but your comment here clearly indicates you don't understand major league pitching. >>

Obviously Rog, you didnt learn a damn thing...Read the above sentences a few times and see if you can ascertain why most don't like you here...

Personally, I happen to like the pick, yet I don't feel it necessary to go after Dood in a condescending and disparaging manner...When will you get it?? Baseball is supposed to be a fun distraction from everyday life..Nobody needs a teacher here lecturing others on unimportant opinions..Kapisch?

[rog]

Your points are good ones, Mordy. You're right on the money.

But I try to challenge Randy to open his mind and actually say something of substance. He consistently takes a negative position against Giants moves while possessing little knowledge of what he's talking about. Randy knew almost nothing about Bergen other than he throws low 90's and was eligible for the free agent draft. Does that truly make Bergen a joke, as Randy said?

Randy talks about how as a former player above high school level, he knows things that I don't understand "and never will." I can't remember learning a thing from Randy -- and I spend a lot of time learning about baseball.

It's fine if someone has an opinion that disagrees with mine, as long as he is being logical, objective and thorough in forming his opinion.

Earlier this week Don asked an intelligent question as to why Andrelton Simmons would have more range than Brandon Crawford when Crawford's range factor was higher. I hope I gave Don a good answer. Maybe I should simply have shortened it to, Richie Ashburn had a higher range factor than Willie Mays. But I think Don has a better understanding now -- or he may have asked the question somewhat tongue in cheek.

I can't remember Randy's asking an intelligent question, and when he is asked one himself, he mostly demurs. My belief is that if you don't know what the heck you're talking about, ask questions -- don't use bluster to act as if you have the answers. When I ask Randy questions, I almost always get either a shallow answer or, even more often, dead air time.

[Islandboagie]

Actually, Randy is correct. Some pitchers who dont have a good fastball can be successful in the minors, but because they dont have a good fastball they struggle in the majors. My guess is the guy has a good secondary pitch like a curveball that has given him a good strikeout rate. The point is, we dont know. But what Randy is stating is often the case, so where is more evidence to prove your point Rog? I dont see any. I see strikeout per innings, that doesn't prove anything. Do we know his secondary pitches? Does he have a good change up, curve, slider, sinker?

I tend to agree with Randy, he doesn't have a good fastball and he wasn't protected, chances are we didn't just get the next Jeremy Affeldt. But I dont know either, none of us do. So if we dont know, why are we saying the other guy is wrong? Or not intelligent?

I dont see a lot of trying here.

[rog]

Here is the problem with what Randy said. Had he said what you just said, Boagie, that would have been more than fine. You gave some good reasons Bergen may not have been protected and may not make it. I mentioned "The odds are against any Rule 5 pick" and gave reasons why. We get it.

But Randy thinks he has to say "A rule 5 pitcher that can't bring the gas is a JOKE." (My caps) Had he simply said that the odds were against Bergen because of the reasons you gave, Boagie, that would have been a postive contribution to discussion.

What Randy does that drives me nuts is that he makes statements that are untrue and does so brusquely. Then when asked about it, he either doesn't reply or makes another brusque comment that is questionable at best.

[rog]

So let's go back over the reasons WHY Bergen might make it. As I pointed out, I would place his odds at one in three or two in five, and then only because Farhan has such a good record in picking marginal players who succeed:

. First of all, Farhan. Randy considers that a negative, not a positive, but Farhan does have a good track record.

. Secondly, the guy has been marvelously effective. He has a 1.27 career ERA, and his ERA at his highest and most recent level (AA) was 0.50. Two earned runs in 35.2 innings. That's almost unheard of.

. He strikes batters out and doesn't walk many. Not surprisingly, his strikeouts have been coming down as he's reached higher levels, but he still struck out 10.9 batter per nine in AA while walking only 2.3.

. His scouting report says he carves up the strike zone, pounding both sides of the zone.

. He has been quite effective against right-handed hitters as well as lefties.

. Against lefties, he not only strikes out a lot of batters, but he also induces an inordinate amount of ground balls. The odds of his being at LEAST a LOOGY look quite good for a Rule 5 pick.

. Articles in today's Jays' Journal and Everything Bluebirds suggest the Blue Jays may have made a mistake in not protecting Bergen. If Bergen is a "joke" as Randy declares, perhaps the Giants need more jokes. Here is the thing about Randy: He thinks Bergen is a "joke," yet had it been the Giants who lost him, he would crying that "Fargeek" (what a crock) clearly doesn't know what he's doing.

jaysjournal.com/2018/12/14/blue-jays-failed-in-not-protecting-reliever-travis-bergen/

everythingbluebirds.com/blue-jays-take-it-on-the-chin-in-rule-5-draft/

[rog]

When our team picks up an executive or player, we hope the other team regrets losing him.

The Dodgers, A's and even the Dodgers' fired manager spoke highly of Farhan. Now we see the Blue Jays' blogs decrying the loss of Travis Bergen.

These are not jokes. These are good signs.

[sfgdood]

what Boagie said and what I said are essentially the same thing. Im happy that what I post drives you nuts because the way you post here drives ALL of us nuts. He immediately got what I was saying and agreed with me...you deliberately attacked my post and not Boagie's because you don't like me and I'm fine with that. Just don't pretend like I'm the one with the problem.

[rog]

Randy has decried the Giants' adding Sean Anderson and Gregory Santos ("bupkis") and Travis Bergen ("a joke). It seems likely that two or three years from now we'll be glad the Giants at least one of the three, probaby two, and possibly even all three.

It is possible they'll be even happier with them than Gary Brown.

Incidentally, Randy (correctly IMO) wants to build for the future. The three pitchers above plus Boly's find in Melvin Adon, and the Giants' minor league addition of Kieran Lovegrove could be instrumental in any rebuild. If nothing else, those pitchers help provide depth which might allow the Giants to trade pitching for outfield help. The Giants didn't follow this draft and develop model here. Two came via trade, one via minor league free agency, one as an international signee, and Bergen via Rule 5. But the good news is that all five of these guys are available for development or trade.

Hasn't the plan been to draft pitchers and use some of them to provide bats, which is a tough free agent commodity for the Giants?

Randy wants the Giants to trade pitchers for bats, and he wants them to use the international market. The Giants are now in position to do that.

[rog]

Here is how MILB.com evaluates Bergen's chances of sticking:

8. Travis Bergen, LHP, Giants (from Blue Jays): From a statistical standpoint, the southpaw was as dominant this year as Minor League relievers get. Bergen finished with a 0.95 ERA, 1.01 WHIP, 74 strikeouts and 10 walks in 56 2/3 innings between Class A Advanced and Double-A. Over both stops, he was tough against righties (.185 average-against) and his fellow lefties (.227). Here come the caveats: he did that as a 24-year-old, and it was his first season throwing more than 18 1/3 innings. Luckily for him, the Giants seem willing to deal either Will Smith or Tony Watson this offseason, and that would take away one of the left-handed options above Bergen on the depth chart. Until that officially happens, he's the fourth-best left-handed relief option they have. Stickiness level: Three (out of five).

[rog]

The Giants also drafted an outfielder in the major league section of the Rule 5 Draft, as well as a pitcher and a power-hitting outfielder in the minor league section.

What's rankling is that Randy used the word "joke" without knowing much of any of this. Randy's ratio of harshness to knowledge is huge. That's what bugs me.

[sfgdood]

and for the record, my comments were not about Bergen specifically...ANY rule 5 pick that barely reaches 90 on the gun is pretty much a joke...much more than just a long shot. If he makes the Giants opening day roster, I will actually be encouraged because it is a sign that Fargeek is fully committed to the rebuild.

[Islandboagie]

I think Randy assumes we all know the concerns with a pitcher that doesn't throw hard but is successful in the minors. I think he's aware, and he assumes we're aware that the pitcher likely has a plus secondary pitch. That's why he didnt go into detail.

After some research on my part, it has been stated that his curveball is his out pitch. There are exceptions to the rule, but normally a weak fastball with a plus curveball won't fool major leaguers. I would have passed on this guy and maybe focused on someone who throws harder.

You might not like the way Randy posts, Rog. But that's Randy. He keeps it simple. It's not your style, I get it, but it's been what..15 years? You should be used to Randy by now.

I wish you guys could just get along, and accept that you're different. Theres a reason I dont have kids, I dont like parenting, dont make me do it here.

[rog]

and for the record, my comments were not about Bergen specifically...ANY rule 5 pick that barely reaches 90 on the gun is pretty much a joke...much more than just a long shot.


Rog -- Your comments indeed weren't against Bergen specifically -- which makes them all the worse. As for Bergen, I think he's better than a long shot, although I think the odds are indeed against him. He nor other soft-tossing Rule 5 draft picks are far from jokes.

Do you suppose there was a reason the Giants picked Bergen? Do you suppose there is a reason for sentiment in Toronto that the Blue made a mistake by exposing him? Do you suppose there is a reason he posted a 0.50 ERA in AA? Do you suppose there is a reason he struck out 10.9 per nine while walking only 2.3?

Players who are good enough to be taken in the Rule 5 Draft aren't jokes. Why do you feel it necessary to call some of them that?

I knew a player who was selected from the Giants in the Rule 5 Draft. Power hitting outfielder Benji Simonton was taken by the Red Sox in 1994. Benji's chances of sticking from San Jose weren't very good to begin with, and the major league strike or lockout in 1995 pretty much eliminated them. Turns out he wasn't good enough anyway, making it to AAA for only one game (although amazingly he went 3 for 4 with a home run). He had been a 3rd round draft choice of the Giants in 1992.

Benji wasn't nearly as good as Travis Bergen likely is, but he wasn't a joke either. At 6-foot-1 and 236 pounds, he likely wouldn't have taken kindly to your calling him a joke had you done so. Although it is possible he would have simply shrugged you off, thinking to himself, "This guy's the joke."

Why do you find it necessary to call a pitcher who likely is many, many times as good as you were, a joke? Does that somehow make you feel better?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4961/pick-free-trade?page=1&scrollTo=51223#ixzz5ZglETnKi

[Islandboagie]

You still haven't given Randy or I any reason to respond further, Rog. You're just restating the numbers. Does he have plus secondary pitches other than a curveball. He would need a cutter or a changeup to go along with his curve to not get exposed at the major league level. Let me know when you find something relevant to the discussion.

[sfgdood]

Since Rog has stated the obvious, I will do the same. Who knows Bergen best? The same team that wasn't afraid to expose him to rule 5.

[rog]

what Boagie said and what I said are essentially the same thing. '

Rog -- Perhaps so. But Boagie backed up what he said, and he said it without insult. Your comment was insulting, Randy.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4961/pick-free-trade#ixzz5ZjUn4ZSO

[rog]

I think Randy assumes we all know the concerns with a pitcher that doesn't throw hard but is successful in the minors.


Rog -- Which is why Randy certainly didn't need to use the word "joke" with regard to Bergen. It appears he used such a harsh word because he really didn't know much about Travis. My guess is that prior to reading what I posted, he knew virtually nothing.

But I guess that's Randy for you.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4961/pick-free-trade?page=1#ixzz5ZjVGNTxr

[rog]

Post Options
Post by Islandboagie on 7 hours ago
You still haven't given Randy or I any reason to respond further, Rog. You're just restating the numbers.


Rog -- So how do you think he put up those numbers, Boagie? And why is it that the Blue Jays' blogs are upset the Jays lost him? You realize, right, that had a similar thing happened to the Giants, Randy would be going out of his mind?

But that's just Randy.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4961/pick-free-trade?page=1#ixzz5ZjW9NYAS

[rog]

Since Rog has stated the obvious, I will do the same. Who knows Bergen best? The same team that wasn't afraid to expose him to rule 5.


Rog -- That's not necessarily true, Randy. Teams make mistakes (not just the Giants as you would have us believe).

The Giants' farm system is so weak that they didn't have any problem getting well BELOW the 40-man roster limit. Not a whole lot of danger of their losing anyone.

But the Jays seem to have a fair amount of depth, and you can't protect everyone.

Last spring the Twins faced a 25-man roster problem. They thought they could sneak J.T. Chargois through waivers. And indeed they did (unfortunately including the Giants), but the last possible team to claim him on waivers did so. The Twins' GM even admitted he thought he had snuck J.T. through. As he said, we thought we had snuck him through. We did sneak him through all but one team.

Here's an irony. Three years ago the Jays chose Joe Biagini from the Giants in the Rule 5 Draft. And he posted a 3.06 ERA in his first season there. But he's been lousy the past two seasons, and the one blogger said that Biagini was among five or so pitchers he felt the Jays could have exposed rather than Bergen. The Jays actually lost TWO pitchers in this year's draft.

Randy, I don't believe you understand the nuances involved with the Rule 5 Draft. Teams have to make educated gambles, and sometimes they gamble wrong.

But the bottom line here is that Bergen isn't a joke any more than Anderson and Santos are bupkis. You don't have a very good track record in judging players, so perhaps it's a good sign that you have panned these guys.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4961/pick-free-trade?page=1#ixzz5ZjWcY52I

[rog]

He keeps it simple. It's not your style, I get it, but it's been what..15 years? You should be used to Randy by now.


Rog -- Simple is good. If I were writing instead of posting, I would say things much more simply. Here, it's just a stream of consciousness, and my mind can go in a lot of directions when it comes to sports and particularly baseball.

Simple is good. But not simple-minded.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4961/pick-free-trade?page=1#ixzz5ZjZ33aT2

[sfgdood]

I prefer the simple minded to the arrogant anal bastard who can't get what everyone else sees clearly about him

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- So how do you think he put up those numbers, Boagie? And why is it that the Blue Jays' blogs are upset the Jays lost him? You realize, right, that had a similar thing happened to the Giants, Randy would be going out of his mind?

Boagie- I told you how I think he put up those numbers, he has a good curveball. But a low velocity fastball and a curve doesn't make him destined for major league success. Everyone knows minor league pitching numbers can look good sometimes because of a plus secondary pitch, with not much else - but if theres not much else, it doesn't often fair well for major league success. Players who are older, like this guy (yes 24 is old for single A and double A) have developed a decent secondary pitch that hitters who aren't as developed will often swing through. This is scouting 101. So again I ask, what does he have that separates him from the others? You're evading the question much like you often accuse Randy of doing. It's starting to occur to me that you don't really know. So again, if you really dont know, why are you arguing a point that you're not sure about, when the evidence we DO know leans in Randy's favor? I will state the evidence again for you.

1. He's 24
2. He's facing players that are likely younger or not very talented.
3. He's got a weak fastball and a plus curveball with not much else.
4. The team that had him chose not to protect him.

Again, what does he have that we are missing? Simple question.

[rog]

Your questions here are among the best I've seen here in a while, Boagie. You've done a good job of putting the ball in my court (or field, if we prefer). I can dig it.

Now the question is, can I dig out of it!!!!

And, yes, I usually have facts and ideas on which I base my opinions.

A thing I thought of just today is that while Randy that a soft thrower is a joke is certainly an overstatement. But still has some validity, as you too are stating, Boagie. Randy added that a team should be able to best evaluate its players itself, which can indeed be true, but often isn't.

What teams with good, young prospects have to do is take calculated gambles. Naturally they try to protect the players they think are most valuable, but in doing so, sometimes they have to sneak a few players into the Rule 5 Draft that they think can sneak through. Teams sometimes think like Randy, in that they are more likely to gamble on a hard thrower. Maybe he will suddenly harness his control and command. Perhaps he'll work over the winter and develop a secondary or tertiary pitch. If he's got the good heater, he's got a good start toward potential.

So Berger is the type of pitcher a team would be likely to gamble on sneaking through. That might actually give him as good or even a better shot at making a team this season than the more visible guy with heat that may need more developing (and thus make it harder to keep him on the roster).

Still, as you guys point out, Berger has to have a way to get major league hitters out. So without a great fastball, how does he do that?

As you point out, his out pitch appears to be a sweeping curve ball. If you've seen it, it's somewhat impressive. On the other hand, his fastball -- which is said to be low to mid-90's -- appears to be close to 90 than to mid. But his fastball does have excellent spin, which likely gives it movement. And as much as velocity is important, we know that major leaguers are more likely to hit a high 90's fastball that doesn't move than a low 90's fastball that does. Sometimes we focus too much on velocity and too little on movement. Especially if a ball gets grooved, that movement can be the difference between a foul off and a home run.

Gerber is also said to have a decent change up, giving him a pitch in the 90's, a pitch in the 70's and a pitch in the 80's. Those speed changes can make the fastball look faster than it is.

Gerber has fine control for a pitcher who strikes out as many batters as he does. He'll likely strike out fewer and walk more in the majors, but perhaps not by a lot. And with a 4+/1 K/BB ratio, he has room to fall off a bit.

He also induces lot of ground balls as well as strikeouts from left-handed batters. Even though he also gets right-handers out well, they elevate more against him. But between the combination of striking out a lot of left-handed hitters and inducing a lot of ground balls from them, his chances of sticking as a LOOGY might be decent even if he were to begin struggling against right-handers.

Finally, while this doesn't guarantee success in the majors, despite his very limited experience, he hasn't fallen off much as he has risen from A ball to AA, which is considered a big jump -- bigger than the jump from AA to AAA. His 0.50 ERA in AA last season was the best of his career, although cleary with a 1.27 career mark, he's performed well at pretty much every level.

Now, while you are correct that Gerber was 24 when he was facing younger hitters (as I mentioned to begin with), he's now 25. It is possible that could work in his favor for this season. Maybe not in the long run, but perhaps from this season. Because of his injuries, he has the experience of a much younger pitcher. But at 25, he likely has more maturity, which could come in handy in making the 2019 Giants roster.

Remember, I gave him only a one in three or two in five chance of sticking. My prediction is that he WON'T stick. Most Rule 5 guys don't stick. But he appears to me to have at least as good a chance as most.

One last point, Boagie. I hope you will read my posts carefully. I'm not sure you realized I had written that the one negative factor for Berger is that he faced younger hitters. I'm not sure you realized I gave him less than a 50% chance of sticking. I'm virtually certain Randy didn't realize that.

I hope I brought up some points that you hadn't considered or at the very least put them in something of a new light. I believe you can understand the nuances. I guess all you have to judge is how important they are to the overall picture we're trying to develop.

The one thing I will say is that I believe Randy was very wrong to call the type of pitcher a joke. That's why I reacted so harshly. If he is reasonable, I try to be as well.

I think for watching Berger pitch only on video (and then, only warming up), I've got about as good a read on him as anyone here. You and Randy are likely right that he won't stick. And even if he does stick, that doesn't guarantee he'll pitch well.

But given that seven players had already been chosen (out of something like 13 or 14 who were chosen overall in the major league portion of the draft), I think the Giants did just fine. Possibly even more than fine, since "just" fine likely means a player who DOESN'T make the roster.