|By Jason A. Churchill||By 03-07-2009|
|1. By: 01v-dubs on 03-07-2009 22:08:19|
Jason, with Aumount's new arm slot will that allow him likely stay more healthy then his old arm slot, is he 2-seemer still his bread and butter with his new arm slot?
I also noticed that he slows his arm after he releases the ball, I don't know much about pitching mechanics but that can't be good right?
|2. By: Slurve on 03-07-2009 22:25:09|
Do you see Aumont taking the Brandon Morrow track where he makes the team as a reliever then getting a couple starts along the way or is it the dream rotation coming in in 2010 with the Felix/Morrow/Aumont with possibly Erik and Alex White coming in with Pineda/Rameriez/Adcock backing it up.
Aumont reminds me of a right handed Randy Johnson big athlete and wicked stuff.
His role is a question due to durability questions but it seems to me he's either a rotation ace or a relief ace.
|3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-07-2009 22:49:31|
Aumont's follow-through is very easy and pronounced, but as long as he's doing it on every pitch, it's fine.
As far as his track to the rotation in the bigs, that will depend on when that occurs.
Aumont is so much more physical than Randy, less effort in his delivery, and while he uses his lower body, it's not out of control.
He has things to clean up, but repeating his delivery, arm slot and arm speed on each pitch type is the key for him. That and a change/split.
|4. By: Lonnie on 03-07-2009 22:58:03|
What I'd like to know is what do you do with a guy like Aumont w/r/t his mechanics? From what I've read, there seems to be several flaws in his delivery, and if each is corrected then his delivery would be vastly different.
Right now, he has some wicked stuff that is probably augumented by some wildness. Does a team "correct" his flaws to such an extent that he could become no longer as effective as he is right now? I don't believe that there is any sort of guarantee that correcting the flaws will make him a better pitcher, just a pitcher with a textbook delivery.
|5. By: bikozu on 03-08-2009 00:09:30|
Thanks for the post, Jason, it was a good read. I was really excited from the first pitch that Aumont threw, and the fact that he got so many swinging strikes from such quality batters just stunned me.
I don't know about what constitutes 'red flags' or anything, but a couple things jumped out at me from that inning.
1. Stiff mechanics. I'm not going to try to predict injury risk or anything but he doesn't have the same smoothness in his motion that Johan or Lincecum does.
2. Inconsistent break on his pitches. It looks like he's throwing a slider with curveball arm action and it gets pretty slurvy. While I like the type of movement the pitch has, it will be hard for him to locate it consistently.
Just my 2¢, I only watched that inning twice so I may have missed something.
|6. By: slick on 03-08-2009 00:14:00|
Texas A&M pitcher Wilson's line Saturday
IP H R ER BB SO
6.0 3 1 0 1 14
Nice performance, maybe is starting to move into the first round.
|7. By: safecochatter on 03-08-2009 05:41:55|
rules are made to be broken.
i think aumont finishes pitching to granderson even if it takes aumont 30 pitches for the inning.
the confidence and expirence gained from that was 50 times better than anything he could of recieved in peoria.
i think if the m's were watching,and they probably were,they would agree.
oh...and the strike out of Youkilis....PRICELESS!
|8. By: Lonnie on 03-08-2009 09:33:29|
I think that the M's management probably would have burned up the phone lines if Aumont had been out there beyond 28 pitches. It's one thing to look at the situation as a learning experience, but when the pitcher in question has future MOR - TOR potential they would have erred on the side of caution.
I'm just glad that the mandate wasn't been put to the test...
|9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-08-2009 11:26:49|
Aumont would have been removed after the pitch regardless. The Mariners were very specific and strict about the pitch count, and Whitt agreed to them.
I don't think he has a ton of flaws. Just a few major ones. Adjusting them wouldn't completely re-design his delivery. and you're right. If Lincecum's "odd/bad" mechanics were changed, where would he be right now?
Triple-A Fresno with a sore shoulder?
|10. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-08-2009 11:40:49|
Wilson's not going to move into the first round based on performance, though. He'll have to do it with tools. Stuff, command. If his stuff and command reflect his performances, he's a first rounder.
But he hasn't exactly been facing the Yankees.
|11. By: Slurve on 03-08-2009 21:19:55|
I read your PI article Jason good stuff but why do you have to remind us of what we can't have. >=(
|12. By: 01v-dubs on 03-09-2009 00:04:45|
Jason, back to the draft, what do you think about Andrew Oliver? Could he make sense at #2? based on your previous write-up of him he seems pretty good, plus FB, possible plus slider, from the left side. Seems like a possible frontline pitcher with more promise then White, Crow etc.
|13. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-09-2009 10:22:28|
Sorry, Slurve. LOL.
I like Oliver, haven't seen a lot of him, but his command is the key. He doesn't carry the velo that White or Crow carries right now, at least not consistently, but that won't matter if he commands everything better.
I know a lot of people are talking about Aumont's stiff front leg, but there's not a lot of evidence to prove his stuff landing leg is a major flaw. It doesn't LOOK right, and maybe holding him back some, but as far as being able to repeat, and injury is concerned, there aren't any major worries with that.
The org has been focused on his arm slot and upper body mechanics.
|14. By: Blowgun7 on 03-09-2009 10:53:36|
Great piece in the P-I, Jason.
Still games to play, but right now I'd lean towards Ackley or one of the prep arms. Hopefully one of those prep pitchers seperates from the rest of pack over the next few months.
The upside on White and Crow just isn't that exciting for the #2 overall pick.
|15. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-09-2009 11:17:41|
Honestly, I agree, blow.
White is mucked up right in the middle of the rest of those college arms; Crow, Oliver, Gibson, even Volz... I like Tate, too, but Matzek or Miller, right now, would be MY PICK, i think.
|16. By: Slack on 03-09-2009 11:30:19|
If it were up to me, I would choose Matzek and I am open to Miller as well. My question is, would the M's be open to taking a high schooler with the #2 pick or are they more likely to lean towards a college player?
|17. By: 01v-dubs on 03-09-2009 11:52:58|
Yeah, I'd lean toward the prep player to right now. I know Jason will eventually get to him, but if Tate has superstar potential, maybe somewhere bewteen Maybin and the Uptons I'd take him. If not, I'd take Matzek.
|18. By: Pumpkin on 03-09-2009 12:13:00|
I agree, Tate or Matzek would probably be my top two choices right now, although with how well Ackley has been doing recently he is right up there too, but I have always been a little biased towards drafting HS players personally.
This is kinda off topic, but Lopez has 5 2B in 7 AB, maybe he is finally started to reach his full potential.
|19. By: Blowgun7 on 03-09-2009 13:03:52|
Should be six doubles if he didnt hit one so hard that it bounced hard of the wall, and he got gunned down at second.
|20. By: bilbo on 03-13-2009 15:52:43|
Hey Jason, what happened to the handbook thread? ;-)
Let me ask my question this way: Do you think that the extra time it takes a HS player to develop would make the college guys more valuable and the Ms more likely to take a guy like Ackley or Crow at #2 (assuming Stras goes #1)? I don't think it is enough to overcome a huge talent difference (like a Griffey, Arod, Upton type) but I don't see that difference this year at this time.
Because of the time of the ROI I expect that this is the case and as a result I have the board currently as
Crow (he has to pitch well in indy ball)
|Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central|
Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome