Dillard: mid 90s

[endaround]

Yep, its not like Dillard can't pitch some important t7h innings as it is. It would be nice for the Brewers to have finally developed a decent reliever though.

[Pudster13]

Here is a youtube link to a Brew Crew Review interview with Tim Dillard at Nashville last spring.

 

Link

 

He seems like a pretty cool guy.

[fondybrewfan]

If he keeps pitching this way, Melvin is going to have a tough decision to make once Riske and Gagne come off of the DL. Obviously DeFelice will be gone but someone else would have to go as well

[dadofandrew]

I'd love to see our staff 13-14 deep, as a week ago, I saw 10 guys and a couple others to mop-up.

[TooLiveBrew]

The fact that what you see has changed so drastically -- does that indicate anything? The skill levels certainly haven't had enough time to change much.

[Gopher74]

Perhaps you were more familiar with him as a SP? Iirc one reason the Brewers made him a RP was how filthy his sinker can be when he can gear it up for one or two innings, as opposed to a SP workload. I'd bet that he had to operate his sinker more in the 88-92 range as a SP -- which would probably result in fewer K's & more GBs/GB outs.

Yea, that's certainly part of it, but still, when a guy tops out at 96, even if he's moved from starter to reliever, usually he'll sit around 90-94 as a starter. Dillard even hit 97 on the FSN gun once. He's just got a better arm than I thought.

 

I will say this, with that sinker, I'd be in favor of him as a starter again. The one pitcher that I'd feel comfortable with having just 2 pitches is a guy with a great sinker. Brandon Webb, Derek Lowe and Tim Hudson all have more pitches, but they go with their sinker and breaking ball probably 90 pct of the time.

 

Dillar's got a slider that looked pretty solid. IF he can just get that change working, I'd like to see him back as a starter.

 

Then again, a guy who can throw that sinker at 94-96 with a slider could be a very good reliever. He looks like he has closers stuff. At least the stuff of a SU man. We could sure use that.

 

[Gopher74]

I do think part of it could just be that Washington's radar gun is pretty fast. I had a hard time believing that Sheets was around 96 all afternoon when he hasn't pitched consistently that high all year. And as wicked as Torres was this afternoon, I don't think he was pitching 94-96, either.

Sheets has thrown around 96 all year. Torres has also thrown in the mid 90's all year. Not sure why those guys throwing that hard would come as a surprise to you. In fact, Sheets usually is around 90-92 for the 1st inning, and then when he gets warmed up is between 93-96 the rest of the day.

 

[Tbadder]

I'm not a big believer in Dillard. He'll probably fail in the long run, but the point is the Crew are trying things. They're being pro-active where they can be. I don't like Tavarez either, but if you throw enough players at a problem one of them is bound to stick. Quite frankly I'm shocked that Dillard can throw mid-90s I always thought he was a soft-tosser. But sometimes the light just comes on. You know, the last-chance-make-something-of-your-life light. It just clicks on. Lets talk about this after he gets 30 or 40 innings under his belt. Till then I'll cross my fingers and hope that Melvin keeps making moves when problems arise.

[And That]

I'm not a big believer in Dillard. He'll probably fail in the long run

That's kind of harsh. Why do you think he'll probably fail in the long run?

 

[TooLiveBrew]

Quite frankly I'm shocked that Dillard can throw mid-90s I always thought he was a soft-tosser.

 

If you admittedly don't know much about a player, how can you claim that you think he's going to fail? Dillard really has the stuff to be a solid RP this season, and who knows how much he can improve. His sinker alone is enough to make him worth -- at worst -- an extended look in the bullpen this season.

[Tbadder]

I really didn't mean it to be harsh. And I'm not a believer in Dillard because I don't believe in many minor league pitchers, especially from this organization. I know that sounds harsh, but it's not meant to be either. I look at his stats at AAA, I look at his age--it just doesn't scream successful major league pitcher to me. Quite frankly, I haven't heard a lot of people around here say anything glowing about Dillard, and that's another reason I more or less discounted him. With all the moves over the last year we made in the pen, why wasn't Dillard's name mentioned prominately in the off season? Why wasn't he called up sooner? Why did we dole out all that money to journeymen relievers if Dillard figured strongly in the Brwers' thinking? I heard Melvin mention Pena and Jackson. I saw Naverson pitch pretty well in spring training. I heard the Brewers make a "little deal" about the Weaver signing. But as I said I cross my fingers and hope, and I'm glad he's had a great start and that he can pump it up to 95mph, but am I a believer, honestly no.

[TooLiveBrew]

I don't believe in many minor league pitchers, especially from this organization.

 

But is that based on something tangible, or just only trusting players once they build up a 'track record'? Obv. everyone was a minor-leaguer at one point. It's easy right now to remember how skeptical people were of Hart... but now he's got a 'track record'!

 

I can respect your well-thought-out stance; just curious.

[Tbadder]

You know Two Live Brew I'm one of those flea-bit Brewer fans. We've been so bad for so long, our track record on pitchers is so bad historically, I'm not use to the success. I'm not used to the idea that a guy like Dillard, who isn't even a top 20 prospect in our own organization, can be a really effective player. Sure I believe a player like that could be a major league average player, but mostly I believe those players will just be bodies. Now, that the organization is headed in the right direction long term, it's gonna take some time to adjust to the possibilities like a low level prospect who is more than just a body. It's an exciting prospect to be sure.

 

But my main point, put really poorly on my part, is that I love it when organizations throw their own minor leaguers at a problem--giving each one of them a chance to stick, to show their stuff. I want them to give lots of guys chances. I want to see want Hernan can do. What is Nelson capable of? If the Crew would first dip into the minors when they had a problem, rather than heading directly to the trade or free agency, then I'd be a happy guy knowing full well that most wouldn't work out, but, and it's a big but, some might surprise us. Some who really shouldn't be in the majors based on projections might turn out. I find that a really exciting prospect. So really I'm totally about Dillard in a bass ackward way!

 

Oops. Didn't answer your question. Yeah, I'm waiting for some kind of track record. Been burned too many times before by fast starts and all.

[TooLiveBrew]

But my main point, put really poorly on my part, is that I love it when organizations throw their own minor leaguers at a problem--giving each one of them a chance to stick, to show their stuff. I want them to give lots of guys chances. I want to see want Hernan can do. What is Nelson capable of? If the Crew would first dip into the minors when they had a problem, rather than heading directly to the trade or free agency, then I'd be a happy guy knowing full well that most wouldn't work out, but, and it's a big but, some might surprise us. Some who really shouldn't be in the majors based on projections might turn out. I find that a really exciting prospect. So really I'm totally about Dillard in a bass ackward way!

 

Well put! I like it too, and am adjusting to the concept of having a farm system, too. I think your expectations are good, too -- most minor-leaguers don't pan out. The hope with Dillard (I guess) is that he can do what Thatcher did for SD in 2007. Obviously it'd be great to see him turn out better than Joe has in the second season, but cross that bridge when it's reached, right?

[Gopher74]

You know Two Live Brew I'm one of those flea-bit Brewer fans. We've been so bad for so long, our track record on pitchers is so bad historically, I'm not use to the success. I'm not used to the idea that a guy like Dillard, who isn't even a top 20 prospect in our own organization, can be a really effective player.

So how long did it take you to jump on the Gallardo bandwagon? I guess to me you have to look at each pitcher individually. And you're not going to find many relief pitchers in the top 20 prospects unless they're a closer. Those are reserved for starters and position players generally. That doesn't mean that a kid who throws in the mid 90's with a good sink on it can't be a good reliever.

 

I guess I just don't see what the failures of JM Gold and Nick Nuegabauer have to do with these young guys.

 

[Tbadder]

Obviously there's a double standard going on here. Guys that are highly touted like Gallardo, Gamel, Fielder are much easier to get excited about and be patient with, and if they start slowly easier to stick with. But when a guy is flying under the radar most of his minor league career or has gone from a top 20 prospect to some one that not many people talk about like Dillard it's a little hard to get overly excited until he builds a track record. I think that's a reasonable approach.

 

I take your point about the Gold and Nuegabauer references and I agree, but i also think that organizations have track records on developing cvertain kinds of talent, and the Brewer track record is none too good in the pitching department, and a person could be reasonably skeptical on that basis.

[Gopher74]

I take your point about the Gold and Nuegabauer references and I agree, but i also think that organizations have track records on developing cvertain kinds of talent, and the Brewer track record is none too good in the pitching department, and a person could be reasonably skeptical on that basis.

One could, but I just think it'd be smarter to evaluate the player, not the organization, especially when in your own evaluation of the organization you're just throwing all generations into the mix. Frankly, what happened in the late 90's has almost nothing to do with these guys as almost nobody from those teams are left.

 

And even still, it's one thing to say that you're going to reserve judgment. But that's not what you said. You passed judgment by saying that he's likely to end up a failure because of this organization. I just feel that's a bit flimsy.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

He expanded very well on how he's felt snake-bitten by the lack of success, and admitted it's not necessarily 100% logical. Why drag him over the coals on something that's just his personal reflections? He didn't make any sort of absolutist statements, just expressed some pent-up concerns/frustrations.

 

"Now, that the organization is headed in the right direction long term, it's gonna take some time to adjust to the possibilities like a low level prospect who is more than just a body. It's an exciting prospect to be sure."

[Gopher74]

He expanded very well on how he's felt snake-bitten by the lack of success, and admitted it's not necessarily 100% logical. Why drag him over the coals on something that's just his personal reflections? He didn't make any sort of absolutist statements, just expressed some pent-up concerns/frustrations.

Drag him over the coals? Setting aside the fact that I'm quite sure that Tbadder can speak for himself, and I have absolutely no idea why you insist on playing "mediator" at every turn, even where no conflict exists, do you think that just maybe you're being a "little" bit overly dramatic here?

 

I never said he made any sort of "absolutist" statements.

 

But I think when someone says that a player is "likely going to end up failing", I can ask why he thinks that and debate it with him. At least I THOUGHT I could.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

No conflict? I don't see that. He clarified his feelings (which he openly admitted were not objective facts) quite eloquently, and you still felt the need to name-call -- "flimsy"

 

I don't know why everything has to be "debated". He discussed it, and explained his stance quite well. Can't someone have a feeling on something without being called into question? I don't see the harm in that. You don't agree with him. Fine. Great. Why is it necessary to call it "flimsy" and elaborate on how unfounded you think it is? He's had a lot of experience seeing once-promising prospects not pan out, so he's leery of getting too excited. No harm there. I didn't agree with him, but once he explained, I could respect it.

 

Honestly at this point, no I don't feel like I'm being overly dramatic. You seem to feel that you should be allowed free reign to pick apart posts and belittle people's opinions without being challenged. I think that's counterproductive to a fair discussion, and am fully frustrated with it.

[Gopher74]

My god will you let it go? You jump into a thread that you're not involved in and now what exactly is your point here? To drag this out even further?

[TooLiveBrew]

I was involved with this discussion. Personally, I thought it was a great thread.

[Gopher74]

I was involved with this discussion. Personally, I thought it was a great thread.

And you've added immensely to it your last few posts.

 

But let me see if I've got this straight. It's alright for you to ask him why he thinks Dillard is going to be a failure. Now if I ask you're going to start this ridiculous little bickerfest.

 

That pretty much sum it up?