PDA

View Full Version : Michael Lorenzen



redsof72
07-05-2013, 06:25 PM
In Dayton...will pitch only...will be used in a very limited role...one inning per outing, couple times a week.

dougdirt
07-05-2013, 06:52 PM
In Dayton...will pitch only...will be used in a very limited role...one inning per outing, couple times a week.

Hopefully one of those times a week will be when I make the trip up.

Benihana
07-06-2013, 11:39 AM
In Dayton...will pitch only...will be used in a very limited role...one inning per outing, couple times a week.

Does that mean they see him as a reliever?

LoganBuck
07-06-2013, 03:05 PM
Does that mean they see him as a reliever?

It could mean anything. They used Zach Stewart as a reliever at Dayton too.

redsof72
07-06-2013, 10:07 PM
Lorenzen was 97-98 in his first inning with the Dragons.

nate1213
08-01-2013, 06:00 PM
Lorenzen has been promoted to Bakersfield.

nate1213
08-15-2013, 10:52 PM
Lorenzen promoted to Pensacola. Just figured I'd post this here since this might not be thread worthy.

krm1580
08-15-2013, 11:27 PM
Lorenzen promoted to Pensacola. Just figured I'd post this here since this might not be thread worthy.

Pensacola sure did get a lot more interesting this week with Stephenson and Lorenzen

TOBTTReds
08-16-2013, 10:48 AM
This almost sounds like they may try to make a run for him to make the big league club this year. Could be a nice playoff bullpen arm.

OesterPoster
08-16-2013, 10:55 AM
This almost sounds like they may try to make a run for him to make the big league club this year. Could be a nice playoff bullpen arm.

Remember what redsof72 mentioned a few weeks ago about Lorenzen:


I could see Lorenzen going up any time. There is an odd murmur from scouts that he will be in the big leagues before the end of the season. Not sure if they think that will be based on performance or contract. He is the real deal.

RedlegJake
08-16-2013, 11:15 AM
With the Reds bullpen there is no need to rush Lorenzen this season. A September call up? Maybe. Not sure I'd trust him in a high leverage situation in the heat of a race, though. Let him win a job in ST.

wastedtime
08-16-2013, 11:28 AM
With the Reds bullpen there is no need to rush Lorenzen this season. A September call up? Maybe. Not sure I'd trust him in a high leverage situation in the heat of a race, though. Let him win a job in ST.

I don't think a September call up would mean the Reds think there are immediate needs in the bullpen. Unless a team is completely out of the playoff picture, most September call ups don't get much playing time, anyway, or do they?

I could see him being put in a game for mop up duty, and if he's really that close to being in the bigs, the Reds wouldn't really be risking anything.

nate1213
08-16-2013, 04:50 PM
Would anyone be upset if the Reds viewed him as a back of the bullpen type arm instead of a starter? I'm not sure if people view him as a starter or not. But if we could get that upper 90's fastball in the 8th inning I wouldn't be upset at all. And it could be as soon as next season. Chapman, Broxton, Marshall, and Lorenzen would look nice.

Kc61
08-16-2013, 04:56 PM
You need to constantly replenish the pen with good arms. Some bullpenners don't last that long. Look at all the injuries Reds alone have had recently, Masset, Marshall, Madsen, Bray, Broxton for much of this season.

Wouldn't mind it if Lorenzen was able to join the pen in the near future this season or next.

wastedtime
08-16-2013, 05:00 PM
Would anyone be upset if the Reds viewed him as a back of the bullpen type arm instead of a starter? I'm not sure if people view him as a starter or not. But if we could get that upper 90's fastball in the 8th inning I wouldn't be upset at all. And it could be as soon as next season. Chapman, Broxton, Marshall, and Lorenzen would look nice.

Well, he's been used strictly as a reliever in the minors. I'm not sure if that means they are planning on using him that way, or if they are limiting his innings.

nate1213
08-16-2013, 05:21 PM
Well, he's been used strictly as a reliever in the minors. I'm not sure if that means they are planning on using him that way, or if they are limiting his innings.

That's pretty much what I'm asking. I just wouldn't mind if they viewed him as strictly a bullpener. But it would be interesting if they didn't give him a chance to start.

Superdude
08-16-2013, 07:52 PM
That's pretty much what I'm asking. I just wouldn't mind if they viewed him as strictly a bullpener. But it would be interesting if they didn't give him a chance to start.

Am I wrong in thinking the fast tracking of Lorenzen gives away their intentions a bit? Seems like they wouldn't be in a hurry to rush him to AA if he was set to go back and start next season. With the pen pretty well in order for another year or so, I don't know why you wouldn't give it a shot.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 01:43 AM
Am I wrong in thinking the fast tracking of Lorenzen gives away their intentions a bit? Seems like they wouldn't be in a hurry to rush him to AA if he was set to go back and start next season. With the pen pretty well in order for another year or so, I don't know why you wouldn't give it a shot.

I think the reason is that some good arms have to be devoted to the bullpen. The pen can't simply come off the scrap heap. A few top arms need to be devoted to the pen.

Reds are devoting Stephenson, Cingrani, Travieso to the rotation. Same with Corcino who maybe gets back on track next year. Rogers is a second tier prospect for the back end of the rotation.

Right now, I don't see them devoting any top prospect arm to the pen. Lorenzen is really the only one I can think of. I don't see the problem with it.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 01:57 AM
Right now, I don't see them devoting any top prospect arm to the pen. Lorenzen is really the only one I can think of. I don't see the problem with it.

The problem with it is that you can take iffy starters and turn them into good bullpen arms. Sam Lecure and JJ Hoover were middling type starting pitching prospects. They are outstanding bullpen arms. Alfredo Simon used to be a starter. Manny Parra used to be a starter. Sean Marshall used to be a starter.

When it comes to Lorenzen, it is a bit different given how little he has pitched in his life. But teams don't commit elite arms to the bullpen before they have to for a reason.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 02:10 AM
The problem with it is that you can take iffy starters and turn them into good bullpen arms. Sam Lecure and JJ Hoover were middling type starting pitching prospects. They are outstanding bullpen arms. Alfredo Simon used to be a starter. Manny Parra used to be a starter. Sean Marshall used to be a starter.

When it comes to Lorenzen, it is a bit different given how little he has pitched in his life. But teams don't commit elite arms to the bullpen before they have to for a reason.

You can fill out a bullpen, your middle relievers, LOOGYs, inning eaters, depth guys, sixth-seventh inning guys from failed starters and second-tier prospects. No problem with that at all.

But a top bullpen needs a few elite arms. Closers, eighth inning guys, highest leverage spots. All relief positions, all bullpen spots, not the same.

IMO, a team should devote most top prospect arms to the rotation, but not all. Some very good arms should be trained as relievers to help fill the key late inning roles.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 02:34 AM
You can fill out a bullpen, your middle relievers, LOOGYs, inning eaters, depth guys, sixth-seventh inning guys from failed starters and second-tier prospects. No problem with that at all.

But a top bullpen needs a few elite arms. Closers, eighth inning guys, highest leverage spots. All relief positions, all bullpen spots, not the same.

IMO, a team should devote most top prospect arms to the rotation, but not all. Some very good arms should be trained as relievers to help fill the key late inning roles.

I don't think there is a single arm in the Reds bullpen that isn't a former starting pitcher. Chapman, Broxton, LeCure, Hoover, Marshall, Simon, Parra, Partch, Villarreal and Ondrusek all started at times in the minors. Only Justin Freeman was a non-starter who has pitched in the bullpen this year as far as I can recall.

Looking at the saves leaders in MLB right now, here is the top 10:
Johnson - former starter
Kimbrel - always a reliever
Nathan - former starter
Rivera - former starter
Holland - almost always a reliever
Mujica - former starter
Soriano - former starter
Balfour - former starter
Chapman - former starter
Grilli - former starter

It is a crude way to look at it, but 80% of the top 10 saves guys in the Majors as of today were starting pitchers at some point in their careers.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 03:00 AM
The traditional idea of using every good arm as a starter, initially, is changing. MLB.com published an article on this point on May 31.

The downward trend on offense is largely the function of power arms in the bullpen. Guys coming in throwing 99 MPH, one after the other.

As a result, teams are identifying guys as relievers earlier and earlier. Even colleges are using top arms in the pen.

The Reds recognize this. The devotion of Chapman to the pen relatively early in his career is a key example. Kimbrel is viewed as an important example as well.

I think we'll find that the modern thinking on this will follow these examples. Teams will more aggressively allocate their top arms between the rotation and the pen, depending on their view of suitability for each role.

It won't always happen immediately upon the draft. Some guys will begin their development in the rotation and switch, and vice versa. But I think we'll see these decisions be made earlier in development. That will be the modern trend IMO.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 03:38 AM
I hope it isn't a trend because it is just a bad idea to limit the impact an elite level arm can have. Elite level bullpen arms can be made from fringy starting pitchers.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 04:17 AM
I hope it isn't a trend because it is just a bad idea to limit the impact an elite level arm can have. Elite level bullpen arms can be made from fringy starting pitchers.

I think the idea that top relievers have "limited impact" is being challenged today.

Teams like the Braves and Pirates have successfully put much reliance on their pens and achieved great success so far. The average NL OPS against bullpens is lower than against starters.

So teams are unwilling simply to rely on failed starters or the waiver wire for relievers. It's becoming too important.

Superdude
08-18-2013, 04:46 AM
You can fill out a bullpen, your middle relievers, LOOGYs, inning eaters, depth guys, sixth-seventh inning guys from failed starters and second-tier prospects. No problem with that at all.

But a top bullpen needs a few elite arms. Closers, eighth inning guys, highest leverage spots. All relief positions, all bullpen spots, not the same.

IMO, a team should devote most top prospect arms to the rotation, but not all. Some very good arms should be trained as relievers to help fill the key late inning roles.

Have you watched the last month? The lockdown back end of our bullpen has been a trio of fringy or downright failed starters.

I don't see us aligning our views on how to assemble a bullpen anytime soon, but I don't understand your point about making the decision to groom prospects as relievers earlier. What's the benefit of that? You can take a bunch of starters and put them in the pen at the drop of a hat. It doesn't work the other way. By allocating a certain number of high upside arms to the pen at twenty or twenty one years old, haven't you just dwindled your supply of starting prospects for no reason?

Kc61
08-18-2013, 09:35 AM
Have you watched the last month? The lockdown back end of our bullpen has been a trio of fringy or downright failed starters.

I don't see us aligning our views on how to assemble a bullpen anytime soon, but I don't understand your point about making the decision to groom prospects as relievers earlier. What's the benefit of that? You can take a bunch of starters and put them in the pen at the drop of a hat. It doesn't work the other way. By allocating a certain number of high upside arms to the pen at twenty or twenty one years old, haven't you just dwindled your supply of starting prospects for no reason?

The major advantage of assigning a reliever's role early is that the pitcher can be fast tracked to the big leagues. A pitcher like Lorenzen, as a reliever, can be in the big leagues in a year as a reliever. It helps you get young, controllable, relatively cheap talent in the big leagues sooner.

As a starter, the pitcher needs to learn multiple pitches, it takes a longer time, more coaching in the minors. A guy like Leake is an exception, a very polished college starting pitcher, but a pitcher like Lorenzen, a relatively raw pitcher who throws very hard, can often be in the bigs much more quickly in the pen.

In terms of dwindling the supply of starting pitchers, keep in mind that there are only five starting spots. Yes, you need depth, but the late inning relief spots are important too.

In terms of the Reds, neither Broxton nor Chapman has ever started a game in the major leagues. In both cases the decision was made relatively early to move them to the pen. These decisions today are being made even earlier.

Not saying every prospect should be made a reliever, not saying you can't have guys that switch from starting to relief, or vice versa. Just once in awhile it makes sense to take a very good arm and devote it to relief.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 12:44 PM
I will never buy the idea that it makes sense to take a good arm and devote it to the bullpen without exhausting the idea of starting it first. Mechanics plays the biggest role for me. Bad mechanics that you can't change? Sure, bullpen. Otherwise, you put big arms in the rotation and hope it works out. If it hasn't by 23-24, you move them to the bullpen when they are already in AA and fast track them. If you have any kind of depth at all in your system, you can do that every single year.

Last year the Reds made the move with Partch and Ravin. This year it has been Lotzkar. Potential other options are Rogers, Smith, Crabbe and Renken (who was just moved to the bullpen). Contreras is going to be in the bullpen, though I think they really should explore the option of him as a starter longer.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 01:37 PM
I will never buy the idea that it makes sense to take a good arm and devote it to the bullpen without exhausting the idea of starting it first. Mechanics plays the biggest role for me. Bad mechanics that you can't change? Sure, bullpen. Otherwise, you put big arms in the rotation and hope it works out. If it hasn't by 23-24, you move them to the bullpen when they are already in AA and fast track them. If you have any kind of depth at all in your system, you can do that every single year.

Last year the Reds made the move with Partch and Ravin. This year it has been Lotzkar. Potential other options are Rogers, Smith, Crabbe and Renken (who was just moved to the bullpen). Contreras is going to be in the bullpen, though I think they really should explore the option of him as a starter longer.

Not to debate this longer but the idea that the Reds can't devote a single top flight arm to the bullpen is just very wrong to me. Other teams come in with guys throwing 98 and we're going to counter with the guys you listed?

The only way to have relievers throwing 98 and blowing guys away is to put those kinds of arms in the bullpen occasionally.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 01:50 PM
Not to debate this longer but the idea that the Reds can't devote a single top flight arm to the bullpen is just very wrong to me. Other teams come in with guys throwing 98 and we're going to counter with the guys you listed?

The only way to have relievers throwing 98 and blowing guys away is to put those kinds of arms in the bullpen occasionally.

Josh Ravin, Curtis Partch and Carlos Contreras have all hit 98 MPH.

Sam LeCure seems to be doing just fine topping out at 90.
JJ Hoover is awfully good throwing mostly 91-93.

Tim Crabbe is a guy who can hit 95 as a starter. Tossing him in the bullpen could put him into that category regularly.

I am not saying you don't eventually put guys in the bullpen. I am saying you try them as starters for a while before making that move because starters are just so much more valuable than relievers and even iffy starters can be turned into very good relievers.

Superdude
08-18-2013, 01:57 PM
In terms of dwindling the supply of starting pitchers, keep in mind that there are only five starting spots. Yes, you need depth, but the late inning relief spots are important too.

Just because we've had some good luck doesn't mean all starting pitching prospects pan out and flood your rotation. It pays to have as many rolls of the dice as possible. And starters are simultaneously capable of pitching in the bullpen. If you can keep both options available, the only reason to eliminate starting is to fast track someone, which unless you have a good reason for it, is shortsighted most the time.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 02:19 PM
Just because we've had some good luck doesn't mean all starting pitching prospects pan out and flood your rotation. It pays to have as many rolls of the dice as possible. And starters are simultaneously capable of pitching in the bullpen. If you can keep both options available, the only reason to eliminate starting is to fast track someone, which unless you have a good reason for it, is shortsighted most the time.

Just read through the May 31 MLB.com article on relief pitching. It explains why teams are beginning guys as relievers earlier. Among other things, it makes economic sense to sign relievers early, move them up quickly, and control them as major leaguers for several years.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 02:23 PM
Just read through the May 31 MLB.com article on relief pitching. It explains why teams are beginning guys as relievers earlier. Among other things, it makes economic sense to sign relievers early, move them up quickly, and control them as major leaguers for several years.

Sure, if they are sure fire college relievers with no chance of starting, it makes perfect sense.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 02:57 PM
Sure, if they are sure fire college relievers with no chance of starting, it makes perfect sense.

The article does say that some colleges are themselves using good arms as relievers, given the pressure to win at that level. But major league scouts are also recommending some pitchers be drafted as relievers based on such factors as durability, body type, etc.

This isn't being done blindly, judgments are being made. But some of these pitchers could eventually be good starters. Teams are taking that risk and using them in the pen.

I think it's economics. While relievers are paid less than starters, late innings guys (Broxton?) can still be expensive. If you can fast track a live arm to the big leagues and control him for several years, it's worth using a few of your prospects that way. Anyway that seems to be the thinking.

Superdude
08-18-2013, 03:26 PM
Just read through the May 31 MLB.com article on relief pitching. It explains why teams are beginning guys as relievers earlier. Among other things, it makes economic sense to sign relievers early, move them up quickly, and control them as major leaguers for several years.

I think we have different ideas about economic sense. Prospects are vital to small market success and high upside arms don't just walk through the door all the time. Economic sense says to get the absolute most value you can out of them. It's not like you can't flip a starter like Wood for a shutdown bullpen arm if need be.

mth123
08-18-2013, 04:04 PM
IMO, the Reds made this move with Lorenzen as a way to fast track him. The pen has been eating money and they want a cheap under control option ASAP IMO. Sam Lecure and Alfredo Simon become arb eligible after the season. Broxton and Marshall have cost increases and Chapman's cost sky-rockets after this year. I'm guessing the Reds plan on dealing from the pen for monetary reasons and to fill holes and are trying to create depth there to ease the process.

Kc61
08-18-2013, 04:24 PM
I think we have different ideas about economic sense. Prospects are vital to small market success and high upside arms don't just walk through the door all the time. Economic sense says to get the absolute most value you can out of them. It's not like you can't flip a starter like Wood for a shutdown bullpen arm if need be.

According to mlb.com, your gripe isn't with me it's with MLB teams who are opting to fast track prospects whom they see as likely relievers.

I think the teams realize that it costs a great deal of time and money to train every good arm to be a starting pitcher. And similarly, it costs a great deal of money to build a pen with veterans like Marshall and Broxton.

And look at all the money wasted on relievers with mileage on their arms, Madson, Masset, possibly Marshall. Bill Bray who was so often sidelined.

So on occasion they will fast track a kid for the bullpen. A controllable fresh and healthy arm that throws hard. I think it does make sense, yes.

757690
08-18-2013, 04:58 PM
Two points on this elite arm/reliever issue.

1. Teams use almost every decent arm at first as a starter, even if they plan to use them as a reliever, simply to get them as many innings as possible, to speed up their development.

2. There's a difference between guys who throw hard and guys with elite arms. If the guy shows any chance of developing decent off speed pitches, teams always keep them as starters until they fail in that area. But there are some guys who throw high 90's that are so far away from developing secondary pitches, that the smart move is to develop them as relievers. Lorenzen seems like a perfect example of that.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 05:19 PM
Two points on this elite arm/reliever issue.

1. Teams use almost every decent arm at first as a starter, even if they plan to use them as a reliever, simply to get them as many innings as possible, to speed up their development.

2. There's a difference between guys who throw hard and guys with elite arms. If the guy shows any chance of developing decent off speed pitches, teams always keep them as starters until they fail in that area. But there are some guys who throw high 90's that are so far away from developing secondary pitches, that the smart move is to develop them as relievers. Lorenzen seems like a perfect example of that.

Lorenzen has a pretty good breaking ball already.

757690
08-18-2013, 05:33 PM
Lorenzen has a pretty good breaking ball already.

You need three good pitches to make it as a starter.

Lorenzen makes sense as a reliever due to his late start and inexperience as a pitcher. We're looking at three, four years of development for him as a starter vs. maybe one as a reliever. The problem with developing him as a reliever is if he just turns into a decent middle reliever, which is very possible. He needs to be a late inning reliever for it to pay off.

dougdirt
08-18-2013, 05:35 PM
You need three good pitches to make it as a starter.

Lorenzen makes sense as a reliever due to his late start and inexperience as a pitcher. We're looking at three, four years of development for him as a starter vs. maybe one as a reliever. The problem with developing him as a reliever is if he just turns into a decent middle reliever, which is very possible. He needs to be a late inning reliever for it to pay off.

You generally need three pitches, but you said "But there are some guys who throw high 90's that are so far away from developing secondary pitches", and Lorenzen is already half way there. I just wanted to point out that he does have a good offspeed pitch at this point, since it could have been read that he didn't have anything but a fastball with your quote.

REDREAD
08-19-2013, 11:15 AM
You need three good pitches to make it as a starter.

Lorenzen makes sense as a reliever due to his late start and inexperience as a pitcher. We're looking at three, four years of development for him as a starter vs. maybe one as a reliever. The problem with developing him as a reliever is if he just turns into a decent middle reliever, which is very possible. He needs to be a late inning reliever for it to pay off.

That's a good point.. but it's a judgement call.
Hypothetically.. let's say the Reds feel a prospect has a 90% chance of being a decent middle reliever and a 25% chance of being an impact reliever.. all within a year or two.
Or they could feel he has a 50% chance of being a back of rotation starter, 25% chance of being middle of the rotation starter, and it would take 4-5 years of development time.

It seems in this scenerio, it would be better to make the guy a reliever and get him on the ML roster quickly. He could get an injury during that 4-5 years of minor league training. He could wash out as a starter, etc, etc

As far as Lorenzen specifically, I don't mind them fast tracking him as a reliever. As someone else pointed out our "cheap" relievers are going to start getting expensive. Get him up here and contributing to this window.

The other thing is, relievers are pretty highly valued now. If Lorenzen can get ready quickly, maybe we have an extra reliever at the 2014 trade deadline to fill another hole. Heck, maybe even Lorenzen himself can be the next Zach Stewart that fills a hole in the lineup.

klw
08-19-2013, 11:56 AM
Doug
Have you seen Loenzen yet? How did he look vs what you had heard? He hasn't exactly thrived his last few times out so I hope they don't force rushing him too much.


http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=547179

IslandRed
08-20-2013, 08:28 PM
I'm not sure what the success rate is of converting college relievers to starters, there won't be a whole lot of data points, but I can see the argument for taking the short path to success given his age and relative lack of pitching experience. That doesn't mean I want the Reds to try it with people they really believe have a good chance of being good starting pitchers, though. But baseball is not one-size-fits-all.

REDREAD
08-29-2013, 05:11 PM
Just a tidbit.

Marty said he talked to a scout that was looking at the Reds entire minor league system. He gave the scout's name over the radio, but I forgot.

Anyhow, Marty said the Scout ranked the Reds' prospects as:

1. Stephenson
2. Lorenzen.

Thought that was interesting.
Marty went off on a tangent after that, so I never heard beyond #2.

icehole3
08-31-2013, 04:48 PM
I've seen Lorenzen twice, he has a mid 90's fastball and very good slider that he has great control over, he can hit too. I see why he wants to play OF. Great athlete.

PepperJack
10-25-2013, 03:17 AM
http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=31174881&topic_id=7617858

In this video it talks about hoe Lorenzen is putting hitting behind him, and going on to focus on being a pitcher. It says that the Reds will try him as a starter next season to see how his three pitches develop, with the ability to let him close if starting does not work.

Superdude
10-25-2013, 01:32 PM
http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=31174881&topic_id=7617858

In this video it talks about hoe Lorenzen is putting hitting behind him, and going on to focus on being a pitcher. It says that the Reds will try him as a starter next season to see how his three pitches develop, with the ability to let him close if starting does not work.

Perfect. :thumbup:

PepperJack
10-28-2013, 09:56 AM
Here is an article from Jim Callis that goes more in depth into the transition that Lorenzen is making, plus some info on the other Reds in the AFL.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/cin/reds-prospect-michael-lorenzen-transitioning-into-starting-pitcher-in-arizona-fall-league?ymd=20131027&content_id=63405132&vkey=news_cin



"I'm just ready to compete, and I'm working my butt off to get my body in good enough shape -- in pitcher's shape, not center-field shape -- to where I have that longevity and I'm not just a power guy," Lorenzen said. "I'm still going to throw hard and I'm still going to come at you. But I think there's more of a strategy to it than just coming out and throwing my hardest and having the power breaking ball and all that."

PepperJack
02-21-2014, 12:45 PM
http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/2014/02/21/friday-am-notes/



*During Thursday’s live batting practice, Price was impressed with RHP prospect Michael Lorenzen, and the deception he has while pitching.

“It’s not being able to see the ball and the pitcher being able to hide the ball well,” Price said. “It’s also that it looks like it’s going to come out easy and he’s going to pump it in there at 88. The next thing you know, it’s on you at 95-98. That’s real good deception.”

REDREAD
02-21-2014, 02:07 PM
http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/2014/02/21/friday-am-notes/

I'm excited to see some more positive buzz on this kid.
Big fan of him. Thanks for posting.

Chuckie
02-21-2014, 03:45 PM
I was not all that excited about the Lorenzen pick so early in the draft. Good to know it's looking like I was dead wrong. Kid sounds like an intriguing prospect.

dougdirt
02-21-2014, 04:08 PM
I was not all that excited about the Lorenzen pick so early in the draft. Good to know it's looking like I was dead wrong. Kid sounds like an intriguing prospect.

What has changed between then and now other than he got his head handed to him on a platter in the Arizona Fall League? That the coach talked well about him using the same exact scouting report he had coming out of college?

Vander
02-21-2014, 04:46 PM
What has changed between then and now other than he got his head handed to him on a platter in the Arizona Fall League? That the coach talked well about him using the same exact scouting report he had coming out of college?

He's being used as a starter now.

BuckeyeRedleg
02-21-2014, 05:03 PM
OK, maybe I read this on this site and it's in my subconscious (so forgive me to whoever that might have already made this comparison), but after just reading the last few post of this thread I saw visions of Trevor Hoffman in my head. Now I've been dealing with sump pump issues and operating on like 5 hours sleep over the last 48 hours, not too mention totally giddy over the Bailey extension, but for some reason Trevor Hoffman's name entered my noggin like it just belonged there.

So if this is my orginal thought and not someone else's, I'm going to predict this kid is the next Trevor Hoffman. If it is determined that I'm not the the first to offer this prediction/comparison, I apologize. I read a lot of internets, I'm getting old, and again I have not slept very much of late.

If it is determined that I'm the first to offer this comparison then it's a win-win. If I'm eventually wrong, it won't be a big deal because Trevor Hoffman is a possible future HOFer and that'a a bold prediction, right? Basically nobody will care or even remember.

If I'm right, I'm a legend on the Redszone and will go down as a legend of baseball discussion boards for the rest of the world. Again, it's totally a win-win here.

So...............Trevor Hoffman (screw you, Marlins).

Chuckie
02-21-2014, 06:45 PM
What has changed between then and now other than he got his head handed to him on a platter in the Arizona Fall League? That the coach talked well about him using the same exact scouting report he had coming out of college?

He's not listed as an outfielder who might be a relief pitcher. I didn't like the sound of that.

Now he's considered a starting pitcher. Huge difference.

dougdirt
02-21-2014, 10:31 PM
He's not listed as an outfielder who might be a relief pitcher. I didn't like the sound of that.

Now he's considered a starting pitcher. Huge difference.

The Reds said from day one that he was going to be a pitcher.

As for the starter thing.... yes, they have used him as a starter in the Arizona Fall League and he was absolutely, unequivocally obliterated. I can't see how his usage difference changes that much when the results we have from that switch were worse than anyone could have actually imagined short of him being injured while doing it.

Given how quickly the Reds pushed him last year, and just how raw his arm is, I will still be surprised if he winds up starting in the long run. They want to move him fast, but he simply won't be able to move to a starters workload of 175+ innings for several years and even then he is going to have to figure out how to throw strikes to professional hitters and get his change up working.

I am not saying give up on him being a starter, but the odds are strongly against it working.

Vander
02-21-2014, 11:11 PM
The Reds said from day one that he was going to be a pitcher.


Actually, they didn't. They said that they had a "unique" strategy with him that would include hitting.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130606&content_id=49834246&notebook_id=49886046&vkey=notebook_cin&c_id=cin


As for the starter thing.... yes, they have used him as a starter in the Arizona Fall League and he was absolutely, unequivocally obliterated. I can't see how his usage difference changes that much when the results we have from that switch were worse than anyone could have actually imagined short of him being injured while doing it.

First of all, even a negative result is a result, and because he's transitioning into a starting pitcher, his status as a prospect has changed (for better or worse).

As far as his experience in the AFL goes, six starts does not make or break a minor league career when they were basically his first few attempts at starting since he was 12 years old. It's just too small of a sample size and too early on in his career. I wouldn't be shocked if he had a really up and down year this year as well as he basically learns how to pitch all over again.

Basically, I think the only thing that has changed about him as a prospect, in my mind, is that he has a new role as a starting pitcher, and that automatically makes him more valuable.

dougdirt
02-22-2014, 12:20 AM
Actually, they didn't. They said that they had a "unique" strategy with him that would include hitting.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130606&content_id=49834246&notebook_id=49886046&vkey=notebook_cin&c_id=cin



First of all, even a negative result is a result, and because he's transitioning into a starting pitcher, his status as a prospect has changed (for better or worse).

As far as his experience in the AFL goes, six starts does not make or break a minor league career when they were basically his first few attempts at starting since he was 12 years old. It's just too small of a sample size and too early on in his career. I wouldn't be shocked if he had a really up and down year this year as well as he basically learns how to pitch all over again.

Basically, I think the only thing that has changed about him as a prospect, in my mind, is that he has a new role as a starting pitcher, and that automatically makes him more valuable.

From the day he actually took the field, the Reds said he was going to be a pitcher in the organization. Talking with insiders, position play is a bit of a fallback plan, and while they may let him hit every now and again, they want him pitching.

I fully understand the whole AFL experiment. He wasn't ready. He should have never been there. He wasn't ready or even close to it. But they sent him there and he was obliterated. His fastball wasn't getting by guys. While all games weren't in stadiums with Pitch F/X, He threw 40 fastballs with the system running. One fastball was swung at and missed all while averaging 94 MPH (that would rank him in the top 10 among MLB starters). He allowed nearly as many home runs (4) as he had strikeouts (5), while walking 12 batters. He was deeper into his season, innings wise, than he had ever been before and against a level of competition that was far beyond where he should have been, but he struggled to throw strikes and for a stuff guy, he couldn't miss bats at all. Starter or not, that is concerning.

Let's not confuse it with me giving up on him, I ranked him #8 overall despite all of that because I am a believer in his two pitch combo to at least work as a reliever and hope that he can find the strikezone better like he showed in college. But the whole "he is a starter now" thing doesn't do much for me given just how atrocious his only attempt at it went. It wasn't just that guys were crushing him, they were also easily able to control the zone against him on the occasion he found it. He is the epitome of high risk/high reward right now.

Vander
02-22-2014, 12:37 AM
From the day he actually took the field, the Reds said he was going to be a pitcher in the organization. Talking with insiders, position play is a bit of a fallback plan, and while they may let him hit every now and again, they want him pitching.

I fully understand the whole AFL experiment. He wasn't ready. He should have never been there. He wasn't ready or even close to it. But they sent him there and he was obliterated. His fastball wasn't getting by guys. While all games weren't in stadiums with Pitch F/X, He threw 40 fastballs with the system running. One fastball was swung at and missed all while averaging 94 MPH (that would rank him in the top 10 among MLB starters). He allowed nearly as many home runs (4) as he had strikeouts (5), while walking 12 batters. He was deeper into his season, innings wise, than he had ever been before and against a level of competition that was far beyond where he should have been, but he struggled to throw strikes and for a stuff guy, he couldn't miss bats at all. Starter or not, that is concerning.

Let's not confuse it with me giving up on him, I ranked him #8 overall despite all of that because I am a believer in his two pitch combo to at least work as a reliever and hope that he can find the strikezone better like he showed in college. But the whole "he is a starter now" thing doesn't do much for me given just how atrocious his only attempt at it went. It wasn't just that guys were crushing him, they were also easily able to control the zone against him on the occasion he found it. He is the epitome of high risk/high reward right now.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on him then. I respect that you're simply using the available data to draw your conclusion about him, but I'm skeptical about the sample size. I need to see more than six starts before I feel comfortable drawing even the slightest conclusions about what his future may or may not be. He, much like every prospect who was recently drafted, is nothing more than potential right now, and that potential has me feeling optimistic.

And no matter how much I look it up, I can't see a single article that was posted right after he was drafted that says that he wouldn't hit. Could you link me something that says that the reds were going to groom him as strictly a pitcher?

Superdude
02-22-2014, 01:09 AM
From the day he actually took the field, the Reds said he was going to be a pitcher in the organization. Talking with insiders, position play is a bit of a fallback plan, and while they may let him hit every now and again, they want him pitching.

I fully understand the whole AFL experiment. He wasn't ready. He should have never been there. He wasn't ready or even close to it. But they sent him there and he was obliterated. His fastball wasn't getting by guys. While all games weren't in stadiums with Pitch F/X, He threw 40 fastballs with the system running. One fastball was swung at and missed all while averaging 94 MPH (that would rank him in the top 10 among MLB starters). He allowed nearly as many home runs (4) as he had strikeouts (5), while walking 12 batters. He was deeper into his season, innings wise, than he had ever been before and against a level of competition that was far beyond where he should have been, but he struggled to throw strikes and for a stuff guy, he couldn't miss bats at all. Starter or not, that is concerning.

Let's not confuse it with me giving up on him, I ranked him #8 overall despite all of that because I am a believer in his two pitch combo to at least work as a reliever and hope that he can find the strikezone better like he showed in college. But the whole "he is a starter now" thing doesn't do much for me given just how atrocious his only attempt at it went. It wasn't just that guys were crushing him, they were also easily able to control the zone against him on the occasion he found it. He is the epitome of high risk/high reward right now.

Can we really draw that deep a conclusion from 17 innings? He's obviously high risk, so maybe we're not as far off in opinion as it seems, but I'm a little hesitant to knock a college closer/outfielder for a few rough starts in a league of players well beyond his level of experience.

dougdirt
02-22-2014, 01:39 AM
Can we really draw that deep a conclusion from 17 innings? He's obviously high risk, so maybe we're not as far off in opinion as it seems, but I'm a little hesitant to knock a college closer/outfielder for a few rough starts in a league of players well beyond his level of experience.

Conclusion, of course not. But his time in Bakersfield, Pensacola and Arizona were good for 29 innings and 23 walks. He allowed 6 homers and 41 hits en route to an ERA of 9.00. Small sample size, absolutely. Concerning? Absolutely.

lollipopcurve
02-22-2014, 08:11 AM
Conclusion, of course not. But his time in Bakersfield, Pensacola and Arizona were good for 29 innings and 23 walks. He allowed 6 homers and 41 hits en route to an ERA of 9.00. Small sample size, absolutely. Concerning? Absolutely.

Yet he's in major league spring training and Bryan Price is speaking positively about his stuff. That's testimony that means something, in my book.

dougdirt
02-22-2014, 12:45 PM
Yet he's in major league spring training and Bryan Price is speaking positively about his stuff. That's testimony that means something, in my book.

The testimony doesn't sound any different than it did at draft time though, it is just coming from a different mouth. Chris Buckley and Jeff Graupe were saying the exact same things as Price is now, but back in June and July. Scouts were saying it in April and May when he was in college. He is in big league camp, which I guess is a difference. But it doesn't really change much for me. It doesn't really have much to do with his stuff or the concerns he left me with because of his performance last year.

RED VAN HOT
02-23-2014, 07:01 PM
At this point I am totally confused about the Reds' plan for him. Last year I thought they rushed him as a reliever as a long shot to help them in September. When he failed to produce as a starter in the Fall League, I figured it was because he was working on secondary pitches. A caller asked about him on MLB radio today and the opinion was offered that he had good stuff, but poor mechanics and that he was strictly a reliever.

It seems to me that it is time to make a decision...continue with the starter transition and the slow path to the majors, go ahead and make him a reliever now, or even opt for outfield. I get the uncomfortable feeling that a good talent is being mishandled.

dougdirt
02-24-2014, 01:32 AM
At this point I am totally confused about the Reds' plan for him. Last year I thought they rushed him as a reliever as a long shot to help them in September. When he failed to produce as a starter in the Fall League, I figured it was because he was working on secondary pitches. A caller asked about him on MLB radio today and the opinion was offered that he had good stuff, but poor mechanics and that he was strictly a reliever.

It seems to me that it is time to make a decision...continue with the starter transition and the slow path to the majors, go ahead and make him a reliever now, or even opt for outfield. I get the uncomfortable feeling that a good talent is being mishandled.

Starter for now is the plan. As always, you can fall back on the bullpen plan if plan A doesn't work.

PepperJack
02-24-2014, 12:56 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20140224/SPT04/140224014/&nclick_check=1



The Reds have told Lorenzen, a first-team All-American as an outfielder and closer at Cal State-Fullerton, that he's only pitching. His career as a center fielder -- a position many teams considered him as, despite his ability to throw in the high-90s -- is over.

"It's good for me, because I know for a fact that's what God has in store for me," Lorenzen said. "I'm not thinking that this door is still open, He's closed that door and so I'm full-bore now. It's a really good feeling having to focus on one thing and being committed. I see the progress a lot better versus having hitting in the back of my head."



"He doesn't look like a pitcher," Reds catcher Devin Mesoraco said. "He looks like more of an athlete-type guy, but sometimes that makes the best pitcher -- a guy that's that athletic, it's easier for them to repeat their delivery or the bunt play, that's something that makes it easier for that guy."



"He's got legs -- and he's (J.J.) Hoover arms, those things are stout," catcher Corky Miller said. "He's real smooth, all the way to the end. His thing is going to be not to try to get his power from anything other than his legs and arms."



Still, the Reds see value in him as a starting pitcher and invited him to big league camp this spring with the idea of him starting. Although, that decision hasn't been made, Price said.



The environment in the Reds clubhouse has helped as well, as he said he's talked quite a bit to Reds left-hander Tony Cingrani, another former college closer turned starter by the Reds. Cingrani, taken in the third round of the 2011 draft, made his big-league debut in 2012 and was 7-4 with a 2.92 ERA in 23 games and 18 starts last season.

"I'm picking his brain," Lorenzen said. "We've been in the same situation as a college guy moving quick. He's been really good with me."

dougdirt
02-24-2014, 01:05 PM
Ugh. I wish people would stop with the "former reliever Tony Cingrani" crap. He spent 4 years in college. He started for three of them. That isn't close to a reliever to starter transition.

TOBTTReds
02-28-2014, 02:52 PM
Ugh. I wish people would stop with the "former reliever Tony Cingrani" crap. He spent 4 years in college. He started for three of them. That isn't close to a reliever to starter transition.

Just for Doug...


Michael Lorenzen was a two-way player when the Reds selected him 38th overall in last year's draft, having served as an outfielder and closer for Cal State Fullerton. In a piece for Baseball America, C. Trent Rosencrans reported that the Reds have told Lorenzen he will focus on pitching, and not only that, but they value him as a starting pitcher. Lorenzen sounded pleased with the decision and has already been talking with college-closer-turned-starter Tony Cingrani in Spring Training. "Im picking his brain," Lorenzen told Rosencrans. "Weve been in the same situation as a college guy moving quick. Hes been really good with me."

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/lorenzens-future-is-a-mounding-issue/

dougdirt
02-28-2014, 04:29 PM
Just for Doug...



http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/lorenzens-future-is-a-mounding-issue/

It is essentially the same article from the Enquirer from C. Trent. He changed a few words around, but it is the same article.

I understand that Cingrani started 2 years in a junior college you probably couldn't find on google maps if you tried, but still, he started 3 of 4 years in college.

Benihana
03-01-2014, 09:03 AM
So with Lorenzen "officially a starter" at least for now, how would people rate our top 5 SP prospects? I'll go first:

Stephenson
Holmberg
Lorenzen
Lively
Travieso

dougdirt
03-01-2014, 12:19 PM
Stephenson, Travieso, Moscot, Lorenzen and Lively.

I would put Contreras ahead of Lorenzen if I believed he wanted to start, but from everything I have heard, it's not in his future.

lollipopcurve
03-01-2014, 12:29 PM
Stephenson
Holmberg
Lively
Rogers
Guillon

I see Lorenzen and Contreras as bullpenners.

dougdirt
03-01-2014, 12:32 PM
Stephenson
Holmberg
Lively
Rogers
Guillon

I see Lorenzen and Contreras as bullpenners.

I think Lorenzen also winds up in the bullpen, but since they are trying to make it work, I kept him in my list. It's a long shot, which is why he is behind Moscot, who doesn't have the same stuff, but is much safer and still solid enough.

RedlegJake
03-01-2014, 12:50 PM
Stephenson

Holmberg
Moscot
Lively
Rogers

Travieso jumps into this mix, behind RS and probably ahead of the others, if he has a solid year. Corcino could re-interject himself, as well. I think Lorenzen likely winds up in the pen with Contreras (heckuva future bp core right there). Right now I see RS as front end starter and the other as mid to backend rotation prospects.

M2
03-01-2014, 01:37 PM
Stephenson
Holmberg
Lively
Moscot
TBA

The Reds have so many arms who are on the starter/reliever cusp and who have a lot to prove in 2014 that I hesitate to name a #5 guy. If pushed, I'd probably take Rogers because I'm in wait-and-see mode with so many others, no one more than Lorenzen. When it comes to him, I just don't know. I don't even have expectations with him. Didn't like the little bit I saw last year. Hope he'll wipe the slate clean and we'll see someone far different in 2014. Don't know how to classify him. Don't know where to rank him. Don't know what kind of development arc to expect for him. I just pretend he's not in the system yet.

mdccclxix
03-06-2014, 10:56 AM
Here is a clip from Lorenzen's scoreless inning recently:

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/26271672/v31399495

Is his delivery similar to Jeff Brantley or am I wrong? Who else throws like that?

BTW, he's not small. His wrists and forearms are not skinny like I'm used to seeing with younger pitchers. Strong looking kid.

klw
05-19-2014, 09:55 AM
Lorenzen just added a curve to his arsenal.

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140518&content_id=75991988&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb


"[Jacksonville] is a good fastball-hitting team and I knew that they were going to be all over my fastball," Lorenzen said. "This year, the biggest difference for me is I've been able to throw my secondary stuff. Today, I actually threw a curveball that I've been working on for the first time. I threw that a couple times at them just to get their eye levels changed. My secondary stuff was really working tonight to where they couldn't sit on the fastball."

An outfielder and part-time closer in college, Lorenzen is developing into a starter in the Cincinnati system and worked over the last few days to add a new dimension to his three-pitch mix.

"I just started working on [the curveball] like a week ago," Lorenzen said with a laugh. "I was watching [Cardinals starter Adam] Wainwright throw and [Dodgers starter Clayton] Kershaw throw, and they have these big, loopy curveballs. I was interested in throwing one, I really wanted to throw one.

"I watched some videos on Wainwright, how he gripped it, how he threw it. I got some input from a couple guys on the team, what they do when they throw it. I just started working on it last series, the day before I pitched. I threw it in the bullpen for the first time just three days ago and it was really good, so I threw it today and got a strikeout with it."

Old school 1983
05-19-2014, 10:34 AM
I think Lorenzens performance is kind of going under the radar this year. The guys fastball is fantastic. If he can add quality secondary stuff the Reds might really have something.

Benihana
05-19-2014, 12:45 PM
[EDIT: Oops wrong thread; mods please feel free to delete]

Dan
05-19-2014, 04:31 PM
Talent like that simply cannot be taught.

Chuckie
05-19-2014, 08:44 PM
Why was Lorenzen only a "part-time" closer in college? Why wasn't he the full-time closer, while also playing OF? I don't get it. I understand wanting to use him as an outfielder and get his bat in the lineup every day if you're a college team. What I don't understand is the "part-time" closer stuff. You have a kid that can throw 95 that projects as a high MLB draft pick as a pitcher, and you only use him as a "part-time" closer? That just seems like wasting his talent if you're that college team. Was the coach's son the full-time closer? (TIC.)

KoryMac5
05-19-2014, 09:05 PM
They may have been bringing him on slowly as he primarily was a position player in High School. According to Fullerton High School he only pitched his junior and sophomore years in High School for a total of 15 innings. I would imagine he was primarily recruited for his bat and he opened some eyes with his raw ability to pitch.