Jose Ceda

Baseball America just named him the #10 prospect for Florida. He's not quite as high a prospect in a better farm system. Florida's is top 10.

about 3 years ago rlpete 9 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He probably would have been

number four in our system after Vitters, Samardzija and Cashner.

by Josh Timmers on Dec 17, 2008 12:26 PM CST reply actions

I think most folks were in agreement that he was our third best prospect. BP had him as a 4-star guy. Excellent stuff, which is why that Gregg trade still bothers me. The Marlins system is quite deep. Probably a top 5 system in the game right now.

by toonsterwu on Dec 17, 2008 12:54 PM CST reply actions

What an awful trade that was.

You’d think we would at least be able to get someone that wasn’t only a one year rental.

by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 17, 2008 1:02 PM CST reply actions

BP and Marlins for folks that forgot

It had Ceda at 6th for the Marlins.

by toonsterwu on Dec 17, 2008 1:03 PM CST reply actions

Two lines

84 IP, 67 H, 36 ER, 42 BB, 95 K …at age 21

80 IP, 76 H, 30 ER, 20 BB, 55 K…at age 21

The top line is Ceda’s, the bottom line is Roberto Novoa’s. Relevance? Aside from walking a lot more and striking a lot more out, not much. I wouldn’t wring your hands over trading away Ceda. He’s not elite.

Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?

by krummy12 on Dec 17, 2008 1:56 PM CST reply actions

big big difference

Novoa was never considered to have elite stuff. Ceda’s stuff is elite by most accounts. This isn’t to say that Ceda is a lock, but with his elite stuff, and the fact that he’s cleaned up his mechanics and shown improvement, a lot of people thought he might be ready in 2009 to help the pen. I mean, people talk about Cashner’s stuff as being top notch, and by most accounts, Ceda’s was a notch better. That said, tis done with.

Btw, there are big differences with those two lines. Huge actually. 1, Ceda was in AA by year’s end. But more importantly? 95 K’s vs. 55 K’s is a huge difference.

by toonsterwu on Dec 17, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions

Actually

There really isn’t a difference. Novoa was considered to have a “live arm”, the common catch phrase used with bullpen arms generally not good enough to start or with control issues. Ceda fits the same profile. If Ceda is seriously a bullpen prospect, and when the Cubs traded Todd Walker for him he was merely that “live arm”, he’s going to have to significantly cut down his walk totals. In order to do so, his strikeout totals will expectedly drop making that one difference much less of a difference.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the opinion that Ceda is probably a better prospect than Novoa ever was but the reality is that bullpen arms are a dime a dozen. More often than not such arms don’t amount to much of anything. My main point was that this trade really wasn’t as bad as everyone points it out to be. Too many fall in love with “prospects” prior to their ultimate failure or mediocrity once they advance through the system. Odds on Ceda getting beyond that stage given his lack of command are pretty slim.

Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?

by krummy12 on Dec 17, 2008 8:32 PM CST reply actions

Ceda

Ceda was more than a live arm. A live arm typically refers to being able to amp up the velocity. Ceda had an absolutely filthy, filthy slider. He was a “live arm” (raw) when we got him, but we developed him. Novoa never had the secondary pitches (and it’s noted in the statistics with the difference in K’s).

Ceda’s control has improved since going to the pen. I’m not saying it will keep improving, but the reason Ceda had big control problems was largely due to his mechanics. His mechanics are clean now. The only other issue is weight. If he can

a) Keep in relatively decent shape
b) Maintain his clean mechanics that he showed last year

Then he’s a very intriguing prospect. The thing with pen prospects is that they tend to move fast. Ceda has the elite level pitches and has shown the improvement in all areas of his game this past year. Doesn’t mean he will succeed, but keep in mind the scouting reports. BP suggested that, in a worst case scenario, he’s basically a late inning pen arm. Best case was an elite closer. Bullpen prospects are a dime a dozen. Closing prospects have some value, particularly when they have elite stuff like Ceda. There’s a reason that the scouting reports were huge on him.

So, whether or not the trade was good comes down to what value you place on Kevin Gregg. Here’s the question – is Gregg better than any other pen arm we could’ve gotten on the market? That’s a very debatable notion. Is Gregg cheaper than said pen arms? Probably not. Do we have him tied down long term? Eh.

Maybe it works out. Maybe Ceda busts and Gregg is dominant for a year. I think, though, there’s an equal probability that Ceda is close to Gregg in ability as soon as this year.

by toonsterwu on Dec 18, 2008 9:54 AM CST up reply actions