|
|
|
Bats/Throws: R/R
Height/Weight: 6’4”, 200 lbs
Acquired: 9th Round ’05 (Charleston Southern)
Born: 9/8/84 (Salisbury, NC)
Why Ranked Here: At 6’4”, Parnell has nice size which he uses to dial up a fastball that ranged from 91-97 as a starter. The solidly built Parnell held his velocity deep into games indicating strong conditioning. He has area command of his fastball, but is still working on becoming more precise. His slider, which has average movement at times, is his second pitch, but his command of the offering is below average. His changeup was clearly his third pitch. As a professional, Parnell has consistently induced more than his fair share of groundballs. He came to pitching fulltime later than many of his peers so did not have the reps as an amateur as some of his peers, indicating some potential for future growth.
2008: As a starter in AA, Parnell’s BB/9 of 4.03, K/9 of 6.44 and SO to walk ratio of 1.60 were underwhelming. If a guy is going to be an impact starter in the majors, he should be dominating AA hitters. Parnell’s AAA starts were largely unremarkable but Parnell held his own in six games of MLB relief and impressed the Mets brass by challenging hitters. For good measure, Parnell finished up in the AFL where he made seven starts, none longer than four innings. On the plus side in the AFL, he struck out a batter an inning, but walked almost half as many.
Dr. Pangloss Says: Parnell’s power arm gives him a chance to make the Mets out of spring training as an impact reliever late in games.
On the Flipside: Parnell’s command issues limit his ceiling and lessen his chances of becoming an MLB starting pitcher.
Projected 2009 Start: This one is really a spring training call whether or not Parnell distinguishes himself from the gaggle of right-handed bullpen arms the Mets will have in camp.
| ERA | G/GS | IP | H | R | ER | HR | BB | SO | BB/9 | SO/9 | SO/BB | GO/AO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA | 4.30 | 24/24 | 127.2 | 126 | 66 | 61 | 14 | 57 | 91 | 4.03 | 6.44 | 1.60 | 1.52 |
| AAA | 6.64 | 5/4 | 20.1 | 25 | 16 | 15 | 0 | 9 | 23 | 4.03 | 10.30 | 2.56 | 1.06 |
| MLB | 5.40 | 6/0 | 5.0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3.60 | 5.40 | 1.50 | 1.40 |
| AFL | 2.25 | 7/7 | 20.0 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 20 | 4.05 | 9.00 | 2.22 | 1.00 |
 |
 |
 |
RSS 2.0 You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
I got to tell you Toby I’m surprised by Parnell at #11 as I had him at #5 or #6 on my list, based more on his readiness and ceiling.
I have been a big fan of Parnell for a few year’s and often called him my sleeper of the farm system. This a prime example of good scouting and how sometimes you focus on raw ability rather than numbers. Parnell’s college numbers were terrible, but the stuff was there. He was able to hone his stuff with the help of Mets coaching. I’m hoping to see the same result with Rustich.
I see Parnell more as a reliever than a starter, although you have to give him the chance as a starter until he proves he can’t at the major league level.
It would not surprise me to see Parnell beat or Brian Stokes or Duaner Sanchez for a bullpen spot this spring.
I’ve seen you (and others) post in the past raving about Parnell and while I certainly like Parnell and am interested in seeing how he progresses, I have a hard time arguing with him ranked at number 11. His composite ERA of approximately 4.5 over his four stops last year with a walk rate around 4 and a K rate below 7 is not inspiring or overwhelming. While he may have room to grow since he came to pitching later than many, he has yet to truly produce numbers in consonance with a high prospect rating that would indicate he is truly ready for the next step.
Yes, his fastball is good. But the rest of his reproitre is OK at best. Kind of sounds like Holt, although Holt’s numbers were inspiring. Parnell’s numbers in ‘06 and ‘07 weren’t that much better either. I hope his performance grows up to belie his stuff, but he still isn’t there yet. Number 11 makes lots of sense to me…
I hear you DMF. My reaction wasn’t so much as much about Parnell being rated #11 as it was about trying to figure out 10 other prospects better than Parnell at this point in the Mets system.
I’m still trying to figure this out (in no particular order):
1. Fernando Martinez
2. Wilmer Flores
3. Jon Niese
4. Brad Holt
5. Reese Havens
6. Jefrey Marte
7. Jenrry Mejia
8. Scott Moviel
Then who?
Nick Evans? Personally, I wouldn’t qualify him for this list. I know some people use the 130 at-bat rule, but my rule is if doesn’t qualify for ROY award then he’s not a prospect anymore.
Dylan Gee? I mean I like the guy too, but is he better than Parnell right now? Good argument and I know Toby has a lot of love for the guy, so maybe that’s it.
Still, I wouldn’t rate Moviel above Parnell if that’s the case.
I would put Gee up there (if he is one above Parnell, I wouldn’t get worked up about that either way — much like Toby, I happen to have a lot of love for him too) and I think Francisco Pena will be in that group. That brings me to 10, and while you could argue whether Pena/Gee/Moivel belong above Parnell, Kunz, Davis, etc., I think that grouping of prospects is close enough for Toby’s rankings to hold water.
Oh, I agree. Nothing to get worked up about. Now, if Gee is #1, then I’ll throw a fit.
I thought Toby already ranked Pena.
I am a little bit surprised Pena cracks the top ten, although I can understand why — I would have had him a little bit further down….
Check the sidebar at the top of the page. No Pena. He makes my top 10.
Who what?!?! Top 10! Wow! Noooooooooo!
what is this world coming to???
Seriously though, nice to see Toby thinking with his own head and not falling back on the more popular rankings out there (e.g. Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, Sickels, etc.) who don’t spend the same time and energy as Toby does analyzing the Mets system
Since this website’s inception, I’ve come to trust Toby’s insight more than any of writers out there like Sickels or Manuel. The analysis is top notch and he spend all his time solely on the Mets organization so he really knows these guys.
We all know who the top prospects are. We’re all looking forward to what Toby has to say about them.
I can’t really see Parnell making the team out of ST as a reliever. And I don’t think he should. I just don’t see him being that much better than all the other right relievers that they don’t do whats best for Parnell and have him start in AAA to better develop. I like the idea of Parnell as a second half injury replacement if someone should need to be replaced, and a later in the year bullpen option once he has pitched a good amount of innings as a starter.
Best case for the Mets is for Parnell to establish himself as having real potential as a big league starter. Then he can be a trade chip next winter. IMO, Niese and then Holt should have the rotation filled out for the next few years.
If the fallback option is for Parnell to become a decent big league reliever well that is still a good outcome. Homegrown relievers have been hard for the Mets to come by.
Agreed — I like the idea of Parnell having a year to develop and being used as a trding chip either in the offseason or at the deadline.
I would take a decent big league reliever out of hime, I’m just not yet convinced he’s it
I like your opinion on where Parnell should start the season. It appears as though the Mets pen is pretty set and would rather see him develop in AAA and be an insurance policy rather than pull the same mistake the Yankees made last year. He can easily become a bullpen arm after starting, when the other way around takes time, which the mets don’t have the luxury of having in the tough NL East.
I also wouldn’t start banking on Holt just yet for a starting option in the Majors for the next few years. Lets have him go through a full season, see if he can handle the workload and tougher competition. I’m not being pessimistic, just a realist.
Holt’s on the fast track for a reason. Last year, between UNC and the Cyclones, he started 29 games and threw 165 innings. Workload hasn’t been an issue. Age isn’t an issue either, since he’s actually a few weeks older than Jon Niese. I’d still say a big league callup is unlikely this year, but not impossible. His secondary pitches still need work and he has to give out fewer walks, but he’ll be Citi-bound sooner than later. Assuming he stays healthy, I’d expect he’ll be looked at for a spot on the ML club next spring. Of course if he struggles mightily at A+ or AA, then all bets are off. But he’s given us no reason so far to think he can’t handle it.