PDA

View Full Version : Jeff Natale


ksushi
05-15-2006, 03:11 PM
23 year old second basemen currently playing DH for the Greenville Drive, a class A affiliate for the sox. A team captain in college he hit .470 at trinity university and is hitting .341 with some pop and only 14 k's right now. No idea why this guy isn't being talked about even though he is only in class A - but so is Bucholz and everyone raves about him. This guy is worth checking out, could be in for a call up sometime soon. Seems to be promising.
jsinger121
05-15-2006, 03:35 PM
He isn't being talked about that much because he is 23yrs old in Low A ball. He hasn't got promoted because he doesn't play great defense and he is not your typical DH type.
ksushi
05-15-2006, 04:20 PM
Bucholz is in low A ball too and I wouldn't say that 23 is over the hill. To be honest, I'd promote this guy to AA because I think if he is capable of hitting .300+ in AA or AAA, defense can be sacrficed at 2B. As long as he isn't Soriano bad
jsinger121
05-15-2006, 04:27 PM
Buccholz is 21 not 23 and he is a much better prospect than Natale with much more upside. The knock on Natale is that scouts think he would not have success at a higher level but I would like to see him get the chance.
yeszir
05-15-2006, 04:28 PM
How long has he been in A ball?
jsinger121
05-15-2006, 04:29 PM
How long has he been in A ball?

Natale or Buccholz?
jsinger121
05-15-2006, 04:34 PM
If you are talking about Natale then he started out last year in SS Lowell before getting promoted to Low A Greenville. This year he is in Low A ball again which just shows that he is not that good of a prospect. Natale played at D3 school in college so he really never faced that much top competition and the fear with him is that he would not succeed at a higher level because the talent level is significantly better. If you are talking about Buccholz he was a 20 yr old in SS Lowell last year before starting this year in Greenville.
YazYaz04
05-15-2006, 05:29 PM
He isn't being talked about that much because he is 23yrs old in Low A ball. He hasn't got promoted because he doesn't play great defense and he is not your typical DH type.

And I, uh, hate to break it to him, but the sox have a pretty good D.H, forgot his name.
SchillingIsTheNatural
05-15-2006, 05:41 PM
defense can be sacrficed at 2B. As long as he isn't Soriano bad

I'd have to disagree here. I believe a teams defense needs to be built up the middle (SS, 2B, CF)....they should be your top defensive players. Thats just my opinion though. Considering his age he would need to continue the high production to give the Red Sox no choice but to promote him. After a month it could be he is just hot at the moment.
jsinger121
06-01-2006, 02:18 PM
SALLY pitchers should be happy now that Jeff Natale has been promoted to Wilmington today.
jsinger121
06-01-2006, 06:45 PM
Jeff Natale homers in his first high-A at-bat for Wilmington.
CrespoBlows
09-04-2006, 11:21 AM
After a rough start, Natale is starting to adjust well to Wilmington.

.282/.422/.398/.820.

This guy has walked 101 times this year.
jsinger121
09-04-2006, 11:34 AM
And he has 17 homeruns between Greenville and Wilmington which is pretty damn good for a guy his size.
DUSTINMOHR4LIFE
03-25-2007, 11:05 AM
Natale is a guy who really jumped out at me this offseason. His career OPS is .950!!!! Sure, he is old for his level, but his numbers are truly ridiculous. I can't wait to see what he can do at a higher level.
Anuj09
03-28-2007, 03:32 PM
i heard someone compare him to Dan Uggla
jacksonianmarch
03-31-2007, 06:40 PM
Dan Uggla is a major candidate for disappointment of the yr this yr.
HeadOfSoxNation
04-01-2007, 12:12 AM
Dan Uggla is a major candidate for disappointment of the yr this yr.

You can say that about a lot of the Marlins...anyone expecting the same kind of performance out of Uggla, HanRam, Anibal Sanchez, and the like are, I have a feeling, in for a big disappointment. Sure, some of them will still be solid, but to have years like last year? I doubt it.
jacksonianmarch
04-01-2007, 07:43 AM
Uggla is at the head of that list simply because he never did it before. He was let go by the dbacks because he was terrible and all of a sudden put together on hell of a season out of nowhere.
ORS
04-01-2007, 08:34 AM
Terrible? .880 OPS at AA, admittedly as a 25 y/o, the year before he was left unprotected. I think it had a lot more to do with the fact that the D-Back system is loaded and they had bigger/brighter future stars to protect on the 40-man.

You should make thebaseballcube.com a link in your favorites menu so you can refrain from putting your foot in your mouth so often.
RobZombie
04-01-2007, 03:40 PM
Terrible? .880 OPS at AA, admittedly as a 25 y/o, the year before he was left unprotected. I think it had a lot more to do with the fact that the D-Back system is loaded and they had bigger/brighter future stars to protect on the 40-man.

You should make thebaseballcube.com a link in your favorites menu so you can refrain from putting your foot in your mouth so often.


It really had more to do with that they didn't think he could play. Again for very good reason statistics aren't the only thing used to evaluate players who haven't played a day in the majors. I don't think they'd made the Glaus trade for Hudson when the time to protect him came.

I for one am highly skeptical of Dan Uggla. His EYE ratio was just horrible. I don't see how he can sustain a high enough BA to be as good as it was.

Trust me if you think a guy can help you in the majors in short order, you can always find a spot for him without having to let go of your future stars. There are always guys on the roster who are fungible.

They let him go because despite his gaudy OPS #s in AA the previous year, they didn't feel he was a prospect.

As far as Natale goes, I'd have to say that despite his gaudy OPS numbers I'm not terribly impressed either. We are talking about a guy who will likely not able to adequately field an infield position and will end up as an OF/1B type. That's fine if he continues to hit at a .950 OPS clip, but I don't think he will once he faces better pitching.
Dana Kiecker
04-01-2007, 03:42 PM
Im pretty sure " fungible" is not a word.. other than that good post.
ORS
04-01-2007, 04:33 PM
It really had more to do with that they didn't think he could play. Again for very good reason statistics aren't the only thing used to evaluate players who haven't played a day in the majors. I don't think they'd made the Glaus trade for Hudson when the time to protect him came.

I for one am highly skeptical of Dan Uggla. His EYE ratio was just horrible. I don't see how he can sustain a high enough BA to be as good as it was.

Trust me if you think a guy can help you in the majors in short order, you can always find a spot for him without having to let go of your future stars. There are always guys on the roster who are fungible.

They let him go because despite his gaudy OPS #s in AA the previous year, they didn't feel he was a prospect.

As far as Natale goes, I'd have to say that despite his gaudy OPS numbers I'm not terribly impressed either. We are talking about a guy who will likely not able to adequately field an infield position and will end up as an OF/1B type. That's fine if he continues to hit at a .950 OPS clip, but I don't think he will once he faces better pitching.
I never said he was a world-beater or even a prospect, just that he wasn't terrible.
RobZombie
04-01-2007, 05:59 PM
I never said he was a world-beater or even a prospect, just that he wasn't terrible.

Uggla or Natale?

If you are talking about Natale...when evaluating prospects...either you can eventually make a difference to the major league team or you can't. If you can't its really irrelevant if you are terrible or not.
ORS
04-01-2007, 06:22 PM
Uggla, as that was who Jacko was calling terrible.

As far as your comment, didn't that evaluation completely miss the boat, at least thus far, with Uggla? So, I would contend it is relevant if you are terrible or not. If he was indeed terrible, then he never would have been given a shot.