We ranked Jake McGee as the No. 8 prospect in baseball entering 2008. Trevor Cahill was 49th on that same list. The two have been within 10 spots of each other in our last two Top 25 prospect lists. Prompted by the question below, I put some thought into how McGee and Cahill compare in High-A and which of them I prefer right now.
Hey Adam,
I've been watching Jake McGee slide further and further down on the top 25 prospect list all season, and I was wondering what you thought the source of his problems were. Is it because he is in a different league? He seems to be pitching above average, but he certainly isn't performing at the level that he was last season. Does this make his season last year seem like a fluke? Has your projection on him changed at all since the start of the year? And on another somewhat related note, what do you think of Trevor Cahill? Can he be a front of the rotation arm? Would you take him over McGee at this point? Thanks and keep up the great work.
Ethan Saporito
Hey Ethan,
First off, with his dominant start yesterday, McGee will rise a bit for me again (7.0 IP, 3 H, 9 K, 2 BB).
He got a taste of the Southern League last year, so I can't imagine opening the season in Double-A has completely caught him off guard. McGee's slow start may have something to do with the forearm stiffness that forced him to miss his April 19th start.
I don't think his 2007 season was a fluke. Remember, he was also very good in 2006 (2.97 FIP). I'm a little more concerned about him now than I thought I'd be, but I still think he could develop into a No. 2 starter.
Comparing the start of Cahill's 2008 season to McGee's 2007, Cahill has more than a few things on McGee:
1) Cahill's in the hitter-friendly California League; McGee was in the pitcher-friendly Florida State League. Also, Cahill's seven months younger than McGee was at this point last year.
2) Cahill has a 31.8% strikeout rate to go with a 6.5% walk rate (214 TBF); McGee had a 30.9% strikeout rate to go with a 8.3% walk rate (470 TBF).
3) Cahill has very good ground-ball tendencies (65%) and is giving up just one extra-base hit per 42.8 batters; McGee had mediocre ground-ball tendencies (43%) and gave up one extra-base hit per 16.8 batters.
Clearly, we're talking about a sample that's more than twice as large with McGee. It's far from a given that Cahill will maintain the same pace for another 250 batters. But I believe Cahill's peripherals hint toward a smooth transition to Double-A, something McGee hasn't exactly had. When all is said and done, these guys both could very well be No. 2 starters but I'm starting to believe that Cahill has ace upside. And that's why I'd take him over McGee at this point.
Thanks for the thoughtful question,
Adam
Adam Foster can be reached at adamf@projectprospect.com.