If McGreevy sits 91-93 and touches 96, isn't that just the 2021 version of Deck sitting 90-92 and touching 94 back in 2010? Basically the same fastball, relative to their peers at the time.
Deck was more or less 50 FB, 60 SL, 50 CB, 50 CH, 60+ command, good track record and size.
McGreevy's scouting figures IN CONTEXT are not that different.
The problem with Deck was two fold, I think:
1) Toronto didn't care enough about velocity and stuff. They were behind the curve and they valued other (apparent) skills too much. Like size, pounding the zone, etc.
2) Toronto wasn't on top of Deck enough to know that he was declining heading into the draft. His K rate actually peaked as a sophomore, not a junior. They drafted a declining asset who unfortunately continued to decline athletically in pro ball, or at least failed to improve in pro ball.
You might even blame a huge part of Deck flopping on Toronto's failed development of him, and not the selection. Did they even try to fix the guy in any aggressive way? As far as I remember he just plugged along in the minors putting up 26 starts and 5.00+ ERAs for a few years then debuted throwing 92-93 still.