K-Law Has Tribe at 4th in 2010 org rankings
I believe this might be "Insider" content. If so, there's nothing really new: Good stable of future solid, if unspectacular, major leaguers with the exception of Santana and Chisenhall, whom he describes as "impact prospects." like I said, nothing new, but at least he doesn't talk about which San Diego restaurant has the best foie gras. For what it's worth:: Royals #9, Twins #13, Tigers #17, Chicago # deadlast.
about 2 years ago
Ockus_NYC
161 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Which San Diego restaurant has the best foie gras?
I could really use an oscillation overthruster
by stuart dean on Jan 27, 2010 1:34 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Not sure where this goes but it’s a compilation (Google spreadsheet) of the best/worst GM performances of the past year.
Joke response: Just not down a gooseneck, in San Diego. Real response: is this yours? And, how are the numbers derived? Tell me more.
bross is my muse.
To run through a quick example, the Rockies spent $75 million on payroll last year, a bit below average. That should have led to around 79 wins, which, given their local market, would have created around $41 million in marginal revenue. But the Rockies actually had 90 third-order wins, which likely created somewhere around $58 million. Divide the two, and you get a 1.43 PER. Since 1.00 is average, we can say the Rockies’ front office performed 43 percent better than average in 2009.
Not sure I agree with the use of third-order wins, especially if we are to believe a manager, who the gm hires, has some effect in this area. I get that he is probably trying to take some luck out of it, but that’s impossible to do as individual performances can be luck as well, so why not just go with regular old wins.
Here’s the first half of the Indians entry.
They continue to build depth without a ton of impact prospects, although Carlos Santana and Lonnie Chisenhall are exceptions to that rule, and they have a handful of low-A/short-season guys who could break away from the pack.
It’s an odd sentence.
- What team does have a “ton” of impact prospects? Do any?
- We have two, apparently, plus a “handful” of breakout candidates who might be.
- Do other teams have more than two-plus-some-could-bes?
Seems like all he’s saying, I guess, is that the depth is ridiculous, but we shouldn’t assume that the impact prospects are normally distributed among that depth. We seem to have an excellent but not ridiculous number of impact prospects, and a ridiculous number of prospects overall.
Our biggest problem, in my view, is a lack of major league pitching combined with a lack of impact pitching prospects.
I guess you could say the Rangers and/or Rays have more impact talent in their system, but I agree with you. A lot of things can also change in 1 year — some prospects will bust or their stock will drop, and others may emerge as impact guys. The strength of our farm system seems to be looked upon as somewhat of a negative. I’m not really commenting on Law, but I’ve seen it a couple of times. Quantity can only be seen as a positive imo, especially when you consider that there’s also quite a lot of quality mixed in there.
I do disagree with you about the impact pitching prospects. Obviously it depends on your definition of impact, but there are a number of high upside pitchers in our system who could potentially head the front of our rotation a couple years down the road. They have warts, but TINSTAPP and all that …
In my view, an impact pitching prospect has ace stuff and three quality pitches. Since pitching prospects scarcely can be said to exist at all, if you don’t have those things, how can you be an impact one?
well, then it becomes an argument of semantics. I think guys like Hagadone, Knapp and perhaps De La Cruz have ace stuff. When two pitches grade out as plus plus or plus, the third one doesn’t have to be that impressive imo. I mean I agree with you to an extent, but how many prospects are out there that fit that bill and if there are very few, does that mean there just aren’t that many impact pitching prospects or it because of your definition?
Obviously I’m biased, as we all are I think, but to me it seems like some of the potential gets ignored too easily due to the negatives those prospects might have, while basically every farm system deals with the same negatives.
how many prospects are out there that fit that bill
Very few.
and if there are very few, does that mean there just aren’t that many impact pitching prospects or it because of your definition?
It means that there aren’t many impact pitching prospects. It is a fact that there aren’t very many. Any definition that suggests otherwise isn’t a meaningful definition.
Hagadone, Knapp and De La Cruz have ace stuff, but all three also have injury histories before ever throwing a pitch in Double-A.
It’s been about 3 or 4 years running that we’re lauded about this “depth”. But where I used to get excited about it, I really don’t anymore. Not really how we’re using this depth to our best advantage … I assume has to do with one or more of the following:
*Trading from that excess for guys like Bixler to round out a 25-man roster
*When in contention, the ability to do a Max Ramirez for Kenny Lofton type deal or maybe more like a…
*Classic depth for starter move like Gaub, Archer, Stevens for Mark DeRosa
*Is it as simple as the more you have in quantity, the better chance they become impact prospects?
*Is it the more depth you have, the more chance you have to fill 12-15 spots on the roster for the minimum salary, a necessity in our market?
Just never feel like we maximize the “depth” as best as we could.
and I’d say how many impact pitching prospects really exist at any one time? I think the Indians minor league pitching depth is outstanding, with lots of guys who are potential contributors. Guys with ace stuff and three quality pitches are major league pitchers, not prospects, and the vast majority of them are in the major leagues already.
You have a good point. The way I view his statement is that those teams in front of us just have a few more top shelf pitching prospects in his view.
I have no issue with his ranking, it’s just funny how in the description, the depth ends up being described in a back-handed compliment. The Indians may have no more impact prospects than the #8 system (for example), but they have more real prospects, period. That’s why they’re #4, and that is purely a good thing. There is no downside to depth.
You think? I thought it was a bit generous, they don’t have a lot of upper minors help yet. Once you get that far removed, it’s hard to be too generous.
(Psst … the Royals are going to be better than the Indians in 2010, remember? Because they have better prospects than we do, remember?)
Even if they have a few nice prospects, their GM has such a bad philosophy on acquiring major leaguers, that I don’t see how they can’t aspire currently to be anything more than .500.
Totally went over your head
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 28, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
Interesting that they see our lineups as comparable, but the Royals pitching as far worse than ours.
Things on the Tribe projection that caught my eye, on the plus side:
-Masterson
-The Bullpen
- Huff
On the negative side:
- Talbot
-Valbuena
- Hafner
- 100 plate appearances for Barfield
Questionable:
- No Rondon
- Just 64 plate appearances for Santana
I don’t know what PECOTA is or isn’t doing with line drive rates, but anyone who saw how consistently Valbuena roped the ball early in the year knows that his stat line is not telling his whole story.
For me, Valbuena is the most interesting non-rookie position player heading into 2010. I think the spread between his high projection and his low projection is pretty broad.
Wait a second…we used to love Beane! Now we love Z! But PECOTA says now we love Beane again…
EVERYONE! BACK TO LOVING BEANE!
his top 100 list is now out.
he really likes ’Los.
yes… i’m calling him “’Los”.
You are reading my signature.
good showing for the Indians. it’s paid content, but i think we’re safe to just reveal who made it without the commentary:
3. santana
26. chisenhall
51. rondon
71. brantley
100. hagadone
3 Carlos Santana, C, CLE
19 Aaron Hicks, RHP, MIN
26 Lonnie Chisenhall, 3B, CLE
34 Eric Hosmer, 1B, KAN
42 Wilson Ramos, C, MIN
45 Casey Crosby, LHP, DET
51 Hector Rondon, RHP, CLE
58 Tyler Flowers, C, CHW
69 Mike Moustakas, 3B, KAN
70 Austin Jackson, OF, DET
71 Michael Brantley, OF, CLE
75 Mike Montgomery, LHP, KAN
80 Jacob Turner, RHP, DET
87 Aaron Crow, RHP, KAN
89 Kyle Gibson, RHP, MIN
95 Jared Mitchell, OF, CHW
97 Miguel Sano, SS, MIN
100 Nick Hagadone, LHP, CLE
3 Carlos Santana, C, CLE
26 Lonnie Chisenhall, 3B, CLE
51 Hector Rondon, RHP, CLE
71 Michael Brantley, OF, CLE
100 Nick Hagadone, LHP, CLE
19 Aaron Hicks, RHP, MIN
42 Wilson Ramos, C, MIN
89 Kyle Gibson, RHP, MIN
97 Miguel Sano, SS, MIN
34 Eric Hosmer, 1B, KAN
69 Mike Moustakas, 3B, KAN
75 Mike Montgomery, LHP, KAN
87 Aaron Crow, RHP, KAN
45 Casey Crosby, LHP, DET
70 Austin Jackson, OF, DET
80 Jacob Turner, RHP, DET
58 Tyler Flowers, C, CHW
95 Jared Mitchell, OF, CHW
for math that means nothing:
Cle’s 5 average to 50 (4 to 38)
Min 4 to 62
KC 4 to 66
Det 3 to 65
Chi 2 to 77
Okay, now subtract each average from 100, then multiply by the number of prospects ranked for that team.
CLE 250
MIN 152
KC 136
DET 105
CHW 66
There.
Or… subtract each average from 78, then square that number. Then multiply by the squared number of prospects ranked for that team.
CLE 19600
MIN 4096
KC 2304
DET 1521
CHW 4
Even better.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Jan 28, 2010 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
He has Santana as the top catching prospect, and surprisingly Chiz as the top 3B prospect in the minors. Pedro Alvarez takes a hit here…
I think Brantley has got to have the best ROI on that list. Darn good buy at $150,000. Of course, he was more expensive than that for us.
by fleerdon on Jan 28, 2010 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
Regarding Brantley, this from Castro:
Michael Brantley is a little bit thicker than the last time we saw him. He said he gained 10 pounds of muscle by upping the ante on his lifting program. “I put on some weight, but it’s all good weight,” he said. “I’m the strongest I’ve ever been in my life. But I’ve been running each and every day, so I’m still light on my legs. I couldn’t be happier with my weight and conditioning.”
I suppose I actually mean non-94 Lofton, so basically someone with a .100-.150 ISO as opposed to someone who flirts with .200
I’m guessing that slight a gain might be increase bat speed very slightly which could theoretically take a tiny bit of adjusting to, but would if anything help his hitting long-term. Of course I have absolutely nothing to back my very simple logic up with other than that it sounds like it sort of makes sense.
by VA tribe fan on Jan 28, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Also worth noting the young players who graduated from prospect status in the last year but were or might have been Top 100 talents, or at least Top 200:
Valbuena
Huff
Sipp
Carrasco
LaPorta
Marson
Todd
To everybody who’s still hot under the collar about 2007 and our picking Beau Mills, at #13, instead of Jason Heyward, who went next, take a moment to put yourself in the position of any number of teams who picked in the teens and twenties in 2008, who passed on Lonnie. How’s Allan Dykstra workin’ out for ya, Padres?
by fleerdon on Jan 28, 2010 1:20 PM EST reply actions
Thanks, I was getting pretty heated.
by Roger Dorn on Jan 28, 2010 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just browsing that 2007 first round over lunch, I think it’s kind of interesting that the top ten seem to look okay-to-great, but after that, there’s Heyward, then Porcello, then a lot of eh. And of course those two were right out for the Indians because of their youth and high ceilings.
On a searingly unrelated note, I’ve also been thinking lately, you don’t hear nearly enough about how screwed up the Reds are.
by fleerdon on Jan 28, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
I do like some of their pitchers that are already in the majors. If those guys can stay healthy, they could surprise one of these years.
I actually think the Reds are a sleeper pick in the NL Central. Bailey was lights out of the last month and Cueto and Volquez can both really throw. Add in a couple of breakouts from Stubbs, Bruce and Votta and they’re about there.
That’s certainly possible. But trying to get all those breakouts to stack together … I feel as though I’ve read this story before.
Anyway, I just mean, at least a few significant commentators have deigned to berate the Indians. My sense is that there’s just very little attention paid to the Reds, period, and considering what a brutally mediocre decade they’ve had, I find that odd.
by fleerdon on Jan 28, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
Funny how his Cubs tenure really took the shine off the guy, eh? The Cubs won the division in his first year, but he never got them to 90 wins, and when he left, they were 30 games under .500.
His active disdain for any kind of new knowledge or insight was just staggering. An attitude like his would lead to failure in any pursuit, sporting or otherwise.
I think Volquez is out until August this year coming back from TJ.
by clusterchuck on Jan 29, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
One nice thing to see is that Michael Brantley seems to be getting some love on these lists (which are really just that, lists.)
I really thought Brantley might take some hits with the lack of power development … but his other skills are just so darn good, it seems others are coming around to him.
K-Law Indians Specific Top 10 (also insider)
1. Carlos Santana, C
2. Lonnie Chisenhall, 3B
3. Hector Rondon, RHP
4. Michael Brantley, CF
5. Nick Hagadone, LHP
6. Abner Abreu, RF
7. Alex White, RHP
8. Nick Weglarz, LF
9. Jason Knapp, RHP
10. T.J. House, LHP
He’s extrapolating from what Abreu did in May and June before he got hurt. He was pretty much the best or near best hitter in the biggest and deepest A league at the tender age of 19.
If Abreu had played the full season he’d have made a lot of Tribe top 10 lists.
I was just considering what newbies we might have on next year’s top 100. I’d go with White, Abreu, House and Perez.
De La and Knapp if they’re healthy and producing by June.
He’s extrapolating from what Abreu did in May and June before he got hurt. He was pretty much the best or near best hitter in the biggest and deepest A league at the tender age of 19.
I don’t disagree, and there is certainly high ceiling potential there. But Abreu had some scary bad peripherals, even when he was knocking the snot out of the ball in May and June.
You’re referring to K and BB rate. If you look close, those were improving too, slightly.
That’s why I was so bummed he got hurt – I wanted to see how he’s adjust. Luckily it was his left shoulder that he separated, so he should be back full strength already (I had a similar injury at same age, took 6 months to get back to full strength), altho I haven’t heard any rehab updates.
In any case, he struck me as the most dynamic hitting prospect for his age we’ve had since Ramirez/Thome days, altho they were a lot more advanced skill-wise even at that age.
His K-rate definitely came down to an acceptable rate of 20% those months, but his walk rate still wasn’t topping 5%. When you are getting hits at greater than a 40% rate on balls in play you are clearly making solid contact, so perhaps you can excuse that low number, but I still see it as a strong negative indicator. But like I said, he showed high-ceiling talent.
I continue to be excited about our last two drafts. They don’t really have the marquee guys, but I think they have a lot of sleepers. Chisenhall, White, Kipnis, Gardner, Henry, Putnam, Berger, Phelps, Cook, House…
Sitting here looking at the names you mentioned (besides White and Chiz) the names that stick out as players that could be very important to this team are Putnam and House, but I can see Joe Gardner kinda making a name for himself like Eric Berger did this past year too.
Gardner has no professional stats, which normally means I ignore those guys (top picks excluded). But I admit that Tony Lastoria got me excited about this guy with reports of his 94mph-good movement sinker in Instructional League play.
I’m not imputing this specifically, or completely, to you, s.d., but I think the degree to which the organization’s failures are piled at Mirabelli’s feet is … well, I don’t know, somewhere between “misguided” and “wrong.” I’ve written as many love sonnets about Brad Grant as anybody, so I’ll try to explain myself.
I skimmed the draftees from the two years that Mirabelli seems to get hounded on most often — 2004 and 2005, the Crowe/Drennan and Sowers/Hoyman/SLewis/Lofgren (Hoyman!) years. I invite anybody to check my work here, but in all of the picks that took place AFTER the Indians’ first picks, I found maybe a dozen-ish players worth a damn — not stars, mind you, just guys who could put up some meaningful Major League WARP. And a majority of THOSE guys still need some seasoning.
Now, my 2004 and 2005 post-Tribe-draft lists look especially bad, since the Red Sox and the Rays (and to a lesser extent the Twins) feature most prominently in them (Buchholz, Lowrie, Bowden, Hansen, Pedroia; Brignac, Davis; with a Rasmus here and a Pence there). But to me, that also means that the Indians are one of 28 other teams who didn’t get more than one or two exciting players in or after the 6th and 15th overall respective picks in these two seasons. Frankly, as far as Mirabelli’s performance goes, I don’t find the fact that he took Crowe and Sowers all that damning. It’s not good, necessarily, but I don’t see it as evidence that he trashed the franchise.
Shoot, do yourself a favor and go have a peek at the 2004 first round. Matt Bush? Wade Townsend? Thomas Diamond? Taking Crowe is ultimately pretty hard to defend, but the Sowers pick seems to be the very definition of defensible.
Moreover, I think it’s worth noting that you can’t praise the Indians’ prowess in trading for minor league talent while griping about their amateur draft scouting, as if there are entirely different talent analysis personnel at work. In other words, I don’t think you can give Mirabelli all the blame for Crowe, and then give Shapiro or Atkins or whomever all the credit for Asdrubal. Whose scouts picked these guys out, if not Mirabelli’s?
Two more thoughts.
One: It strikes me as facile to complain about the Indians drafting but not signing Tim Lincecum and Desmond Jennings. (Yeah. Desmond Jennings. 2005. I didn’t know.) Mirabelli had a budget, and he couldn’t let himself get railroaded by late-draft guys, but he still drafted them. At a minimum, selecting those two discredits this seemingly pervasive idea that Mirabelli just doesn’t know a good ballplayer when he sees one.
Two: Weglarz.
fleerdon out
by fleerdon on Jan 28, 2010 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I see what you are saying. Dolan is cheap.
by Roger Dorn on Jan 28, 2010 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Moreover, I think it’s worth noting that you can’t praise the Indians’ prowess in trading for minor league talent while griping about their amateur draft scouting, as if there are entirely different talent analysis personnel at work.
I guess that’s what seems incongruous -its as if there was a different strategy for the draft vs. picking thru other teams prospects. It’s not hard to surmise that they might be different: 1) stats analysis may be felt to be more reliable when a prospect has a pro record vs. college stats. 2) the very aim might be slightly different, as in zeroing in a specific player or players that are far enuf along a minor league pro career that you can project them to address specific org weaknesses vs. “best player available/depth” considerations in the draft.
I have to say I did get the feeling in the period you’re talking about that the draft strategy emphasized a draftees smooth transition to pro ball as opposed to pure ML ceiling. Bluntly and generally put, that they drafted players that would have success in the minors vs the riskier projection of whether they would make a valuable major leaguer.
Crowe/Drennen in the same round, when the most likely ML projection was power challenged LF’er or 4th OF. Sowers/Huff projecting to something shy of a 1 or 2 starter. And yes, Mills over Heyward.
I know this is well travelled ground, and it seems like there has been a shift towards more projectible high picks. And its not like these were horrible picks, just that (to me) it did reflect a somewhat conservative strategy.
And as far as pointing out that other teams passed on certain players – well, that should be the aim of the draft, to make better picks than the other teams if possible.
they drafted players that would have success in the minors vs the riskier projection of whether they would make a valuable major leaguer
Tough for me to reply without making the same fleerdon post everybody’s sick of by now. I’ll just say, I’ve yet to see a working definition of a “riskier projection”/“high-ceiling”/whatever guy that’s more than a cherry pick. I mean, I guess I can see it if you’re talking draft picks who get guaranteed Major League deals — Jered Weaver, Rick Porcello — but that also gets you Jeremy Guthrie, and then we’re right back where we started.
What I think I see now, is that “the get” in the draft, outside of the top five, is really about twelve to sixteen players. So if you’re not picking high in each round and getting three or four swipes at the top 100ish guys (Rays), or if your organization isn’t a glittering tower of cash (Red Sox), sheer chance seems to suggest you’re doing well if you snag one legit big leaguer every couple of years. And then, of course, you won’t know for sure til five years later.
Which is why I’m not particularly swayed by what any specific one of our picks has or has not accomplished. Find me the success rate for #6 overall picks, and tell me how Sowers looks when compared to them. Or, wow, show me Dave Huff vs. the #39 picks. I get what you’re saying — “Where’s the beef?” It just doesn’t mean enough.
Blaming Mirabelli is a tidy, satisfying narrative, but that doesn’t make it truthful.
by fleerdon on Jan 29, 2010 9:10 AM EST up reply actions
Truthfully, I’ve never blamed Mirabelli per se, or failed to realize how hard it is to get decent ML players from the draft, just by pure percentage.
It just boils down to a few years where I had somebody else I’d have rather they picked in the first round, and scratched my head at a few second and third picks.
You’re doing well if you snag one legit big leaguer every couple of years.
Is this right? Would that even be replacement level? You’d have to sign a lot of international players to field a team if you could only snag one big leaguer a year. Thirty big-leaguers entering the majors each season from the draft? There are 750 players in the bigs.
just guys who could put up some meaningful Major League WARP
if you’re not picking high in each round
or if your organization isn’t a glittering tower of cash
by fleerdon on Jan 30, 2010 8:27 AM EST up reply actions
Also, as I mention in my exchange with Jay downthread, I’m not focused on Mirabelli’s overall success rate, which to my thinking is a different discussion. I take issue with the contention that, in taking Sowers and Huff, he failed to land us a Difference Maker and that’s cost us everything. So I endeavored to point out that there really just aren’t that many of those guys out there.
In 2004 especially, there are some fine position players from the first few rounds, and a handful of guys who are now well-regarded prospects, but if you limit the discussion strictly to players from Sowers on down who have racked up Major League wins, it’s on the thin side. And as for those prospects, well, TINSTAAPP.
by fleerdon on Jan 30, 2010 8:49 AM EST up reply actions
Just because there are a dozen totally stupid common criticisms of Mirabelli doesn’t mean that he isn’t awful at his job. The enemy of my friend may be my enemy, but the enemy of a retard isn’t a genius.
I got two words to answer all your arguments: Trevor Crowe.
I think he said that’s what the Red Sox front office guys were calling him. I always wondered if the Red Sox guys were dripping with sarcasm.
Turns out it was all a misunderstanding. They actually said, “he’s as good as a cob tie” and the confusion began from there.
by APV on Jan 29, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I buried my point in bombast there; plainly I don’t want to put myself in the position of defending that pick. It’s more like, given where the Indians picked and what they were spending, a pretty good outcome from those drafts would be that the team would be a couple of guys closer to contending. Sure, it would be great to have those guys instead of the eh that we ended up with, but I don’t see that Mirabelli is the difference-maker. I would at least like to direct the outrage away from taking Sowers and toward taking, oh, I dunno, Justin Hoyman or somebody.
Look, you’re talking to a guy who put together like 2,500 words about how Tim Maxey was the problem. I need way more than a simple lesson about picking a good hill to die on.
by fleerdon on Jan 29, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
I would at least like to direct the outrage away from taking Sowers and toward taking, oh, I dunno, Justin Hoyman or somebody.
I’m willing to be that guy for you. It is only human nature, though. We all expect busts, but at least we don’t have to look at them. It’s far more dispiriting to observe that the guys who did make it to the majors just aren’t that good.
I need way more than a simple lesson about picking a good hill to die on.
It’s the little gems that keep me coming back here.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 29, 2010 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
The Sowers pick pretty much defined that period. There were no surprises in that draft, at #6 you picked who was on your board, and they chose Sowers over Homer Bailey, which at that time was the same thing as choosing Sowers over Adam Miller.
I bookend that with choosing Mills over Heyward. Everything in between I chalk up to some algorithm gone awry.
I didn’t know that there was such a thing as a draft in 2004, so I’ll take you at your word. I guess you can say, if you were determined to get a starter who could help your team quickly — and since Shapiro’s said that he’s always involved in making the first pick, I kind of think that was the directive Mirabelli was given — and you had the #6 pick in the 2004 draft, who do you take? This team wasn’t ponying up for Weaver. Hughes is pretty recently starting to contribute — as a reliever. Same with Happ. Gallardo looked pretty good until his arm blew up. See what I mean?
You can, of course, take issue with the goal of getting a pitcher who could help quickly over, say, the best player available, especially when Adam Lind and Dustin Pedroia and Kurt Suzuki were all on the board. You can point at Gio Gonzalez and Wade Davis and say, we’d be better off with a prep starter than with Sowers by now. Yeah, maybe. But would we be better off with Jay Rainville or Jeff Marquez or Tim Elbert, all prep pitchers who were taken earlier than those two? And how much of any of this are we ascribing to Mirabelli?
Anyway, I’ve spent plenty of everybody else’s time exploring my ignorance by now, and I apologize for that. Somebody will always be able to ask about drafting this guy instead of that guy, and somebody else will always be able to explain it away. It’s that algorithm you mention that I think really matters, way more than the Indians’ reasoning or strategy behind any one given pick, and I resign myself to its opaqueness.
by fleerdon on Jan 30, 2010 9:52 AM EST up reply actions
How is Chisenhall not a marquee guy? First-rounder who quickly jumps to the Top 50 lists?
I don’t want to talk crazy, but I see him as a potential All-Star or even elite player. Not saying he will be, but he seems like a guy who might have that degree of talent.
I know this is a few days late (Mon. Feb. 1), but Paul Cousineau over at TheClevelandFan.com mentioned this (again, apparently) over in his latest article.
In it, he echoes much of what Jay mentioned above in regards to what exactly makes an impact prospect and the semantics over what organizations really have much more impactful depth to Cleveland’s (Tampa Bay and Texas were mentioned). He also addresses and essentially disagrees with the idea that Chisenhall and Santana are the only 2 impactful prospects the Indians have, basing that on Law having only 4 teams who have the same or equal number of prospects in his Top 50 (Rays, Rangers, Rockies, and Cubs), and the latter two’s third prospect are just 3 and 1 spot away from our third prospect, Rondon, on that list.
Additionally, he also mentions how Mayo’s Top 50 list at MLB.com is considerably different from Law’s and how evaluating the same prospects can be so subjective.
All in all, I think we can conclude that we have a very good farm system that most teams would gladly trade us for straight up and that sizable depth of solid ML talent is just as good as having a few impactful talents in your farm system due to the attrition rate of prospects (including noted, impactful prospects), and especially when those impactful prospects are pitching prospects (see Miller, Lofgren, even Carmona, etc.) Having greater depth reduces the chances that your impactful farm will blow up and give you nothing or next to nothing in return at the ML level; you’ll at least get some production at the ML level when you have bountiful numbers in your system, and as Law says, a return that is at or above the level of Jason Kendall or equivalent without paying the going rate of a Jason Kendall or equivalent.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I"m sorry IF but I hafta disagree. It’s not the total number of prospects it’s the quality of prospects. We don’t need 20 average baseball players from our farm system. We need coupla future HoFers and 3 or 4 All-Stars. I’ve had my fill of three and four star prospects who turn into Andy Marte and Kelly Shoppach. I wanna see at least one Jim Thome or Albert Belle come outta Columbus, not another Kuzmanoff.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
a[zm oll ll;[;;l;l,
\ zzz zz hn m mnn n n b bv v z Z /. j b c dx Ω z Ω≈z≈]r
r34X cfg b pmmmjmmmmmmm v n n n bn nb
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 7:46 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Yeah. His first ever post to the Internet. I’m so proud.
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
no subject line, no idiot stats. kid catches on pretty quick.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Feb 2, 2010 11:52 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
