Printable View
Agreed on the Rays, simply because Baltimore, Tampa, and Toronto cannot spend with the Yankees and Red Sox year after year after year. None of those teams belong in the top half of the rankings for as long as the unbalanced schedule exists. (Maybe Tampa, just because of their tremendous upside from the minors.)
[QUOTE=koolzach1;1266631]These ratings are not based on past performances, but rather future outlooks....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
looks like Toronto is 20
As RSR said, this isn't about the past. It's about the future. Tampa has a great ownership group that wants to win, a young, smart front office on both the statistical and scouting sides, a young major league team overflowing with talent, AND one of the top farm systems in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Sure sure... I know it is all about the future outlooks. I just don't see the Rays being all that great the next few years. It'll all depend on next year, IMO; if they win and the fans show up, then maybe, but if they win and the fans still don't show up, well, I cannot say for sure that the Rays will have the money to pay their players and fix their holes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
They don't NEED the money for a good 4-5 years from now. Their core of talent is mostly locked up long-term already. Then, they have a bunch of young prospects about to make it to the show that will be cheap and under club control for 3+ years themselves. The Rays, without a doubt, have the best combination of youth and talent in the league. They combine that with one of the best ownership groups and one of the best GMs. You have to be severely blinded by their previous futility (under a different ownership group and GM), to deny their bright future.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Yeah..I'd put St. Louis ahead of them too. But they'd still be ahead of Seattle, for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
They may very well have a bright future, but who's to say that their prospects will even develop? They have a good core of Upton, Longoria, Kazmir, Shields, Garza, etc..., but I would not rate them anywhere near the Red Sox/Yankees/Mets/Phillies due to money reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I just don't see how their "money reasons" should affect their ranking. As I said, there's very few players that they have to worry about money with for a while. They're really overflowing with talent...talent that they have under their control for a very long time...and that, combined with their fantastic ownership and front office, easily outweighs any financial concerns when discussing which teams have the best near/mid-term future. I think you're placing too much emphasis on money which, while important, is not nearly the be-all-and-end-all that you seem to be implying. A smart team that makes efficient use of its resources will easily overcome a small/medium budget.
It's just that in a few years when this talent either needs resigned or released, it will come down to whether they have the money to resign them or not. By then, their prospects might have flopped and their they go having to rebuild again. Big market teams that have a much better financial outlook really won't have to worry about that, so their pretty much set no matter what, unless they make just awful decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I was actually thinking about this a little while ago and another reason I thought of why Seattle is ahead of St. Louis might be because of Seattle's influence in Japan. The only other team I really consider to have anywhere near as much strength when signing a Japanese player would be Boston. Seattle is owned by Nintendo of Japan, they have Ichiro/Johjima, they're located close to Japan and they also have a large Asian community. We'll have to see what else he says to justify the Mariners being so high, but I would imagine this would at least be some sort of advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I also wonder how much of an influence the Mariners have on Venezuelan players (if any). Felix reportedly chose the Mariners partly because of one of his favorite player Freddy Garcia. We've also got Jose Lopez, Carlos Silva (if that counts :p) and Endy Chavez. I doubt our influence there is very big, but does anybody know for sure if any team has a large influence there?
How cool would it be to get the next big thing from Venezuela because of Felix? :p
I gotta figure that the Tigers have a pretty strong Venezuelan influence, what with Carlos Guillen, Magglio Ordonez, Miguel Cabrera, and Armando Galarraga on the roster.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
That's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Even big market teams have trouble holding onto talent just by virtue of the market for players. The Indians are probably in a much better position financially, but look how last year went for them. But I don't think you're giving enough respect to just how stacked their organizational depth is. Even if you count on a few flops, there's reason to assume that they can't fill most of the holes. And looking at things like the Pat Burrell signing, they're showing a willingness to spend some money on players to supplement the team. They may not have Boston spending power, but they aren't the Marlins either.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Also, it's easy to see the pennant as catching lightning in a bottle with everything coming together, but they haven't been *that* lucky. Keep in mind the team has gotten absolutely nothing out of Elijah Dukes and Rocco Baldelli, who were supposed to be studs coming up.
Delmon Young tooQuote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
They got Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett out of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Oh I thought we were just talking about their talent 'failures'. Yeah they got some nice talent for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
No
No what? Someone agreeing with me? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
No to pretty much everything you're written on the Rays not having that bright of a future. You pretty much could not be more wrong. Resigning all of their players isn't necessary to them contending for a long time. They've already started locking up some of their young players and for the ones they lose, they will be replaced. That doesn't mean every single prospect they have will work out, but with how loaded with young talent they are (both at the minors and majors), their future is bright for at least the next five years.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
They have their current best pitcher, James Shields, locked up through 2014, hey have their second best pitcher, Scott Kazmir, through 2012, and Matt Garza through 2013. They have their top prospect who very well may be their best pitcher come the end of the 2009 season, David Price, through at least 2014. That's 4 top-of-the-rotation starters (or with the potential to be) locked up together for at least the next 4 years. Then they also have Andy Sonnanstine, Wade Davis, Jacob McGee, Jeff Niemann, Matt Moore, Nick Barnese, and Jeremy Hellickson, all with mid-rotation potential or better. All of these pitchers are under team control through at least 2012.
They've demonstrated the ability to assemble a good bullpen on the cheap, finding Grant Balfour on the scrapheap, converting J.P. Howell to relief, supplementing with relatively cheap veterans like Dan Wheeler and Troy Percival.
And that's just the pitchers. They have who is quite possibly their best position player, Evan Longoria, through 2016. Their second best position player, B.J. Upton, is with them through 2012, assuming they don't extend him. They have two very good middle infield prospects in Tim Beckham and Reid Brignac. Carl Crawford and Carlos Pena are their only core players who they might lose soon, both eligible for free agency after 2010.
This team is literally overflowing with young, top-level talent, under team control for half-a-decade or more. Not all the prospects will pan out, but when you assemble a stable of prospects like that of the Rays, you're still going to get a bunch of good players.
And it's not like the scouting/management team that assembled all of these prospects in the first place has just magically forgotten how to rate talent and draft well, so chances are more will keep coming. They won't be getting constant Top 5 picks anymore (most likely), but it's not like every kid they have who's panned out was taken in Round 1.
Pat Burrell will also be a free agent after 2010, in the interest of being thorough.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yeah, I was focusing on the homegrown talent mostly, but through Carlos Pena in there because he was a scrapheap pickup. Their front office has demonstrated intelligence and efficiency, which is almost as important as their huge surplus of talent in assessing their future, and Pat Burrell is an example of that. Andrew Friedman is easily in the Theo Epstein/Billy Beane class of GMs.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
You really look at Friedman's tenure over the last 3 years, and I don't know if the guy has made a single mistake during that time. Some of it is luck: Carlos Pena only made the team in 07 because Greg Norton got injured. But, it's just incredible the way the guy just don't screw up.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I am in no way, shape, or form saying that the Rays won't be fantastic for the next 5 years... what I am saying is that when their young players' contracts expire, they will be screwed. It is VERY VERY likely that their farm system won't be this loaded for a considerbly long time. They won't be getting top 5 picks every year for now on... what I have been saying is that when the Garza's, Kazmir's, Shields', Crawford's, Upton's, and co. are gone... they are likely screwed. They maybe able to resign 1 or 2 of them, but that's probably about it, unless fans start showing up in bunches. We'll see, though... you can think that you're right, and that I am dead wrong, but ya know what? No one will know for sure who is right until that day comes when those contracts need re-upped.
With their current talent in the big leagues locked up for 5+ years, and their line of prospects not even ready to make their debuts yet, thus keeping them with the Rays probably for the next 7-10 years, that's a long-time coming. For an organizational ranking of a team's future outlook, the Rays undoubtedly are in the top 5, if not the top 2 with Boston. That they may or may not be able to resign their free agents come 6-10 years down the line isn't enough to outweigh their great ownership, great GM, top-level young major league proven talent, and overflowing farm system.
Also, I beg to differ about their farm system. Look at Boston. When was the last time they had a top 5 pick? Their Baseball America talent rankings for the last 4 years: 8, 9, 2, 13. Scouting, development, analysis, foreign free agency, and efficient moves are all more important in the assembling of a farm system than having top-5 picks. For that, I point to the Pirates, who have had top 5 picks for much longer than the Rays, and have literally nothing to show for it.
I haven't been on this forum a ton, so I don't know all the members that well. Are you a Yankees fan?Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
He is...I've tried not to bring that up though, because from what I've seen, he's able to have rational thoughts not blinded by his rooting interests (unlike some other posters here ;)).Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
San Francisco 19 and Minnesota 18....still no Seattle or Baltimore...
I try :cool: (I really do hate posters that are so blind by their own team, aka - homers)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
This ranking is starting to break down. I don't know what the hell Dave Cameron knows to put the Twins behind the ChiSox, Mariners, Orioles, or Oakland. If he wants to put it all on Pohlad, fine. In that case, Pohlad isn't a C-, he's a D- or an F.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think Toronto should be better then Seattle and San Fran.
I would rank them behind Oakland, easily, as Oakland has a fantastic front office and one of the best farm systems in the game, and would probably also rank them behind the White Sox because of their GM....but Seattle and Baltimore? I can't think of any reason to rank them ahead of Minnesota (and St. Louis).Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
ESPECIALLY Baltimore. That organization has been a mess for years, and considering the same idiot still owns the team...
Matt WeitersQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
That's what I thought. I think he's placing way too much emphasis on handing out big money to "stars."Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I mean, MacPhail still has to prove that all of his prospects can make it in the major leagues and contribute. Stocking the farm system is great, but the major league roster is still awful even if you put Weiters there now. Having a bunch of nice pitching prospects doesn't change the fact that the Twins and Cardinals are in much better shape to compete. I wonder if Cameron is just weighting the major league roster very low in his rating.
You are correct, sir. I cannot believe I forgot Matt Wieters.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Seattle is still dodging the bullet eh.