White Sox are 17 right next to Minnesota which I think is appropriate. They're in similar positions.
Printable View
White Sox are 17 right next to Minnesota which I think is appropriate. They're in similar positions.
The Orioles come in at 16. I think he's significantly overrating their major league talent, though. While they have a great, young outfield, and overall, their position players aren't that bad...that pitching staff is just atrocious.
What about Tillman, Matusz, and Arrieta? That's one of the best trio of pitching prospects in baseball and if this is a forward looking exercise then...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Also : Weiters, Jones, Markakis, Roberts, Felix Pie? I can definitely see them being 16.
I was speaking of his MLB talent rating, of B-. I'd give their POSITION PLAYERS maybe a B....but their pitching an F or D-, which add's up to maybe a D+ or a C, not a B-. He gave them A- on their minor league talent, which I agree with, and that is where that trio of pitchers and Wieters go.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Anyway, Seattle's at 15. Still not seeing how they get that high. Compared to the Cardinals, he lists Seattle's minor and major league talent worse, which is absolutely true. He has Seattle's ownership slightly better, which I'll give...I don't know that much about either team's owners. So the difference comes down to him rating Seattle's front office with a B and St. Louis's a C, and considering both GMs are fairly new, I'm not ready to definitively state that one is a full letter grade better than the other, AND that that difference makes up for the advantage in on-field talent.
Well he has to give the front office some sort of grade so he has to go by what he knows and between the 2, Z has done more (although he unfairly also has lots more to fix).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
mixing the best of both worlds can't be bad...hopefully :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
I think Seattle's front office will turn over very well, but I'd like to see more before giving them so much credit (while not giving similar credit to St. Louis's). And even so, I don't think a slightly better front office outweighs a much better collection of talent.
I think the author of this thing is just giving WAYYYYY too much weight on whether or not he likes the GM's methods of getting things done and whether or not he likes the owner. He seems to evaluate the talent well enough for the most part..but then just seems to give a much different overall grade than you'd expect...like with the Mariners..there is no chance in hell their organization is "healthier" than over half the franchises in MLB as of this very moment.
This is what I mean when I say fangraphs gets a little too deep into their stats and graphs and whatnot. I think they have a lot of interesting info on that site, but I think they have gotten too deep into it and have lost sight of the big picture. That's why I greatly prefer BP to pretty much anywhere else..they use the stats and all that, but they mix in some factors that statisticaly analysis sometimes can't account for.
Seattle hired Tom Tango...of course they had to be on the plus side of average
The dark is afraid of Tom Tango
I think you misspelled "Matt Wieters."Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
off-topic, but man, watching how this kid does this year is going to be one of the things everyone is going to have an eye on. If he really does do as well as everyone thinks then it would be hard to see him be anything other than MVP and ROTY (pending other players performance of course). I don't know how good his arm is, but they might as well just convert him to a pitcher/catcher and let him take the ball every fifth day so he can take the Cy Young as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
EDIT : you know what's really sad? If he could actually pitch at least average he would be Baltimore's best pitcher xD
Phillies at #14....I may have been overrating them when I put them in my "top 5" thing....but one spot away from the Mariners? Blah.
I like this though, lol:
Quote:
One quick note before we get to the next report - due to the Nationals inexplicable decision to release Shawn Hill yesterday, they’ve been dropped a spot on the list. They now rank #31, and we’ve promoted the North Carolina Tar Heels to the #30 spot. At least they have a few quality big league players and aren’t run by consulting the magic 8 ball.
I guess the only thing worse than being GMed by Jim Bowden is being Gmed by nobody. :( :( :(Quote:
One quick note before we get to the next report - due to the Nationals inexplicable decision to release Shawn Hill yesterday, they’ve been dropped a spot on the list. They now rank #31, and we’ve promoted the North Carolina Tar Heels to the #30 spot. At least they have a few quality big league players and aren’t run by consulting the magic 8 ball.
EDIT: To be fair though, I don't see the big deal about releasing Shawn Hill. Sure, he showed some promise, but so have a thousand other youngsters that never materialized. And he's constantly hurt, even though they protected him like a baby, (so please don't get me started on pitch counts again). So this is another case of someone just looking at the stats on paper rather than the human being when they criticize this move.
even if he does have injury problems he's a better option than their other options which is why it's such a weird move.
They're not losing much by keeping him, though, is the point. He's not blocking anybody...he's not making a ton of money...
Paying him nearly $1 million a year (I think his salary was over $700K) for nothing is a better option than paying him 1/6 (I think I read somewhere he gets 1/6 his salary because of his release) for nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
How is paying 1/6 as much for nothing not a better option?
You're paying for the chance that he is something. It's not that much money.
OK, fair enough, so you're agreeing it's a gamble.
I agree it's a gamble. I guess the Nats have decided they've gambled enough with him. Ok, you disagree. I could see it either way. My point is it's not that big of deal to make that smart ass comment that North Carolina should be moved up. Releasing say, I dunno, Dunn right after signing him $20 million would've warranted a smart ass remark, well, it would've warranted a trip to the nearest mental institution.
But this just wasn't some outrageous move. The Nats signed Beimel, they had to make room, and decided they're tired of gambling with Hill. Just not a big deal to me. But if you looked strictly at his stats (which I still say is what's going on here), then you might say "WOW, what are the Nats thinking??? Did they not see that potential there???"
The Nats saw it. They've seen the whole package for three years now, the whole package that includes constant elbow and other arm problems, and have decided it's enough. I just don't see the big "BONEHEAD" move in that decision.
LOL, and right after I typed the above I read Fili's LA Dodgers thread and it appears the Dodgers have made the exact same decision about Yhency Brazoban, another pitcher that seemed to have promise but was always hurt.
I don't think it's too much about the stats... He had a very good 2007 in 16 starts, but as sucked besides that. It's more that he's a guy with some upside, a risk, yes, but not a guy you should just give up on so long as he's cheap. Beimel was a nice move...I think they should've dropped one of their 15,000 outfielders for him, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Also, a reliever, with no record of success in the majors, and less in the minors than Hill...and less of a scouting pedigree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
His stats have sucked since 2007 because he's been hurt since 2007. He's pitched with pain in his elbow and his stats suffered.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But I agree with you on the outfielder thing. Corey Patterson comes to mind immediately. :p
EDIT: Sorry, couldn't help the CP remark. Seriously, another outfielder that they've kept that is, IMO, overrated is Austen Kearns (spelling???). He's an average OF, with a decent arm, a little pop in his bat, but no plate discipline and not good at hitting for average either. There must be a gazillion outfielders that fit that description, I would think.
The Dodgers are also nowhere near as in bad shape as the Nats are :(Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yhency Brazoban at his best wouldn't help us (LA) near as much as Shawn Hill at his best would help the Nats.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
The Nats know more about him though, and if they decide it's time to cut bait, I don't think I can argue.
Maybe LA can sign him and He, Schmidt and 28 other guys can each make a start as our 5th starter this season.
Honestly though OFG, our clubs (Mariners / Nationals) need to be taking chances on these high risk / somewhat high reward guys. Our clubs are both in pretty bad shape for the immediate future and our clubs are the ones that need to be taking chances. Look at what the Mariners have done this off-season so far, they've been grabbing guys left and right who have proven track records in the minors or relievers with no command but great stuff in hopes that at least someone will pan out.
Jose Lugo, 10.5% BB%, 24.2% K%, 56% GB%
David Aardsma, 15.4% BB%, 21.5% K%, 44% GB%
Tyler Walker, 9% BB%, 21.6% K%, 46% GB%
Luis Pena, 19.3% BB%, 20.2% K%, 47% GB%
Jesus Delgado, 12.9% BB%, 21.7% K%, 52% GB%
all those guys were picked up this off-season and it's something bad clubs should do. Grab as many 'free' high risk/upside guys as you can and hope one or two of them can pan out. Tha's really the big problem with the move IMO. Daniel Cabrera is someone who I really like for the Nats. He's always had good enough pitches to succeed at the major league level, but he can never put together a good season and he's a great fit for a team trying to put together talent.
Our teams can afford to and should take risks.
I hear you on the premise of we have to take chances, and I get that, and agree with it somewhat (I don't know about the Mariners, but the Nats don't get their own TV revenues, so resources are always a problem), so we can't just sign every able bodied possibility available.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
DISCLAIMER: I'm always bringing up the thing about the Orioles getting the Nats TV revenue, and I still say it's wrong. But the thing is, I really have no idea what real impact that has, in terms of real dollars. It might not be as big a deal as I make it out in my mind, though it is still wrong IMO.
I hope the Cabrera thing works out, but I'm not holding my breath. Cabrera has some nice stuff, but he wouldn't know the strike zone if you formally introduced him to it prior to each inning. The thing with him is, he's had ample time now to see if he would learn command, and he hasn't.
I don't have stats at my fingertips like you guys do, but I'd be willing to bet his BB/9 is still AWFUL, even after, what, is it two or three full seasons of starts now?? If the guy hasn't found command by now, chances are he won't. And without some control, major league pitchers can have great stuff and still fail. The best pitch in baseball always has been strike one.
But I hope he works out. I hope Dunn continues to produce like he did in Cincy even though any opposing manager with half a brain would be foolish to ever throw him a strike in this lineup. And I hope Shawn Hill finds success even it it's not with the Nats. But mostly I just think while you can question releasing Hill, it wasn't THAT big of a deal, certainly not worthy of "We're going to promote the North Carolina TarHeels to the 30 spot." I'll take my Nats against the North Carolina Tar Heels in a 162 game season. All day long.
EDIT: OFF TOPIC. Guess what happens when you unplug your mouse, grab the wire, twirl it around several times to build up speed, then fling it as hard as you can into a cinderblock wall. IT FRIGGIN EXPLODES. And the pleasure was nearly as good as sex. :D If only I could remember what that pleasure was like.:(
That comment was in jest. I don't think anybody seriously believes that any college team has a legitimate chance against any major league team.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Command is definitely something to be worried about with Cabrera, but command can be fixed (not saying it's likely, but it's definitely a possibility) and after this off season his stuff should hopefully return to normal after his MPH dropped off toward the end of last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
At the very least though I applaud the Nationals for taking a chance on him. I don't know what his salary is or what they gave up for him (if anything), but at least they seem to understand they need to take some risks.
So what do you guys think about Kearns???
Am I the only one that thinks he's really not much. Maybe a solid fourth OF at best, or would you guys rate him higher than that, and if so, why?
Sorry, guess it's turning into a Nats thread. Didn't mean to do that. I'll stop here.
solid 4th OF. He could be a pretty decent trade chip once his salary comes down.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Great defensive outfielder. Has the tools to be better but hasn't 'figured it out'Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
A very good 4th OFerQuote:
Am I the only one that thinks he's really not much. Maybe a solid fourth OF at best, or would you guys rate him higher than that, and if so, why?
Nats Thread!Quote:
Sorry, guess it's turning into a Nats thread. Didn't mean to do that. I'll stop here.
Ned Colletti got killed in the latest one, Dodgers at 13. Rangers at 12.
I think he underrated the Dodgers farm system quite a bit.
I don't. Baseball America ranked them 23rd. Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus ranked them 21st. The Hardball Times system, using a combination of Top 100 Prospect lists, ranked them 22nd. Keith Law ranked them 20th.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
That's a pretty strong consensus, which I think warrants Cameron's C+ rating of them. If anything, that might be a slight overrate. The thing with the Dodgers is that most of their high-upside, young guys are already in the majors. As Cameron says, "The young core of Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier, Russell Martin, James Loney, Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, and Jonathan Broxton is an enviable one to build around."
Yeah, I guess I need to get used to the fact that all of the Dan Evans guys are finally on the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Oh, and am I the only one who doesn't think Elvis Andrus will develop into a decent hitter?
Uh oh, The Diamondbacks released Jailen Peguero. Here come the Mariners to sweep him up!
Actually that's just total speculation on my part, but I actually think it might come true.
Let me first apologize now for my grammar, it's 6:40ish AM here and I've been up all night :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
On-field talent in 5-6 years is almost moot (depending on the team of course, I'm looking at you Tampa). Sure St. Louis has a great team now, but without Pujols they look a lot less shiny. I'm not saying they won't be able to keep him, but it's definitely a strong possibility. And even if they do every team in the majors is going to be jumbled up.
As far as minor league talent goes, Seattle has one of, if not the best, talent evaluators in the league running things right now and he has 4 top 50 picks at his disposal this year. One of which being second overall. Assuming that he at least gets 2 right, and that's being pessimistic in my opinion, our minor leagues will be filled with the following.
Aumont
Truinfel
Saunders
Halman
2 of the top 50 picks from next year
And those are just the guys at the top, Seattle also has some nice mid upside guys in the minors (Carp, Tui, Moore, etc...). I wouldn't put a top 10 minor league system out of reach for Seattle in 2010.
Also, as far as ' AND that that difference makes up for the advantage in on-field talent' goes, I think I'll have to disagree. There have been many teams with on-field talent that were completely squandered by their new front office. While we're on the Seattle topic go back to 2001. Seemed like a good team but now look at us :(. Creating the 100-100 club. How about Tampa 5 years ago? Or look at the Florida Marlins, they win stuff and then they go on a crazy fire sale and then come back to compete a few years down the road because of smart managing. I'm not trying to say that Seattle HAS a better GM than St. Louis, just that a good GM is much more important than on-field talent.
I think it depends entirely on who that GM is and what the on-field talent is. When referring to "on-field talent", I was referring to both the major league talent and the farm system. St. Louis is a consensus top-10 farm system, usually ranked around #8, with the opinions on Seattle being more various, but still a consensus in the lower half, around the 17-22 area. But, my main point of concern was that I don't think we know enough about the two GMs to put the distance between them great enough to overcome the edge in talent, minor and major league, that St. Louis has. If this was Billy Beane vs. Ned Colletti, yes, but it's two new GMs...and I understand that we know about their previous work, like Jack Z with Milwaukee, but I'd still like to see more from both him and Mozeliak as an MLB GM before putting the gap between them so large.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Well I also believe front office is more than just the GM and Seattle has put together a lot of talented minds. Still I can definitely see your points.
I agree on the Seattle front office...I'd just like to see a bit more first.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Well, we're through 26 teams:
#30: Washington Nationals
#29: Florida Marlins
#28: Houston Astros
#27: Kansas City Royals
#26: Pittsburgh Pirates
#25: San Diego Padres
#24: Cincinnati Reds
#23: Colorado Rockies
#22: Detroit Tigers
#21: St. Louis Cardinals
#20: Toronto Blue Jays
#19: San Francisco Giants
#18: Minnesota Twins
#17: Chicago White Sox
#16: Baltimore Orioles
#15: Seattle Mariners
#14: Philadelphia Phillies
#13: Los Angeles Dodgers
#12: Texas Rangers
#11: Oakland Athletics
#10: Los Angeles Angels
#9: Arizona Diamondbacks
#8: Atlanta Braves
#7: Chicago Cubs
#6: Milwaukee Brewers
#5: New York Mets
That leaves the final four of the tri-headed monster in the AL East (Boston, New York, Tampa Bay) and...Cleveland? Cleveland's better than a lot of people give them credit for, but they still have a shaky pitching staff... They'd probably make my top 10-12 or so, but they're probably going to be ranked 4th by Cameron...hm...