BA Top 100 Released - A's Have 3
by mikev on Feb 23, 2010 4:13 PM PST
Email
PrintBut I bet you won't guess which three!
Okay, forget it, I'll spoil it for you.
Vernon Christopher Carter (i.e. Trogdor) is #28, Michael Taylor is #29, and Grant Green (!) is #52.
No Adrian Cardenas and no Jemile Weeks for those keeping track, which I find interesting because the AN Community Prospect list had both of them ahead of Green.
Noteworthy, and somewhat A's related, is Brett Wallace (listed as 1b/3b) at #27, and Justin Smoak :shakesfist: at #13. Aaron Cunningham is also nowhere to be found.
READY. SET. DISCUSS.
90 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for the link mikev
I wonder what the average rate of success is for top 100 guys in baseball? How many even make it to the show?
I guess since Wallace is 27th and Taylor is 29th you’d have to say that’s a fair trade.
I wonder the same.
I’d like to see the Top 100 list from like 2004 and see how many guys have actually done anything.
by TerrySteinbach on Feb 23, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
Can't see the top 100
but I can see the top 10.
1. Joe Mauer
2. B.J. Upton
3. Delmon Young
4. Edwin Jackson
5. Rickie Weeks
6. Alexis Rios
7. Kazuo Matsui
8. Greg Miller
9. Grady Sizemore
10. Prince Fielder
So that’s 9 out of 10 in the majors, including 5 who have at least one All-Star appearance.
We downgraded by 2. We wuz fleeced!
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Victor Wang did some work on that a while back.
The bust rate hovered around 30%-40%.
Taken down with hearts alive, our hearts alive.
Of course he was only studying Jose Lima's wife.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Wow
Those are some huge, um, letters on the sleeve!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Feb 24, 2010 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Greene vs Cardenas
My interpretation for the disagreement between BA and AN is that Baseball America leans a bit more in the direction of upside, while AN picked the guy who is a safer bet.
the fact that they're so close
may reflect the fact 2 GM’s perceived their value as equal in a rare “challenge trade,” so the raters follow suit. I think Taylor’s rating suffers from the fact that he wasn’t a highly rated prospect coming out of Stanford, he’s never really caught up despite two great minor league years.
Cardenas really interests me
It seems every publication has downgraded him simultaneously despite what was ultimately not a bad year. Do they know something we don’t or is it groupthink?
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Feb 23, 2010 5:09 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I feel like it's a bit of groupthink
But also has to do with the fact that the A’s were (and still are?) permanently moving him from 2B to 3B, where his power, or lack thereof, would not play. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I think this is probably where everyone is coming from.
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
Perhaps defense and power are both highly regarded,
and Cardenas excels at neither. Personally, though, I think .300 hitters with lots of doubles are quite peachy.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Cardenas
Wasn’t most of this “Cardenas is moving to 3B” stuff prior to obtaining Kevin Kouzmanoff? I could definitely see Cardenas splitting time between 2B/3B in Sacto this season… with a permanent move to 2B in Oakland in 2011.
by Colorado Fan on Feb 23, 2010 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Probably depends as much on Jemile Weeks' progress
as anything.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Any chance he could progress his way on out to CF?
Stewart: "What really needs to be clear is it wouldn't have mattered if there was an earthquake or not. We were going to beat the Giants.
It's unlikely Green, Cardenas and Weeks all make it, so
they’ll all fit in somewhere.
Some motherfcukers are always trying to ice skate uphill - Blade.
I think it's also a lack of improvement in power
I got the impression that Cardenas’s higher ranking last year in many places was based on the assumption that he would start to turning his doubles into homers as he got older. When he didn’t hit any homers this year that caused people to stop projecting him to hit for moderate power.
Now, I think there is a good argument that he was still young for his level and that failure to make a jump in homers this year doesn’t torpedo his potential that much. I don’t know that I agree with the thinking but I think the difference in Cardenas’s ranking is due to last year he was considered “.300 hitter who could hit for moderate power in the future” and now he is considered “.300 hitter who won’t hit for any power.”
The reason why his power hasn't "improved"
is that he became even younger for his league this year than he had been in prior years.
It’s somewhat insane to expect a lot of power out of a 21-year-old in AAA. It’s very odd to see all these publications who normally hype the fuck out of young players with terrible numbers in leagues which are too strong for them, suddenly deciding to not credit Cardenas for being six years younger than the average player in the league where he spent most of the season.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I find the Cardenas stuff inexplicable, too.
What is most baffling to me is that everybody (even Sickels) has DOWNGRADED him for… well… I’m not sure. It’s one thing if these experts felt this way about Cardenas from the beginning, but they didn’t. Something happened in 2009 that changed the minds of lots of people, and I just can’t figure out what that was.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 23, 2010 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
my best guess
He was demoted to AA at one point.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Feb 23, 2010 7:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, but then he was called back up and was pretty awesome.
I know you’re not making the argument, and you’re probably right about the reason. I still think that’s a really silly reason to downgrade a guy. For as much bad play as he had first time around, he matched it with good play in another small sample later on.
Unfortunately Sickels never really explained his downgrade very well. I think it did have something to do with power (and third base), but that’s just really weak.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 23, 2010 11:45 PM PST up reply actions
Sickels' comment about power was made only after
he was asked about whether the move the 3B affected his grade.
His earlier comment after being asked about the downgrade, was:
I’m thinking that I might have overrated him in the past.
Now that’s not saying much, and of course he’s speaking only for himself, but if one were to theorize that prospect raters are prone to overhyping guys when they’re young and far away, and then later when the a guy gets closer to the bigs they wake up and rate him more cautiously, this would be perfectly consistent with that theory.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I guess I want to know WHY he thought he overrated him
What about his 2009 season suggests that? Again, it has to be what mikev said. It had to be that he struggled in a small sample in his first taste of AAA. Everything else was pretty much right in line with what he had done before.
The same thing goes for people who are downgrading Ynoa. People here know I don’t rank him highly because he hasn’t pitched, but for those who have rated him highly to now downgrade him is absurd. He’s the same thing he was a year ago!
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 24, 2010 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
I see it as a general pattern.
Guys who are far away just aren’t observed as carefully. Maybe they’re underrated or maybe they’re overrated. I don’t just mean because there is inherent uncertainty in the prospect’s value. That part can be taken into account in the rating. I mean that on top of that, people just aren’t as careful when rating guys far away and often they’ll get it wrong even with the information then available.
Later, when the guy advances, they look more closely and they grade better. Sickels was essentially acknowledging that when he rated Cardenas the first time he did a sloppy job of it and if he had it to do over again, he’d have rated him lower in the first place. That’s no knock on Sickels, it’s just the nature of the business. When you rate thousands and thousands of guys you can’t give everyone a thorough treatment. Guys further away aren’t looked at as carefully.
Probably there are plenty that go the other direction, too, where they were underrated the first time out and then corrected upwards, but if a guy is upgraded no one is going to come along and say “why did you upgrade him? he was already just as good last year and nothing has changed,” like you do with the downgrade.
That’s my theory anyway. Just speculation, but it seems plausible to me.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Just to add, Ynoa is not a good example because
he had an arm issue. In that regard he’s NOT the same guy he was a year ago. He’s now a guy who “has ever been shut down due to injury concerns.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yeah, it's not my argument, because I think he's the #3 prospect behind Taylor and Carter.
But I think people just saw OMFG HE SUCKED IN AAA AND GOT SENT BACK TO AA and instantly made their decision on him.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Yea, I don't really agree with the theory
just expressing the impression I got from looking at comments on Cardenas from prospecting sites. For some reason this season just seemed to be the tipping point where people just decided to jump off the “he will develop more power” bandwagon.
Except, of course, 2Bs hit JUST AS WELL AS 3Bs!
This “power does not play” thing is something everybody says, but the numbers simply don’t back it up. I think last year 3Bs had a wOBA that was like 5 points higher than 2Bs.
It’s a myth that 3Bs have power equivalent to 1Bs; their offensive output is far more similar to 2Bs. There’s a reason the positions are valued equally.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 23, 2010 5:48 PM PST up reply actions
No, they don't
They may have been closer than usual last year, but 3B routinely hit better than 2B.
If this is true, it's likely only because of the idea that 3Bs have to be big like 1Bs
And 2Bs have to be small like a SS. Since the positions are defensive equals, it stands to reason that if his bat plays at second, it will play at third. Why? Because even if he hits worse than most third basemen, a lot of those big bopper 3Bs are so bad defensively they shouldn’t be 3Bs! His overall value at the position will still be good.
Also, I suspect the reason that offensive production is more similar is that teams are realizing that putting a Jake Fox-type at third probably isn’t a great idea.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 24, 2010 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
This makes no sense
Since the positions are defensive equals, it stands to reason that if his bat plays at second, it will play at third. Why? Because even if he hits worse than most third basemen, a lot of those big bopper 3Bs are so bad defensively they shouldn’t be 3Bs!
If 2B and 3B are equally tough defensive positions (and I think the evidence for this is weak), then Cardenas wouldn’t gain anything defensively by moving to 3B.
The fact is that 3B hit better than 2B. If you think 2B and 3B are equal defensively, then you think 3B are better overall players than 2B.
Why do you think the evidence for them being equal defensive positions is weak?
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 24, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
Because it's based on guys who have played both positions
But those guys are not a random sample of 2B and 3B; they’re specifically selected by MLB managers because of their skill sets.
They are equally valuable defensive positions but...
they take different skills sets. 2nd basemen need to move more laterally and can have weaker arms hence why you get smaller, faster guys at the position. 3rd basemen don’t need to move all that well but need to throw across the diamond so its a natural fit for a big guy whose arm is too good to waste at 1B.
This is why 3B tend to hit better than 2B… the body type and skillset tends to be different. Its why we can reasonably expect to find a better hitter to fill 3B on the FA market or through the draft. And the ease of finding power there is why the move for Cardenas reduces his overall value to the team.
This is not supported by any research, just common sense. Could you see Kevin Youkilis playing 2B?
Except they don't.
(tend to hit better).
I’m not sure why you think it’s easy to find power at third. 3b
don’t hit for much more power than 2b. Power doesn’t necessarily mean a more valuable bet either.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
Admittedly, 2009 is a bad example of the "3B outhits 2B" mantra
But when you look at the raw numbers over the last 5 years, 3B have out-hit 2B by a fairly comfortable margin (especially in the NL). Using BP’s League Position Batting stats, AL 3B actually got out-hit by 2B by 3 points of OPS in 2009. In the NL, 3B still held a 10 point OPS advantage over 2B. Things look different if we look back at 2008 – 2004.
AL/NL OPS scores (3B vs. 2B)
08: 19/30
07: 6/45
06: 53/68
05: 19/32
That’s a fairly sizable hitting advantage enjoyed by 3B over their 2B brethern and the bulk of the difference comes in slugging percentage.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Huh
The comparison numbers are all supposed to have a “+” in front of them. Just in case my comparison is unclear (due to AN doing a funny to my post) from 2008 -2005 3B in both league posted a higher OPS than 2B.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Someone should run stats on the average size of 3B and 2B
I am guessing 3B tend to be bigger guys… could be wrong what with Figgins screwing the curve.
A big burly guy would seem to have a better chance at playing 3B than 2B though and that should lead to more power, which the number seem to support.
I’d much rather see Cardenas stay at 2B… Weeks can move if need be. I think we will have a better chance at finding power if we leave our 3B options open for now.
It's been done. Fangraphs did it at the end of 2008.
The entire 3B/2B thing is based on, basically, managers thinking tall people can’t play second (and they have to play third).
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/more-2b3b-stuff/
I couldn’t find the article he refers to in the first sentence, but I didn’t try too hard.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 24, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
Yes they do hit better
It was even last year, but 3Bs usually hit substantially better than 2Bs. They absolutely hit better every year but 2009.
2009
NL5:.333/.420
AL5: .338/.423
NL4: .337/.406
AL4: .336/.428
2008:
AL5: .337/.431
NL5: .335/.441
AL4: .339/.410
NL4: .338/.408
2007:
AL4: .341/.418
NL4: .339/.416
AL5: .334/.427
NL5: .348/.456
3Bs had a similar advantage to 07/08 2006 and 2005, a huge advantage in 2004, small advantage in 2003, big advantages before that. 3Bs have consistently hit for much more power.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
If teams are gradually realizing (or perhaps I should say re-realizing, since once upon a time 3B was considered a defensive position) the defensive importance of 3B,
movement in the direction of similar hitting between 3B and 2B would be quite consistent with that realization.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
One year is not a trend
And if you believe the argument that 2B and 3B are currently equal defensively, you’re now arguing that 3B will be better than 2B defensively once this “trend” takes root. At which point 3B will still be better, overall, than 2B.
I'm losing track of how this relates to Cardenas
If he’s a slightly worse 3B than 2B, but 3B are slightly more valuable than 2B, what on earth difference does it make?
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Defensively, not much if at all
Offensively, the concern is his bat lacks the power that teams tend to look for at 3B.
The monster at the end of this blog.
The whole point of "positional adjustment"
is that he’s still the same player, and should particularly be the same prospect at either position. His defensive skill and offensive skill as baselines are the same, no matter what position his team decides to play him at.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Feb 24, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
The problem is in the points awarded for positional adjustment
The offensive baseline for 3B vs 2B are not the same, historically. (Well, in the past couple decades give or take a few years.) The defensive bonus assigned to 3B and 2B might be the same but the methods used to tally that bonus are different.
The two positions require different skill sets, correct? And while Cardenas may (or may not… TBD) have the skills to play both positions equally on the defensive side his bat plays better at 2B because teams have been getting more power out of 3B recently.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Again this fails to answer my query
Say the average 3B is worth +2 runs, and the average 2B is worth -2 runs. Cardenas is worth (for the sake of argument) 0 runs.
Yes, he’s “below average” at 3B and “above average” at 2B. But who cares? Among the overall pool of MLB players, he’s average.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
You're assuming the difference is only 4 runs between 3B and 2B
If the difference is closer to 10 runs than the answer becomes more obvious.
If we assume the average defensive scores from 3B and 2B are equal, then what is the actual offensive difference (in terms of runs) between 3B and 2B when the NL 3B has averaged a 37 point advantage in OPS vs. the 2B?
As for a general answer to your question, let me ask you this: why wouldn’t you be trying to replace the below average players in your line-up?
The monster at the end of this blog.
No, the answer is exactly the same
He’s still average overall.
Generally speaking 5 points of OPS roughly equates to 1 run over a full season, but OBP is more important than SLG, so you can cut that down somewhat. It’s probably about 5 runs a season.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
No
If Cardenas is worth 0 runs and you put him at a position (3B) where the average player is worth +5 runs than you are getting below average production from that particular spot in the line-up/roster. That makes Cardenas a below-average prospect at 3B, thus lowering his grade.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Cost to find value elsewhere for the position is a factor
If you can find a quality hitting 3B more easily than a quality hitting 2B, then having Cardenas at 2B makes him more valuable and it makes it easier for the team to get better. You can’t look at it in a vacuum.
3B being generally better than 2Bs != 3B being more valuable.
If anything, it means the opposite. If Cardenas plays the same defense both places, it’s better to have him (he’s more valuable) at 2B, because there’s a better pool of players to fill 3B with.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
OK, so it's better to PUT Cardenas at 2B than 3B
Since that has no impact on his overall skill level, and prospect ranking systems are (in theory) team-neutral (such that being “blocked” by a good player does not diminish a prospect’s ranking), I continue to fail to see how this is relevant to anything.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
This is what I was hinting at
I think the reason 3Bs hit better than 2Bs in the past is because many managers thought 3B and 1B defense were basically equals (3B just had to have a good arm). Except this is and has been proven to be false. Because they’re defensively equal, many of those bad defense/big bopping 3Bs are being phased out (and moved to left field or first base).
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 24, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Wouldn't we need to have accurate defensive data from the 80's and 90's
to truly prove the point?
The monster at the end of this blog.
That doesn't really make sense
the 2b=3b defensively is based on years of historical data. During that time, 3Bs hit a lot better than 2Bs. These two facts together do not mean that teams have been undervaluing 3B defense. It means exactly the opposite! i.e., some of the guys playing 3B should/should have displaced some of the guys playing 2B.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
It's based on historical data of players who played both spots though.
That player type probably hasn’t changed.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 25, 2010 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
Cunningham is no longer rookie eligible
Therefore he had no chance of making the list.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Not being eligible for it still wasn't his biggest obstacle...
Some motherfcukers are always trying to ice skate uphill - Blade.
by OldhamA on Feb 24, 2010 8:09 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This one made me chuckle
47 Casey Crosby, lhp, Tigers
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
that's future MVP casey crosby
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Wallace over Carter and Taylor, even by the slimmest of margins, is why I'd listen to my 16 year old sister over BA
Well, it’s one of the reasons. Am I the only one who considers BA to be the publication least worth listening to when it comes to prospects?
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 23, 2010 5:47 PM PST reply actions
Mmm...I'd have to put your sister up there too.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
yup
I think Sickels has a much better insight into all minor leaguers as opposed to BA and the ESPN crew who can’t get over there big market love…
"Did you know you can comment on Athletics Nation from your phone or PDA? SB Nation has launched mobile commenting. Check it out next time you’re at the game or bar and have something to say."
by stranahanahan on Feb 23, 2010 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
And, you know, Sickels doesn't make permanent judgments on a player based on one or two ABs
like certain ESPN prospect guys do.
I just hate BA’s style. I hate their high-ceiling tools BS. I think some people probably prefer them for the same reason I think they’re fatally flawed.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 23, 2010 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
Smoak??
Makes me wonder why he was rated so high when his power numbers were so poor for a 1b prospect. He did not have a good half year in AAA. With BA sometimes they fall in love with a player and keep rating him high when he doesn’t have the stats to justify the ranking.
In his first full season in pro baseball
He OPS’d .930 in AA after skipping high-A ball. He’s already in AAA after 66 games in pro ball. All at age 22. Smoak is a damn good hitter, and this is pretty much universally agreed on by all prospect-rankers—not just BA.
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
Same age
Carter and Smoak are the same age. Carter had a higher ops at both AA and AAA than Smaok. Carter hit for 3x the power numbers as Smoak. My question is why is he ranked so high when he showed no power for a power position. Logan Morrison was ranked lower because of the wrist injury but has the same upside. I just feel with a off power year Smoak should have gone down on the rankings not up.
Listen to xbhaskarx: Do not look at just half a season of stats.
Some reasons people prefer Smoak to Carter include the fact that Smoak has a lower K% and a higher BB%. Also, Carter’s defense all around the diamond is abysmal, while Smoak is generally considered a very good defensive 1B. Defense at first isn’t incredibly important, but it’s better than DHing.
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
Plus his name is ready made for puns.
Always a consideration on these lists.
Some motherfcukers are always trying to ice skate uphill - Blade.
this is the problem with looking at just (a half year of) stats
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Didn't he have a wrist injury?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Smoak had an oblique injury that likely cost him some power
And he’s a way better defender that Carter.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
one idea about prospect rating
This idea was just occurring to me, and I don’t know if it has any validity. But I figure that I’ll just air it out and see what you all think.
One of the frequent points of contention between people ranking prospects is how much to value high ceilings vs high probability of decent production. It seems to me that the changes to the free agent market over the last couple of years might have shifted things slightly in favor of high upside prospects.
As an example, suppose you are a team with a Shane Peterson type fringy outfield prospect. His value is mostly due to the fact that he will be very cheap for several years, probably won’t be a total embarrassment in the majors (well, CHONE projects him below replacement for 2010, so it might get embarrassing), and has some small but non-zero probability of breaking out.
Is the value of this prospect less when you can sign Gabe Gross, who isn’t great but should at least be above replacement level, to a $0.75M+incentives contract? Or sign Johnny Damon, who is a legitimately good hitter, for $8M on a one year deal? Or pull off a steal like the 2009 Angels and get Bobby Abreu for $5M?
Of course, the top prospects are still valuable, because there is no way you can cheaply sign the free agent version of Stephen Strasburg.
I can imagine three responses to this theory:
- That sounds right, and low ceiling prospects are somewhat less valuable now than they used to be.
- Free agent salaries have gone done, but prospects are still so much cheaper that anyone who holds their own in the majors is automatically valuable.
- Free agent salaries really haven’t changed much at all, so why are you even proposing this?
Comments?
by colin on Feb 23, 2010 8:10 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
This is interesting.
I think #3 is a poor argument if somebody is going to make it. Players are signing for something like $3.5M per win this offseason (if this number has shifted, somebody let me know). That’s way down from recent years.
I’ll have to think about this more. As a huge “sure bet” proponent, I want to say you’re wrong. I just can’t definitely say that at the moment. A couple hundred thousand for a surer bet in a veteran on the cheap does seem like a better bet, but I still think in the long run it’s probably better to have more sure bets than a couple lottery tickets.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 23, 2010 11:53 PM PST up reply actions
my guess is probably response #2
I mean, Abreu was a fantastic deal for the Angels last year, but contracts in the controlled years are structured so that you can get at least 4 years for that same $5M. (and if the first year arbitration award is big enough that the player has made $5M total by the end of their 4th year, then it’s probably a sign that they have been playing well above replacement level)
I’m sure that people are interested in seeing if arbitration awards will decrease, since they are supposed to reflect the free agent market.
I've always thought this
Teams need to have replacement level players on their AAA roster in case of emergency, but these guys are freely available as minor league free agents. There’s very little value in developing them yourself.
I guess it all depends on where you draw lines
I certainly think that Peterson (born in 1988! I’m getting old…) has much more value than the hypothetical 29 year old minor league free agent, who has probably already hit their ceiling.
I don't think he's talking about replacement level players though
I think he’s talking about average players.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 24, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
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.
