Jump to content

Yoda

Cespedes to Mets

Recommended Posts

That probably just speaks to your very conservative grading but it also makes my point. There are guys in the minor leagues right now who are going to turn into aces because they will make improvements that nobody projects.

And here is the thing about media grading outlets...whether it is Mel Kiper, Chad Ford, Scout.com, Keith Law, ESPN, Baseball America, John Sickels, etc...they get criticized to no end by fans because people focus on their failures but the reality is they will probably have about the same amount as success as somebody like you who follows this much more closely than the rest of us. I have no problem with you trusting your own opinion if you do the homework but I think you have to at least acknowledge that both sides are going to have their misses and also both sides will have their hits.

Your discussion of hits and misses has merit, though I would argue that in terms of baseball prospects, those hits and misses that are founded in a sound scouting basis (not pseudo-scouting or stats-based prospect analysis) are more likely to be meaningful. The media sites that represent industry quality scouting-based evaluations tend to have more constructive hits and misses, as well as more meaningful critical discussion behind the scenes that allows for growth of the individual evaluators. I say that as someone that has been on the inside of several media sites, both scouting focused and not.

Counter to the merit of your second statement, I would argue your very first statement has plenty of fault. Calling my evaluation conservative based on one statement about Daniel Norris is off base. I am conservative when warranted, and aggressive when a prospect strikes me as warranting such aggression. This evaluation is arrived at from two angles, my own significant experience scouting the player in person, and discussions with numerous industry officials at various levels of Major League organizations (coaches, scouts, player dev, front office). It's a rounded opinion.

In terms of Norris, my personal evaluative history dates back to high school, the lower minor leagues, and even more heavily the last two years...that's eyes on the player at the park. I've seen some of his best and some of his worst starts, and nowhere in there have I seen a guy with the potential to develop into a #1 starter. The same problems/challenges he has today are the same ones he faced in high school. He struggles to throw strikes consistently, and even when he does throw strikes he doesn't locate to the edges....after 5-6 years of seeing the same issues, even with mechanical tweaks along the way, what is supposed to lead me to believe he is suddenly going to improve in this regard, at least enough to suddenly project as a #1 starter. To get to a #1 starter projection, or even a #2 projection, from where he is today, his control and command would have to jump two full grades....at this stage of his development that would be a massive shock. If he makes that type of leap, I will gladly be wrong, but that type of leap likely won't shift the way I evaluate similar players because he will clearly be an outlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Maybe a #1 starter if everything works out' is a lot different than 'Future #1 starter' though.

We got a lot of guys who could be good #3-#5 starters. That's good enough for me. You just have to look at the last couple of years of Kyle Ryan types being turned to to see how valuable that is. Or Simon and Greene for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That probably just speaks to your very conservative grading but it also makes my point. There are guys in the minor leagues right now who are going to turn into aces because they will make improvements that nobody projects.

And here is the thing about media grading outlets...whether it is Mel Kiper, Chad Ford, Scout.com, Keith Law, ESPN, Baseball America, John Sickels, etc...they get criticized to no end by fans because people focus on their failures but the reality is they will probably have about the same amount as success as somebody like you who follows this much more closely than the rest of us. I have no problem with you trusting your own opinion if you do the homework but I think you have to at least acknowledge that both sides are going to have their misses and also both sides will have their hits.

I don't know about success rates, but Mark sees a lot of players play and knows a lot of pro scouts that see players play. I'm not sure but I believe Law is in the same boat. I don't think Sickels is. Sickels seems to evaluate players mostly on stats. I don't have any problem with what Sickels does. He's been doing it for a long time and has a good rapport with his followers. He just doesn't add much that we can't figure out ourselves if ee want to put a little work into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two kids in the Anderson house and one in the Wezner house has resulted in a lengthy hiatus for the podcast. Its revival is discussed on occasion and no action is taken....I'll bring it up again.

Oh, and you couldn't be more wrong than your last statment....so, so, so wrong.

I am glad that you are better with prospects than booze.☺

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your discussion of hits and misses has merit, though I would argue that in terms of baseball prospects, those hits and misses that are founded in a sound scouting basis (not pseudo-scouting or stats-based prospect analysis) are more likely to be meaningful. The media sites that represent industry quality scouting-based evaluations tend to have more constructive hits and misses, as well as more meaningful critical discussion behind the scenes that allows for growth of the individual evaluators. I say that as someone that has been on the inside of several media sites, both scouting focused and not.

Counter to the merit of your second statement, I would argue your very first statement has plenty of fault. Calling my evaluation conservative based on one statement about Daniel Norris is off base. I am conservative when warranted, and aggressive when a prospect strikes me as warranting such aggression. This evaluation is arrived at from two angles, my own significant experience scouting the player in person, and discussions with numerous industry officials at various levels of Major League organizations (coaches, scouts, player dev, front office). It's a rounded opinion.

In terms of Norris, my personal evaluative history dates back to high school, the lower minor leagues, and even more heavily the last two years...that's eyes on the player at the park. I've seen some of his best and some of his worst starts, and nowhere in there have I seen a guy with the potential to develop into a #1 starter. The same problems/challenges he has today are the same ones he faced in high school. He struggles to throw strikes consistently, and even when he does throw strikes he doesn't locate to the edges....after 5-6 years of seeing the same issues, even with mechanical tweaks along the way, what is supposed to lead me to believe he is suddenly going to improve in this regard, at least enough to suddenly project as a #1 starter. To get to a #1 starter projection, or even a #2 projection, from where he is today, his control and command would have to jump two full grades....at this stage of his development that would be a massive shock. If he makes that type of leap, I will gladly be wrong, but that type of leap likely won't shift the way I evaluate similar players because he will clearly be an outlier.

I would say not projecting any current minor league pitchers as future #1's is fairly conservative to the rest of the industry. I don't know which pitchers are still in the minors besides Giolito...Tyler Glasnow and Hunter Harvey come to mind first...but I would imagine most anaylsts who follow this is as closely as you do would project at least a few future aces of what is left in the minors.

I can't go head to head with you on a debate with Norris because I obviously have not followed him as close. I do know a lot of the mainstream media outlets/analysts (Keith Law, John Sickels, Prospect 361) all had him as a potential front end guy before the season. Thus my point of different knowledgable minds seeing different things; you are clearly knowledgable of Norris, almost assuredly more so than most scouts out there, but in this particular case you are also seem to be in the minority from what I read on the internet. The easiest approach for me to take is to take then is to find some middle ground...I do have hope that the mainstream outlets are somewhat accurate in this case (I also give some credence to the fact Dombrowski thinks highly of him) but I also realize most prospects don't pan out anyways and that is tempered even more by you particular criticism of Norris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about success rates, but Mark sees a lot of players play and knows a lot of pro scouts that see players play. I'm not sure but I believe Law is in the same boat. I don't think Sickels is. Sickels seems to evaluate players mostly on stats. I don't have any problem with what Sickels does. He's been doing it for a long time and has a good rapport with his followers. He just doesn't add much that we can't figure out ourselves if ee want to put a little work into it.

The leg work is most of the battle and I don't have time for it. That is why I like Sickels. He does a lot of the leg work for me. Actually, they all do but I just trust Sickels a little more because unless you are a dedicated baseball junky who lives and breathes it all day every day, you are probably not to be able to do evaluations on anything more than just stats and second hand reports of scouts who have seen these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say not projecting any current minor league pitchers as future #1's is fairly conservative to the rest of the industry. I don't know which pitchers are still in the minors besides Giolito...Tyler Glasnow and Hunter Harvey come to mind first...but I would imagine most anaylsts who follow this is as closely as you do would project at least a few future aces of what is left in the minors.

Forgive me, but with the explosion of internet prospect analysis (from which I acknowledge I have benefited greatly), I think the projection of a #1 starter, along with the use of terms like elite, has become excessively overused.

Saying a prospect has a #1 ceiling is saying that player has a chance to develop into Felix Hernandez, David Price, Clayton Kershaw, and others of that caliber. That's a hefty projection that is frequently taken far too lightly outside of industry circles, at least in my opinion.

If we're talking legitimate potential #1 starters in the minor leagues, I'm only taking Giolito. He has the combination of two double-plus pitches, a third potential plus pitch, and a projection for at least plus command....that's a #1 profile (for comparison, Norris offers two plus pitches, a potential above-average third, and maybe, maybe average command). Of the guys still in the minor leagues, I wouldn't even go there for someone like Alex Reyes or Jeff Hoffman, those guys come up short for a variety of reasons. They are really good prospects, but they're not guys I would peg as potential #1s. At the very least, they would have to have multiple things break their way in a big manner to get to that projection.

Like I said, a #1 starter projection is an extreme grade within industry scouting circles....it takes a special profile to earn that mark. When you're at the extreme upper end of the scouting scale, there simply shouldn't be many guys earning that grade. Right now, Giolito is the only guy I'd be willing to go to that extreme with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't it be something if Cespedes got hurt in his first game and was out for the year? Not that I'm wishing it to happen, he's a good guy and a good player. But wow, would the mets be PISSED!

So kind of like Soria last season? I think we can all attest that it sucks pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without going through four pages of this thread, what is the consensus on this trade?

Got enough or should have gotten more?

We got an excellent mid-rotation prospect (Fulmer) and a decent back-end rotation or BP guy in Cessa.

B+ to A- range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without going through four pages of this thread, what is the consensus on this trade?

Got enough or should have gotten more?

I think we got the top end of the range that one could reasonably expect on a deadline deal for a guy who is controlled for two months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously we don't know how any of these trades will play out going forward, but its hard for me to look at any of the 3 deals we made and think we should have gotten more. That's a good sign IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how John Smolz was rated when the Tigers traded him away. I also wonder how highly they thought of Fidrych when he became a ML starter.

Smoltz was minor leaguer with a losing record and showing no great signs of becoming anything let alone a hofer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how John Smolz was rated when the Tigers traded him away. I also wonder how highly they thought of Fidrych when he became a ML starter.

The Ralph Houk quote when he chose Fidrych to "go north" was: "They tell me he's a major league pitcher. We're going to find out".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everybody feels that we got a pretty good haul. I hate selling, but I'm glad it's over, and I feel pretty excited about the guys they got.

They need to spend the $$ again to get the SP and OF they need, and even then, they need to replace the manager and get their collective heads screwed back on straight about how to stock and manage a @#$$@#$@# bullpen after two laughingstock seasons of bullpen foibles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Tigers really wanted to get creative, they could move JD Martinez for starting pitching and then go hard after free agent outfielders. Outfield seems to be where there will be the most talent. If we could land one of Upton, Heyward, or Cespedes, plus Fowler, that would be quite a haul. Outfield would be weaker overall but the team might get stronger with the return Martinez would bring. I would want a guy like Sale or Archer...a front end rotation type that will be a bargain price for the next three years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Tigers really wanted to get creative, they could move JD Martinez for starting pitching and then go hard after free agent outfielders. Outfield seems to be where there will be the most talent. If we could land one of Upton, Heyward, or Cespedes, plus Fowler, that would be quite a haul. Outfield would be weaker overall but the team might get stronger with the return Martinez would bring. I would want a guy like Sale or Archer...a front end rotation type that will be a bargain price for the next three years or so.

Why decimate the lineup by trading JD? Just go hard after a couple of free agent starting pitchers, relievers, managers.....and Cespedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how John Smolz was rated when the Tigers traded him away. I also wonder how highly they thought of Fidrych when he became a ML starter.

Baseball America had him ranked as the Tigers #2 Prospect behind catcher Rey Palacios. He had awful stats at a young age but was highly regarded.

I'm not sure how highly Fidrych was ranked. I'm sure they knew he was good, but he seemed to just come out of nowhere which was part of his charm. That doesn't happen today because he already would have been analyzed to death by prospect hounds long before he reached the majors. I love that we have all that information today, but sometimes I miss the mystique of the old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Tigers really wanted to get creative, they could move JD Martinez for starting pitching and then go hard after free agent outfielders. Outfield seems to be where there will be the most talent. If we could land one of Upton, Heyward, or Cespedes, plus Fowler, that would be quite a haul. Outfield would be weaker overall but the team might get stronger with the return Martinez would bring. I would want a guy like Sale or Archer...a front end rotation type that will be a bargain price for the next three years or so.

Archer's contract is one of the most team friendly in MLB. What a steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why decimate the lineup by trading JD? Just go hard after a couple of free agent starting pitchers, relievers, managers.....and Cespedes

Because there's not likely enough money to pay for all that unless we are increasing payroll. We will have aroung $47 million to work with if payroll is flat. A SP and Cespedes alone might cost us close to $40 and that doesn't leave much for our other needs. Trading JD for a cost controlled SP could help. For example:

Cespedes $20 + Kazmir $20, leaves about $7 to spend

Cespedes $20 + Fowler $14 - JD $6 + Sale $9, leaves about $10 to spend.

If you get some cheaper than Sale, like Archer it would be even better.

I don't think we are trading JD though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict a current mets outfielder and a current nats starter will be back in english d's next yr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because there's not likely enough money to pay for all that unless we are increasing payroll. We will have aroung $47 million to work with if payroll is flat. A SP and Cespedes alone might cost us close to $40 and that doesn't leave much for our other needs. Trading JD for a cost controlled SP could help. For example:

Cespedes $20 + Kazmir $20, leaves about $7 to spend

Cespedes $20 + Fowler $14 - JD $6 + Sale $9, leaves about $10 to spend.

If you get some cheaper than Sale, like Archer it would be even better.

I don't think we are trading JD though.

Fine......but you are not going to find anyone to replace JD's production. And....no one knows just how much the Tigers are willing to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baseball America had him ranked as the Tigers #2 Prospect behind catcher Rey Palacios. He had awful stats at a young age but was highly regarded.

I'm not sure how highly Fidrych was ranked. I'm sure they knew he was good, but he seemed to just come out of nowhere which was part of his charm. That doesn't happen today because he already would have been analyzed to death by prospect hounds long before he reached the majors. I love that we have all that information today, but sometimes I miss the mystique of the old days.

I looked up Fidrych's minor league stats out of curiosity, he barely pitched above A ball (where he was mostly terrible honestly) but he also threw a ton of complete games. Given the era I wonder if this was normal or if the Tigers viewed him as a big prospect and were just working him to get him ready for MLB without really caring about the on the field results.

I suppose we'll never know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fine......but you are not going to find anyone to replace JD's production. And....no one knows just how much the Tigers are willing to spend.

Which is why I qualified my comment with "unless we are increasing payroll."

As far as replacing JD's production, I somewhat agree, but we have to see what is out there and at what price. It's possible you get the same overall production, or better, but distributed over multiple positions rather concentrated on one.

I don't think we are trading JD this year. I'm just saying there are ways to benefit from that move. Though if he keeps producing as he as been, then I do hope we trade him after the 2017 season, rather than taking him into his walk year. We'd probably get a very nice return for a 30 year old .900 OPS OF. Of course, I'm getting the cart ahead of the horse to assume he keeps this up for 2+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...