[QUOTE=cmathewson;194107]OK, well, the context was enhanced when Law made his ridiculous ranking, in part based on Radcliff's comments. So I think it's fair game to point out his past blunders. Nishioka is just the worst, but by no means the only one of his blunders. Taken for all and all, his draft record was pretty bad.
You know, cmath, I wouldn't be qualified to argue about his skills in this area, let alone the skills of the others involved in these selections. That's why I limited my observations to his COMMENTS. Law used his comment in a write-up, which hardly lets one draw a conclusion about how much reliance there was on it. On the surface, Vielma looks like a goofy and uninformed pick, but it wouldn't have been Radcliffe's fault if it was based on his comment, and it isn't Radcliffe's ranking. It was a friggin' comment. It should remain in the context of what it is.
But I will say that you're being pretty harsh and a little unfair. You're ignoring any successes. You provide no comparative context, so it's left to our imaginations to determine if this is simply pathetic, or more pathetic than average, or maybe even less pathetic than average (and please, no need for anyone to compare how well someone drafting the #2 guy did compared to Matt Moses). Lastly, without at least a slightly charitable admission that others were involved, that budgets played a role, and that the draft order was more often than not less favorable, that perhaps injuries and luck are a factor...
You might be absolutely correct in your assessment of Radcliffe, though.
The thing lacking from this organisation...accountability
It is not necessary for multiple people to inject a sequence of escalating critiques, culminating in one of the entire organization, into every thread. The TD Comment Policy is clear about this form of trolling; the moderators try to be lenient, and all that results is further escalation by one individual after another.
Start a new thread, if any of you feel so moved, on your pet topic(s). Free and open discussion is good; the "same old same old", not so much.
And I must add: this doesn't apply to every post in the thread. Some of the comments, as they pertained to the player, were quite interesting.
I think the most important takeaway of what Law said/ranked and what Radcliff said isn't Radcliff talent appraising ability, but that fact it's clean that people with SAY in the organization think Vielma is someone to watch, which means they're watching him. He's not just organization filler, he a prospect who down the road may fill a need on the big league club, even if it's an Escobar like capacity. It kinda like Stuart Turner getting a camp invite, sure Turner has document ability and success in college, but when your employer has tag you as a fast mover, as long as you meet their expectations, your going to move fast.
From a fans perspective Vielma is someone to watch and if he does well he's someone people can safely emotionally invest in.
It is like saying that Fangraphs picks the Twins to lose 90+ games in 2014 and thinking that past Fangraphs guestimates about how the Twins would do are tangential. Sorry, but they are not.
Vile men bagel (anagram)
For the record, I only posted because I thought it was an interesting note on a prospect that most people have never heard of, not because I wanted to discuss the tenure of Radcliff or make anagrams, but it's a forum so it'll go where it goes.
live gene balm
I've never heard of him either. I also don't have a subscription to BA so all I see after clicking on OP is
So in lieu of a comment on Vielma or Radcliffe, here goes another anagramQuote:
MINNESOTA—It was only a Rookie-level Gulf Coast League game, played on a back field at the Twins complex with perhaps a couple of dozen sun worshipers in attendance. But that [...]
lev be mealing
I'm bevel angle?
Leave Me Bling.