Riverbrian

For teams that haven't embraced depth and flexibility. Like a combination lock, it takes a specific combination of events to open a door for a prospect. Not only does a player have to be performing at a level to deserve a call up, that still isn't enough for the prospect to be called up. Because if the prospect is a 2B and it's an OF who needs replacing in the majors. The old school team will call up a lesser performing OF because that is where the injury is. Every time you call up a lesser player based on specific need. The pure act of taking a lessor player lessens the odds of success and therefore overall prospect success. Depth and flexibility removes this obstacle. When the OF gets hurt... you can call up your best prospect (most ready) prospect even if he plays 2B. This increases the odds of calling up your best player when you need to call someone up. This increases the odds of getting good production from your call up since the prospect was earning the call up. For example, Schoop was healthy throughout 2019. If Arraez is a 2B only? If depth and flexibility isn't adopted... where does Arraez play? All of these things are golf balls in the garden hose. The damage done over the years is impossible to quantify but also impossible to dismiss. It is my opinion, that a lot of players with major league talent became unidentified players through lack of sufficient opportunity. Because they are unidentified... nobody has missed them.

Length of success can't be a factor or at least it needs to minimized in the equation. You have to consider the Rental... Top 100 prospects have been traded for 2-3 month rentals. Yes, it is the vet you are renting... but if a team is willing to cough up a top 100 prospect for short time period players. Length of sustained success can't be a major part of the calculation. The rental alone proves that there is such a thing as short term value. Tyler Duffey maybe currently tagged as a bust with the methodology. However... I contend that in 2015, Tyler Duffey kept the Twins in contention almost by himself. Teams are willing to trade highly ranked prospects for that type of short term production.

I'm not sure but... I'm starting to think that baseball is a business.

I've spent a large majority of my professional life working and analyzing demographics. Bottom Line: Baseball needs to grow outside of the limited current base. Actually, in my opinion... Baseball desperately needs this. The current demo's are scary for the future. This means attracting the basically untapped female audience and younger audiences. The fact that Baseball is overwhelmingly older and male doesn't mean that Baseball should pander exclusively to this limited base because you get what you pay for. If you want to attract more females and if you want to attract younger viewers and baseball should want that. If baseball needs to change (It does). These now needed demographics should have a strong voice in the direction of the change. Your first step would be to hire more females and younger employees and listen to them.

I agree... The combination of Grandal and McCann (if McCann remains the same McCann) should push the White Sox into a clear Catching position advantage over the majority or even all of baseball. That is a goal that all teams should strive for but... Purely for example purposes. The White Sox spent 73M for a player who if he doesn't DH will split time with McCann and they already had McCann. This limits his playing time and It is quite possible that they could have picked up... (Name out of hat... I'm not considering White Sox needs)... Mike Moustakas for example. Exact same production plus Ozuna for the same amount of money spent. So instead of upgrading two positions... they have only upgraded one position. I consider this good news for the Twins. And Ash mentioned... If they go with the Grandal DH'ing when McCann plays... They have stopped themselves from trading for J.D. Martinez or even signing Castellanos. I consider this good news for the Twins. All of these points are just different ways of carving the turkey. Anytime you acquire a talented player... it is good news for the club. The White Sox are better today than they were before the acquisition. I worry about the White Sox... I think they are coming and they are not far behind. I know they have money to spend and as a Twins Fan... I'm happy they chose to spend a big chunk of that money on Grandal because that money can't be spent at other places on the diamond now.

Exactly Definitions matter. The number of players crowded near those lines matter.

Like I said... I don't believe everything I read. I only believe the stuff that I post because I know how I came by it.

If that's the case... The Bat is just gravy. Go get the guy who keeps pitchers below a 3.00 ERA with his skill. I'd pay that guy 80 million a year.

Renteria hasn't shown this tendency yet but I believe it makes perfect sense. If they keep both Grandal and McCann... McCann can't gather dust, they will have to find playing time for him and then Grandal will have to DH. But as Asbury points out... That's fine... but Grandal stats become less amazing as a DH. His contract is a pure typical catcher over-pay. Money spent on position scarcity. The other option... Maybe Hahn thinks he can get something for McCann now in a trade. Catcher is an over-pay position. That means that McCann might bring back something interesting in a trade. The Astros are looking for a catcher and they are well over budget. McCann would be perfect for the Astros.

Yeah but you kinda have to strongly consider that a starting pitcher has the ability to shut down an enitre lineup of superstars, when he is doing his thing. No position player will ever possess the weight a starting pitcher carries in any game.

Yep, Yep and Yep. It could be successfully argued that Ryan Braun had a better year at the plate. Similar for sure. It could also be successfully argued that Moustakas had a similar year at the plate. It could also be successfully proven that Moustakas will not make the same money as Grandal and he will quite like play more than Grandal does. Catching is an over-pay.

It certainly is... but not directly anymore. The discussion has started to evolve away from Rosario specifically and I think the subject is interesting so I was hoping that everyone would be able to focus on this discussion in it's own spot. I believe this debate is important and interesting. If you want to continue on the Rosario topic... You can and you can still use the points you are making. In a nutshell, I just believe you started a great separate topic so I started a thread to house it.

I read as a bystander your previous debates on the subject. I stayed clear because it seemed like the discussion was driven by extremes. I didn't believe anyone in the debate was saying you should never trade prospects or that anyone was saying you should trade all your prospects. My opinion: You need all your spigots turned on. There is a time to spend, a time to trade and a time to tend to your crops. Turn Turn Turn. You should be doing all 3 at the same time every single year. I am in 100% agreement with you. The key to long term success is in development. Developing the players you drafted and developing the players you acquired. Emptying the farm system as a strategy for winning it all has worked. It's a legit strategy but in my opinion... what those who are in favor of such strategies tend to forget... is that it hasn't worked more often than it has and the bill will come due. Dombroski is a sell the farm guy. .It worked in Boston in 2018. This can't be denied but you also have to factor in that the majority of that World Series team were home grown prospects that were augmented by cheap acquisitions like Eovaldi and Steve Pearce. Now let's imagine that the Red Sox traded the farm and were bounced out in the 1st round of the playoffs in 2018 instead. Was it still a good strategy to empty the farm system? Now... Here we are, just one year later... the bill is due. The farm is drained and when John Henry comes to him and says... we had the highest payroll in baseball and we didn't make the playoffs... what's do you have planned now? Dombroski has left himself no other option but to spend even more money and he's gone like he was gone in Detroit for the same reason. I have heard some say... Well yeah but that World Series title is worth it. I won't argue that... but what if you don't win the title. is is still worth it? The Red Sox won with this strategy in 2018. They were not the only team in 2018 to try the strategy. Those other teams did not win it but winning it was the intention for selling the farm. Yes, you have to spend some money... Yes... you will have to trade some prospects but you got to balance it. The big money teams are not winning with big money. The big budget teams have the ability to absorb the mistakes of big money spent. But, every recent World Series team was built by a strong home grown core first and foremost.. Even the big money teams will die eventually when they drain the farm, the bill will come due and it won't be pretty when it does. Keep a farm producing, you can trade the extra produce, you can staff your roster cheaply to spend on the occasional luxury item. You have depth, replacements. You will never go hungry.

How good was Baseball America Circa 1990's compared to what is published today? I'd start by compiling the actual lists for the 13 years in question and looking at the names. The articles doesn't list names... just stats. I personally would need to see the names. Here's a list from 1990: http://www.thebaseballcube.com/prospects/byYear.asp?Y=1990&Src=BA

The side discussion on Prospects has been moved to it's own thread in the "Other Baseball" forum.

The White Sox are up and coming and just around the corner and this type of signing announces their intention to keep turning that corner. However... With that said... I'm glad they spent resources on an expensive catcher instead of elsewhere. I typically get resistance when I say things like I'm about to say but will say it anyway. If I was a GM... I would never pay a big free agent contract for a catcher nor would I trade significant talent to trade for one. Catcher's don't play every day... You get more bang for the buck investing in other positions. Catchers need rest and they get injured more often. I get that there is a canyon between Grandal and Herrmann and that is what the 73 million is buying but you are still spending your resources in an area where you overall production is limited due to playing time and health. The 73 Million the White Sox just spent is 73 Million that they won't spend on something that might produce more at another position. Clubs need to get very serious about growing their own. If they develop extra... trade it because it is over-valued.

I don't trust other's research unless I know exactly what they are using to make determinations. In what you are looking for: Step One... Define Success. Is one pitch in the major leagues success or is it some other arbitrarily defined set of data or hard line number. Does the amount of time being successful matter, Will one great year surrounded by 3 bad years be successful. Step Two... Research and Data Entry me friend... Lots of it. You'll probably have to quit your job to find the time. Personally, I think in this day and age... Top 100 is too limiting. Because that presumes that those who rank the top 100 are somewhat flawless. In essence, this will distort what you are trying to ascertain based upon the determinations of others. The research would be tainted by the skills of the assessors.

It's like you've been reading my private research. There's a reason I am always impressed by your point of views. You've been stealing it from me. (Glass Raised) To better times.

That stuff I can't provide since I've never researched it specifically myself. I can only tie it to loosely to the stuff that I have researched myself and that is where my spit ball comes from. I read a lot of articles but without knowing the author, I tend to take the information provided with grains of salt. I don't always believe everything I read but I read it anyway. I've never published anything but I've spent a lot of time researching roster construction (every team, going back many years). I won't say it's "conclusive" but I will say it's "highly plausible", that teams from that era (and decades before) worked with operational models that restricted development of prospects by restricting their opportunity. This is where my "I'm not a starting 9 guy" mantra comes from. I can't say for sure but the "cost per" analysis (it seems) wasn't very good, done at all, or ignored back in that time frame. The A's Moneyball year was 2002. Change of course, is the slow boring of hard boards, Friedman shows up around 2006 and others of that ilk starting filling the decision making positions. Now, the "cost per" analysis can no longer be denied. Prospects are getting increased opportunity to keep and hold jobs, connected, tied in lock step with the increase of clubs using data. Free Agents are valued less due to not significantly producing more for the money and now they are talking to their players union because they can't figure out what happened. MLBPA P.R. is talking about more teams wanting to lose than win to spin the eggheads as cheap instead of shrewd because they collectively bargained an agreement that is based on a pre-moneyball mentality that only exists in a handful of clubs today and those dinosaur clubs are tapped out and not spending because they spent it and they are not winning either. The end result. More Top 100 Prospects are showing success now because they are getting more opportunity to not only play in the major leagues... but stay in the major leagues. They are not automatic send backs to the minors when Mr. Average high salary guy returns from injury. In short... The cost per is now saying... Give me more 600K talent and promoting prospects is how you get it. The Next CBA is going to be a nightmare for us fans of the game.

As long as he maintains that plate discipline. His production should remain. People often talk about the veteran role model. This would be a case of a younger role model. Our older players can take notes while watching a younger player getting things done by not swinging at crap. The kid was fantastic at putting good wood on the pitches he should put good wood on. I don;t know what tomorrow brings but I'll bet on him.

The influx of the Ivy League Front Offices. They are discovering with increased data that 600K talent is out-performing or at least nearly on par with 10M talent. This has provided more opportunity for minor league players to earn a job. The doors were simply harder to break down for for prospects from 1990 to 2003. Average performing vets were comfortable in every day starting jobs that they wouldn't lose. Prospects are getting more opportunity these days to get a job and keep it because 600K talent provides the financial flexibility to sign higher dollar free agents without expanding the budget. However, they are not signing the higher dollar free agents either because the 600K guys are getting the job done cheaper. This won't explain all of it but my guess is that it will explain a good chunk of it... The old operational style was pretty hard on young players and now not so much. Of course the players union is noticing this shift and starting to complain. Other things like increased medical data is keeping young players healthier. Lot of the top prospects were lost due to career ending injuries. Just spit ballin.

We can't control what "customers" think. There are majority and minority opinions on every single topic approached. I can't think of one topic in the 100 years I've been here that had everyone agree. We simply ask that all opinions are addressed respectfully, it's really that simple and from that simple request the lines get real blurry. Moderators have to make decisions on what to let stand and what to moderate and these decisions happen daily and we don't always get it right but it's a hard job. Each moderator has different interpretations of that simple request but all understand that RESPECT in response to differing opinions is the core of what we are trying to accomplish. Once posters cross that line from discussing the topic to labeling the poster or attacking the idea disrespectfully, the thread crashes and this crash happens pretty close to 100% of the time once the respect line is crossed. So, we try to prevent it with the posting guideline policies... which are posted and this is the basis of our moderation actions. You may not care for our moderation but you need to consider that un-moderated sites have a shelf life of about 10 seconds because the community consists of about 5 people who seem to enjoy tearing people apart. There is no agenda here. 3 separate topics on Eddie Rosario in a short period of time was not orchestrated, it was the opinion of three unique writers who posted those opinions independent of each other. Nobody is sitting in a chair on the top floor of the IDS tower, saying OK... "You hit Rosario this week, You hit him the following week and you hit Rosario the week after that. The administrators don't always agree with each other and the moderators don't always agree with each other but all of us understand that the task of moderation is extremely difficult, especially with the blurry lines combined with human decency on the internet declining to the point where many think it's OK to be horrible to others without consequence. If you feel or others feel threatened, I don't know how to respond to that.The environment that we are all trying to foster is the exact opposite of threatening. Be respectful. You'll find some smooth sailing if you are. If you don't understand what I'm saying in this post or if you think that I'm making excuses, lying or playing games with you... then perhaps, this site isn't for you. This post is about as sincere as I can possibly be. If you disagree with the overall policies and posting guidelines, I'm pretty sure it isn't going to change so either get used to it or... perhaps... this site isn't for you. Post respectfully. Discuss the topic, not the poster.

The moderators are discussing the thread you are referencing. That thread is great example of what happens when posters stop discussing the topic and start discussing other posters and why the policy is in place.

It has nothing to do with disagreement. It has everything to do with respect. State your disagreement without minimizing those you disagree with.

Anything is possible. Your post is just as legit as mine. I was shocked to see Syndergaard on the trading block followed by an acquisition of Stroman by the Mets. Things like that demonstrate that the road to be traveled is not always clear and defined. If I was the GM of the Marlins, I wouldn't be trying to acquire expensive FA bats yet (like is being rumored) but I'm not sure that I would give up young pitching yet either because those young pitchers should have helium to inflate to higher value or at least still be in place when it is time to acquire expensive FA bats. In other words... If I was to part with one of my young pitchers... the return would have to be high enough to be worth the possible deviation in the plan.