Discoverer
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2012
- 11,231
- 6,587
Here is the entire article.
I don't know if there's an actual rule about it here or not, but you shouldn't post the entire content of a subscription-only article.
Here is the entire article.
It confused me too when I was writing it, but it makes sense.
In short:
Dunedin, Lansing, Vancouver, Rookie Teams are either good or really good. There is enough depth in the lower minors that even with promotions, they should still be good.
New Hampshire and Buffalo suck right now, but New Hampshire has some good players right now and could be good in a few years once some of the lower level guys come up. Buffalo will likely suck for another few years, outside of the depth guys for the Jays and a few higher end guys.
That's pretty much it.
What I don't understand is (1) if we're putting stock into the team performance of our minor league teams and, if so (2) why the hell we're putting stock into the performance of our minor league teams.
Buffalo and New Hampshire could have a cumulative winning percentage of .450 in 2018; if Anthony Alford has a wRC+ of 150, Danny Jansen has a wRC+ of 130, Bo and Vlad have wRC+'s of ~150, and SRF/Borucki/Greene/Zeuch are healthy with FIP's under 3.50, and so on and so forth, I'm happy.
here are all the players drafted in the top-ten from 2000-2010 that failed to play in 100 major league games (excluding players that were unsigned by the team that drafted them).
out of 110 players that were drafted, 36.3% didn’t suit up for at least 100 major league games. Factor in players who were drafted but didn’t sign and that number goes up to 40.9%. In fact, 18.4% of those top ten picks who signed never even played a single game. And these numbers are just appearances. They don’t include the countless high picks that got into 100 games but did nothing notable throughout their careers. High draft picks are great, but if you aren’t hitting on them, it will drag on an excruciating rebuild.
this isn’t an anti-prospects or anti-draft thing, either. Prospects are the most valuable commodity a team can have. Don’t believe me? Look at what the red sox gave up for chris sale. if you’re a small market team that doesn’t have many real assets, i get the whole wait and see approach. If you have nothing to play for anyway, why not wait a few more years and build up your farm system and hope to get lucky in the draft? This described those early 2010s astros perfectly. They had no path to contention without a full blow up.
That’s not toronto, though.
The blue jays are in a big market and still feeling the effects of back to back alcs berths. The team, despite being in last place in their division for the entire season, are still drawing just over 40 thousand fans per game and once again lead the american league in attendance. I’m not sure ownership would want to blow everything up and sacrifice the next few seasons for a chance to win in five years. as we saw with the astros above, rebuild take a large toll on fan interest. There were some mitigating factors (such as the astros fans not being able to see them on tv), but a blow up will hurt the team’s bottom line. on the baseball side of things, the blue jays still have young, valuable players with years of control remaining around whom the jays can build winners. those astros didn’t have anybody like that.
what the blue jays can and should do is keep being creative. Look at what drew hutchison fetched the team just because the team was able to add salary, which is very similar to what happened with francisco liriano. The increased following for this team allows them to use money to improve the team instead of giving up assets – whether they’re on the big league roster or in the minors. Does this team desperately need some new faces and a retool? Absolutely. But that can be done with shrewd moves and free agency. They shouldn’t take a huge step back and alienate all of the new fans in the process, especially with the draft still being such a hit or miss system.
So when does Oakland offer us their best players for Pannone and Borucki?
So when does Oakland offer us their best players for Pannone and Borucki?
Is this implying that the LHP who is 6"4, with mid-90s velocity, and three plus offerings is equal to two underwhelming stuff, LHP, likely quad-A guys?
One of these things is not like the others.
Not at all. Just saying usually when a prospect (mainly pitchers) comes out of no where and becomes more consistent for us Oakland always seems to have interest and/or acquires them. Whether they are notable prospects or not.
Nolin and Graveman come to mind. They wanted Boyd in 2015 for Zobrist before we got Price.
Then a history as well; Magnuson and Farquhar for Rajai Davis.
Deck McGuire, David Purcey, Graham Godfrey and Kristen Bell could be considered. But they were neither good at any point.
To be fair, she was great in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and probably made the right call in giving up baseball.
What I don't understand is (1) if we're putting stock into the team performance of our minor league teams and, if so (2) why the hell we're putting stock into the performance of our minor league teams.
Buffalo and New Hampshire could have a cumulative winning percentage of .450 in 2018; if Anthony Alford has a wRC+ of 150, Danny Jansen has a wRC+ of 130, Bo and Vlad have wRC+'s of ~150, and SRF/Borucki/Greene/Zeuch are healthy with FIP's under 3.50, and so on and so forth, I'm happy.
Danny Jansen promoted to Buffalo