The metric is that no one 'liked' your original post.

 

If no one likes my post, my life can never be worthwhile......But, what-the-hell, one must move on....

 

The metric is that no one 'liked' your original post.

 

But the day is young. glunn could get to it yet.

 

Not any more sucker!

 

If no one likes my post, my life can never be worthwhile......But, what-the-hell, one must move on....

Lots of people like my posts, and my life is still adrift as a Sailor on the Seas of Fate.

 

Fortunately there's next season.

 

Just to point out, Vielma does not need to be protected on the MLB 40 man roster this year. He signed after the minor league season in September of 2011. He'll certainly be protected on the AAA roster.

From the TwinsDaily "organization chart":

Vielma, Engelb Cedar Rapids Kernels  SS  B   1994-06-22  Elig 2015

 

I assumed that to be correct, but upon further review, he signed at 17-yrs-old and played four seasons, so he should be protected until 2016. I should never assume, and should do my own math. Thanks, Seth!

Vielma is the #22 ranked Twins prospect according to Baseball America 2015 Prospect Handbook which referred to him as follows:

"Even with the likes of Jorge Polanco and Nick Gordon in the system as high-end shortstops, Vielma's sure hands, range and arm all rate as plus weapons and make him the Twins' best defensive infielder by far. Showing outstanding body control, smooth actions and advanced instincts, he is a natural shortstop."

 

Emphasis in the original text?

 

From the TwinsDaily "organization chart":

Vielma, Engelb Cedar Rapids Kernels  SS  B   1994-06-22  Elig 2015

 

I assumed that to be correct, but upon further review, he signed at 17-yrs-old and played four seasons, so he should be protected until 2016. I should never assume, and should do my own math. Thanks, Seth!

 

It was a very borderline one since he signed so close to the end of the minor league season (which is Labor Day)... I'll see if Jeremy can update the org chart. Not that he'd be taken, but Jorge Andrade is another one that signed right after that season, so he also isn't Rule 5 eligible yet this year.

Lots of people like my posts, and my life is still adrift as a Sailor on the Seas of Fate.

 

Fortunately there's next season.

Made me think of Elric......but then, no one* liked him.

 

*well, not NO one

Edited October 22, 201511 yr by Mike Sixel

 

Made me think of Elric......but then, no one* liked him.

*well, not NO one

Precisely; Elric of Melnibone.

 

Emphasis in the original text?

No. My emphasis.

I should have noted that, although my English teachers are no longer available to show me how.

The protected Max Kepler in pretty much the same situation as Vielma is in. Just sayin'.*

...

*I am in NO WAY (lots of caps there) saying Vielma projects like Kepler.

A much different projection? Then it's not pretty much the same situation, is it?

 

It's not only projection, but also how close to MLB-ready both the bat and the glove are. IMO Kepler's bat last winter looked a lot more MLB-ready than Engelb's does now. Max would have been overmatched frequently. Engelb would be overmatched by major league pitchers all the time.

 

I'm not saying not to protect Vielma. Maybe there'll be room for him on the 40-man. I'd just want to check who #41 was, in that case, before deciding finally.

 

(Fixed the "lots of caps" thing for ya, BTW. )

Just to point out, Vielma does not need to be protected on the MLB 40 man roster this year. He signed after the minor league season in September of 2011. He'll certainly be protected on the AAA roster.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/187/img/photos/2015/02/11/c5/b0/emily_litella.JPG

 

"Oh. Never mind."

 

_{^{/ "What's all this I hear about protecting our national race-horses? Is someone going to pick them in the Rule-5 draft?"}}

 

IMO Kepler's bat last winter looked a lot more MLB-ready than Engelb's does now.

Kepler was actually first protected two winters ago, after the 2013 season.  He had a .736 OPS in 61 games in A ball that year, in his first pro games above rookie ball.  He had yet to appear in high-A at that point (although he did play in the AFL that year, .618 OPS).

 

A much different projection? Then it's not pretty much the same situation, is it?

 

It's not only projection, but also how close to MLB-ready both the bat and the glove are. IMO Kepler's bat last winter looked a lot more MLB-ready than Engelb's does now. Max would have been overmatched frequently. Engelb would be overmatched by major league pitchers all the time.

 

A OF-1B must be an offense-first-priority player.

A SS or C must be a defense-first-priority player.

Of course Kepler is a better hitter than Vielma.

If he wasn't a better hitter than Vielma,  Kepler would have been optioned to the Staatsballett Berlin.

Kepler was actually first protected two winters ago

D'oh!

 

See Emily Litella post, above.

 

You may be correct, but his past OPS is not a factor. All his offensive upside is projected, NOT proven. His glove is my reason for wanting him protected. The Twins and the rest of MLB have their own opinions.

EVERYONE'S upside is projected & not proven.

 

EVERYONE'S upside is projected & not proven.

Hence the term 'upside' instead of 'achievements.'

 

Because minor league batting performance does not demonstrate that you can hit in the Majors. You have to hit successfully IN THE MAJORS, to prove you can hit in the MAJORS. NOTHING ELSE PROVES IT! AAA is full of guys who DID/CAN hit in the minors.
Most of them thought they could hit anywhere, but found out otherwise. Success in fielding, throwing, running and fundamentals translates between levels. Hitting does not.
TO repeat: You have to hit successfully IN THE MAJORS, to prove you can hit in the MAJORS. NOTHING ELSE PROVES IT!

I'd agree with you that being able to hit in the minors does not guarantee you can hit in the majors. It does make it much more likely though. My understanding is that you can get away with just being able to hit fastballs in the minors, but then get eaten up by major league offspeed pitches. This is not Relevant in the case of Vielma because he can't hit in the minor leagues. You can be pretty certain that he would be destroyed my major league pitching.

WHEN WILL I LEARN TO READ THE REST OF THE COMMENTS BEFORE I REPLY TO SOMETHING!

Edited October 22, 201511 yr by dgwills

 

EVERYONE'S upside is projected & not proven.

 

As my upside peaked a almost two decades ago, mine is proven, though sadly undocumented.

Back to the subject of this thread, I am glad we waited until now to outright Thompson, him sitting at home on the 40-man roster was of great help during our September push for the postseason...

 

EVERYONE'S upside is projected & not proven.

Actually some people have no upside, will never reach their upside, or will be found to have stuck their topside up their backside.

Every play is tracked these days. If a shortstop's skills are translating into additional outs, that information can be teased out from the data. If his skills aren't translating into additional outs, I'm not sure what value you might be referring to.

. I think the "take charge" aspect. Another way of putting it would be baseball sense. Where to throw that cutoff, when to go to the plate with the infield in, etc. metrics does not measure those things. I think metrics are a tool, and a good one. But there is still a reason scouts are sent to games, and GM make decisions, and mangers make out lineups.

Where to throw that cutoff, when to go to the plate with the infield in, etc. metrics does not measure those things.

It'll show up as outs, bases gained (or not), etc.

 

Or if hitting the cutoff just right isn't resulting in these things, maybe we're overthinking the intangibles?

 

No. My emphasis.

I should have noted that, although my English teachers are no longer available to show me how.

Not that I am an english teacher, or even particularly adept with grammar, but a footnote might have been appropriate.

 

Back to the subject of this thread, I am glad we waited until now to outright Thompson, him sitting at home on the 40-man roster was of great help during our September push for the postseason...

 

I wouldn't have wanted Thompson anywhere near the mound in September.  

Q:  Why are posters so upset that a "no-stick" infielder might be claimed by another team?  That  type of player is as plentiful as grass in the suburbs.

 

Could I see the metrics, pleeze?

Damn, that was an awesome comeback.  I confess, I have none.

 

Damn, that was an awesome comeback.  I confess, I have none.

Thank goodness! I have no metrics to refute your hypothetical metrics.

 

I wouldn't have wanted Thompson anywhere near the mound in September.  

Perhaps you missed the point of my post.  Thompson's 40-man spot could have clearly been used earlier on some bullpen reinforcements, especially in September.  Still not sure what the Twins were thinking on that one, except that they repeatedly over-rated the health and effectiveness of their other 40-man pen options, and/or over-rated the usefulness of keeping Thompson around as an emergency arm.

 

Perhaps you missed the point of my post.  Thompson's 40-man spot could have clearly been used earlier on some bullpen reinforcements, especially in September.  Still not sure what the Twins were thinking on that one, except that they repeatedly over-rated the health and effectiveness of their other 40-man pen options, and/or over-rated the usefulness of keeping Thompson around as an emergency arm.

 

That makes more sense than having Thompson on the roster, so yes the point flew entirely over my head.

 

That makes more sense than having Thompson on the roster, so yes the point flew entirely over my head.

No problem.  The expiration date on my Thompson 40-man roster spot rant has passed, yet I can't resist posting it again and again.

Edited October 27, 201511 yr by spycake