I guess I go into the 2015 season trying to win games instead of gutting a team that could have been +.500.  They weren't a perfect team but I don't like an org tanking the roster unless they are truly bad. 

 

I don't hate the prospects acquired (Folty, Fried and Wisler plus a dozen others) but they are a little underwhelming for Kimbrel, Upton and Gattis (principal trades).   I think these trades (comparable) would have been there at midseason.  The Heyward for Miller trade makes sense in most situations and especially if you are eyeing the future.

 

I guess I go into the 2015 season trying to win games instead of gutting a team that could have been +.500.  They weren't a perfect team but I don't like an org tanking the roster unless they are truly bad. 

 

I don't hate the prospects acquired (Folty, Fried and Wisler plus a dozen others) but they are a little underwhelming for Kimbrel, Upton and Gattis (principal trades).   I think these trades (comparable) would have been there at midseason.  The Heyward for Miller trade makes sense in most situations and especially if you are eyeing the future.

 

Those trades also allowed them payroll flexibility that they flexed in acquiring Touki Toussaint by taking on Bronson Arroyo's salary. They were also very active in acquiring draft picks last year and already have one extra for 2016 as well. As the minor league writer for a site that covers the Braves, it made my job a lot more fun as there was very, very little to dream on in the system prior to last offseason, but the major league club was certainly handled in an odd manner. Why not trot out BJ/Melvin/whateverhewantstobecallednow Upton in CF while you rebuild and get an even more substantial haul for Kimbrel if you move him? Why pull the trigger on the Padres deal when you reportedly walked away from multiple deals due to not including a major league middle infielder?! Perhaps most confusing, what is with all of the pitching?!

Mike, I did see you ventured into the craziness that was Fangraphs' attempt at a Braves list today. Farnsworth certainly had a contrarian list, to say the least. I don't agree with a lot of his takes, frankly, based on a lot of views of the players mentioned, but that's why we all enjoy prospects, I suppose.

 

Mike, I did see you ventured into the craziness that was Fangraphs' attempt at a Braves list today. Farnsworth certainly had a contrarian list, to say the least. I don't agree with a lot of his takes, frankly, based on a lot of views of the players mentioned, but that's why we all enjoy prospects, I suppose.

I actually liked Farnworth's list, just because it is so different. Some commenters acted like it was the worst thing ever, but I respect analysts that go by the beat of their own drum. I feel like there is a lot of groupthink with prospect lists between the various sites.

 

I also think that the prospect industry in general suffers from a lack of accountability. They are all very good at collecting and disseminating information, but there is no metric used to compare and contrast the various analysts' picks with the actual real-world results. Maybe Sickels is consistently really good compared to everyone else. Maybe he isn't. Does anyone care? Apparently not. 

 

I actually liked Farnworth's list, just because it is so different. Some commenters acted like it was the worst thing ever, but I respect analysts that go by the beat of their own drum. I feel like there is a lot of groupthink with prospect lists between the various sites.

 

I also think that the prospect industry in general suffers from a lack of accountability. They are all very good at collecting and disseminating information, but there is no metric used to compare and contrast the various analysts' picks with the actual real-world results. Maybe Sickels is consistently really good compared to everyone else. Maybe he isn't. Does anyone care? Apparently not. 

 

There's a difference between different and off base. A number of the comments, specifically on Gant and Weber didn't jive with what you saw from either, ever. I watched probably 50-75 innings of each over the course of the year, especially with Weber, and his comments simply didn't jive with what I saw.

 

Then you have his stammered attempt at an explanation for why Allard and Riley weren't on the list, and he discussed how he was going on his own viewing and standards, which makes no sense in his write ups on Povse and Cabrera, especially this season, as both had lost seasons this year. I wrote up a top 100 for the Braves system and spent hundreds of hours watching video on players in the system after the season after watching 7-10 games per week during the season. There are guys who I had in my top 20 that didn't make even his honorable mentions list, and he had guys outside of my top 100 list mentioned in his write up.

 

I think it did put a lot of egg on the face of Fangraphs. Farnsworth is an excellent analyst of hitting mechanics, and I'd read anything he wrote on that aspect, but it became pretty obvious in a pitching-heavy system that he was a bit out of his element.

 

Mike, I did see you ventured into the craziness that was Fangraphs' attempt at a Braves list today. Farnsworth certainly had a contrarian list, to say the least. I don't agree with a lot of his takes, frankly, based on a lot of views of the players mentioned, but that's why we all enjoy prospects, I suppose.

 

I love Fangraphs. And, I'll love reading the reports Farnsworth makes because of his analysis of their approach. But I can't ever remember who is on what list past about the top 2 anyway. As much as I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll miss Kiley. I had a short conversation with Cameron about the lack of scout access they have now......he admitted that was a weakness, but that it would improve over time. I'm not sure the readers will give them that time. That said, as long as people keep going to the site and reading, I'm not sure that Cameron won't give him the time. We'll see, I guess.

 

My main issue is that the comments were downright rude and mean spirited. It's just a prospect list....

 

I love Fangraphs. And, I'll love reading the reports Farnsworth makes because of his analysis of their approach. But I can't ever remember who is on what list past about the top 2 anyway. As much as I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll miss Kiley. I had a short conversation with Cameron about the lack of scout access they have now......he admitted that was a weakness, but that it would improve over time. I'm not sure the readers will give them that time. That said, as long as people keep going to the site and reading, I'm not sure that Cameron won't give him the time. We'll see, I guess.

 

My main issue is that the comments were downright rude and mean spirited. It's just a prospect list....

 

Don't disagree at all there. I did attempt to reach out to him and offer any assistance next time he's looking into the Atlanta system.

It's funny, I just read the AZ report......everyone seemed very upbeat in the comments.

 

He's also admitted he will be going back thru all this, and re-looking at it all when the dust settles, and that he expects to change things up (he already has amended the ATL one).

 

There's a difference between different and off base. A number of the comments, specifically on Gant and Weber didn't jive with what you saw from either, ever. I watched probably 50-75 innings of each over the course of the year, especially with Weber, and his comments simply didn't jive with what I saw.

The difference between different and off base mostly depends on the future results, right? Imagine if last year someone had ranked the Twins pitching prospects in the following order:

1) Duffey

2) Berrios

3) May

4) Rogers

5) Gonsalves

6) Meyer

7) Stewart

8) Thorpe

That list would have been ridiculed and no one would have taken it seriously. But now a year later, that list matches up with the real world results pretty well. Certainly no worse than a more traditional ranking - last year Kiley mentioned 40+ names in his Twins evaluation and didn't mention Duffey at all. (That's not a jab at Kiley - I think he did a great job, and I definitely think Fangraphs is going to miss him - but just an example.)

 

Again, it comes back to accountability. Since every analyst is basically the same, there is no reason to go back and compare them, or even take the time and effort to try to come up with a systematic method for comparing lists over time. But Farnsworth's list is very different, which is annoying because we will need to come back next year and the year after to check and see if his "off base" list was actually valuable. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the rest of his lists go. I'm guessing he will take extra care to make sure he includes everyone.

 

 

 

The difference between different and off base mostly depends on the future results, right? Imagine if last year someone had ranked the Twins pitching prospects in the following order:

1) Duffey

2) Berrios

3) May

4) Rogers

5) Gonsalves

6) Meyer

7) Stewart

8) Thorpe

That list would have been ridiculed and no one would have taken it seriously. But now a year later, that list matches up with the real world results pretty well. Certainly no worse than a more traditional ranking - last year Kiley mentioned 40+ names in his Twins evaluation and didn't mention Duffey at all. (That's not a jab at Kiley - I think he did a great job, and I definitely think Fangraphs is going to miss him - but just an example.)

 

Again, it comes back to accountability. Since every analyst is basically the same, there is no reason to go back and compare them, or even take the time and effort to try to come up with a systematic method for comparing lists over time. But Farnsworth's list is very different, which is annoying because we will need to come back next year and the year after to check and see if his "off base" list was actually valuable. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the rest of his lists go. I'm guessing he will take extra care to make sure he includes everyone.

 

Yeah, my argument had nearly nothing to do with his list, as out of sorts as it was. My biggest issue was his evaluation, which didn't match up at all with anything I'd seen in hours upon hours of watching the same guys he was talking about. It felt as if the pitching write ups were done from a stat sheet and not from actually seeing the guy pitch.

 

Yeah, my argument had nearly nothing to do with his list, as out of sorts as it was. My biggest issue was his evaluation, which didn't match up at all with anything I'd seen in hours upon hours of watching the same guys he was talking about. It felt as if the pitching write ups were done from a stat sheet and not from actually seeing the guy pitch.

That is a fair complaint, and definitely one that I'm not capable of judging - I certainly don't have any in-depth knowledge of Atlanta's farm system. From my ignorant outsider perspective, it appeared that Farnsworth put his neck out on a couple of no-name pitchers, which is something I generally applaud. Identifying which marginal minor league pitchers have the right combination of skills to actually be effective in the majors is something that many prospect analysts punt on (Sickels might be the best at trying to identify that kind of sleeper), and something that might be the "next frontier" of prospect analysis. 

 

That is a fair complaint, and definitely one that I'm not capable of judging - I certainly don't have any in-depth knowledge of Atlanta's farm system. From my ignorant outsider perspective, it appeared that Farnsworth put his neck out on a couple of no-name pitchers, which is something I generally applaud. Identifying which marginal minor league pitchers have the right combination of skills to actually be effective in the majors is something that many prospect analysts punt on (Sickels might be the best at trying to identify that kind of sleeper), and something that might be the "next frontier" of prospect analysis. 

 

Sickels has a penchant for it because he tends to like to ensure any guy that will some day end up in the majors has made an appearance in his books, so he often will discuss a guy with a reliever future or fourth outfielder future rather than a low-A guy with high-end tools.

 

On a more national level, you're seeing that be more of a focus of team-centered blogs. I wrote up a top 100 list, and I've found teams having a lot more top 50 type of lists. That's usually where you end up going for the under-the-radar guys. Heck, even on my top 100, I probably had a half dozen or more guys that I didn't include that will have a major league career as I don't value guys who are already minor league relievers very highly, so guys who end up relievers or bench guys likely won't even make it on a lot of lists.

 

One of the best parts of the work I get to do is "discovering" a guy before he is noticed by even the fans that pay attention to the minors for the team. That said, those guys very, very infrequently make it, and for every guy I've spotted like Williams Perez and Ryan Weber, there are guys like Jake Brigham, Greg Ross, and Gus Schlosser.

 

 

NO WAY

My impression of Simmons was that he was the next Ozzie Smith! What the hell? How do you trade a guy like that?

 

 

... I enjoy an everyday once-in-a-century shortstop every day.

 

My opinion is Simmons is already a better SS than Smith. And even Omar Vizquel, who I believed would never be surpassed. You can make a strong argument Simmons is the best defensive SS to ever play. Smith was flashier, and Vizquel had unique hand/eye coordination and was a tad better mechanically. But Simmons is the proverbial whole package.  His defensive tools are in uncharted territory.  

 

 

My opinion is Simmons is already a better SS than Smith. And even Omar Vizquel, who I believed would never be surpassed. You can make a strong argument Simmons is the best defensive SS to ever play. Smith was flashier, and Vizquel had unique hand/eye coordination and was a tad better mechanically. But Simmons is the proverbial whole package.  His defensive tools are in uncharted territory.  

 

Yep, I'm definitely going to be watching more Angels games now. He's one of the rare players who makes the game worth the price of admission with his glove, no matter what he does elsewhere.

According to Jon Heyman from CBS Sports, Jordan Zimmerman is closing in on signing a 5 year, $110 million contract with the Detroit Tigers.

Someone from the Twins FO forgot to send the memo to Detroit that they were supposed to rebuild, not reload.

I think Zimmermann will be a solid signing for Detroit. Not a bad price, really, at $22M per.

Good, the Tigers can have him. Switching out Scherzer and Price for high contact pitchers Norris and Zimmerman sounds great to me. They can go right ahead and build their rotation with a bunch of #3s. It's a welcome change.

Zimmermann may not be a 300-K guy, but he's a guy who strikes out 7.5 per 9, so he's not exactly a "high-contact" guy. He's a tremendous pitcher that is extremely under-appreciated.

 

Someone from the Twins FO forgot to send the memo to Detroit that they were supposed to rebuild, not reload.

It's easier to reload when your billionaire owner is willing to spend just about anything.

Zimmerman will be 30, moving to the AL and already has a middling K rate with a sizable drop off from 2014. He'll never be a guy who when I see the Twins are facing him, I'll think they have a tough night ahead of them.

 

I know plenty of folks around here like this guy, but I'm thrilled Detroit got him; he looks like another albatross around Detroit's neck to me.

Zimmerman will be 30, moving to the AL and already has a middling K rate with a sizable drop off from 2014. He'll never be a guy who when I see the Twins are facing him, I'll think they have a tough night ahead of them.

 

I know plenty of folks around here like this guy, but I'm thrilled Detroit got him; he looks like another albatross around Detroit's neck to me.

As a fan of a team that's faced Zimmermann frequently, I wish you the best of luck. I have a feeling your opinion will change soon.

 

Zimmerman will be 30, moving to the AL and already has a middling K rate with a sizable drop off from 2014.

There wasn't really a drop off in K rate, more like a spike in 2014.  Career K/9 of 7.4, 2015 mark of 7.3.

 

From 2011-2013, Zimmermann had a lower K rate each year than he did in 2015, yet managed a 124 ERA+ during that time.

Fangraphs thinks this a fine deal for a fine pitcher.....I tend to agree. This is the price of pitching.

David Price to Boston for $217 over seven years.  Dombrowski has now given out the two largest AAV contracts in baseball (the other being Miggy).

Yep. First, a closer, now an ace, next what?

31 million for a pitcher. What are the ELITE hitters going to get in a few years? 40-50 million per year, that's a lot of money. Wow.

Holy cow that is a ridiculous contract. Makes Jordan Zimmerman's deal look like a steal. 

 

31 million for a pitcher. What are the ELITE hitters going to get in a few years? 40-50 million per year, that's a lot of money. Wow.

 

Harper has a shot at $600 mil.

 

And why not? Lots of money in the game right now.

Grienke should be able to command even more money than Price don't you think?

The Dodgers could easily pony up $35-40 mill a year for him.