RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Talk shop about the various prospects and teams that make up the Cleveland Indians organization.

BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:58 am

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2009/267213.html

Interesting list -- Santana no. 1, which is somewhat expected, but Rivero, De La Cruz and Brantley cracking the top 10 is a surprise to me. Also, Chisenhall and Weglarz were higher than I expected. The biggest top 10 MIA is Hodges. After ranking 4th last year, he completely fell out of it this year, though it shouldn't be because of performance. Perhaps BA has some concerns about his ability to stay at 3rd, thus reducing his value. I guess Rondon just fell short of the top 10, but I'm sure he's in the top 15.

I was also surprised by their 2012 lineup with Peralta playing 2nd base. If he's able to do that, then I wonder if the Tribe FO will try it.

If you look at the top 10 and consider which guys are behind them, then it's obvious how deep the farm system is. We may not have the sexiest top 5 or anything, but we can compete with anyone as far as our top 15/top 20 goes.

Hopefully someone with a BA subscription can tell us about the chat later on.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby artgold » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:36 pm

I think excluding Hodges is wrong, I believe he clearly is a top 10.

But the biggest surprise by far, they projected T J House as the #5 starter in 2012!!!
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:16 pm

wow....not sure which ranking I think is the most suprising. Rivero jumping up all the way to 10th even after a so-so year is pretty suprising to me. Santana leap-frogging LaPorta is also suprising. I also think Hodges is clearly a top 10. Could understand not being a top 5....but wow....

And that 2012 lineup......nothing like what I'd think....but you never know I guess....

They also don't take into account people's contracts expiring...which always throws things off...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:26 pm

While this is pretty close to my top ten as far as order and players go, there to me is only one problem with this list. There is no way Chisenhall rates higher than the likes of De La, Huff, Hodges, Rivero, etc. I like Chisenhall, but this year he is NOT a Top 10 prospect in this system given all the more worthy candidates in the org who are a lot further along the prospect pipeline and 1-2 years away from the bigs. This to me is the obligatory BA "gotta put the first round pick in the Top 10" move by them with Chisenhall.

As for Hodges omission, he is barely in my top ten so not much of a surprise. I'd assume he is #11 or #12 in BAs listing (I have him #8 currently although that slot my go up/down one when the final version is released). That said, he absolutely should be in the Top 10. They take out Chisenhall and instead slide everyone up and insert Hodges in at #8/9 and this is about where my list is at the moment.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:27 pm

Oh, and I have Santana #1 too.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:59 pm

I know it's only a small sample size....but Chisenhall is the better hitter between the two in him and Rivero....

Yeah, Rivero has played at a higher level, but both are the same age, and I could see Chisenhall moving pretty fast through the system.

I do agree he shouldn't be ahead of Hodges. I think Rivero should be replaced by Hodges (then moved up) then the list is solid.....but we all have our opinions....

I just hope LaPorta has a better year than last year's number 2......Lofgren......


I'm also interested in BA's final top 100......wonder how high they're gonna have Santana in that.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Jake Taylor » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:30 pm

Does Weglarz honestly have better strike-zone discipline than Brantley? Also, up to this point, I've never heard anyone mention Brantley as a possible 1B... does that have any merit?

Truthfully, I'd put Rondon and Hodges in place of Chisenhall and Rivero, but they must have "just missed".
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:56 pm

Brantley just played some 1B last year which is why BA lists him as a OF/1B. His size allows him to play the position, and it offers him some versatility, but he is clearly an outfielder.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:01 pm

I am surprised by this list.

Santana - While he is good do you really think the Dodgers are so stupid as to give away a great prospect PLUS Meloan for two months of Casey Blake? I don't. Imagine if the Bradley trade to LA had been over the winter before the BA team rankings came out. Ricardo Rodriguez would have probably been #1 or #2 at thatt time given he was the #1 prospect for LA at the time. Note that he did not turn into anything because, frankly, the Dodgers aren't stupid.

LaPorta - Based on where BA had him last year this makes great sense. I don't think he is this good but it makes sense.

Weglarz - Makes sense. Re: his plate discipline vs Brantley, Weglarz, a power hitter, has one walk every 5.7 ABs. Brantly, who I have proven by his stats in 2008 is nothing more than a slap hitter, walks once every 7 ABs. Brantley strikes out less but you would expect that for a slap hitter.

Miller - Hope springs eternal but, in fact, if his upside is as a closer and a more likely result is Rafael Betancourt, Miller is ranked too high.

Mills - His struggles in Arizona notwithstanding, how many guys hit 20+ HRs playing for Kinston? The power, OBP (to some extent) and BA are real. The only problem is do they play at 1B which the Indians have surrendered to that he will play? I think not, not at the 25 HR (30 in a career year) that he will probably deliver.

Chisenhall - I actually like him in the top 10, just not at 6. I think he has it all over Rivero. Chisenhall is potentially Mills at SS, maybe even a Pedroia-like guy. However, that is as a SS or 2B-man. If he plays 3B he is not a top 10 guy. He is Mills-lite in terms of power potential.

De La Cruz - Fine at this slot

Huff - Again, he is my #1 but BA does not like soft-tossers, even lefties, and ranks on upside IF EVERYTHING CONTINUES TO WORK OUT, so you can see why they rank him low.

Brantley - Wow, him in the top 10 is amazing to me. He is a slap hitter with bad defense and no arm. He also doesn't have that great of plate discipline as he is just a slap hitter. He could easily turn into a LF version of Jason Tyner. No way this guy is a top 10, IMO.

Rivero - I could see him at 10 if Rondon is at #9 and Chisenhall stays above him. Rivero has some upside. I would rather have a Rivero in the second 10, however, because he is just performing well FOR HIS AGE at each level. He is not performing well, per se.

My top 15, looking at BA's list and reconsidering, is more like:

Huff
LaPorta
Weglarz
Hodges
Santana
Mills
De La Cruz
Rondon
Chisenhall
Scott Lewis
Gimenez
Rivero
Stevens
Brantley
House
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:24 pm

Ned Colletti (Dodgers GM) has made some stupid decisions before -- Jones and Pierre contracts for example, not shoving Laroche down the manager's through, Ethier being just a part time player. I would agree with you if Santana was just a product of his hitter friendly environment, but he did even better in Kinston after the trade. Basically every "prospect guru" out there says Santana is legit. That doesn't mean he'll be an all star (look at Marte), but it definately shows that he's not just a fluke. The Dodgers overpaid for Blake because they were in the middle of a playoff race -- moves like this happen all the time.

Also, Gimenez at #11? A 25-year old without a defensive position and hasn't hit much at all above AA is better than Rivero, a 20-year old SS with solid production while being young for his league? Nor do I understand how Miller falls short of your top 15 (because his upside is Betancourt), but Stevens, who is well over a year older than Miller btw, is #13. Upside is very important imo and you can't just look at performance.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Duane Kuiper » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:50 pm

The Dodgers overpaid for Blake because they were in the middle of a playoff race -- moves like this happen all the time.
They had to over pay because they made Cle pay Blake's salary.

Hermie, I guess BA agrees with me that Hodges isn't a 3B.

Peralta's the 2B in 2012 and Cabrera's gone? I don't think so.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby artgold » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:54 pm

Though I have them in my top 10 listing, I'm not as high on LaPorta and Weglarz as BA and some posters. I haven't seen the great performance that everyone expects from Weglarz, though I suspect he has the capacity to do great things. I have him more in the 6-8 range on the prospect list. Also, I have some reservations about LaPorta. Though he has unquestionable major league power, I'm not sure he doesn't end up a Pat Burrell/Matt Stairs/Torii Hunter type of batter.
artgold
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 am

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Uncle Rick » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:16 pm

The thing I like about Laporta is he seems to play big in big games. Whether this translates to the majors is a wait-and-see. My sleeper pick for the top ten would be Cord Phelps. None of his measurables may suggest it, but my sense from watching him is this kid is a winner.
Uncle Rick
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:16 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:27 pm

Duane Kuiper wrote:They had to over pay because they made Cle pay Blake's salary.

Hermie, I guess BA agrees with me that Hodges isn't a 3B.

Peralta's the 2B in 2012 and Cabrera's gone? I don't think so.



Just because they don't have him in their top 10 doesn't mean they don't think Hodges is a 3B...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:55 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
Duane Kuiper wrote:They had to over pay because they made Cle pay Blake's salary.

Hermie, I guess BA agrees with me that Hodges isn't a 3B.

Peralta's the 2B in 2012 and Cabrera's gone? I don't think so.



Just because they don't have him in their top 10 doesn't mean they don't think Hodges is a 3B...



I will throw up the chat later, I actually got a question in.

They dont think he can play at third was commented. He's just was a good enough hitter unless he plays third to them.

I feel so much better about my list. I have chisenhall at 10 which seems about right and Rivero was my 9. Basically I had Hodges instead of Brantley at near the same place and Rondon instead of De La in the same place.

The more I argue abotu Hodges the less I am sure about him, especially after his second half where the rest of the league caught up with him.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:56 pm

: Ben from Ohio asks:
Did Wes Hodges have a shot at the top 10 or has his stock fallen a bit.

A: Ben Badler: He was close but ended up on the periphery of the 10. It's questionable whether Hodges will stick at third base, and if he does stick there, he's probably going to be among the worst fielders at his position in the game, probably a -10 to -15 runs guy each year, and it's not like he's getting any younger or more agile. He came into the season in better condition than usual, but if he has to move to first base or if he's that far below average third base, then his value takes a huge hit.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:59 pm

I've got a couple of questions in: -

Q: Darren from UK asks:
Tony Sipp seemed to make massive strides in the 2nd half coming back from TJ surgery.... is he a top 10 talent who missed out because of his injury history or do some feel he's lost some of his stuff?

A: Ben Badler: I like Sipp as a big league reliever. The injury plays an important role in his projection, but his stuff is still there and he's showing the ability to miss bats from the left side, so he should be helping the Indians bullpen pretty soon.


Q: Darren from UK asks:
I like Rivero, but aren't you banking on a Jhonny Peralta type breakout in AA next year to justify the ranking?

A: Ben Badler: I think the Indians are hoping that happens. There are people who saw Rivero this year and Peralta when he was in the Carolina League back in 2001 who say they are very similar players at the same phase of their careers... the tools, the plus raw power, good athleticism but not great runners and the strikeouts. Of course Peralta was 19 years old when he was with Kinston, so I wouldn't put Rivero quite in his class, but he has a similar skill set. And .282/.342/.411 from a 20-year-old shortstop playing in Kinston isn't too shabby already, but he's going to have to get better adjusting to the off-speed stuff.
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:44 pm

Denny, I disagree with your comment that Santana simply cannot be that good because the Dodgers are not that stupid. This is the price teams pay when they trade for middle-of-the-road major leaguers at the deadline while in a pennant race. Happens every year. We saw the Mets send Kazmir to the Devil Rays for Zambrano for crying out loud. Last year we dumped Ramirez for Lofton. We got Cabrera for Eddie effing Perez two years ago.

Add to it that the Indians paid Blake's salary, and the Dodgers had to pony up more in prospect value as currency.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:32 pm

Consigliere wrote:Denny, I disagree with your comment that Santana simply cannot be that good because the Dodgers are not that stupid. This is the price teams pay when they trade for middle-of-the-road major leaguers at the deadline while in a pennant race. Happens every year. We saw the Mets send Kazmir to the Devil Rays for Zambrano for crying out loud. Last year we dumped Ramirez for Lofton. We got Cabrera for Eddie effing Perez two years ago.

Add to it that the Indians paid Blake's salary, and the Dodgers had to pony up more in prospect value as currency.



totally agree bad trades always happen at the deadline its what happens, that jeff Bagwell kid ended up being pretty decent and he was a deadline oops
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:10 pm

jellis wrote:
Consigliere wrote:Denny, I disagree with your comment that Santana simply cannot be that good because the Dodgers are not that stupid. This is the price teams pay when they trade for middle-of-the-road major leaguers at the deadline while in a pennant race. Happens every year. We saw the Mets send Kazmir to the Devil Rays for Zambrano for crying out loud. Last year we dumped Ramirez for Lofton. We got Cabrera for Eddie effing Perez two years ago.

Add to it that the Indians paid Blake's salary, and the Dodgers had to pony up more in prospect value as currency.



totally agree bad trades always happen at the deadline its what happens, that jeff Bagwell kid ended up being pretty decent and he was a deadline oops


So was some kid named Smoltz. Thought he might end up with a HOF career. Just wish Atlanta could have made up their mind: make him a starter or a reliever.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:18 pm

JP_Frost wrote:Ned Colletti (Dodgers GM) has made some stupid decisions before -- Jones and Pierre contracts for example, not shoving Laroche down the manager's through, Ethier being just a part time player. I would agree with you if Santana was just a product of his hitter friendly environment, but he did even better in Kinston after the trade. Basically every "prospect guru" out there says Santana is legit. That doesn't mean he'll be an all star (look at Marte), but it definately shows that he's not just a fluke. The Dodgers overpaid for Blake because they were in the middle of a playoff race -- moves like this happen all the time.

Also, Gimenez at #11? A 25-year old without a defensive position and hasn't hit much at all above AA is better than Rivero, a 20-year old SS with solid production while being young for his league? Nor do I understand how Miller falls short of your top 15 (because his upside is Betancourt), but Stevens, who is well over a year older than Miller btw, is #13. Upside is very important imo and you can't just look at performance.


Oops on Miller. He should have been 6. My argument on Gimenez is that he shows power and great plate discipline. Those two things might not produce a star (see Jack Cust) but they produce SOMETHING of major league quality. Regarding Rivero, I have seen this time and time again. A guy 'holds his own' at levels he is too young for only to find out that this is his level of performance even when he gets to a level where he is age appropriate. Rivero had a .342 OBP and a .411 SLG with 24 errors in 108 games. That is passable but, if he doesn't improve, that makes him a utility guy in the majors. You have to believe that he will improve. Look at Cabrera this year. If he put up a .346 OPS and a .366 SLG on average the next 10 years would you be happy IF he didn't play Omar-like defense? Probably not. So, yeah, you give Rivero props for 'holding his own' but you don't give him a spot in the top 10. Maybe just out of it (like 12), but he really hasn't proven anything except that he is not overwhelmed playing with older players. Well, in the majors he will probably be playing with older players until he is 28 or so.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:29 pm

Consigliere wrote:Denny, I disagree with your comment that Santana simply cannot be that good because the Dodgers are not that stupid. This is the price teams pay when they trade for middle-of-the-road major leaguers at the deadline while in a pennant race. Happens every year. We saw the Mets send Kazmir to the Devil Rays for Zambrano for crying out loud. Last year we dumped Ramirez for Lofton. We got Cabrera for Eddie effing Perez two years ago.

Add to it that the Indians paid Blake's salary, and the Dodgers had to pony up more in prospect value as currency.


A number of people have said this. I just don't believe it. We traded a Cy Young award winner who WILL be worth two first round picks for a guy who will MAYBE be worth a second or third round pick and a first round supplemental IF the Dodgers offer him arbitration, which is not a given given his 2008 salary. The Cy Young award winner also went to his team earlier AND, as an ace starting pitcher, he would have had more of an impact.

You cannot have it both ways. You can't say that we got acceptable value for Sabathia if you say that teams overpay at deadline time and that is true ESPECIALLY if you say that Santana can be this good because the very, very wealthy Dodgers threw us a bone because we saved them a couple of million AND overpaid because it was deadline time. It just doesn't make sense. For Casey Freakin' Blake? You must be dreaming.

So, which way is it? Did we get too little for Sabathia or are people overrating Santana. I think you have to choose. Maybe I am wrong but I think you can't say we got good value for CC AND Santana is this good. As I said (and I was wrong, it was the Shuey trade) Ricardo Rodriguez was the Dodgers' #1 prospect the winter before and was having a good year at the time of the trade. Yet they gave him and Cruceta, another pretty good pitching prospect (on paper) who is still knocking around, for Shuey. At the time we thought we got a steal but, as their GM said, Rodriguez wasn't their #1, he was only Baseball America's #1. We found out very soon that we didn't get a steal and, in fact, got very little out of that trade, EXACTLY what you might expect in trading for 2 months of Paul Shuey.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:33 pm

the point with guys like Rivero is projection and not just performance. Sure his numbers overall aren't very impressive, but given his age, projection and the fact he put up a .846 OPS in the 2nd half makes him a very solid prospect. I agree that projections don't always hold true, but there's no reason to believe he won't improve.

Just to get back to Gimenez. I'm not impressed with his power, mainly because it hasn't really translated to higher levels. What I do like his is plate discipline, but without a position, he'll be nothing more than a utility guy who provides OBP and some pop off the bench. While that's not a bad thing at all, it hardly warrants a place in the top 15 prospects list, especially in a system with so much depth as ours.

It seems that we both have different views on how to value prospects, and that's okay, because noone really knows what will happen with these guys.

EDIT:

Just read your post on Santana and Sabathia. How can you say we didn't get good value for CC? We got one of baseball's top prospects and Milwaukee's #1 guy for CC. On top of that we received Bryson (though his injury really hurts his status, though stuff like that can happen) and Brantley who, according to BA, has improved quite alot. Frankly, I was a little bit dissapointed with the "throw-ins" (Brantley and Bryson) at first, but LaPorta alone makes it a good deal. Obviously we won't be saying that if he stinks up the place, but at the time of the deal, we got good value. Besides, just because the Dodgers might've overpaid doesn't mean that the Brewers should've done the same thing or any other team for that matter.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:44 pm

I think you can have it both ways. The indians got solid value for CC. According to BA we got 2 top ten talents in one of the top 15 farm systems in baseball. They got two near ready players for CC, yes mil gets draft picks which will take 2-3 years to develop. The Indians got talent that should take a year or less that means a lot, near ready talent costs more.

The indians wanted Santana for Blake the Dodgers wanted to make the play offs now and thought Santana was blocked, much as we did we Max Rameriz last year. So they traded from a strength a player who is 2-3 years away. Meloan was the added player for taking on blakes salary, he was the centerpiece. The dodgers where down on Meloan and thats how we got him so cheap
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:59 pm

dnosco wrote:
Consigliere wrote:Denny, I disagree with your comment that Santana simply cannot be that good because the Dodgers are not that stupid. This is the price teams pay when they trade for middle-of-the-road major leaguers at the deadline while in a pennant race. Happens every year. We saw the Mets send Kazmir to the Devil Rays for Zambrano for crying out loud. Last year we dumped Ramirez for Lofton. We got Cabrera for Eddie effing Perez two years ago.

Add to it that the Indians paid Blake's salary, and the Dodgers had to pony up more in prospect value as currency.


A number of people have said this. I just don't believe it. We traded a Cy Young award winner who WILL be worth two first round picks for a guy who will MAYBE be worth a second or third round pick and a first round supplemental IF the Dodgers offer him arbitration, which is not a given given his 2008 salary. The Cy Young award winner also went to his team earlier AND, as an ace starting pitcher, he would have had more of an impact.

You cannot have it both ways. You can't say that we got acceptable value for Sabathia if you say that teams overpay at deadline time and that is true ESPECIALLY if you say that Santana can be this good because the very, very wealthy Dodgers threw us a bone because we saved them a couple of million AND overpaid because it was deadline time. It just doesn't make sense. For Casey Freakin' Blake? You must be dreaming.

So, which way is it? Did we get too little for Sabathia or are people overrating Santana. I think you have to choose. Maybe I am wrong but I think you can't say we got good value for CC AND Santana is this good. As I said (and I was wrong, it was the Shuey trade) Ricardo Rodriguez was the Dodgers' #1 prospect the winter before and was having a good year at the time of the trade. Yet they gave him and Cruceta, another pretty good pitching prospect (on paper) who is still knocking around, for Shuey. At the time we thought we got a steal but, as their GM said, Rodriguez wasn't their #1, he was only Baseball America's #1. We found out very soon that we didn't get a steal and, in fact, got very little out of that trade, EXACTLY what you might expect in trading for 2 months of Paul Shuey.


I fail to see where you're coming up with the connection Dennis.

I think we got fair value for CC and the $5.5m the Brewers took on in salary...... I also think we got better than fair value for Blake BECAUSE the Dodgers didn't take on any salary..... I don't see how the Blake trade downgrades the CC trade just because Santana is ranked ahead of LaPorta. I don't see why you're downplaying the notion that the Dodgers didn't want to take on any of Blakes salary..... it's been reported by numerous sources, including BA today, so what information do you have to the contrary?!

If the Indians had gotten "fair value" for both Blake and CC then Santana wouldn't have been in the org right now..... just because the Dodgers overpaid doesn't diminish the fact that fair value was got for CC.

And before you get too far down the line of whether or not the Dodgers were in an "overpay mode", remember they added Manny soon after Blake with the knowledge that he (along with Lowe and Penny) were free agents at the end of the season, so they were clearly in a win now mode.
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:15 pm

Sorry, people, I just don't see it.

LaPorta is not one of the top prospects in baseball. LaPorta was in the 20s meaning he was one of the lower ranking #1 prospects in organizations. Yeah, better than being the 900th best prospect but not a top prospect. We have already discussed his warts. Regarding Bryson he was a low A reliever. Low A relievers are not any more than marginal prospects and Shapiro himself called Jackson and Bryson fillers or some adjective that made one think they were not important parts of the trade. I won't even get into the demands Milwaukee placed on Cleveland to complete the deal or the completely ridiculous clause that to even get the best PTBNL the Brewers had to make the playoffs. Just looking at the player we got a one-tool guy (please, no hit for average or OBP, he hasn't shown that yet) who was about the 25th best prospect in the game and who can probably only play one position without being below average defensively with an upside of average. Brantley is a LF/1B guy without power who, frankly, doesn't walk very much (no comparison with Weglarz or Gimenez, I think) and only has a high BB/K because, as I have already proven, he is nothing but a slap hitter. LFers or 1Bman who are slap hitters don't work too well in the majors.

It works nicely if you can say Santana is great because we robbed Los Angeles even though little evidence is present and if you throw in the meaningless (to a team like the Dodgers) few million dollars it cost them

At the same time it is OK that it was fine that we got "fair value" for CC, as you define it, but it was expected that what we got for Blake was Ok because 'everybody overpays at the trade deadline'. The only way Santana is a true #1 prospect is if we robbed the Dodgers for Blake because two months of Blake would never be worth Santana straight up let alone Santana AND Meloan. The only way we got fair value for CC is if LaPorta is one of the top prospects in all of baseball which he isn't unless you use a pretty broad definition of top prospect. It is also OK that, for a Cy Young award winner we should NOT expect to come close to or actually rob the other team but somehow, for the same team we WOULDN'T trade with because we couldn't get enough from them for CC, we were able to rob them of Blake. How can a team not trade for CC because they won't give good value but WILL allow themselves to be robbed for Blake? So, if the Indians were willing to pay CC's salary we could have gotten a much better deal with the Brewers or with the Dodgers? Man, where do I sign up for that?

None of this makes any sense. It is just a series of rationalizations. LaPorta HAS to be one of the top prospects in baseball even though everything except his power for ONE year of pro ball, total, says he is not. We HAD to rob the Dodgers because everybody overpays at deadline time (except, of course, the Brewers) in order for Santana to be our top prospect. All this transpired because we would pay Blake's salary so we robbed LA but we DIDN'T pay CC's salary so we only got an fair return if you define fair without considering that the trade was during the deadline period where everybody overpays...except Milwaukee.

Add to all this that the other major suitor for CC was the Dodgers who then WOULD overpay for a super utility guy but would not overpay for a Cy Young award winner. All seems highly implausible set of circumstances to me.

So, believe what you want...but you are just stringing rationalizations together to make this a self-fulfilling situation...at least in my opinion.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby endlesssleeper » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:38 pm

"At the time we thought we got a steal but, as their GM said, Rodriguez wasn't their #1, he was only Baseball America's #1. We found out very soon that we didn't get a steal and, in fact, got very little out of that trade, EXACTLY what you might expect in trading for 2 months of Paul Shuey."

Hmmm, pretty sure you constantly tout BA as the end-all, be-all in prospect evaluation, and in this passage you basically say the rating for Rodriguez was completely unwarranted. A bit contradictory don't you think? Also, in your above post you say Brantley is just a slap hitter, "as you have already proven." It is self-righteous comments like these that just make you anything you say hard to read. There is no way you can legitimately "prove" this is all Brantley will amount to. If after a couple of years in the majors he ends up like a Jason Tyner, then you can start patting yourself on the back, but your evaluation is entirely premature.
endlesssleeper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:37 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:13 am

First, I use them in the draft mostly for their rankings and, as I said repeatedly, as a guide not as an exact measure. When have you ever seen me say that we should have drafted the #29th best prospect in the country and that, in drafting the 31st best prospect we screwed up. Now, 15th best compared to 74th best, THAT I will agree with. When have you ever heard me say that they are great at their prospect rankings? When? As a matter of fact Tony and others know that I criticize them a lot for their prospect rankings, especially the Tribe's.

So, no, not contradictory at all.

Regarding the "already proven" comment, I guess that comment is more of a challenge. I poured through about 50 games of play by play of the 2008 season to support my opinion and indicate that what Shapiro said about Brantley was not based in fact. Until you do the kind of research I did I don't think you have a point to make in this argument. Hey, smug, maybe. But you can be a little smug when you actually do some work and research to prove a point. So smug I am guilty of. But if message boards were full of people who did real research to prove me wrong I wouldn't be smug anymore, would I?

Regarding my evaluation of Brantley, how else are you going to base an evaluation but on fact? Are you saying that it is OK for people to say what a great prospect he is without fact but it is not OK to say that he is a slap hitter because that is a negative opinion and negative opinions are only allowed after they are proven to be correct while positive opinions are welcome even if they are baseless? This is a lot like people saying he has great plate discipline because he has a very good BB/K ratio without looking at what kind of hitter he is and this his BB/AB ratio is not that great, not even close to Weglarz's or, I believe, Gimenez, both of whom offer power to go along with that plate discipline. However, both of those guys don't have to be great to make your trade of a Cy Young award winner look more palatable, do they?
Last edited by dnosco on Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:16 am

dnosco wrote:Sorry, people, I just don't see it.

LaPorta is not one of the top prospects in baseball. LaPorta was in the 20s meaning he was one of the lower ranking #1 prospects in organizations. Yeah, better than being the 900th best prospect but not a top prospect. We have already discussed his warts. Regarding Bryson he was a low A reliever. Low A relievers are not any more than marginal prospects and Shapiro himself called Jackson and Bryson fillers or some adjective that made one think they were not important parts of the trade. I won't even get into the demands Milwaukee placed on Cleveland to complete the deal or the completely ridiculous clause that to even get the best PTBNL the Brewers had to make the playoffs. Just looking at the player we got a one-tool guy (please, no hit for average or OBP, he hasn't shown that yet) who was about the 25th best prospect in the game and who can probably only play one position without being below average defensively with an upside of average. Brantley is a LF/1B guy without power who, frankly, doesn't walk very much (no comparison with Weglarz or Gimenez, I think) and only has a high BB/K because, as I have already proven, he is nothing but a slap hitter. LFers or 1Bman who are slap hitters don't work too well in the majors.

It works nicely if you can say Santana is great because we robbed Los Angeles even though little evidence is present and if you throw in the meaningless (to a team like the Dodgers) few million dollars it cost them

At the same time it is OK that it was fine that we got "fair value" for CC, as you define it, but it was expected that what we got for Blake was Ok because 'everybody overpays at the trade deadline'. The only way Santana is a true #1 prospect is if we robbed the Dodgers for Blake because two months of Blake would never be worth Santana straight up let alone Santana AND Meloan. The only way we got fair value for CC is if LaPorta is one of the top prospects in all of baseball which he isn't unless you use a pretty broad definition of top prospect. It is also OK that, for a Cy Young award winner we should NOT expect to come close to or actually rob the other team but somehow, for the same team we WOULDN'T trade with because we couldn't get enough from them for CC, we were able to rob them of Blake. How can a team not trade for CC because they won't give good value but WILL allow themselves to be robbed for Blake? So, if the Indians were willing to pay CC's salary we could have gotten a much better deal with the Brewers or with the Dodgers? Man, where do I sign up for that?

None of this makes any sense. It is just a series of rationalizations. LaPorta HAS to be one of the top prospects in baseball even though everything except his power for ONE year of pro ball, total, says he is not. We HAD to rob the Dodgers because everybody overpays at deadline time (except, of course, the Brewers) in order for Santana to be our top prospect. All this transpired because we would pay Blake's salary so we robbed LA but we DIDN'T pay CC's salary so we only got an fair return if you define fair without considering that the trade was during the deadline period where everybody overpays...except Milwaukee.

Add to all this that the other major suitor for CC was the Dodgers who then WOULD overpay for a super utility guy but would not overpay for a Cy Young award winner. All seems highly implausible set of circumstances to me.

So, believe what you want...but you are just stringing rationalizations together to make this a self-fulfilling situation...at least in my opinion.



Laporta has only had 1.5 years so you have to use scouting reports that go back to college to get a full view. Not sure if you read the full BA information but they said Santana and laporta where neck and neck. The reason they went Santana was he was a catcher and that is typically a position of scarcity. yes brantley is a slap hitter, but so is a player like Ichiro and hes been pretty decent. Branltey is no Ichiro but a slap hitter isn't the worst thing in the world if you are a HITTER. This kid is an athlete and he could be the perfect 1 or 2 hitter since he doesn't srike out much. Yes he doesn't have a huge walk rate, but the lack of K's and good contact make him a very useful player for the future.

I still think your whole argument is faulty you cant make the deal tie together. Its two different trades with 2 different GMs, depth, and system evaluations. Santana had a near flawless year and it opened a lot of eyes. The dodgers got desperate and yes they paid a lot more than anyone would have ever thought. there Gm values vets and is not immune to bone head mistakes and everyone seems to see this as yet another of his mistakes. My friends who are dodger fans wanted there team to fail to make the play offs so they could get rid of him. Hes far from a genius.

When it came to CC only 3 teams ever had real offers LAD, PHI, MIL. Phi didnt want to move carrasco so the Indians backed off. the dodgers didnt want to pay him and spec wise it was a weaker system. When the Indians traded for blake they said it was easier because all players where scouted. I think Santana would have been the central piece in that deal if it had not been shot down by there owners refusal to take on salary
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:55 am

dnosco wrote:
Consigliere wrote:Denny, I disagree with your comment that Santana simply cannot be that good because the Dodgers are not that stupid. This is the price teams pay when they trade for middle-of-the-road major leaguers at the deadline while in a pennant race. Happens every year. We saw the Mets send Kazmir to the Devil Rays for Zambrano for crying out loud. Last year we dumped Ramirez for Lofton. We got Cabrera for Eddie effing Perez two years ago.

Add to it that the Indians paid Blake's salary, and the Dodgers had to pony up more in prospect value as currency.


A number of people have said this. I just don't believe it. We traded a Cy Young award winner who WILL be worth two first round picks for a guy who will MAYBE be worth a second or third round pick and a first round supplemental IF the Dodgers offer him arbitration, which is not a given given his 2008 salary. The Cy Young award winner also went to his team earlier AND, as an ace starting pitcher, he would have had more of an impact.

You cannot have it both ways. You can't say that we got acceptable value for Sabathia if you say that teams overpay at deadline time and that is true ESPECIALLY if you say that Santana can be this good because the very, very wealthy Dodgers threw us a bone because we saved them a couple of million AND overpaid because it was deadline time. It just doesn't make sense. For Casey Freakin' Blake? You must be dreaming.

So, which way is it? Did we get too little for Sabathia or are people overrating Santana. I think you have to choose. Maybe I am wrong but I think you can't say we got good value for CC AND Santana is this good. As I said (and I was wrong, it was the Shuey trade) Ricardo Rodriguez was the Dodgers' #1 prospect the winter before and was having a good year at the time of the trade. Yet they gave him and Cruceta, another pretty good pitching prospect (on paper) who is still knocking around, for Shuey. At the time we thought we got a steal but, as their GM said, Rodriguez wasn't their #1, he was only Baseball America's #1. We found out very soon that we didn't get a steal and, in fact, got very little out of that trade, EXACTLY what you might expect in trading for 2 months of Paul Shuey.


Not following you on this one.

So in other words, because you believe the Dodgers GM is not stupid and the rest of the baseball world is clueless then in assessing this guy the way they are, you just don't believe. Your perogative I guess. I think you are way out on this one, but if that's the way you feel you are certainly entitled to it.

And who says it has to work both ways? The Blake trade was highway robbery. We got WAY more than expected for an average big leaguer which is a high level relief prospect in the advanced levels of the minors and a high level uber catching prospect in the lower levels of the minors.

The Sabathia trade, at this point, to me was a fair trade where I can't say one team or the other got over on the other. We got back two excellent hitting prospects who are in the advanced levels of the minors, and a high level relief prospect in the low levels of the minors. The 4th guy depth, but could end up a valuable swing guy at this point for the Indians next year.

The Sabathia trade in no way compares to the Blake trade because the Blake trade was so one sided to the Indians whereas the Sabathia trade to this point is pretty balanced for both teams.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jhonny » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:07 am

Tobias Fünke: You know, Mother Lucille, there's a psychological concept known as denial, that I believe you're evincing. It's when a thought is so hateful that the mind literally rejects it.
Lucille: You are a worse psychiatrist than you are a son-in-law, and you will never get work as an actor because you have no talent.
Tobias Fünke: Well, if she's not going to say anything, I certainly can't help her.
[leaves room]


:s_crazy


Seriously, though, the X factor is that Colletti doesn't value young talent at all.
jhonny
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby indianinkslinger » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:21 am

Consigliere wrote:
dnosco wrote:
Consigliere wrote:Denny, I disagree with your comment that Santana simply cannot be that good because the Dodgers are not that stupid. This is the price teams pay when they trade for middle-of-the-road major leaguers at the deadline while in a pennant race. Happens every year. We saw the Mets send Kazmir to the Devil Rays for Zambrano for crying out loud. Last year we dumped Ramirez for Lofton. We got Cabrera for Eddie effing Perez two years ago.

Add to it that the Indians paid Blake's salary, and the Dodgers had to pony up more in prospect value as currency.


A number of people have said this. I just don't believe it. We traded a Cy Young award winner who WILL be worth two first round picks for a guy who will MAYBE be worth a second or third round pick and a first round supplemental IF the Dodgers offer him arbitration, which is not a given given his 2008 salary. The Cy Young award winner also went to his team earlier AND, as an ace starting pitcher, he would have had more of an impact.

You cannot have it both ways. You can't say that we got acceptable value for Sabathia if you say that teams overpay at deadline time and that is true ESPECIALLY if you say that Santana can be this good because the very, very wealthy Dodgers threw us a bone because we saved them a couple of million AND overpaid because it was deadline time. It just doesn't make sense. For Casey Freakin' Blake? You must be dreaming.

So, which way is it? Did we get too little for Sabathia or are people overrating Santana. I think you have to choose. Maybe I am wrong but I think you can't say we got good value for CC AND Santana is this good. As I said (and I was wrong, it was the Shuey trade) Ricardo Rodriguez was the Dodgers' #1 prospect the winter before and was having a good year at the time of the trade. Yet they gave him and Cruceta, another pretty good pitching prospect (on paper) who is still knocking around, for Shuey. At the time we thought we got a steal but, as their GM said, Rodriguez wasn't their #1, he was only Baseball America's #1. We found out very soon that we didn't get a steal and, in fact, got very little out of that trade, EXACTLY what you might expect in trading for 2 months of Paul Shuey.


Not following you on this one.

So in other words, because you believe the Dodgers GM is not stupid and the rest of the baseball world is clueless then in assessing this guy the way they are, you just don't believe. Your perogative I guess. I think you are way out on this one, but if that's the way you feel you are certainly entitled to it.

And who says it has to work both ways? The Blake trade was highway robbery. We got WAY more than expected for an average big leaguer which is a high level relief prospect in the advanced levels of the minors and a high level uber catching prospect in the lower levels of the minors.

The Sabathia trade, at this point, to me was a fair trade where I can't say one team or the other got over on the other. We got back two excellent hitting prospects who are in the advanced levels of the minors, and a high level relief prospect in the low levels of the minors. The 4th guy depth, but could end up a valuable swing guy at this point for the Indians next year.

The Sabathia trade in no way compares to the Blake trade because the Blake trade was so one sided to the Indians whereas the Sabathia trade to this point is pretty balanced for both teams.


I just do not understand how BA suddenly got so stupid. That is usually my line but to hear it from BAs biggest booster is somewhat surprising. As TL can tell you, I disagree with some of these choices but I really do not see anything to get upset about. I know I am more positive on Chisenhall than he is and less cautious about 2008 draftees but I believe he knows the system better than BA. I think Rondon belonged in the top 10 and the comment about his breaking ball was off base. BA had a different order than my top 10 but I did not include Brantley because I had not seen him play. I think the farm system has a lot going for it and BA recognized it. :s_yahoo
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:51 am

dnosco wrote:A number of people have said this. I just don't believe it. We traded a Cy Young award winner who WILL be worth two first round picks for a guy who will MAYBE be worth a second or third round pick and a first round supplemental IF the Dodgers offer him arbitration, which is not a given given his 2008 salary. The Cy Young award winner also went to his team earlier AND, as an ace starting pitcher, he would have had more of an impact.

You cannot have it both ways. You can't say that we got acceptable value for Sabathia if you say that teams overpay at deadline time and that is true ESPECIALLY if you say that Santana can be this good because the very, very wealthy Dodgers threw us a bone because we saved them a couple of million AND overpaid because it was deadline time. It just doesn't make sense. For Casey Freakin' Blake? You must be dreaming.

So, which way is it? Did we get too little for Sabathia or are people overrating Santana. I think you have to choose. Maybe I am wrong but I think you can't say we got good value for CC AND Santana is this good. As I said (and I was wrong, it was the Shuey trade) Ricardo Rodriguez was the Dodgers' #1 prospect the winter before and was having a good year at the time of the trade. Yet they gave him and Cruceta, another pretty good pitching prospect (on paper) who is still knocking around, for Shuey. At the time we thought we got a steal but, as their GM said, Rodriguez wasn't their #1, he was only Baseball America's #1. We found out very soon that we didn't get a steal and, in fact, got very little out of that trade, EXACTLY what you might expect in trading for 2 months of Paul Shuey.


You don't get 3rd round picks.......and Blake being a Type-B only nets a supplemental......


If CC signs with the Giants, then the Brewers only get 1 first rounder as well....they get the Giants second rounder then.....


Both deals were solid by the Tribe. As one scout put it, we got an equivalent of a young Albert Belle and Kenny Lofton in LaPorta and Brantley.



And you're offbase on the Bryson thing. Shapiro said he was someone he wanted. Some people thought we was gonna turn out to be like the Nefali Perez in this deal (from the Salty deal). His stuff was that good. Yeah, the injury sucks and takes him down a peg. But he's still young.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:17 pm

"You don't get 3rd round picks.......and Blake being a Type-B only nets a supplemental......"


As far as all of us knew Blake was going to easily fall into the Type A category. Have you heard something that I have not heard. BTW, the compensation for Type A free agents is dependent on the signing team's record and how many other Type A free agents they have signed and their point value. For example, Dellucci netted his old team a first round supplemental and a 3rd rounder.


"If CC signs with the Giants, then the Brewers only get 1 first rounder as well....they get the Giants second rounder then....."

I think most of us know those rules by now. The point is that it is the big market teams who sign these guys and the big market teams almost always draft in the back of the first round, thus the Brewers getting a first round pick in addition to their first round supplemental. There is, of course, that the signing team could sign another free agent with a higher value than CC but I am not sure that can happen, looking at the current free agent class, unless maybe it is Manny.


"Both deals were solid by the Tribe. As one scout put it, we got an equivalent of a young Albert Belle and Kenny Lofton in LaPorta and Brantley."


Well, I would like to have what that scout is smoking. That is like saying that Bryson was a young Rivera and Jackson a young Paul Byrd or something like that. Yeah, you can throw out names but the comparisons are extreme, to put it kindly.


"And you're offbase on the Bryson thing. Shapiro said he was someone he wanted. Some people thought we was gonna turn out to be like the Nefali Perez in this deal (from the Salty deal). His stuff was that good. Yeah, the injury sucks and takes him down a peg. But he's still young."

I apologize if I am wrong but I clearly remember him saying that the last two guys were throw-ins. Bryson is a US college guy who was a low A reliever who throws hard (read: Cody Bunkelman, et al). I never understood the hype on him but his labrum injury is surely what supporters of the trade will need to say, 'See what this trade could have been like if Bryson had not gotten hurt.'

I just do not understand how BA suddenly got so stupid. That is usually my line but to hear it from BAs biggest booster is somewhat surprising. As TL can tell you, I disagree with some of these choices but I really do not see anything to get upset about. I know I am more positive on Chisenhall than he is and less cautious about 2008 draftees but I believe he knows the system better than BA. I think Rondon belonged in the top 10 and the comment about his breaking ball was off base. BA had a different order than my top 10 but I did not include Brantley because I had not seen him play. I think the farm system has a lot going for it and BA recognized it.


I have never been a big supporter of BA's prospect ratings and my faith in them took a huge dip once I started reading Tony's stuff and comparing it to what BA said. They are all over the place and appear to have a methodology about how they peg guys which is too rigid, IMHO. Now, when they rank prospects throughout baseball against each other (their top 100 list) I pay more attention, which I guess is why I like their draft stuff, besides that they have the most experience at it and, by my observations, spend much more money and have been doing it longer so have much more combined expertise on the draft than any of these gurus people constantly flaunt as being better than the combined efforts and networks built for years that BA has. However, this is the age of blogs and so I see why people might want to believe a blogger, no matter how sophisticated, over a publication that has been covering the draft for 30 years or so.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:44 pm

Not following you on this one.

So in other words, because you believe the Dodgers GM is not stupid and the rest of the baseball world is clueless then in assessing this guy the way they are, you just don't believe. Your perogative I guess. I think you are way out on this one, but if that's the way you feel you are certainly entitled to it.


How many GMs in all of baseball give up their top prospect (or close to it) in addition to a close-to major league ready possible closer for two months of Casey Blake? He would have to be very, very stupid and, if he is that stupid, why didn't we trade CC to them and REALLY get a haul? Unless you want to believe he was only stupid in getting Blake but was a really shrewd dealer in the CC negotiations. Hey, maybe we only needed to wait a couple of weeks and then we could have really had a haul...but a lot of us said that at the time.

And who says it has to work both ways? The Blake trade was highway robbery. We got WAY more than expected for an average big leaguer which is a high level relief prospect in the advanced levels of the minors and a high level uber catching prospect in the lower levels of the minors.


No, we got AN UNBELIEVABLE amount in return. Probably, according to the people who rate Santana this highly, one of the best returns ever per Blake's current and future value, EVER in baseball (see Kazmir trade). Do you really think that is true?

The Sabathia trade, at this point, to me was a fair trade where I can't say one team or the other got over on the other. We got back two excellent hitting prospects who are in the advanced levels of the minors, and a high level relief prospect in the low levels of the minors. The 4th guy depth, but could end up a valuable swing guy at this point for the Indians next year.


But you said above everybody overpays in deadline deals. Fair value in a deadline deal would be overpaying, right, if everybody does it? And it is only fair value if LaPorta works out and how everybody is making excuses for his poor performance so far since the trade. Yeah, the excuses exist, but it is interesting to me to compare the negative comments about Crowe from fans after his first year of struggles and then his second year, both of which were only for 1/2 or less of the season each time. In my opinion LaPorta is catching this break because the CC deal is inconceivable if LaPorta tanks it out of the chute and people don't even want to consider that option.

The Sabathia trade in no way compares to the Blake trade because the Blake trade was so one sided to the Indians whereas the Sabathia trade to this point is pretty balanced for both teams.


You know, if the Dodgers had not been one of the few teams REALLY in on CC then you have a point. But to assume that the Blake trade was a steal and that the Dodgers would not have given us better value for CC than what we got from the Brewers is where I am having trouble. To me, the only logical conclusion is that the Dodgers don't value Santana as highly as others, including BA does. And I only have to go back to the Ricardo Rodriguez example as evidence of how this can work out.

As I said, believe what you want. This does not add up to me. If Santana is as good as people say he is, no way he gets traded for Casey Blake. Look at BA's top 100 prospects from this past February.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/pr ... 65655.html

Would ANY GM trade one of these guys for even a year of Casey Blake?

Yes, you could make the case that the Dodgers would not have overpaid for CC and decided to for Blake but how would you justify that? By the money? Well, if the money kept us with only getting a very questionable 'fair' value for CC then I would have paid the money.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:18 pm

what are you even talking about? You're seriously questioning if Santana's legit because we only gave up Blake to get him? How can you not understand that these things happen? There have been so many trades in which one team gives up a solid regular and gets a top prospect in return who could become an all star in the future. I really don't see why you'd make this argument.

The fact that you're comparing it to the CC deal gives me the feeling you're basically trying to shine a bad light on Shapiro or the Tribe's general dealings (like the draft).
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby MickS » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:28 pm

Asdrubal Cabrera and Shin Soo Choo are garbage too. Look at how little we had to give up for them. They can't possibly be any good.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:52 pm

In a nutshell, the Santana/Dodgers thing may stem more from the Indians getting lucky than the Dodgers GM being stupid. The Indians themselves are quoted as saying that what Santana has ended up being is not what they expected when they got him. Which tells me the Dodgers undervalued him when they obtained him, and the Indians liked him but didn't think they were getting an eventual #1 system prospect and Top 25 or so prospect in all of baseball.

From Mirabelli in Sept (from my Sept 19th MH):

"I think we probably have a little more than we thought we got. We got a switch hitter at a premium position. He is a very athletic kid who is a converted outfielder/third baseman, so his athleticism is a big plus for him behind the plate. But he has offense, and offensive upside who is a very aggressive attack the ball kind of hitter that can do some damage. Plus you have the defensive skill set to stay behind the plate, so all in all you have a pretty impressive package there at a premium position."
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:10 pm

Where do you guys think Santana should rank in BA's overall top 100? I'd say around 30-35 seems fine.

btw, Tony, if Santana is unable to stay behind the plate, would they move him to 3rd?
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:22 pm

JP_Frost wrote:what are you even talking about? You're seriously questioning if Santana's legit because we only gave up Blake to get him? How can you not understand that these things happen? There have been so many trades in which one team gives up a solid regular and gets a top prospect in return who could become an all star in the future. I really don't see why you'd make this argument.

The fact that you're comparing it to the CC deal gives me the feeling you're basically trying to shine a bad light on Shapiro or the Tribe's general dealings (like the draft).


Of course, the conspiracy theory that because I am trying to make a point it must be because I am slamming the organization.

Regarding this kind of trade happening, how about a few examples?

And, as I said, less than a month after the Dodgers wouldn't give us more than the meager value (in July trade dollars) we got for CC, they gave us 5X what Blake was worth in July trade dollars? Probably an exageration but you get the idea. A team wouldn't pony up for a Cy Young award winner but overpaid for a utility guy? Whatever.

Also, the Indians said the secondary guys in the Dodgers proposal were better than Milwaukee's. If that was true and Santana is a better prospect than LaPorta (even if it is close) how did we not trade with the Dodgers who were supposedly also including McDonald, one of their stud pitching prospects? Beats me...but then it doesn't have to make sense, does it?

In a nutshell for me, the Dodgers had a long time to look at this guy. We have had a couple of months and, right or wrong, BA does favor what have you done for me lately stuff in evaluating prospects. As I said, whatever. If it all adds up for you then fine. It doesn't for me and I will just let it go and see what happens.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:46 pm

JP_Frost wrote:Where do you guys think Santana should rank in BA's overall top 100? I'd say around 30-35 seems fine.

btw, Tony, if Santana is unable to stay behind the plate, would they move him to 3rd?


3B or the outfield. With his athleticism, arm and bat, if he doesn't stick at catcher, he could be a nice right fielder.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby stoike » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:51 pm

As I have said before, I think Dennis just likes to hear himself talk. Blah blah blah. Too bad it is almost always negative and whiny!

He can always find the bad in anything good, and attempt to twist it to fit his agenda. :s_scratchhead
stoike
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jhonny » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:09 pm

dnosco wrote: A team wouldn't pony up for a Cy Young award winner but overpaid for a utility guy? Whatever.


The Dodgers backed out of the deal for CC and Blake because they did not want to give up Kemp. That's somewhere else on this thread.

Also, the Dodgers payroll restraints limited the ability to deal CC for just prospects.
jhonny
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:38 pm

stoike wrote:As I have said before, I think Dennis just likes to hear himself talk. Blah blah blah. Too bad it is almost always negative and whiny!

He can always find the bad in anything good, and attempt to twist it to fit his agenda. :s_scratchhead


More conspiracy theory crap.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:41 pm

MickS wrote:Asdrubal Cabrera and Shin Soo Choo are garbage too. Look at how little we had to give up for them. They can't possibly be any good.


So you must agree that the trade for CC did not net us the standard July return. Thank you. One other point to consider and I am saying this without looking it up. Did the Dodgers, in the last few years, ever get hoodwinked as much as the Mariners did before this trade with the Indians? Don't know, just asking.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Duane Kuiper » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:18 pm

Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:20 pm

dnosco wrote:
MickS wrote:Asdrubal Cabrera and Shin Soo Choo are garbage too. Look at how little we had to give up for them. They can't possibly be any good.


So you must agree that the trade for CC did not net us the standard July return. Thank you. One other point to consider and I am saying this without looking it up. Did the Dodgers, in the last few years, ever get hoodwinked as much as the Mariners did before this trade with the Indians? Don't know, just asking.



I would consider the andruw jones contract quite a hoodwink
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby twdelaney34 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:59 am

Ok, let's go over how the barter system operates:

People engage in an exchange of goods, presumably for symbiotic reasons. You trade from strength to fill a weakness. My strength is the $5 in my pocket, my weakness is that I have not eaten in 5 hours, Subway and I engage in a trade.

A similar concept is being debated here. As an example, the Rays probably wouldn't trade David Price for David Wright, because they have Evan Longoria, and while dealing from strength, they are not filling a grave weakness. However, they may trade him for Grady Sizemore because that would strengthen their outfield to Crawford-Sizemore-Upton. This does nothing to diminish the value of Wright, or increase that of Price or Sizemore. These two deals are mutually exclusive, and thus, there isn't a rational basis for comparison.

With that hyperbolic example as our spring board, let's break it down. The Blake and Sabathia deals are mutually exclusive as well, in that, it's two different teams, with opposing sets of weaknesses, and different areas of strength. The fact that the Dodgers were in on the Sabathia bidding is important, though not for the reasons previously stated.

Come July, the Dodgers were looking at moves for the stretch run, and obviously were finalists in the Sabathia sweepsteaks. However, given that they had Penny, Lowe, Hurodka, Billingsley and Kershaw, Sabathia was not essential. I realize the injuries with Penny, but the other four are still formidable enough to take you through September with a good offense. Now, with Nomar hurt, DeWitt being Blake DeWitt and a complete lack of trust in Andy LaRoche, 3B was a greater need for the Dodgers. Remember, they have Russell Martin one of the top C's in baseball, so this is a position of strength. They utilized this position of strength to fill a need at 3B. Casey was performing well at the time, especially with the sellabe RISP avg. statistic.

Now, would they have been willing to give up Santana for CC? Probably. But shouldn't we laud Shapiro for getting that return on Blake, as surely Blake would not have fetched LaPorta. Simply because BA ranked Santana ahead of LaPorta does not make the CC trade a poor one. I realize Dennis is trying to back people into admitting he was correct and we didn't get enough for CC, though LaPorta was the Brewers #1 prospect last year. He is a power right handed bat, which many have been longing for. Bryson is a high-upside relief prospect and given the open market on those, quite valuable. Despite some people's disdain, Brantley's floor is a 4th OF with a much higher ceiling. And Jackson, while the throw in, filled a role this year, and probably does next year as a Long man/5-6 starter. There is some legit value there.

Further still, Coletti has established (for the most part) he does not favor the yung'ins ( I could only imagine some of our board posters if we had that guy). Signing Jones and Pierre, stifling Either, Kemp, Loney, LaRoche (save Kershaw of course). The Brewers are more reluctant to part with that talent, given they are small market and homegrown oriented.

These two deals are mutually exclusive, and simply because one GM overpaid doesn't not indicate another paid below market. Not to mention Sabathia wasn't a deadline deal. But that has been conveniently ignored. But BA, Tony, Keith Law, they all must be wrong on Santana, cause if they aren't, well then we didn't get enough for Sabathia. Thats completely illogical and follows more the logic of the familiar apples and oranges.

Lastly, I am curious to ask Dennis something: So, BA is the best at covering the draft. They do well in top-100 lists spanning the whole minor leagues. BUT, when it comes to top-10 lists for individual teams, they suddenly lack the quantitative ability to do this accurately. What is the disconnect? How can they be so good at scouting and ranking draft picks, then they are really good at scouting and ranking the top-100 players in all of MiLB, but when it comes to scouting (mind you, they have scouted these players for the draft, as well as that top-100 list) players for top-10s, they are unreliable? I can't wrap my mind around this. Any insight that could be offered would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
twdelaney34
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:24 am

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:37 am

twdelaney34 wrote:Ok, let's go over how the barter system operates:

People engage in an exchange of goods, presumably for symbiotic reasons. You trade from strength to fill a weakness. My strength is the $5 in my pocket, my weakness is that I have not eaten in 5 hours, Subway and I engage in a trade.

A similar concept is being debated here. As an example, the Rays probably wouldn't trade David Price for David Wright, because they have Evan Longoria, and while dealing from strength, they are not filling a grave weakness. However, they may trade him for Grady Sizemore because that would strengthen their outfield to Crawford-Sizemore-Upton. This does nothing to diminish the value of Wright, or increase that of Price or Sizemore. These two deals are mutually exclusive, and thus, there isn't a rational basis for comparison.

With that hyperbolic example as our spring board, let's break it down. The Blake and Sabathia deals are mutually exclusive as well, in that, it's two different teams, with opposing sets of weaknesses, and different areas of strength. The fact that the Dodgers were in on the Sabathia bidding is important, though not for the reasons previously stated.

Come July, the Dodgers were looking at moves for the stretch run, and obviously were finalists in the Sabathia sweepsteaks. However, given that they had Penny, Lowe, Hurodka, Billingsley and Kershaw, Sabathia was not essential. I realize the injuries with Penny, but the other four are still formidable enough to take you through September with a good offense. Now, with Nomar hurt, DeWitt being Blake DeWitt and a complete lack of trust in Andy LaRoche, 3B was a greater need for the Dodgers. Remember, they have Russell Martin one of the top C's in baseball, so this is a position of strength. They utilized this position of strength to fill a need at 3B. Casey was performing well at the time, especially with the sellabe RISP avg. statistic.

Now, would they have been willing to give up Santana for CC? Probably. But shouldn't we laud Shapiro for getting that return on Blake, as surely Blake would not have fetched LaPorta. Simply because BA ranked Santana ahead of LaPorta does not make the CC trade a poor one. I realize Dennis is trying to back people into admitting he was correct and we didn't get enough for CC, though LaPorta was the Brewers #1 prospect last year. He is a power right handed bat, which many have been longing for. Bryson is a high-upside relief prospect and given the open market on those, quite valuable. Despite some people's disdain, Brantley's floor is a 4th OF with a much higher ceiling. And Jackson, while the throw in, filled a role this year, and probably does next year as a Long man/5-6 starter. There is some legit value there.

Further still, Coletti has established (for the most part) he does not favor the yung'ins ( I could only imagine some of our board posters if we had that guy). Signing Jones and Pierre, stifling Either, Kemp, Loney, LaRoche (save Kershaw of course). The Brewers are more reluctant to part with that talent, given they are small market and homegrown oriented.

These two deals are mutually exclusive, and simply because one GM overpaid doesn't not indicate another paid below market. Not to mention Sabathia wasn't a deadline deal. But that has been conveniently ignored. But BA, Tony, Keith Law, they all must be wrong on Santana, cause if they aren't, well then we didn't get enough for Sabathia. Thats completely illogical and follows more the logic of the familiar apples and oranges.

Lastly, I am curious to ask Dennis something: So, BA is the best at covering the draft. They do well in top-100 lists spanning the whole minor leagues. BUT, when it comes to top-10 lists for individual teams, they suddenly lack the quantitative ability to do this accurately. What is the disconnect? How can they be so good at scouting and ranking draft picks, then they are really good at scouting and ranking the top-100 players in all of MiLB, but when it comes to scouting (mind you, they have scouted these players for the draft, as well as that top-100 list) players for top-10s, they are unreliable? I can't wrap my mind around this. Any insight that could be offered would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


Man, I am glad you wrote that last paragraph because I read the same thing, arrived at the same conclusions and thought I was losing my abilty to interpret the English language. I don't know if I should congratulate you on an excellent first post or worry that we are both ready for counseling. I have difficulty with some of Dennis' conclusions and we have discussed our differences but I am having real problems following his logic on this. Does anybody know what conspiracy we are talking about? Am I part of it? I hope so because I have been left out of a lot of cool conspiracies in my life. Is there a grassy knoll involved? :s_crazy
Last edited by indianinkslinger on Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:43 am

Jesus twdelaney34....way to come strong and hard on your first post. Good to see you make it over here. And, I agree and couldn't have said it better myself.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Next

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests