Indians Prospect Insider - Covering the Cleveland Indians from the Minors to the Big Leagues

BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

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

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:05 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.


First, their draft and top 100 lists are a group effort. Lots of input usually leads to a better result. For the most part, the individual team lists are done by individuals without a lot of input. Thus you introduce individual prejudice. Now, individual parts of the draft are done by individuals but the top lists are done by the group and that is why I like that result.

Regarding the Sabathia and Blake deals, you can argue that they are mutually exclusive but, in fact, they are not. The only way they make sense is to consider that they are totally disconnected, which they aren't, considering the Dodgers were in the hunt for CC. And, you are correct, CC was NOT a deadline deal, it was a deadline deal PLUS meaning that, in fact, it was a deal towards the deadline but that the Brewers got more of CC, much more, than in a July 31st at 5 pm deal. Thus CC should have been worth that much more.

You HAVE to say that the Indians pulled off one of the best deadline deals of all time (not the best but one of the best) to assume Santana is your #1 prospect.

When you talk about apples and oranges even if the premise that Colletti doesn't like young players is true there is no evidence that he throws them away for less value. There is your apples and oranges for you.

So, we can commend Shapiro for getting very, very, very good value for Blake. But your argument about starting pitching of the Dodgers and having a surplus AND that Colletti doesn't favor young players means that he could have traded one of his young starters, like Kershaw, for CC and Blake. That would seem to fit your model AND the model of him overpaying in the Blake trade. That's where your argument falls down. As I said before, you can't have it both ways. The deals are connected.

In any case, the discussion here is about whether Santana is really that good. I say that this can't be true. Time will tell.
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 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:56 am

The deals aren't connected. Both players were dealt in different situations. Let's not forget that whoever traded for CC had to pay about 6 million dollars for a couple of months of his service. There's also the knowledge that basically every team knew that he'd test the free agency market. We don't know why the Dodgers pulled out. Maybe Shapiro asked for too much, or the Dodgers felt they didn't really need to give up their farm system for a starter, but were willing to pay a little more for a hitter. If CC was dealt before the season started for the package we received then you could argue that the return was a little fringy, but as a deadline deal there's nothing wrong with it. We got their #1, #11 and #25 prospects (and the latter has improved his stock this year). That's a fair deal any way you look at it. The centerpiece was LaPorta, and I believe Shapiro wouldn't have made the deal if he wasn't included. I have no problem with you maybe not liking LaPorta as much as some others, but to say we didn't get fair value for CC is ridiculous. Especially because you compare it with the Blake trade. That move was completely different and as was stated before, the Dodgers maybe underrated Santana a little bit. They have one of the best young catchers in the game and maybe they thought Santana's performance was a product of playing in a hitter's league. It's obvious that they sort of mishandled Meloan, who should've been in their pen out of spring training, but they felt he could convert back to a starter. His performance indicated that he was much better suited as a reliever and the Indians bought low on him.

Another thing you seem to forget Dnosco, is that Santana and LaPorta could've easily been flipped around, making LaPorta our #1 prospect. That all of a sudden changes the value we got in the CC deal? The main reason that didn't happen is Santana's position and that he was even better after the trade. I don't understand why you question how good Santana is because we only gave up Blake to get him. If you would've said you're not sure that he can stay behind the plate, he hasn't shown this much power before in the minors, or had any scouting reports that suggested he might've been a fluke then I could understand your concern, but you either don't understand how trades work or you think too highly of Colletti. You're right about one thing though, and that is time will tell. Next year will be a very important year for alot of our prospects since most of our top guys will move to AA. If they succeed there, then there's good chance they'll be productive major leaguers (though it obviously isn't guarantee).
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:13 am

dnosco wrote: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.


Blake was listed as a Type-B already. He had an outside shot of getting Type-A consideration, but that's it.


dnosco wrote: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.


Teixeria is likely ahead of CC. The Yanks could conceivably get both.....though doubtful. And again, I think the Giants have a very good shot at getting him. It's not a gurantee by any means that the Brewers are gonna get 2 first rounders for him....



dnosco wrote: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.


Brantley has put up as good or better OBP numbers and average to Lofton. I've read this comparison in several places. He's 2 years younger though than Lofton was at this stage in his development. I agree on the LaPorta and Ramirez comparison somewhat.....but he does have a huge upside, and should be a star soon at the ML level.



dnosco wrote: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.'


Bryson was 20......and only went to community college for 1 season. Was drafted out of high school in 2006 by the Brewers. He was highly touted, ranking as the 11th best prospect in the Brewers system by Baseball America (and project as their 2011 closer), and in the top 10 by Baseball Prospectus going into last season.

Jackson was a bit of a 'throw-in' as we could use the extra arm after losing CC. But Bryson, Brantley, and LaPorta definately weren't and could easily rival the Phillips, Sizemore, and Lee haul from the Colon deal (if Bryson can come back from the injury obviously).
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:40 am

How can Brandon Phillips be any good. The Reds only gave up Jeff Stevens for him.

How can Kenny Lofton be any good, the Indians only gave up Eddie Taubensee for him.

How can Omar Vizquel be any good, the Indians only gave up Felix Fermin and Reggie Jefferson for him.

How can Brian Giles be any good, the Pirates only gave up Ricardo Rincon for him.

How can Asdrubal Cabrera be any good, the Indians only gave up Eduardo Perez for him.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby petes999 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:47 am

dnosco wrote:First, their draft and top 100 lists are a group effort. Lots of input usually leads to a better result. For the most part, the individual team lists are done by individuals without a lot of input. Thus you introduce individual prejudice. Now, individual parts of the draft are done by individuals but the top lists are done by the group and that is why I like that result.

.....

You HAVE to say that the Indians pulled off one of the best deadline deals of all time (not the best but one of the best) to assume Santana is your #1 prospect.

....

In any case, the discussion here is about whether Santana is really that good. I say that this can't be true. Time will tell.


It is hard to compare trades, yet deadline trades are not just about talent that you are trading. There is a baseline value of draft picks. CC value was more than 2 draft picks, yet not the value of a Harden or others who had more years left on their contract (than just 3 months). Blake's value was a bit more than 1 draft pick.

Now did we get more value than draft picks. Yes.

Blake = Santana and Meloan (at that time 6-12 type prospects) - what a 1st round pick would be (like Chisenhall by BA). So we got 2 picks for him. I agree Santana had some value mid-season with a break-out half. Yet, by adding a strong 2nd half against different talent, his value went way up (prove that 1/2 season was not a fluke). Part of the value we got for him was due to paying Blake salary which allowed us to take someone who was an up and comer.

CC = LaPorta, Brantley and Bryson (and Jackson I guess).... I thought that Bryson was a bit overvalued even though he was listed as #11 in some lists, yet Brantley is equivalent to a Chisenhall in my book if not a bit more due to being proven. Thus, those two were about the value of two late round picks (a bit under value in my book). Yet, LaPorta was the gravy. He had a bad 2nd half, yet he should still be at the top of the prospect lists (even top 100).

And if the Baseball America does a good job on the top 100 type lists ... then LaPorta must be a great prospect at #7 on their midseason top 25 list.

The question is what else could we have gotten for CC? There were a bunch of rumors yet would you want to bet LaPorta for a JD Martin and Crowe? Or, a LaPorta for Mills and Chisenhall. We would have killed Shapiro if he ended up with a Whitney type that never made it like many of our other 1st round picks that we got for Ramirez and others. Now part of this is due to bad selection, part of it is chance.

Yet, if BA does a great job on their top lists (other than organizational lists) than LaPorta was the safe bet (worth what we may have ended up with if we held on too long).

The trade for CC was not going to be all that much. We may have waited for NY to come along, yet they may not have. The value for CC was LaPorta, Brantley and Bryson (before injury).

Even the assumed deal with LA was reported to be something like Third baseman Andy LaRoche, right-hander Cory Wade, Class AA right-hander James McDonald and Class A catcher Carlos Santana for CC + Blake + Carroll. Maybe we could have had Kemp instead of LaRoche. Yet, if not, LaRoche sucks ... big drop off in the second half.

Yet, we still got Santana and Wade (in MeLoan) for Blake. So, CC + Carroll (plus cash to cover salaries) would have been Kemp + McDonald at best (probably more like McDonald and Hu). Yet, Dodgers backed out of the deal, not us. In my book Kemp = LaPorta and McDonald = Laffey or Huff which we have enough of.

Thus, we could have had a bit more for CC, but how much more is not a whole lot if you believe BA top compilation list with Laporta at #7 (or at least top 15). I hoped we could have had LaPorta and a Escobar, yet Brewers (or anyone else) weren't going that high.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:13 am

Consigliere wrote:How can Brandon Phillips be any good. The Reds only gave up Jeff Stevens for him.

How can Kenny Lofton be any good, the Indians only gave up Eddie Taubensee for him.

How can Omar Vizquel be any good, the Indians only gave up Felix Fermin and Reggie Jefferson for him.

How can Brian Giles be any good, the Pirates only gave up Ricardo Rincon for him.

How can Asdrubal Cabrera be any good, the Indians only gave up Eduardo Perez for him.


Are you asking questions or telling us? ;) ha, just kidding
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:23 pm

Consigliere wrote:How can Brandon Phillips be any good. The Reds only gave up Jeff Stevens for him.

How can Kenny Lofton be any good, the Indians only gave up Eddie Taubensee for him.

How can Omar Vizquel be any good, the Indians only gave up Felix Fermin and Reggie Jefferson for him.

How can Brian Giles be any good, the Pirates only gave up Ricardo Rincon for him.

How can Asdrubal Cabrera be any good, the Indians only gave up Eduardo Perez for him.


Hey, no one EVER and I repeat EVER said that Santana absolutely couldn't be that good, but your examples don't really hold water and I think you know it:

Phillips was going to be a waiver guy. He had no trade value.

Vizquel was going to be replaced in two years by ARod, the two years that Fermin played. Jefferson was a top hitting prospect, something the Mariners were looking for, and Vizquel was thought to be a bad hitter. While I remember thinking that was a good trade as we got much younger at SS AND the Mariners' fans were ticked so Vizquel must have been good, at that point the guy still wasn't very much of a hitter and, in the AL even then, your SS had to be able to hit a little.

Eddie Taubensee was actually a better prospect than Lofton at the time, as I remember, probably because Lofton was raw and Taubensee was a power-hitting quality catcher at the door to the ML (think Kelly Shoppach when we got him).

Now we are down to TWO examples:

Cabrera is your best hope on this list. This was a stupid GM. So, if you are saying that once in a while a stupid GM makes a stupid move...then fine. I'll come back at you and say that Shapiro didn't work hard enough to find a stupid GM to take CC. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

Giles for Rincon was a bad trade, too. However, Giles wasn't going to play here (Justice signed to a multiyear deal) and he was thought to be a utility player and Rincon the previous year was the best left-handed reliever in the National League the previous year. But to use an example of a stupid trade by Mark Shapiro as evidence that he could make a shrewd trade is difficult to swallow.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:23 pm

Consigliere wrote:How can Brandon Phillips be any good. The Reds only gave up Jeff Stevens for him.

How can Kenny Lofton be any good, the Indians only gave up Eddie Taubensee for him.

How can Omar Vizquel be any good, the Indians only gave up Felix Fermin and Reggie Jefferson for him.

How can Brian Giles be any good, the Pirates only gave up Ricardo Rincon for him.

How can Asdrubal Cabrera be any good, the Indians only gave up Eduardo Perez for him.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:39 pm

dnosco wrote:Phillips was going to be a waiver guy. He had no trade value.

Eddie Taubensee was actually a better prospect than Lofton at the time, as I remember, probably because Lofton was raw and Taubensee was a power-hitting quality catcher at the door to the ML (think Kelly Shoppach when we got him).


Phillips could have been put on the roster (and should have)....but Wedge's philosophy won out. Hopefully Stevens can turn into something nice in the pen. Phillips is overrated anyways (average hitter at 2B, though great defensively).


Taubensee was never a top 10 prospect in his organization. Lofton meanwhile was ranked the 28th best prospect in all of baseball when we got him in 92......
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby dnosco » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:53 pm

PeteS999,

I won't quote your post but you make some very good points and they are very well written. In summary, I think some of what you say is that the Blake trade made up somewhat for the CC trade. That I will grant you. I know you may not have meant it that way but that is the way I read it.

I think LaPorta IS a safe bet, probably to be a solid MLer with faults and strengths. I see him as Rob Deer on the downside and Jim Thome on the upside. Remember, Sean Casey was in almost exactly the same positional ranking in the top 100 when he was at AAA. That shows you that mid-20s is no guarantee of stardom, just a pretty good indicator the guy will be a solid major leaguer. There are exceptions but, historically, that is what that rank would mean to me.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby stoike » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:43 pm

dnosco wrote:
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.



Conspiracy theory??? Ummmm....Noooooo...it is simply observing that you are a one-trick pony; nothing but whining and bellyaching, looking for the bad in anything and everything that has to do with the Indians minor leagues.
stoike
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby petes999 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:52 pm

dnosco wrote:PeteS999,

I won't quote your post but you make some very good points and they are very well written. In summary, I think some of what you say is that the Blake trade made up somewhat for the CC trade. That I will grant you. I know you may not have meant it that way but that is the way I read it.

I think LaPorta IS a safe bet, probably to be a solid MLer with faults and strengths. I see him as Rob Deer on the downside and Jim Thome on the upside. Remember, Sean Casey was in almost exactly the same positional ranking in the top 100 when he was at AAA. That shows you that mid-20s is no guarantee of stardom, just a pretty good indicator the guy will be a solid major leaguer. There are exceptions but, historically, that is what that rank would mean to me.


I had many points. Yet a key point was I think we got what we got ... good value for CC and a trade that turned out better than average for Blake ... which can turn into a great trade.

The thing with prospects is a season can make or break a prospect. Santana made himself a prospect by turning a great 1/2 season into a stellar season especially when he upped his average in Kinston (as Tony said a pitching league). This showed his 2007 was a down year.

I think LaPorta is better than what people think after a bad half at Akron, also. I think he can be a great prospect. He hit .300 plus his first 1/2 season in A ball than .288 in AA this year against some good pitching in the Southern League (had Price, Kershaw and others). He did slip at Akron, which worries some. Yet, as no one put Santana in the top 30 prospects just for 1/2 season in California league, I think we should hold off judging LaPorta until a 1/2 season at Buffalo. Yet, when BA was talking up LaPorta as one of the best prospect for USA team in pre-trails with Canada, that says something. And, he was in the mid-20s for BA at the beginning of the year (after just 1/2 season) which is special factoring in they rate prospects in AA and AAA usually higher. Now, that others have been promoted and he had a full season, he raised up to #7 mid-season in their list and should be in the high teens at the beginning of next year (after a bad second half).

Yet, as someone else said before .... what else could we have gotten for CC?

LA trade - McDonald, LaRouche, Santana and Wade ???? for CC, Blake and Carroll and cash??? - we got the better when it was all said and done breaking up CC and Blake

Brewers - They were going to take LaPorta off the table supposedly (we will never really know though), so who else could we have gotten Jeffries or Escobar?

Phillies - weren't going to give up Carrasco which left Cardenas

Yankees - weren't going to give up Hughes or JoBa

Thus, other than getting fillers in the 4-8th slots which we could get with 2 draft picks, who else could we have gotten with potential upside? If Brewers took LaPorta off the table, even if just via rumors, would any other team have upped their offers? Maybe, maybe not. We could have gone to the last week of July and not get anything more or potentially a lot less if CC pulled a hammy. We got a good offer and took it via risking Yankees coming back with Hughes or LA coming back with Kershaw which per news organization wasn't going to happen due to a trend in protecting best prospects.

In reality at mid-season we got decent trades instead of holding onto them to year-end

CC - A prospect - 2 picks or Laporta (#7 prospect) + Brantley (Brewers #6-8 prospect) + Bryson (Brewers 11-14th prospect) -- the key is LaPorta

Blake - B prospect - 1 pick or Meloan (LA #6-8th prospect and slipping) + Santana (not ranked early but probably elevated to 4-6th rank at least with one great 1/2 season behind Kershaw, McDonald, LaRouche and/or Hu/DeJesus)

At the end of season, CC trade looked worse due to Laporta slipping and Bryson injury and CC having a great season. Blake trade looked great due to Santana having a great second half.

Yet, if someone says we got Laporta and Brantley compared to Santana and Meloan which are about equal at year-end is not how to compare what we could have gotten for CC.

And, I still would put Laporta as our #1 and Santana as #2 and Brantley ahead of Meloan. I need to see Santana more to give him the #1 slot (more than a one year wonder). So, we got alot more for CC than Blake. Could we have gotten more ... maybe or maybe not.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:39 pm

Dennis, I think I am finally getting to figure out your position on BA rankings. Let me see if I paraphrase your position correctly. Individually, these guys who do the evaluations are not that good and are subject to personal issues with objectivity. However, when they become a collective all of these personal issues go away and their insight is supreme. I hope I have it right because that is a valid concept. I am not sure I agree with it because it assumes that each member of the collective has a equal opinion and that people who are not capable of an individual evaluation become less influential in the collective. I don't want to turn this into a political commentary but I think it is easy to point out that this did not work well in the Bush administration. Regardless of your political persuasion, I think it is obvious that most Americans are not better off after 8 years of their collective guidance. The same can be said if you hold that the collective intelligence at BA is based upon the incompetence as individuals. We cannot assume that the whole is necessarily better than the sum of its parts. It is just as likely that the sum of the parts is worse. But while I might disagee with it, your position is a valid hypothesis. It is your opinion and I support your right to it. I do however draw the line that some kind of conspiracy against you exists because people disagree with your very nuanced positions which are difficult to follow. Your response to Tony's examples is very difficult to follow. It is apparent that your response is a rationalization of a principal of equal value received by both parties. Is it only equal if there is not an exception to rationalize? Personally, I think both sides always want to feel they get the best deal. Every deal I ever made, I always felt it was in my best interest to make that deal. I rather believe baseball GMs are much the same. Just as some of my deals turned out poorly, I think it is equally likely that a transaction that depends largely upon the future development of the human genome is even more unpredictable. I think that trying to apply a principal of equal value to future performance of ballplayers is a pretty dicey proposition but if it works for you, go with it. However, I am not sure I would characterize people who disagree with your position as part of a conspiracy. I think you have a right to your opinions. I don't think it follows that those of us who disagee with those opinions are conspiratorial.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby MickS » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:07 pm

Some people reach conclusions and then work really hard to fit the facts to these pre-conceived conclusions. If a fact doesn't fit, it is dscarded or discounted (or the people providing the facts are discredited). If the fact supports the conclusion, then it must be correct and the people offering it are credible. I don't want to get political either, but it's this kind of flawed logic that got us into our current mess. Ideology first before facts.

If you're looking to find fault with the front office, it's easy to cherry pick your facts and the people to whom you give credence. Baseball America is filled with brilliant people, except when it's not. It just depends on whether you like what they are saying.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:26 pm

people it just easier if you dont read anything that is dennis cause he has majorly off issues, I mean he got pissed cause the Brewers abused CC to me that was the point where he lost all credibility. Why do we care what he thinks no one seems to value what he says or ever listen. If you ignore it it stops and we dont get the same something re posted by him 100 times
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:00 pm

Thought this might be of some interest to those who followed the BA list.

Oops, just realized this is premium content. BA just posted a list of the best of the players who did not make their respective top 10s. Both Wes Hodges and Hector Rondon are on the list. Guess we have a clue as to 11 & 12 on the BA 30.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby jellis » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:42 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:Thought this might be of some interest to those who followed the BA list.

Oops, just realized this is premium content. BA just posted a list of the best of the players who did not make their respective top 10s. Both Wes Hodges and Hector Rondon are on the list. Guess we have a clue as to 11 & 12 on the BA 30.



in the chat callis explained it more, its nto really a best of whose left as much as it is the best team made out of the players who were left. according the Callis the top 7 guys over all where all RHP but they went with Rondon as the best of the group. So Rondon and Hodges were the best people at there positions who where not top 10 specs for any team, not sure if thats much of an endorsement
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA's Cleveland Indians top 10 prospects

Postby indianinkslinger » Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:14 am

jellis wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:Thought this might be of some interest to those who followed the BA list.

Oops, just realized this is premium content. BA just posted a list of the best of the players who did not make their respective top 10s. Both Wes Hodges and Hector Rondon are on the list. Guess we have a clue as to 11 & 12 on the BA 30.



in the chat callis explained it more, its nto really a best of whose left as much as it is the best team made out of the players who were left. according the Callis the top 7 guys over all where all RHP but they went with Rondon as the best of the group. So Rondon and Hodges were the best people at there positions who where not top 10 specs for any team, not sure if thats much of an endorsement


Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Lots of 3B and SPs did not make the list.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Previous

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron