More Smoak and Mirrors on Free Agency

[canonfaz]

I'm surprised that some people wouldn't trade Steve Johnson for Smoak. I understand the skepticism about Smoak, and I wouldn't give up a ton for him, but the opportunity to take a chance on a guy who is young and still has potential to be a legitimate slugger is certainly worth giving up a third-tier pitching prospect for.

Steve Johnson looked good for the O's in 2012, but it was 12 games. Only 4 starts. Talk about small sample size. His minor-league track record does not suggest that he's bound for long-term major-league success, at least not as a starter. I'm not buying the idea that he has a supernatural ability to fool hitters at the big-league level-- if that were the case, why didn't he have such success against inferior hitters in the minors?

I agree that I would trade Johnson for Smoak, but Johnson did have a 2.86 ERA last year in the minors (91 IP), so maybe something just clicked and he figured it out.

[Brendan25]

I'd trade Arrieta for him.

I'd consider Steve Johnson for him possibly

I wouldn't trade Matusz or Britton

[Scrat1]

I'd trade Arrieta for him.

I'd consider Steve Johnson for him possibly

I wouldn't trade Matusz or Britton

I think I actually would, only because we'd be dealing from a position of depth. In a vacuum, I'd prefer to have Britton or Matusz over Smoak, and I think the Orioles made the right choice in drafting Matusz over Smoak, but we've got a lot of young arms with upside and zero young first baseman with upside.

If we traded Britton for Smoak - certainly a high price to pay, but still a move I think makes sense for the Orioles - then we could use the money saved on Reynolds to sign another starter. Let's say Marcum for 2/20 or something around there.

1. Markakis

2. McLouth

3. Jones

4. Davis (DH)

5. Wieters

6. Hardy

7. Smoak (1B)

8. Machado

9. Casilla

Bench:

Flaherty

Reimold

Teagarden

Betemit

(I didn't put much thought into the line-up. You get the idea.)

1. Hammel

2. Marcum

3. Chen

4. Tillman

5. Gonzalez

6. Matusz

7. Arrieta

8. Johnson

9. Bundy

10. Gausman

That's a pretty good looking team. Depth, balance, upside. Losing Britton hurts, but the loss isn't overly difficult to absorb and worth the risk of Smoak panning out. Obviously, though, if you can get Smoak for Arrieta then I'd prefer that deal.

[El Gordo]

I think I actually would, only because we'd be dealing from a position of depth. In a vacuum, I'd prefer to have Britton or Matusz over Smoak, and I think the Orioles made the right choice in drafting Matusz over Smoak, but we've got a lot of young arms with upside and zero young first baseman with upside.

If we traded Britton for Smoak - certainly a high price to pay, but still a move I think makes sense for the Orioles - then we could use the money saved on Reynolds to sign another starter. Let's say Marcum for 2/20 or something around there.

1. Markakis

2. McLouth

3. Jones

4. Davis (DH)

5. Wieters

6. Hardy

7. Smoak (1B)

8. Machado

9. Casilla

Bench:

Flaherty

Reimold

Teagarden

Betemit

(I didn't put much thought into the line-up. You get the idea.)

1. Hammel

2. Marcum

3. Chen

4. Tillman

5. Gonzalez

6. Matusz

7. Arrieta

8. Johnson

9. Bundy

10. Gausman

That's a pretty good looking team. Depth, balance, upside. Losing Britton hurts, but the loss isn't overly difficult to absorb and worth the risk of Smoak panning out. Obviously, though, if you can get Smoak for Arrieta then I'd prefer that deal.

Is Smoak any better at 1B than Davis? And why take Smoak's bat over Betemit's? Smoak vs RHP: .208 .282 .345 .627. Betemit vs RHP: 302 .357 .502 .859.

[Dark Helmet]

This doesn't really make sense. He may not be a prospect anymore, but his ceiling hasn't really changed much. With his muddled major league career thus far, he's less likely to reach that ceiling, but the ceiling is still very high.

Not sure how it doesn't make sense. He's not a prospect anymore, and I don't see how you can say he probably wont reach his ceiling, yet its still very high. Kind of a contradiction.

[Scrat1]

Not sure how it doesn't make sense. He's not a prospect anymore, and I don't see how you can say he probably wont reach his ceiling, yet its still very high. Kind of a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction at all. You're conflating two separate concepts. Just because the probability of a player reaching his ceiling has gone down doesn't mean the player's ceiling is any lower. Could be the player just takes a longer time to figure it out and then it clicks later and they reach their full potential. The player's ceiling isn't incrementally lowering during the years the player is figuring it out.

For example, Roy Halladay. He took a while to figure it out, but once he did, he was obviously a force. Justin Upton (or, to a lesser extend, Pie) is a perfect example of a player with an incredibly high ceiling, as high as anyone in the league except maybe Harper, who has struggled to put all of his talent together. Could be, though, that a year or two from now it clicks and he's one of the best players in the game. Brian Roberts, on the other hand, is an example of a player with a relatively moderate ceiling that absolutely maximized his talent in order to become a very solid player.

So, to repeat: Smoak's ceiling is still very high, even if he's struggled to reach it. It's not like his tools have suddenly abandoned him, he just seems to have forgotten how to use them.

[Dark Helmet]

It's not a contradiction at all. You're conflating two separate concepts. Just because the probability of a player reaching his ceiling has gone down doesn't mean the player's ceiling is any lower. Could be the player just takes a longer time to figure it out and then it clicks later and they reach their full potential. The player's ceiling isn't incrementally lowering during the years the player is figuring it out.

For example, Roy Halladay. He took a while to figure it out, but once he did, he was obviously a force. Justin Upton (or, to a lesser extend, Pie) is a perfect example of a player with an incredibly high ceiling, as high as anyone in the league except maybe Harper, who has struggled to put all of his talent together. Could be, though, that a year or two from now it clicks and he's one of the best players in the game. Brian Roberts, on the other hand, is an example of a player with a relatively moderate ceiling that absolutely maximized his talent in order to become a very solid player.

So, to repeat: Smoak's ceiling is still very high, even if he's struggled to reach it. It's not like his tools have suddenly abandoned him, he just seems to have forgotten how to use them.

If the Mariners feel that way too, then Arrieta won't come close to being enough. As for his tools, he hasn't shown he can succeed as a ML player. Maybe the tool set he has is good enough in college or the minor leagues, but not for MLB. He wouldn't be the first former #1 prospect to not have success in the bigs.

[Scrat1]

If the Mariners feel that way too, then Arrieta won't come close to being enough. As for his tools, he hasn't shown he can succeed as a ML player. Maybe the tool set he has is good enough in college or the minor leagues, but not for MLB. He wouldn't be the first former #1 prospect to not have success in the bigs.

Scouts are not this incompetent. They have a pretty good idea if a player has the tools to play in the bigs or not. They aren't just looking at minor league box scores and projecting major league all stars.

[Can_of_corn]

Scouts are not this incompetent. They have a pretty good idea if a player has the tools to play in the bigs or not. They aren't just looking at minor league box scores and projecting major league all stars.

Then explain the O's burning a 2 on Esposito.

[Dark Helmet]

Scouts are not this incompetent. They have a pretty good idea if a player has the tools to play in the bigs or not. They aren't just looking at minor league box scores and projecting major league all stars.

Then why doesn't every first rd pick pan out? Why isn't Matusz winning 15 games a year and Matt Wieters hittng 30+ HR? The scouts had Matusz as the most polished SP, and was close to ML ready when he was drafted. Wieters was supposed to be a better hitter than catcher. Scouts miss on players more than they hit.

[McLovin]

I'm surprised that some people wouldn't trade Steve Johnson for Smoak. I understand the skepticism about Smoak, and I wouldn't give up a ton for him, but the opportunity to take a chance on a guy who is young and still has potential to be a legitimate slugger is certainly worth giving up a third-tier pitching prospect for.

Steve Johnson looked good for the O's in 2012, but it was 12 games. Only 4 starts. Talk about small sample size.

Hasn't Smoak sucked over a decent sample size though?

[theobird]

Hasn't Smoak sucked over a decent sample size though?

In a park that has killed many a power hitter. Ask Adrian Beltre how he feels about that place.

[Scrat1]

Then explain the O's burning a 2 on Esposito.

Then why doesn't every first rd pick pan out? Why isn't Matusz winning 15 games a year and Matt Wieters hittng 30+ HR? The scouts had Matusz as the most polished SP, and was close to ML ready when he was drafted. Wieters was supposed to be a better hitter than catcher. Scouts miss on players more than they hit.

No where in my post did I say that scouts hit on more players than they miss. That is obvious. Once again, you're conflating two different concepts. I said scouts are very good at identifying players with tools that will play at the major league level, whether those tools are excellent hand eye coordination, brute power, speed, etc. Simply because a player has a tool does not mean the player can utilize that tool effectively enough to be a major league baseball player, just like me having a bandsaw in my hand but does not make me a carpenter.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but this really isn't very complicated or sophisticated stuff.

[Dark Helmet]

No where in my post did I say that scouts hit on more players than they miss. That is obvious. Once again, you're conflating two different concepts. I said scouts are very good at identifying players with tools that will play at the major league level, whether those tools are excellent hand eye coordination, brute power, speed, etc. Simply because a player has a tool does not mean the player can utilize that tool effectively enough to be a major league baseball player, just like me having a bandsaw in my hand but does not make me a carpenter.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but this really isn't very complicated or sophisticated stuff.

Playing in the major's and being successful are two different thing's. I highly doubt scouts thought at 26, Smoak would be putting up a sub .700 OPS. His tool's made him a first rd pick, but it hasn't made him successful in the majors.

And gee, i'm not sure how anyone could take the bolded as an insult.

[Scrat1]

Playing in the major's and being successful are two different thing's. I highly doubt scouts thought at 26, Smoak would be putting up a sub .700 OPS. His tool's made him a first rd pick, but it hasn't made him successful in the majors.

I don't disagree with any of this. It isn't a refutation of anything I've said.