Who are the #19 and #20 Prospects?

[Number5]

Yeah, I don't consider returning a Rule 5 guy to be a fail.  In fact, it is the most likely result, league-wide.  I really consider taking Rule 5 shots at guys to be a matter of nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Also, IMO, picking up stop gap players and have them turn out to be exactly that isn't really a fail, either.  Sure, I'd like to see us strike gold on one of these guys, but I can't say that I expect it to happen.  I'm more interested in seeing how guys we acquire like Vavra and Smith turn out.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

So? The guys we brought up for a chance, every guy brought up for a chance, as opposed to bringing up “because he is ready,” is by definition being given an opportunity that he doesn’t necessarily deserve. We risk nothing by bringing him up.

I’m a musician, and I can’t judge a piece without paying it once. Maybe not all the way through, but gotta sit down and play it. Now, it might be by a terrible or unknown composer, and some would say,”it’s by Danzi, it sucks.” Well, so? Maybe it does suck. Danzi was a mediocre composer. But maybe it doesn’t suck. Maybe it’s worthwhile, as recital filler, or as a rare gem from a mediocrity. But if I play it, I’ll know.

As another surprisingly similar example, the widow of a local cellist gave me some of her late husband’s music, including an untouched piece he bought 50+ years ago. So rare there’s only one lonely YouTube audio, and the music is long out of print and the publisher is itself long out of business. I played it and said, “this is an incredible piece.” And it is. So this piece is Yaz. The previous owner never bothered to play it, and I did, and I get the benefit. If he’d played lit, maybe he’d have hated it, maybe not. But he never gave it a chance.

Yaz played the instrument for years and wasn’t good.  He deserved nothing and didn’t earn anything.

[LookinUp]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Still waiting on a reason why Yaz SHOULD have had a chance.

To me, using the word should implies that he earned it.  It implies that he proved to the organization that he was a MLer and they overlooked him and didn’t give him that chance.

Is that what people believe?

I don’t think he should have had much of a chance. I wish we were smart enough to see it coming. That’s whT I’m disappointed in and what I don’t want to happen in the future.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I don’t think he should have had much of a chance. I wish we were smart enough to see it coming. That’s whT I’m disappointed in and what I don’t want to happen in the future.

You can’t blame Elias for not seeing it coming though. 

[Number5]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

So? The guys we brought up for a chance, every guy brought up for a chance, as opposed to bringing up “because he is ready,” is by definition being given an opportunity that he doesn’t necessarily deserve. We risk nothing by bringing him up.

I’m a musician, and I can’t judge a piece without paying it once. Maybe not all the way through, but gotta sit down and play it. Now, it might be by a terrible or unknown composer, and some would say,”it’s by Danzi, it sucks.” Well, so? Maybe it does suck. Danzi was a mediocre composer. But maybe it doesn’t suck. Maybe it’s worthwhile, as recital filler, or as a rare gem from a mediocrity. But if I play it, I’ll know.

As another surprisingly similar example, the widow of a local cellist gave me some of her late husband’s music, including an untouched piece he bought 50+ years ago. So rare there’s only one lonely YouTube audio, and the music is long out of print and the publisher is itself long out of business. I played it and said, “this is an incredible piece.” And it is. So this piece is Yaz. The previous owner never bothered to play it, and I did, and I get the benefit. If he’d played lit, maybe he’d have hated it, maybe not. But he never gave it a chance.

So, to be clear, you think every player in the system should be brought up to the major league team?  As others have said, it is easy now, in hindsight, to say that Elias should have seen that Yaz was going to be a star in the three weeks of spring training he had to look at him, after an uninspiring minor league career under the previous regime, but that just seems to be an unreasonable assessment of Elias, IMO.

[HowAboutThat]

28 minutes ago, Number5 said:

So, to be clear, you think every player in the system should be brought up to the major league team?  As others have said, it is easy now, in hindsight, to say that Elias should have seen that Yaz was going to be a star in the three weeks of spring training he had to look at him, after an uninspiring minor league career under the previous regime, but that just seems to be an unreasonable assessment of Elias, IMO.

No, I think that’s hyperbole. There are a lot of guys in the organization that are just filler, they know it, we know it, and for whatever reason they are willing to hang around for a while. So the answer to your question is, “no I don’t think everybody in the minors should be brought up,” But yaz wasn’t just filler. And when he went to the Giants he did not become a mere stopgap, he became a star that anybody in the National League would like to have. I agree with all the people who say that that indicates that something is wrong with the process. However I’ve made my point multiple times, and it’s all water under the bridge anyway. So it doesn’t matter. Let’s just hope Whatever mistake happened does not reoccur.

[weams]

On 10/23/2020 at 10:20 AM, LookinUp said:

That's not how a smart, analytic organization thinks. It's reasonable, but lazy. The whole goal is to try to tap potential. They didn't. I'm not killing them for it. I agree that it happens to every org. Still, as my other post said, I'd still want to know what they missed and why they missed it, or at least I'd like them to understand that.

I mostly agree with your posts. This one I don't. It's not lazy. It's insane what he has done. And really. It's not even that much. 

[weams]

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

No, I think that’s hyperbole. There are a lot of guys in the organization that are just filler, they know it, we know it, and for whatever reason they are willing to hang around for a while. So the answer to your question is, “no I don’t think everybody in the minors should be brought up,” But yaz wasn’t just filler. And when he went to the Giants he did not become a mere stopgap, he became a star that anybody in the National League would like to have. I agree with all the people who say that that indicates that something is wrong with the process. However I’ve made my point multiple times, and it’s all water under the bridge anyway. So it doesn’t matter. Let’s just hope Whatever mistake happened does not reoccur.

Again, it wasn't a mistake. He learned something that made him better. I don't even think they taught him it. I think he learned it somewhere. The bloodlines were there, never the skills. He's Buster Douglas. Just a fluke and took advantage of the opportunity. 

[HowAboutThat]

55 minutes ago, weams said:

Again, it wasn't a mistake. He learned something that made him better. I don't even think they taught him it. I think he learned it somewhere. The bloodlines were there, never the skills. He's Buster Douglas. Just a fluke and took advantage of the opportunity. 

Well, if I may continue my musician comparison, I’ve had many students come to me with problems that the previous teacher had not solved. And I have solve those problems. So the question is why did not the previous teacher solve those problems? Again, it’s all water under the bridge, and there’s not really any reason to rehash It, but I stand by what I said, and I’m not the only person who thinks that way.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

No, I think that’s hyperbole. There are a lot of guys in the organization that are just filler, they know it, we know it, and for whatever reason they are willing to hang around for a while. So the answer to your question is, “no I don’t think everybody in the minors should be brought up,” But yaz wasn’t just filler. And when he went to the Giants he did not become a mere stopgap, he became a star that anybody in the National League would like to have. I agree with all the people who say that that indicates that something is wrong with the process. However I’ve made my point multiple times, and it’s all water under the bridge anyway. So it doesn’t matter. Let’s just hope Whatever mistake happened does not reoccur.

Yaz was the exact definition of filler.  

[HowAboutThat]

29 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yaz was the exact definition of filler.  

Apparently not.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

Apparently not.

Your entire argument is all about hindsight.  That’s wrong.  The info at the time said he was nothing.

[HowAboutThat]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Your entire argument is all about hindsight.  That’s wrong.  The info at the time said he was nothing.

My entire argument is about finding solutions. He had potential, we didn’t even believe it existed. He went somewhere else, and they flipped the switch. 
Good teachers find the right switch. That’s it.

Andnthats my last on the subject.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

Well, if I may continue my musician comparison, I’ve had many students come to me with problems that the previous teacher had not solved. And I have solve those problems. So the question is why did not the previous teacher solve those problems? Again, it’s all water under the bridge, and there’s not really any reason to rehash It, but I stand by what I said, and I’m not the only person who thinks that way.

I guess my question is, do other teachers sometimes solve a student problem you were not able to solve?   With baseball coaches, some players mesh with them and thrive, others don’t.   Classic example was Leo Mazzone when he was here.  Erik Bedard and Jeremy Guthrie both thrived under Mazzone, while Rodrigo Lopez and Bruce Chen regressed badly.   A coach can fix one guy and break another.    I do think some are better than others, of course.    But nobody’s right for everyone.   

[Tony-OH]

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

Tony, I think your points about the players Elias has brought in off waivers not producing much Is stronger than the point about Yaz. It’s not like they had a lot of time to evaluate Yaz.    Basically, a few weeks in the spring when he showed very little, to go with his mediocre track record.    

The point I'm trying to make is Elias brought in all these technologies to try and get the advantage. do we just assume Yaz just outperforms his metrics? Perhaps, I don't know. I do know he has outperformed his expected stats at the major league level so far, but the EV has been pretty good. 

I agree that Yaz did nothing to show what he would go on to do. I never had him on a prospect list even though at times I kinda thought he might be able to be a 4th outfielder, but every time he would come back and just not perform.

Who knows, but so the only facts we have so far for Elias evaluating nearly ready talent outside of his organization (I'll include Yaz since he was so new to the org) are not positive for him and his process. 

Say what you want about Duquette, but Nunez is the kind of waiver claim that has worked out well.