Jump to content

Perez on the Jan. 2021 international class and other stuff


Frobby

Recommended Posts

One gets the feeling our system is about two or three years away from having five to eight international guys in the top 30 - likely all from the names mentioned by Perez or our bigger $ signings coming up.  Which one will be the first to crack our organizational top 10? 

All this will be a big boost to our system.  This international build-out is taking place at a snail's pace (in terms of getting the prospects through the system), but we can take solace in the fact that the ownership commitment and front office competence internationally is in place and getting to work.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of like the fact that the signing date has been pushed back to Jan. 15, maybe permanently.    It’s something interesting to look forward to in the dead of winter now.    One thing that isn’t clear is whether the age cutoff is changing (i.e., the date by which the player must turn 16 in order to be signed).    I’m assuming it hasn’t changed because otherwise this year there would be seven months worth of players that teams would have no money to sign, having already committed their money to the guys turning 16 before J2.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, hoosiers said:

One gets the feeling our system is about two or three years away from having five to eight international guys in the top 30 - likely all from the names mentioned by Perez or our bigger $ signings coming up.  Which one will be the first to crack our organizational top 10? 

All this will be a big boost to our system.  This international build-out is taking place at a snail's pace (in terms of getting the prospects through the system), but we can take solace in the fact that the ownership commitment and front office competence internationally is in place and getting to work.

Nice post. I feel like we already have 1-3 of those top 30 guys, but don't know it yet. 5 to 8 is reasonable, and may be on the low end in the future.

I know this is happening at a snail's pace, but it's also what we were told to expect. It's kind of eye opening for me. Fixing a baseball org is like turning a cruise ship. I feel like we're well on the way, to be honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, LookinUp said:

Nice post. I feel like we already have 1-3 of those top 30 guys, but don't know it yet. 5 to 8 is reasonable, and may be on the low end in the future.

Considering that almost 30% of major leaguers are former foreign amateurs, I’d guess 9 in the top 30 is about average for most teams.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my very novice understanding of this process, I guess the snails pace piece is building the infrastructure and relationships internationally. One would hope (expect) after a couple years of consistent allocation of resources both fiscally and physically, then the dam would break as far as the rewards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 10/23/2020 at 12:38 PM, LookinUp said:

Nice post. I feel like we already have 1-3 of those top 30 guys, but don't know it yet. 5 to 8 is reasonable, and may be on the low end in the future.

I know this is happening at a snail's pace, but it's also what we were told to expect. It's kind of eye opening for me. Fixing a baseball org is like turning a cruise ship. I feel like we're well on the way, to be honest. 

Well Diaz and Ortiz are currently in our top 30. My problem with putting 20 year olds in the top30 is they create an illusion of having a stronger system but the players are so far away and such a small hit chance on that they are really irrelevant. Rule 5 eligible players like Kevin Maitan (Angels) and Lazaro Armenteros (Athletics) are  highly ranked guys in their respective systems and now still no where close to being major league ready. 
 

Here is the rule 5 eligible lists for the Angels and Athletics

Quote

Los Angeles Angels
Packy Naughton, LHP
Jose Soriano, RHP
Oliver Ortega, RHP
Livan Soto, SS
Orlando Martinez, OF
Kevin Maitan, IF
Leonardo Rivas, SS

Oakland Athletics
Jordan Diaz, 3B
Lazaro Armenteros, OF

Buddy Reed, OF
Brian Howard, RHP
Parker Dunshee, RHP

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...