Jump to content

Rays are calling up MLB’s #1 prospect(Wander Franco). Will MLB’s #2 prospect(Adley) be next?


higgybaby

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

What makes you so sure?   Just because the media is gabbing about it doesn’t necessarily mean it will change.  Not much in life is guaranteed.  

I have no faith in Tony Clark at all, he seems to be completely unsuited to his task.

Free Agency reform appears to be the most important issue, it is clearly understood and it could be modified fairly easily although not necessarily in a way that gives meaningful additional power to the players, and that’s what we will end up with. The most simple solution is to start the clock when a player is drafted and not when he debuts: X years from draft to FA for a College kid, X + 3-4 for a high school kid, and something similar for the 16-year old international guys. That completely eliminates any service time manipulation.

That way a 22 year old knows he’s hitting FA at about 30, when he still has a reasonable number of productive years left, instead of languishing in the minors until a call-up at 26 and hitting FA at 32. It also makes it more likely that the same kid will be amenable to a long term extension at 26-27. Lots of reasonable benefits from such a change, but the first of them will be no more service time manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Now that he’s signed for 14/$340 mm, whatever advantage may have been gained by having him play some AAA before his promotion seems like rounding error in terms of the financial consequences.    And obviously, the guy proved he was ready for the majors.  

Forget the contract for a moment.  Tatis was brought up at age 20, with no AAA experience and for a team that wasn’t winning.  
 

Was that a mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Philip said:

I have no faith in Tony Clark at all, he seems to be completely unsuited to his task.

Free Agency reform appears to be the most important issue, it is clearly understood and it could be modified fairly easily although not necessarily in a way that gives meaningful additional power to the players, and that’s what we will end up with. The most simple solution is to start the clock when a player is drafted and not when he debuts: X years from draft to FA for a College kid, X + 3-4 for a high school kid, and something similar for the 16-year old international guys. That completely eliminates any service time manipulation.

That way a 22 year old knows he’s hitting FA at about 30, when he still has a reasonable number of productive years left, instead of languishing in the minors until a call-up at 26 and hitting FA at 32. It also makes it more likely that the same kid will be amenable to a long term extension at 26-27. Lots of reasonable benefits from such a change, but the first of them will be no more service time manipulation.

Money is the most important issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Forget the contract for a moment.  Tatis was brought up at age 20, with no AAA experience and for a team that wasn’t winning.  
 

Was that a mistake?

This is revisionist history, the Padres hoped to be competitive that season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

This is revisionist history, the Padres hoped to be competitive that season.

I don’t think they felt they were a contender at that point.

They may have felt they would be better than the record they ended up having but not a contender.  (At least not a legit one…I’m not saying some pie in the sky bs, we are saying this in public thing…I mean a true contender)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes, when is it not?

And the whole Free Agency thing is a fight over the big bag of money lying on the table. So your comment is correct but unproductive.

We don't know where the  6 to 7 years before free agency ranks on the money list. It could be:

1.  Shares of the national TV revenue?

2. Expansion dollars - How much new owners would play for club and what share the players get?

3. Streaming rights shares by the players?

4. Minor league TV right now that MLB has control of  the minor leagues

5. And many other things. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Forget the contract for a moment.  Tatis was brought up at age 20, with no AAA experience and for a team that wasn’t winning.  
 

Was that a mistake?

From which perspective - performance or financial?   From a performance standpoint, I’d say clearly not a mistake.   From a financial perspective, probably not that wise.  (I’m not going to say “mistake” because they did it intentionally.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

We don't know where the  6 to 7 years before free agency ranks on the money list. It could be:

1.  Shares of the national TV revenue?

2. Expansion dollars - How much new owners would play for club and what share the players get?

3. Streaming rights shares by the players?

4. Minor league TV right now that MLB has control of  the minor leagues

5. And many other things. 

 

 

1) none. The players get their salaries.

2) none. The players have nothing to do with expansion

3) if by streaming you mean watching GM on mobile devices I’m sure that will be addressed but the answer is none. The players get their salaries.

4) that’s an interesting question but the MLBPA doesn’t give a damn about minor leaguers because they aren’t part of the MLB CBA.

5) see 1) above.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t think they felt they were a contender at that point.

They may have felt they would be better than the record they ended up having but not a contender.  (At least not a legit one…I’m not saying some pie in the sky bs, we are saying this in public thing…I mean a true contender)

Maybe. But they could have thought (correctly if so as it turned out) that they would be truly competitive in 2020 and if everything fell right they could be in the conversation in 2019 (incorrectly as it turned out). If so, it follows that getting Tatis a full season in the Majors was the best thing for the team's competitive future, especially having just signed Machado to a $300 million deal. They wanted to give themselves the best chance to succeed in 2019, even if success wasn't highly likely.

And even though they didn't have a particularly good season, they still sold an additional 350,000 tickets in 2019 compared to 2018 and were a relevant Major League franchise for the first time since 1998.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Maybe. But they could have thought (correctly if so as it turned out) that they would be truly competitive in 2020 and if everything fell right they could be in the conversation in 2019 (incorrectly as it turned out). If so, it follows that getting Tatis a full season in the Majors was the best thing for the team's competitive future, especially having just signed Machado to a $300 million deal. They wanted to give themselves the best chance to succeed in 2019, even if success wasn't highly likely.

And even though they didn't have a particularly good season, they still sold an additional 350,000 tickets in 2019 compared to 2018 and were a relevant Major League franchise for the first time since 1998.

Well they can’t contend this year but the Os could contend in 2022 if a lot of things go right and they spend money this year.

What if they bring up Adley this year, he plays enough and is dominant enough to win ROY and  the team plays better and ends up with 70 wins?  They could definitely take a big leap in 2022.

The Padres, on paper, were better but their pitching staff in 2019 wasn’t good enough to contend.  They brought up Tatis because they felt he was best SS in the organization and that he had earned it.

 

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

    • Agreed, with the caveat that I'm not convinced that (for example) the 1927 Negro Leagues were a completely different quality of play compared to the 1927 AL/NL. My guess is that if the MLB quality was 1.00 and the International League was .90, then the Negro Leagues of that year were .97 or something.
    • They have to DFA Vieria today right? You can't carry this guy in a 30 game stretch that has started off with two short starts.
    • I think pitcher's platoon splits can be larger, and not just due to random variation. Because pitchers can employ strategies that emphasize the platoon split, like throwing sidearm sweepers/sliders that are vastly more effective against same-sided hitters. Hitters really don't have the option of using some kind of strategy that is wildly more effective against one type of pitcher, or one hand of pitcher.
    • Considering our shallow starting pitching pool, should we put on a full court press to extend Corbin Burnes?
    • With the caveats of my last post. Baseball is kind of unique in that Jorge Mateo and Adam Frazier can get as many chances to impact a game as Mike Trout. It's a little like a version of basketball where everyone on the court had to take at least 15% of the team's shots and nobody could take more than 25%. Or a version of football where you have five starting QBs, and they each only start once every five games. And all of them get 162 games to even out the luck. But, yes, variations in performance and randomness impact every sport.
    • I think we're saying the same thing, or at least we rhyme. If they're going to include one league that has completely different quality of play, why not all leagues? Why stop at the Negro Leagues?
    • Baseball is different from most other team sports in a number of key aspects: The number of trials. 162 games is a lot of games to have random variation smooth out. If you pick random 16-game stretches you'll have NFL-like outliers, such as teams going 15-1 or 1-15. Nobody goes 150-12. Pitchers are very limited in how much they can pitch. A 200-inning starter can only have so much impact. Hitters cannot get more than ~1/8th of a team's PAs. This and the prior point means that there's no way around having your 3rd- and 5th and even 14th-best players getting almost as much playing time as #1. So you end up with the most dominant teams usually not even winning 2/3rds of their games, wherein other sports you can have teams win 80% or more. Which makes baseball look more random. Contributing to this is the expanded playoffs, where a .600 vs .575 matchup is more-or-less a coin flip. I doubt most other sports have a situation where the obviously best team in the league has a 25%-ish shot of the Championship (in other words, a 75% chance of going home disappointed) on day one of the playoffs. In most soccer leagues the regular season champ is The Champ, so there's a 0% chance of that. The best team always takes a big trophy home.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...