O's are willing to move Tillman in right deal, per Roch

[tennOsfan]

How did John Stephens turn out?

That's not what SG was saying. He was saying if the guy's stuff isn't working the minors, how can you expect it to work in the majors? Simple premise.

Some guys might K a lot of hitters in the minors but major league hitters can handle their junk, such as Stephens'.

[maudibjr]

Lots of mileage for a throwaway Roch comment. There not trading Tilman.

[isestrex]

What about Matt Holliday !!! If I was to trade Tillman it would have to be from a class like him, Kemp, and even Grady. He is too young and good to give for guys im hearing like Grienke?????? He was depressed so bad for 2 years.

I'm VERY skeptical about Hollidays numbers outside of Coors. The A's are really trying this year seeing as how the Rangers still don't have pitching and the M's are spit on the shoes of the AL, but Holliday in the Coliseum? I smell a serious decline waiting to happen. His value is going to plummet.

[PaulBako]

I'm VERY skeptical about Hollidays numbers outside of Coors. The A's are really trying this year seeing as how the Rangers still don't have pitching and the M's are spit on the shoes of the AL, but Holliday in the Coliseum? I smell a serious decline waiting to happen. His value is going to plummet.

Holliday and Atkins have the Coors affect on them. They are okay players at best outside of Coors.

[Palmer Esque]

Thanks. Bear in mind, though, that I'm talking strictly about minor leaguers and even moreso HS and college players about to be drafted. Once a guy has gotten enough time in the majors, a couple seasons, the stats tell the majority of the story.

But for younger guys, while stats are very useful, the confirmation from knowledgeable scouts that a guy will be able to continue his success at higher levels is what separates the best prospects from the average prospects. The guys who will continue to develop from the guys who will stagnate.

Yes, I agree. Similarly to what I posted on page two of this thread...I am more interested in seeing how elite prospects deal with adversity and whether or not they learn something from the experience moreso than I am concerned with their stats in the Caroline League sp to speak.

The cream rises to the crop. This much will never change.

[Palmer Esque]

How did John Stephens turn out?

Good day mate! Let's go put another shrimp on the barbie!!!:clap3:

[Palmer Esque]

I don't care what scouts say, if a guy isn't K'ing anyone and is walking a lot and giving up homers, then his ranking and scouting report mean nothing to me.

They could have electric stuff but if it doesn't turn into getting people out and getting them in a way that will translate to the majors, they will have trouble surviving.

In other words, no way can you even remotely discount stats or age.

No one is saying completely disregard stats, but good players, and possible major leaguers, the stats and the intangibles usually go hand and hand IMO.

Most elite guys have both.

[Lucky Jim]

That's not what SG was saying. He was saying if the guy's stuff isn't working the minors, how can you expect it to work in the majors? Simple premise.

Some guys might K a lot of hitters in the minors but major league hitters can handle their junk, such as Stephens'.

Well, yeah. So simple as to be irrelevant, really. I'm not sure who he's disagreeing with. Honestly - it's pretty simple to note that players who don't get guys out in the minors (or who don't hit in the minors) are unlikely to succeed as competition gets more difficult.

And kids who barely pass Algebra II are unlikely to gets As in calculus.

The only point of interest here is whether or not when looking at similar players, a scout's take is better than a statistical analysis. And what relative role each has.

Obviously, you DO discount statistics at times, when they don't tell the complete story. We do it in peripheral situations (see: Jimenez, Luis) and we need to be prepared to do in difficult situations, too (Tillman v. Arrieta).

Mackus' point was pretty clearly confined to the situation at hand: where Tillman and Arrieta have similar numbers, and Tillman appears superficially more advanced. Stoner laid out a - cogent - argument for Tillman's superiority (I'm a Tillman fan, myself) but it relied purely on the numbers.

That this was the point, is pretty evident from the post:

But for younger guys, while stats are very useful, the confirmation from knowledgeable scouts that a guy will be able to continue his success at higher levels is what separates the best prospects from the average prospects. The guys who will continue to develop from the guys who will stagnate.

I.e., sustainability of success.

In this kind of close call, the deciding factor is a lot less likely to be statistical than it is to be projection.

[Roll Tide]

Trading any of Tillman,Arrieta, & Matsz would be a huge mistake.

Trading them for 1 season of Hardy will not happen.

[JBugaboo]

Knowing AM, the only way the Orioles trade Tillman in a "right deal" is if they get multiple pieces in return, of equal or near equal value. And these pieces would have to include at least one prospect with no MLB time.

The other option would be including Tillman as the key prospect in aquiring an established stud... but he'd have to be young and signed for a number of years... and that team would have to be willing or wanting to shed the guy. That's pretty difficult to find.

Put me in the camp of "not gonna happen".

[Lucky Jim]

By the way, let me revise to say that SG is apparently looking for specific statistical markers of non-sustainability. Like K rates and HR rates.

That's a tougher call. For every Bergesen, there's a Spoone. It will be interesting to see how they move forward. And which, if either, has success.

[Frobby]

That's not what SG was saying. He was saying if the guy's stuff isn't working the minors, how can you expect it to work in the majors? Simple premise.

Well, if a pitcher is averaging 6.2 K/9 and 3.2 BB/9 with a 4.40 ERA and a 1.40 WHIP in the minors and has had no major league success by age 27, how can you expect him to succeed in the majors? I don't know, but apparently the Orioles thought Jeremy Guthrie was better than his minor league numbers showed. Guess what, they were right.

[Palmer Esque]

Well, if a pitcher is averaging 6.2 K/9 and 3.2 BB/9 with a 4.40 ERA and a 1.40 WHIP in the minors and has had no major league success by age 27, how can you expect him to succeed in the majors? I don't know, but apparently the Orioles thought Jeremy Guthrie was better than his minor league numbers showed. Guess what, they were right.

Exactly, that is just good scouting, and a great example of a low risk, high reward signing.

I expect even more of these signings during the Mcpahil era than the previous regime.

[Maverick2143]

Holliday and Atkins have the Coors affect on them. They are okay players at best outside of Coors.

Interesting article on this topic.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/11/13/656146/please-stop-abusing-matt-h

[Mackus]

Exactly, that is just good scouting, and a great example of a low risk, high reward signing.

I expect even more of these signings during the Mcpahil era than the previous regime.

Guthrie actually was signed during the previous regime (Flanny/Duke), not under MacPhail's watch.

I am hopeful that we'll continue to make smart signings like him, but I'm not sure MacPhail is as into taking fliers on AAAA type guys as the previous regime was. They didn't get much of a shot, but Flanny and Duke did a good job of bringing in potential cheap players with upside like Knott, House, and Guthrie.