MLB Offseason Moves/Rumor Thread

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, MGH5208 said:

Typical that you take one part of a post to spin your BS.

My pint was that a player doesn't stop trying to play at an elite level just because he isn't being promoted.  He continues to perform to the best of his ability to either get promoted or traded......but you knew that

It depends on the player.

On one hand you might have a guy that, as has been suggested, finds extra motivation.  I don't buy this idea that somehow Ortiz is going to perform better because Jackson is behind him.

On the other hand you might have guys that sulk.

My guess is that, for most of the players, they are self-motivated and dedicated and it doesn't make a noticeable difference either way.

 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, MGH5208 said:

Really?  

He hasn't traded any minor league players over the last couple of years?

 

 

Nobody "elite", which is what we are talking about.

[MGH5208]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Nobody "elite", which is what we are talking about.

Give me the definition of "elite" as it applies to minor league baseball players.  

 

[emmett16]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But they aren't playing for all 30 MLB because Elias is seemingly unwilling to trade them.

Wasn't that your point?  That we need this deep depth and can't be trading these guys to the other teams?

Yes they are.  There is a process in place so teams can’t hoard players forever.  And if you are truly a difference maker another team is going to pursue you. 

My point was deep depth and high end talent is good for the organization as a whole.  It raises the bar and creates a plan B to injury or poor performance. 
 

We aren’t egregiously hoarding prospects and are at a place where we have to make a trade.  We are at a place where we have talented depth and have options on how we can move forward.  We can stand pat or make a move.  There are pros and cons to both.

 

[emmett16]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Nobody "elite", which is what we are talking about.

Hernaiz was the Oakland A’s minor league player of the year.  He has a chance to break camp as A’s starting SS.  I’d say he’s pretty elite.  

[MGH5208]

1 minute ago, emmett16 said:

Hernaiz was the Oakland A’s minor league player of the year.  He has a chance to break camp as A’s starting SS.  I’d say he’s pretty elite.  

Agree.  I was going to say that maybe the As GM traded for him because he though he was an elite talent but I'm waiting for Can Of Corns definition of "elite"

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Hernaiz was the Oakland A’s minor league player of the year.  He has a chance to break camp as A’s starting SS.  I’d say he’s pretty elite.  

He was what, fourth on the depth chart?

Oakland is a bad team with what is considered a weak farm system (1 top 100 players from MLBpipeline for example).

Is he a top 100 prospect?  I don't think he is.

I like Hernaiz, I thought he was a good pick and wish him well, but he's not an elite prospect.

[MGH5208]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

 but he's not an elite prospect.

Again, what's the definition of someone who is?

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, MGH5208 said:

Give me the definition of "elite" as it applies to minor league baseball players.  

 

I'm about to go to bed so I'm not going to put any thought in it but how about top 100?  Guys that the industry as a whole hold in high regard.

Folks seem to like round numbers.

 

 

[emmett16]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He was what, fourth on the depth chart?

Oakland is a bad team with what is considered a weak farm system (1 top 100 players from MLBpipeline for example).

Is he a top 100 prospect?  I don't think he is.

I like Hernaiz, I thought he was a good pick and wish him well, but he's not an elite prospect.

His play, prep, and skills put him in a position to be where he is.  Which is a testament to the system. 
 

I don’t think MLB GMs spend much time on MLB pipeline.  
 

He might not be an “elite top 100 prospect” (whatever that means) but is gonna get a shot to be a top 30 MLB shortstop.  

[MGH5208]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm about to go to bed so I'm not going to put any thought in it but how about top 100?  Guys that the industry as a whole hold in high regard.

Folks seem to like round numbers.

 

 

typical

Good night. 

Maybe you can put some thought to it in the morning and actually go on record because "top 100" (what year?, if someones 98 one year and 102 the next, do they still qualify?), "industry" (MLB execs?  the different publications that rate them?, fans?), "high regard" (what's the quantitative method to figure this out?)

 

[emmett16]

39 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It depends on the player.

On one hand you might have a guy that, as has been suggested, finds extra motivation.  I don't buy this idea that somehow Ortiz is going to perform better because Jackson is behind him.

On the other hand you might have guys that sulk.

My guess is that, for most of the players, they are self-motivated and dedicated and it doesn't make a noticeable difference either way.

 

But what if Ortiz gets a little better by learning/observing how Holliday practices, approaches the game, trains, takes care of himself off the field, learns about his sleep & eating habits, etc.  Meanwhile Holliday does the same  competing against & learning from Ortiz.   Does that same dynamic of high end elite performance occur if one of those guys is org filler? 

[24fps]

30 minutes ago, MGH5208 said:

typical

Good night. 

Maybe you can put some thought to it in the morning and actually go on record because "top 100" (what year?, if someones 98 one year and 102 the next, do they still qualify?), "industry" (MLB execs?  the different publications that rate them?, fans?), "high regard" (what's the quantitative method to figure this out?)

 

We all have our own definitions of what an elite prospect is.  Mine is any prospect that is in the top 50 of Baseball America, Fangraphs and MLB Pipeline at the same time.  All three.  Pick your own mix of sources if you don't like mine because in the end there are no guarantees.  A Fangraphs FV of 55 and higher is a good rough rule of thumb but the lower down in an organization the more volatility you get especially with pitchers. 

[MGH5208]

3 minutes ago, 24fps said:

We all have our own definitions of what an elite prospect is.  Mine is any prospect that is in the top 50 of Baseball America, Fangraphs and MLB Pipeline at the same time.  All three.  Pick your own mix of sources if you don't like mine because in the end there are no guarantees.  A Fangraphs FV of 55 and higher is a good rough rule of thumb but the lower down in an organization the more volatility you get especially with pitchers. 

Thanks!

I get that, I have my own criteria for an "elite" prospect.  I'd like Can of Corn to go on record to what he defines as an "elite" prospect is, but unfortunately, he went to bed before he could tell us.

[Can_of_corn]

6 hours ago, MGH5208 said:

typical

Good night. 

Maybe you can put some thought to it in the morning and actually go on record because "top 100" (what year?, if someones 98 one year and 102 the next, do they still qualify?), "industry" (MLB execs?  the different publications that rate them?, fans?), "high regard" (what's the quantitative method to figure this out?)

 

Typical?

How often am I posting that late?

Hey look who is up at 6am?

Top 100 prospect isn't good enough for you?  Too bad.