Is Austin Hays Just an OF Version of Jorge Mateo?

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The title was more of an attention getter. The primary purpose of the thread was to start a discussion about why (I think) it makes sense to give Cowser a longer look and play him over Hays. 

To your thin limb point, unless the other poster is Austin Hay's primary care physician then trying to use him playing through undisclosed injuries as an excuse for his struggles throughout his entire career seems a bit ridiculous to me. 

It sounds like you really like Cowser. I'm fine with that though we haven't seen much from his limited Big League time to get excited about. 

But if we were to say replace Hays with Cowser, I have two questions for you?

1) What do you think we can get for Hays in any kind of trade?

2) What happens if we get rid of Hays and Cowser struggles for an extended period of time or is just not very good? I ask because I think it's reasonable to expect that not all of our prospects will make it.

[Frobby]

53 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Nothing absurd with saying someone who is slightly above average isn't good.   Though I suppose it's where someone draws a line.  If the average ops is .734, do you take it as simple as anyone at .735 or more is good,  and anyone .733 or below is bad?  Hey, if so knock yourself out!  For me being slightly above average doesn't equate to 'good', but just that... close to average.  We can argue the word choices all we want,  but Hays is not so far above league average to pretend that not considering him a good hitter is absurd. 

Sounds like an argument about semantics to me.  As everyone knows, I’m very fond of Hays.  He’s a games and I like how he rolls, though I’m totally aware of his flaws.  Do I think he’s a star?  No.  Is he above average?  Probably slightly, but arguably not.  Is “good” a different thing than “slightly above average,” and if so, which term ranks higher?   I think people would give different answers to that.  

[RZNJ]

9 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

It sounds like you really like Cowser. I'm fine with that though we haven't seen much from his limited Big League time to get excited about. 

But if we were to say replace Hays with Cowser, I have two questions for you?

1) What do you think we can get for Hays in any kind of trade?

2) What happens if we get rid of Hays and Cowser struggles for an extended period of time or is just not very good? I ask because I think it's reasonable to expect that not all of our prospects will make it.

You don’t necessarily have to replace Hays with Cowser.   You could go into the season with the idea that Hays will play about 120 games in LF.  Cowser gets 2 starts a week against RHP.   Maybe not the best way to evaluate Cowser but it’s an opportunity and we still have Hays.   If Cowser excels you find more AB’s for him.

[wildbillhiccup]

11 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

It sounds like you really like Cowser. I'm fine with that though we haven't seen much from his limited Big League time to get excited about. 

But if we were to say replace Hays with Cowser, I have two questions for you?

1) What do you think we can get for Hays in any kind of trade?

2) What happens if we get rid of Hays and Cowser struggles for an extended period of time or is just not very good? I ask because I think it's reasonable to expect that not all of our prospects will make it.

1) Little to nothing. 

2) I'm fine with keeping Hays (as a contingency plan). I just want Cowser to get a longer look to start the season. 

Cowser is still an unknown to me. I want to see more of him to see he can carry over his MiLB success before I write him off. Until we have a larger MLB sample size I still think he has considerably more upside than Hays offensively. 

[forphase1]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Sounds like an argument about semantics to me.  As everyone knows, I’m very fond of Hays.  He’s a games and I like how he rolls, though I’m totally aware of his flaws.  Do I think he’s a star?  No.  Is he above average?  Probably slightly, but arguably not.  Is “good” a different thing than “slightly above average,” and if so, which term ranks higher?   I think people would give different answers to that.  

Sure.  I love how Hays plays the games and he's one of my favorites as I just like him.  He plays the game the way I think the game should be played, whatever that means!    But sometimes that makes me a bit too biased towards him, and when I look at his actual performance it's as you said, probably slightly above average.  My point in the semantics was more towards the word 'absurd'.  If you want to say a career 107+ OPS hitter is good, fine.  I just happen to disagree, and that disagreement isn't so far out of place to be called 'absurd'.  The line between average/above average and good may differ from person to person, but in Hays case his numbers are not so outstanding that not considering him good is "wildly unreasonable, illogical or inappropriate, the definition of absurd.  

[wildbillhiccup]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Hays was a legit all star. Then got bumped to all start start. Finished top 3 in LF GG. Leads off against LH SP. 

Enjoy this year with Hays. Now next year, is when we can talk about moving because of FA. 

Yes, Austin Hays was a good player for three months last season. That's all that making that All-Star Team means and it's silly to try represent those three months as an overall view of his worth as a player. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

1) Little to nothing. 

2) I'm fine with keeping Hays (as a contingency plan). I just want Cowser to get a longer look to start the season. 

Cowser is still an unknown to me. I want to see more of him to see he can carry over his MiLB success before I write him off. Until we have a larger MLB sample size I still think he has considerably more upside than Hays offensively. 

I think this is really the key thing for Cowser. He’s a tough guy to judge. There are things about him that say he’s going to be a flop and was a bad pick. There are other things that say he has AS potential and could be a great #2 hitter.

But he has to play. He needs consistent MAJOR LEAGUE at bats. When I say consistent, I’m not saying he has to play 6-7 games a week right now but he should be starting 3-4 games a week to start the season and then you just see what happens.  

I don’t think anyone on this site is saying he is a can’t miss guy but he’s a relatively highly ranked player that the Os used the 5th pick of the draft on. He came out of college and has put up excellent numbers in the minors.  He has some holes in his game but at this point, he is only learning so much in AAA and he needs the chance to sink or swim at the ML level.  Or, they need to look to trade him before he maybe crashes and burns and loses almost all of his value.

If you want to dangle him for a high levels cost controlled high leverage reliever, I am good with that. Or if you still want to try to get Cease and you use him, that’s fine too.  But something has to give. Sending him to AAA or making him a spare part on the ML roster doesn’t help anyone.

[wildbillhiccup]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

But he has to play. He needs consistent MAJOR LEAGUE at bats. When I say consistent, I’m not saying he has to play 6-7 games a week right now but he should be starting 3-4 games a week to start the season and then you just see what happens.  

100%. I don't see how you can possibly judge him or write him off until you give him regular PT and at least 100 - 150 ABs this season. If he's still struggling at that point and it's effecting the team's ability to contend then reevaluate the Cowser / Hays dymanic at that point. 

That said, I have zero faith that the team will take that approach with him. That's part fo the reason I started this thread. If Elias doesn't still believe in Cowser then he should probably just trade him now because not playing him is only going to hinder his development as a player even more. 

[Frobby]

Assume we have roughly 2000 PA to allocate among our outfielders (ignoring whatever time those players get at 1B or DH).  Last year we had: Hays 558 (566), Mullins 436 (455), Santander 370 (656), Hicks 209 (236), McKenna 127 (139), Cowser 77 (77), O’Hearn 72 (368), Vavra 46 (56), Frazier 31 (455),  Stowers 31 (33),  Kjerstad 8 (33).  (PA as an OF first, total PA in parentheses.)

So how would you like to see them split this year?   We know injuries and performance will alter any plan.  Barring injuries, Mullins’ PA go way up.  Hicks and Frazier are gone.  

I’d like to start with a rough plan of Hays 475, Mullins 550, Santander 350, Cowser 375, Kjerstad 250.   Both Santander and Kjerstad will see a good bit of time at DH too, and maybe a smattering of 1B.  These numbers will vary depending on how players perform and their health. 
 

[btdart20]

7 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

you give him regular PT and at least 100 - 150 ABs this season

General consensus is “we know who a hitter is between 500-1000 PAs.”  Maybe you need less now with all the analytics in today’s game.

I’d like to see him approach 300-350 PAs in 2024.  

He’s at 77 PAs now.  Another 53 to lose rookie eligibility.  He’d have to really flop for that be a consideration for 2024.

[Bemorewins]

38 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

You don’t necessarily have to replace Hays with Cowser.   You could go into the season with the idea that Hays will play about 120 games in LF.  Cowser gets 2 starts a week against RHP.   Maybe not the best way to evaluate Cowser but it’s an opportunity and we still have Hays.   If Cowser excels you find more AB’s for him.

That is an option to take. I'm a little leery about handling prospects this way because I believe it is best for them to have consistent ABs. The other issue that I have with this approach is if you use Cowser as essentially the LH bench bat/platoon then what do you do with Kjerstad? IMO between the 2 Kjerstad has a higher ceiling as a hitter, especially being the potential power hitter that we need to hit behind Adley/Holliday/Henderson.

[wildbillhiccup]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Assume we have roughly 2000 PA to allocate among our outfielders (ignoring whatever time those players get at 1B or DH).  Last year we had: Hays 558 (566), Mullins 436 (455), Santander 370 (656), Hicks 209 (236), McKenna 127 (139), Cowser 77 (77), O’Hearn 72 (368), Vavra 46 (56), Frazier 31 (455),  Stowers 31 (33),  Kjerstad 8 (33).  (PA as an OF first, total PA in parentheses.)

So how would you like to see them split this year?   We know injuries and performance will alter any plan.  Barring injuries, Mullins’ PA go way up.  Hicks and Frazier are gone.  

I’d like to start with a rough plan of Hays 475, Mullins 550, Santander 350, Cowser 375, Kjerstad 250.   Both Santander and Kjerstad will see a good bit of time at DH too, and maybe a smattering of 1B.  These numbers will vary depending on how players perform and their health. 
 

I personally think you're a little high on Hays (for me), but it would really depend on how Cowser performs.  I also think there's another layer to the conversation and that's how each player reaches those bench marks. If Elias believes in Cowser then I'd like to see him give the kid a vote of confidence and give him an extended look as the starting left fielder at the beginning of the season. Or at an absolute minimum make it an open competion between Hays and Cowser going into Spring Training. And if Cowser wins the job and is still  struggling after 100 - 150 regular ABs then Elias can re-evaluate the Cowser / Hays dynamic. 

I'd also like to see more ABs for Kjerstad, but it's hard to see him eclipsing 250 with players like Santander and Rutschman who are going to eat into the available DH at bats. 

[wildbillhiccup]

6 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

General consensus is “we know who a hitter is between 500-1000 PAs.”  Maybe you need less now with all the analytics in today’s game.

I’d like to see him approach 300-350 PAs in 2024.  

He’s at 77 PAs now.  Another 53 to lose rookie eligibility.  He’d have to really flop for that be a consideration for 2024.

Agreed, I just set the bench mark lower because I realize it's a bit of a juggling game managing a contending team and developing players at the MLB level. The key to be is they need to "regular" ABs so you give him a chance to get comfortable and find his rhythmn. 

[Bemorewins]

40 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

1) Little to nothing. 

2) I'm fine with keeping Hays (as a contingency plan). I just want Cowser to get a longer look to start the season. 

Cowser is still an unknown to me. I want to see more of him to see he can carry over his MiLB success before I write him off. Until we have a larger MLB sample size I still think he has considerably more upside than Hays offensively. 

Oh wow... I know many of us fans in the modern era ascribe to analytics to a great degree. But because the game is still played on the field by humans with personalities and group dynamics, I can't see how that goes over well. Hays was an all-star last season and is one of the most tenured members of the team. I don't see how you go to him and say, you will now ride the bench so that we can experiment with the playing time of a guy who did nothing at the Big League level last year. I don't see how that goes over well in the club house. And then if Cowser struggles, I don't think that you could go back to Hays saying "no harm no foul".

I don't think we should write Cowser off at all. But in a season with World Series aspirations and given you are already going to be acclimating probably 2 other more talented LHH (Holliday & Kjerstad), I think it's fine to leave Cowser in AAA until Hays inevitable in-season injury. Then in the offseason you can trade or non-tender Hays if Cowser has shown you something in whatever playing time that he gets this year.

Simply swapping Hays for Cowser is an unnecessary risk to take this season IMO.

[RZNJ]

17 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

That is an option to take. I'm a little leery about handling prospects this way because I believe it is best for them to have consistent ABs. The other issue that I have with this approach is if you use Cowser as essentially the LH bench bat/platoon then what do you do with Kjerstad? IMO between the 2 Kjerstad has a higher ceiling as a hitter, especially being the potential power hitter that we need to hit behind Adley/Holliday/Henderson.

Kjerstad isn’t likely getting any LF starts at OPACY anyway.  O’Hearn has to go.  Then Kjerstad could share RF/DH AB’s with Santander and also get some RF starts when Santander gives Mountcastle a day off at 1B.   I figure 70 DH starts and another 50 starts in RF.   Santander gets 110 starts in RF, 30 at DH, and 10 at 1B.  
 

As for Cowser that’s the best I could come up with.  Good chance he starts at Norfolk to work on his approach, cutting down his K’s, and improving his pitch recognition on off speed stuff.  

Edited February 6 by RZNJ