***Official 2007-2008 MLB Offseason Thread***

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just find Young's walkrate over the last two years to be terribly alarming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it's a red flag and Young is not the sure fire HOFer that some people made him out to be. Still, thanks to his tools, he's still got a bunch of superduperstar at the top of his range, it's just no lock. His floor is pretty high also. For example, his EV is still greater than guys like Adam Jones and Jay Bruce while those guys EV is greater than Garza.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. EV isn't that important with prospects. Also you seem fixated on "toolsy" guys. Not dudes who play baseball really good. Which seems a much better indicator of success.

[/ QUOTE ]


???? EV isn't important? How can you look at anything but EV when evaluating a player? You can put the wieght wherever you want (future, now..etc), but it's all just EV.

Tools=ceiling. That gives you two things you like in an unproven commoditiy-a higher EV and more superstar outcomes.

What is it about Delmon Young that leads you to think he doesn't play baseball really good? Because he had a bad year in the show at age 21? Young is light years ahead of just about everybody entering their age 22 season in terms of baseball skill. It's not like the Rays traded him for a 27 year old in the prime of his career. This is a 24 year old pitcher with 130 big league innings under his belt!

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just find Young's walkrate over the last two years to be terribly alarming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it's a red flag and Young is not the sure fire HOFer that some people made him out to be. Still, thanks to his tools, he's still got a bunch of superduperstar at the top of his range, it's just no lock. His floor is pretty high also. For example, his EV is still greater than guys like Adam Jones and Jay Bruce while those guys EV is greater than Garza.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. EV isn't that important with prospects. Also you seem fixated on "toolsy" guys. Not dudes who play baseball really good. Which seems a much better indicator of success.

[/ QUOTE ]


???? EV isn't important? How can you look at anything but EV when evaluating a player? You can put the wieght wherever you want (future, now..etc), but it's all just EV.

Tools=ceiling. That gives you two things you like in an unproven commoditiy-a higher EV and more superstar outcomes.

What is it about Delmon Young that leads you to think he doesn't play baseball really good? Because he had a bad year in the show at age 21? Young is light years ahead of just about everybody entering their age 22 season in terms of baseball skill. It's not like the Rays traded him for a 27 year old in the prime of his career. This is a 24 year old pitcher with 130 big league innings under his belt!

[/ QUOTE ]

Expected value is a poor term due to the variance inherent in this type of "stuff". Putting together a roster of the highest "EV" players or whatever you want to call them would be a pretty piss poor way to manage a team. You'd end up with dismal black holes and superstars at random positions and this doesn't even really take into account the fact some teams have a cyclical pattern in competition. If the Rays feel they are ready to go in the next few years, they may not want to wait for Young who may or may not develop.

As an aside the outrage over this v the willingness for wanting to the Yanks to part with Melky is mindboggling.

[kyleb]

Uhh, that trade is really good for the Rays AND the Twins.

Rays: Acquire a good SP and RP and a great defensive shortstop. Their holes in their game were...pitching and defense.

Twins: Acquire a power bat (but alarmingly bad walk rate) in the outfield and move a redundant piece in Bartlett so they can start Casilla at shortstop where his value is maximized.

And for all you Delmon Young lovers, he isn't Justin Upton. Sorry.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
Expected value is a poor term due to the variance inherent in this type of "stuff". Putting together a roster of the highest "EV" players or whatever you want to call them would be a pretty piss poor way to manage a team. You'd end up with dismal black holes and superstars at random positions and this doesn't even really take into account the fact some teams have a cyclical pattern in competition. If the Rays feel they are ready to go in the next few years, they may not want to wait for Young who may or may not develop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not you want to build a team with the highest EV is arguable. Black holes can be improved upon very easily. I'd much rather end up with half superstars and half black holes. One thing you can do is weight risk a little higher or lower. The funny thing is, Garza is more risky than Young. That's the real problem I have with this deal.

Personally, I think the Rays window is going to be 2009-2011. This deal is very bad for that time frame.


[ QUOTE ]
As an aside the outrage over this v the willingness for wanting to the Yanks to part with Melky is mindboggling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I want the Yanks to part with Melky for Johan Santana. This is Delmon Young for Matt Garza.

[Thremp]

rwperu,

I don't know WTF you're talking about with team construction, but I'm pretty sure its bad and wrong.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
Uhh, that trade is really good for the Rays AND the Twins.

Rays: Acquire a good SP and RP and a great defensive shortstop. Their holes in their game were...pitching and defense.

Twins: Acquire a power bat (but alarmingly bad walk rate) in the outfield and move a redundant piece in Bartlett so they can start Casilla at shortstop where his value is maximized.



[/ QUOTE ]

The Rays need for pitching is the same as everybody's need, in that you can't have enough. They quietly have some of the best young pitching in baseball. Already Kazmir and Shields are front of the rotation starters. They've got Sonnastine and J.P. Howell as back end types with experience already. Then the Rays have 3 of the top 15 or so pitching prospects in baseball in Jake McGee, Wade Davis, and David Price. All three of those guys should make their debut by opening day 2009, unless held back for service time.

As for the shortstop and relief pitcher; relief depth is nice, but I have a hard time giving added value in the deal when they are going to be paying $2.8MM for a guy who is no better than the three guys they've got already (Wheeler, Reyes, Percival). Incidentally, Percival will be the only one under contract for 2009!

The defensive shortstop is nice, especially if it helps with the young pitching. This is a move for 2008 though, not 2009-2011. That's the biggest problem I have with this deal from the Rays perspective. They are giving up future value for now value. Normally I don't mind that, but in this case, the Rays are paying a price to get to .500 in 2008, not make the playoffs. Unlike the D'backs, they are not keeping their eyes on the prize.

[ QUOTE ]
And for all you Delmon Young lovers, he isn't Justin Upton. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, somebody says something that makes sense to me. Thing is, he doesn't need to be anywhere near Justin Upton to be a lot more valuable than Garza.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
rwperu,

I don't know WTF you're talking about with team construction, but I'm pretty sure its bad and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you telling me if you had two unknown players, you'd rather have them both come out average rather than one a superstar and one a flop?

[kyleb]

The Rays unloaded a redundant piece (outfield) for the need for ready-now (and cheap) starting pitching and ready-now infielders. We can talk about Brignac and Longoria all we want, but Quentin and Jackson were can't-miss prospects as well, and they are barely average at best. Bartlett is a plus-plus defender at shortstop, something they desperately need, and Garza replacing Edwin Jackson is worth approximately 200 games.

If Bartlett "blocks" Brignac, I doubt it will be a problem.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rwperu,

I don't know WTF you're talking about with team construction, but I'm pretty sure its bad and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you telling me if you had two unknown players, you'd rather have them both come out average rather than one a superstar and one a flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure if you managed a team with the philosophy you espouse you'd spend most of the years below replacement level.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rwperu,

I don't know WTF you're talking about with team construction, but I'm pretty sure its bad and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you telling me if you had two unknown players, you'd rather have them both come out average rather than one a superstar and one a flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure if you managed a team with the philosophy you espouse you'd spend most of the years below replacement level.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therein lies the problem; you simply cannot field a garbage team 8/10 years and expect to turn in good revenue. You can say what you want about the free agent market, but you will be hard pressed to sign ANYONE to your team if you just lose all the time; there ARE good deals in the FA market that teams need to buy when the time is right.

rwperu is under the impression that Brignac, Longoria, McGee, Davis, Sonnanstine, Howell, and Niemann all turn into above-average players. The reality is that the Rays will be lucky to get one perennial All-Star out of that group, one or two above average players, and a few contributors. Dewon Brazelton, anyone? Josh Hamilton? I could go on.

All you need to know about this deal is that they unload a redundant player (yes, he is good at what he does, but you cannot trade total nobodies for prospects) and a crappy infielder who hits for average and nothing else for a ready-now plus-plus shortstop and ready-now pitching (forget Rincon, Garza is what is important) to win more in 2008 and have more pieces to a MLB team in 2009 and beyond.

If you think Bartlett blocking Brignac is a problem, you are nuts. If Brignac turns out to be better than Bartlett, then that's a real good problem to have.