-
Prospect digest 10 prospect listing
-
That's quite the aggressive ranking for Gohara. The write ups overall are great though.
-
having Gohard as our best LHP is a bit of a stretch. He was great last year, but like Touki and Fried.. I need more before moving them ahead of even the likes of Newk..
-
That statistic about Albies and Trout is amazing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bravesfanMatt
having Gohard as our best LHP is a bit of a stretch. He was great last year, but like Touki and Fried.. I need more before moving them ahead of even the likes of Newk..
He has the stuff and build to be a TOR pitcher. I think everyone tries to look for linear progression but that's just not the case. At any point in time a prospect can bust or breakout. Seems like the scouts think Gohara is ready to break out in a big way
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thethe
He has the stuff and build to be a TOR pitcher. I think everyone tries to look for linear progression but that's just not the case. At any point in time a prospect can bust or breakout. Seems like the scouts think Gohara is ready to break out in a big way
I agree.. but now he has to sustain that for me to move him. Just like Fried and Touki.. even Newk to a level... all have to repeat their improvements. If they do, they fly up the boards imo..
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thethe
That statistic about Albies and Trout is amazing.
That was kinda cool.
-
Best thing about this write-up is that the guy goes back and owns up to the bad projections he made. He then breaks it down in an attempt to analyze and learn from it. That is a sign of a sound logical thinker.
However, he is clearly just scouting the stat line, and sprinkling in recent draft picks based on where they were selected. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't watched a single one of these prospects in person, and has zero scouting acumen.
Finally, any Braves Top 10 list that excludes Acuna is pretty poor, and shows the list has zero foundation in scouting. In fact, it means the author also has zero connections inside the industry and bases his rankings on zero professionally compiled information.
-
This was a ... unique list. But I liked it. You guys are right, the write-ups are super solid. Gohara being number 4 is a bit silly, but it would be great if he can get that high
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
UNCBlue012
This was a ... unique list. But I liked it. You guys are right, the write-ups are super solid. Gohara being number 4 is a bit silly, but it would be great if he can get that high
I wasn't saying he couldn't make it that high.. just don't think he is there yet. He needs to report in shape and repeat that season. if he does.. then he is blasting up the list for me. He will be like Newk.. a TOR ceiling or High leverage RP floor...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Enscheff
Best thing about this write-up is that the guy goes back and owns up to the bad projections he made. He then breaks it down in an attempt to analyze and learn from it. That is a sign of a sound logical thinker.
However, he is clearly just scouting the stat line, and sprinkling in recent draft picks based on where they were selected. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't watched a single one of these prospects in person, and has zero scouting acumen.
Finally, any Braves Top 10 list that excludes Acuna is pretty poor, and shows the list has zero foundation in scouting. In fact, it means the author also has zero connections inside the industry and bases his rankings on zero professionally compiled information.
I disagree that it's ridiculous not to have Acuņa in the top 10. He has a pretty small sample (that I'm sure this guy hasn't seen), and he hasn't made it to AA. Do I agree with Riley ahead of Acuņa? Heck no, but I can see why someone could.
Also, I think his goal is to use data analytics to have more success in predicting breakout candidates.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Enscheff
Best thing about this write-up is that the guy goes back and owns up to the bad projections he made. He then breaks it down in an attempt to analyze and learn from it. That is a sign of a sound logical thinker.
However, he is clearly just scouting the stat line, and sprinkling in recent draft picks based on where they were selected. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't watched a single one of these prospects in person, and has zero scouting acumen.
Finally, any Braves Top 10 list that excludes Acuna is pretty poor, and shows the list has zero foundation in scouting. In fact, it means the author also has zero connections inside the industry and bases his rankings on zero professionally compiled information.
Yep, I like the info and his willingness to both have strong opinions that differ from the norm, and to own up when he's wrong.
I don't really mind the fact that he's just scouting the stat line. It obviously makes his rankings even more of a crapshoot, but because pretty much every list includes some scouting, I think it can be good to just see where guys stack up on pure numbers. And his CAL model looks intriguing. One thing's for sure - that model LOOOOOOVES Albies. Lindor, Profar, Machado, and JP Crawford as his top 4 comps? Uh...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smootness
Yep, I like the info and his willingness to both have strong opinions that differ from the norm, and to own up when he's wrong.
I don't really mind the fact that he's just scouting the stat line. It obviously makes his rankings even more of a crapshoot, but because pretty much every list includes some scouting, I think it can be good to just see where guys stack up on pure numbers. And his CAL model looks intriguing. One thing's for sure - that model LOOOOOOVES Albies. Lindor, Profar, Machado, and JP Crawford as his top 4 comps? Uh...
So MY take away from this is that Ozzie is mix of Trout and Lindor... cool!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ventura's Stolen Bases
I disagree that it's ridiculous not to have Acuņa in the top 10. He has a pretty small sample (that I'm sure this guy hasn't seen), and he hasn't made it to AA. Do I agree with Riley ahead of Acuņa? Heck no, but I can see why someone could.
Also, I think his goal is to use data analytics to have more success in predicting breakout candidates.
So Acuna is out of the Top 10 based on limited data, but Maitan, Anderson and Allard are in despite limited data?
The guy is clearly doing nothing but scouting the stat line, and then sprinkling in guys like Anderson and Maitan based on where they were or would be drafted. He literally said as much in the Maitan blurb.
No other credible prospect list has Acuna outside the Braves Top 10. It is laughable for any "expert" to exclude him.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ventura's Stolen Bases
I disagree that it's ridiculous not to have Acuņa in the top 10. He has a pretty small sample (that I'm sure this guy hasn't seen), and he hasn't made it to AA. Do I agree with Riley ahead of Acuņa? Heck no, but I can see why someone could.
Also, I think his goal is to use data analytics to have more success in predicting breakout candidates.
How dare you!?!?! Questioning the unquestioned one is an unpardonable offense.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Enscheff
So Acuna is out of the Top 10 based on limited data, but Maitan, Anderson and Allard are in despite limited data?
The guy is clearly doing nothing but scouting the stat line, and then sprinkling in guys like Anderson and Maitan based on where they were or would be drafted. He literally said as much in the Maitan blurb.
No other credible prospect list has Acuna outside the Braves Top 10. It is laughable for any "expert" to exclude him.
Not really going to question any list for the Braves since I think 3-12 are all open for debate IMO. I think Acuna could be as high as 4 and could make a case for 10th best. So I don't have too much beef with this. I disagree, but not going to completely dismiss him..
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bravesfanMatt
Not really going to question any list for the Braves since I think 3-12 are all open for debate IMO. I think Acuna could be as high as 4 and could make a case for 10th best. So I don't have too much beef with this. I disagree, but not going to completely dismiss him..
I can appreciate that point of view, but a prospect guy has to be consistent. If Acuna hasn't proven enough, then neither has Maitan, Anderson or Allard.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clvclv
How dare you!?!?! Questioning the unquestioned one is an unpardonable offense.
Another insightful gem by the resident genius.
Care to impart some more wisdom on us like you did with your Sale trade proposal?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Enscheff
Another insightful gem by the resident genius.
Care to impart some more wisdom on us like you did with your Sale trade proposal?
Please.
-
My take on this....it really reminds me how bad the Simmons trade has turned out. To think what we gave up to get Gohara and then realize the ONLY player we have left that we received from the Simmons trade is Newcomb. I agree Gohara is way high, but comparing their ages...he IS probably the better prospect. If Newcomb doesn't become AT least a solid #2 starter....this trade was down right horrible.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheBravos
My take on this....it really reminds me how bad the Simmons trade has turned out. To think what we gave up to get Gohara and then realize the ONLY player we have left that we received from the Simmons trade is Newcomb. I agree Gohara is way high, but comparing their ages...he IS probably the better prospect. If Newcomb doesn't becaome AT least a solid #2 starter....this trade was down right horrible.
The Gohara deal was a great deal, though. It's not really fair to expect the same of every deal or to compare others that way, just like it isn't fair to compare any other deals to what we got for Miller.
And the Simmons deal was always for Newcomb; the other pieces were pretty meaningless overall. But yeah, it definitely doesn't look as good now as it did then, when it was probably about an even deal. Aybar was hot garbage, Ellis was alright and traded, and Newcomb didn't take a big step forward. I do think most of the prospects rankings are too bearish on Newcomb, though. He's basically in the same spot he was when we got him - and while treading water usually causes you to lose prospect momentum, it doesn't necessarily mean he's much less likely to hit his ceiling.
If we could have that one back, we might take it back. But we would still be looking to shop Simmons, and trades for prospects don't always work out.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Enscheff
I can appreciate that point of view, but a prospect guy has to be consistent. If Acuna hasn't proven enough, then neither has Maitan, Anderson or Allard.
Yes agreed. Just like when Max was left off the lefty top 10 prospect list because the guy wanted to "see more"...after he helped win the league, but he had Groome on his list.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smootness
The Gohara deal was a great deal, though. It's not really fair to expect the same of every deal or to compare others that way, just like it isn't fair to compare any other deals to what we got for Miller.
And the Simmons deal was always for Newcomb; the other pieces were pretty meaningless overall. But yeah, it definitely doesn't look as good now as it did then, when it was probably about an even deal. Aybar was hot garbage, Ellis was alright and traded, and Newcomb didn't take a big step forward. I do think most of the prospects rankings are too bearish on Newcomb, though. He's basically in the same spot he was when we got him - and while treading water usually causes you to lose prospect momentum, it doesn't necessarily mean he's much less likely to hit his ceiling.
If we could have that one back, we might take it back. But we would still be looking to shop Simmons, and trades for prospects don't always work out.
Aybar killed us...he could have been flipped immediately because he was still considered a good player before he played with us. I agree the trade was always about Newcomb, but Simmons wasn't your average player. You really need two impact players to let him go.
I agree that they have been tough on Newcomb (mainly because of his age). There were also plenty of concerns about him before the trade was made. The reason we chose this trade (just like others), is that he was a big lefty. I feel we could have gotten a better return, because outside of Newcomb....the Angel's farm was horrid.
I was ok with trading Simmons, but because of his age, talent and being he was locked up long term on the cheap...we probably could have sit on him (no hurry), and waited for the Shelby Miller type offer. He is a special player.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smootness
The Gohara deal was a great deal, though. It's not really fair to expect the same of every deal or to compare others that way, just like it isn't fair to compare any other deals to what we got for Miller.
And the Simmons deal was always for Newcomb; the other pieces were pretty meaningless overall. But yeah, it definitely doesn't look as good now as it did then, when it was probably about an even deal. Aybar was hot garbage, Ellis was alright and traded, and Newcomb didn't take a big step forward. I do think most of the prospects rankings are too bearish on Newcomb, though. He's basically in the same spot he was when we got him - and while treading water usually causes you to lose prospect momentum, it doesn't necessarily mean he's much less likely to hit his ceiling.
If we could have that one back, we might take it back. But we would still be looking to shop Simmons, and trades for prospects don't always work out.
I wouldn't say 'all about Newk'.. he was a big piece, but Ellis was in their top 5 (weak system I know) if I recall correctly and maybe #2 pitcher. He has a good profile of missing bats. Just another guy who can't control his stuff.. I think the FO is very upset about the Simmons trade and wanted more from Aybar and Ellis..
maybe Cade or Jamie can pan out or return us something...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheBravos
Aybar killed us...he could have been flipped immediately because he was still considered a good player before he played with us. I agree the trade was always about Newcomb, but Simmons wasn't your average player. You really need two impact players to let him go.
I agree that they have been tough on Newcomb (mainly because of his age). There were also plenty of concerns about him before the trade was made. The reason we chose this trade (just like others), is that he was a big lefty. I feel we could have gotten a better return, because outside of Newcomb....the Angel's farm was horrid.
I was ok with trading Simmons, but because of his age, talent and being he was locked up long term on the cheap...we probably could have sit on him (no hurry), and waited for the Shelby Miller type offer. He is a special player.
Aybar killed the Braves twice. He was terrible, so he couldn't be flipped for anything useful at the deadline. There was also some chatter immediately after the trade was made that if he put up his typical 2-3 WAR season he would have been extended a QO and netted the Braves another draft pick.
Needless to say, none of that came about.
Realistically, the only trade that has turned out well for the Braves is the Heyward -> Miller -> Swanson/Inciarte string of trades, and that success relied on the complete ineptitude of Dave Stewart. None of the other trades have produced much of anything.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheBravos
Aybar killed us...he could have been flipped immediately because he was still considered a good player before he played with us. I agree the trade was always about Newcomb, but Simmons wasn't your average player. You really need two impact players to let him go.
I agree that they have been tough on Newcomb (mainly because of his age). There were also plenty of concerns about him before the trade was made. The reason we chose this trade (just like others), is that he was a big lefty. I feel we could have gotten a better return, because outside of Newcomb....the Angel's farm was horrid.
I was ok with trading Simmons, but because of his age, talent and being he was locked up long term on the cheap...we probably could have sit on him (no hurry), and waited for the Shelby Miller type offer. He is a special player.
We were likely never going to get anything close to a Miller offer. This is what I'm talking about in terms of taking legitimately great deals and comparing everything else to them.
-
The only trade which was good for the heyward deal? Really?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smootness
We were likely never going to get anything close to a Miller offer. This is what I'm talking about in terms of taking legitimately great deals and comparing everything else to them.
Agreed, but we could have definitely gotten two great prospects from a team with a better farm (instead of one high prospect, and a MLB player...I barely count Ellis). Coppy was really counting on flipping Aybar for another great prospect. In his defense....who would have thought Aybar would have played as badly as he did(and he probably did that because the Angels had no one else we wanted). Some of the trade factors like that were just bad luck. Still...when you trade a guy like Simmons, you can't put all of your eggs in one basket (we all know the prospect fail rate...especially for pitchers). I just feel there was probably a better deal out there. Of course, doesn't really matter at this point lol...I'm rooting for Newcomb. I'm hoping he has a break out year.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thethe
The only trade which was good for the heyward deal? Really?
Apparently he forgot about the Justin Upton deal. One year of Upton for Fried, Gohara (formerly Mallex), Jace, and Dustin Peterson. That's a pretty nice haul. While it's possible none of those guys turn into anything we could easily package all of them together and get a very, very nice return just based on their current value.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
striker42
Apparently he forgot about the Justin Upton deal. One year of Upton for Fried, Gohara (formerly Mallex), Jace, and Dustin Peterson. That's a pretty nice haul. While it's possible none of those guys turn into anything we could easily package all of them together and get a very, very nice return just based on their current value.
I think he was saying that the only deal that has produced fruit. All of the guys (promising as they may be), are still prospects. There is a chance none pan out (although I doubt that's the case). By the numbers, the Shelby trade is the only trade that has proven to pay off. All the others have been labeled fails or "wait and see".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
striker42
Apparently he forgot about the Justin Upton deal. One year of Upton for Fried, Gohara (formerly Mallex), Jace, and Dustin Peterson. That's a pretty nice haul. While it's possible none of those guys turn into anything we could easily package all of them together and get a very, very nice return just based on their current value.
And so many more. Braves went from the worst farm system to the best in 2 years and has been the best for 2 two years running with signs that a 3rd year in a row is almost a certainty.
I just don't get that comment at all.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheBravos
I think he was saying that the only deal that has produced fruit. All of the guys (promising as they may be), are still prospects. There is a chance none pan out (although I doubt that's the case). By the numbers, the Shelby trade is the only trade that has proven to pay off. All the others have been labeled fails or "wait and see".
But just because players bust doesn't mean they weren't good trades. In no world 's the touissant deal anything but a great deal even though touki may never pitch a MLB inning
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thethe
But just because players bust doesn't mean they weren't good trades. In no world 's the touissant deal anything but a great deal even though touki may never pitch a MLB inning
Yes , I agree with you. If a player never plays a MLB game with(or never even gets there)....it can't be considered a "good" trade though. It would be considered a good "gamble" like A Jackson and a valid reason to trade. All prospects are gambles and you take a low risk or a high risk (which validates the trade). Trades have to produce MLB players to be considered good in my opinion.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheBravos
Yes , I agree with you. If a player never plays a MLB game with(or never even gets there)....it can't be considered a "good" trade though. It would be considered a good "gamble" like A Jackson and a valid reason to trade. All prospects are gambles and you take a low risk or a high risk (which validates the trade). Trades have to produce MLB players to be considered good in my opinion.
I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
striker42
I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.
This.. many teams improve by trading prospects.. That is why you collect so many. To replenish by using them or trading them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
striker42
I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.
And when we make that trade or develop those players into MLB players...it makes it a successful trade. Look...don't get me wrong here. I love our farm. I love what they are doing. I think we should be patient and build a farm foundation that will last us for a decade or longer.
It is all a gamble. Even a slam dunk prospect (if there is such a thing), can blow a arm or a knee out. You can have the best farm ever assembled. You can make good trades (which are really good gambles), with the info you have on hand. At some point...it has to produce MLB players either by trading prospects or developing them.
The White Sox received a haul for Sale. I think we could all agree with that. No one would argue that they didn't maximize his value. Still, if none of those players really pan out, it ends up being a bad trade because it didn't produce.
I am agreeing with you. We have received a TON of prospect value. We have one of the top (if not the top), farms in all of baseball. It "should" produce many MLB players either thru trade or development. The jury is still out though on many of the trades.
It's the same as rating a draft and then going back three years later and doing it again.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
striker42
I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.
Right, and if they convert those assets into players that produce MLB value, they will have succeeded.
However, as of now, nothing other than the gift from the DBacks has produced anything. The stated goal was to compete by 2017, and the trades made to achieve that goal have largely failed.
Additionally, none of the non-DBacks prospects acquired have increased in value other than perhaps Fried. The list of prospects recently acquired via trade whose value has substantially deteriorated is extensive. I won't bother listing them all, but Newcomb, Jenkins, Blair, Touki, etc, etc, have all lost a lot of the value they held before being acquired by the Braves. Notice a trend? They are all pitchers, which is what the Braves have decided to focus on.
So no, I would not call this rebuild a resounding success, nor would I say Coppy is doing a wonderful job. His piloting of this rebuild is mediocre, at best. I'm pretty sure any other GM could have done just as well, or better, given the same set of circumstances.
-
What could coppy have done to make this rebuild better?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thethe
What could coppy have done to make this rebuild better?
I don't agree that he's done an average job. I think he has done a good job, but has been bitten a few times for being agressive (it happens). They did kinda switch horses midstream though, from a partial rebuild to a full rebuild (which is where they should have started). In saying that, it could have been more of Hart's idea at the time and not Coppy's (he hadn't been given full power yet)...who knows.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheBravos
I don't agree that he's done an average job. I think he has done a good job, but has been bitten a few times for being agressive (it happens). They did kinda switch horses midstream though, from a partial rebuild to a full rebuild (which is where they should have started). In saying that, it could have been more of Hart's idea at the time and not Coppy's (he hadn't been given full power yet)...who knows.
And of course no GM is 100%.
But the Braves haven't been this well positioned in almost a decade...maybe longer.