BA's Midseason Top 50 Prospects

If you draft 40 guys per year, some guys will produce. It doesn't mean you are bad or good at your job. With 40 picks and a few Int'l signings some are bound to succeed, and some fail (Salcedo!). Just the nature of the business. If you consistently have an above average number of guys succeed and get ranked highly, then I lean toward you know what you are doing and it is paying off. Just because two Wren guys have flourished, doesn't mean squat. The system was Peraza and pretty much no one else before the rebuild was put in full force.
 
50PoundHead said:
That's a legitimate point. My only disagreement (minor) is that if you are talking about Dustin Peterson, he's a kid who could have 20 HR power. He's not a speed guy like Peraza, Albies, or Smith. If Peterson, Ruiz, and Davidson show they can ramp up their power as the fill out and advance through the minors, they should be at least B-level prospects.

My guess moving forward is that they are going to try and find their offense in Latin America.
Click to expand...

Unless they are going to spend big dollars on Cubans, then that Latin American offense is a minimum of 5-6 years away.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad for the renewed effort there. But, expecting it to reap near term benefits just isn't going to happen.
 
50PoundHead said:
That's a legitimate point. My only disagreement (minor) is that if you are talking about Dustin Peterson, he's a kid who could have 20 HR power. He's not a speed guy like Peraza, Albies, or Smith. If Peterson, Ruiz, and Davidson show they can ramp up their power as the fill out and advance through the minors, they should be at least B-level prospects.

My guess moving forward is that they are going to try and find their offense in Latin America.
Click to expand...

I agree, and its WAY overdue.
 
I agree that we should go all-in on a rebuild, but you still have to be smart about it. We now should be looking to improve the major-league team with long-term options. We should try to build a postseason team for next year, so long as we can do it while still looking long-term.

But trading everybody you can trade isn't necessarily smart. Grilli and Maybin can be good players for us next year. If you can get a good, young, controllable player for them, sure, trade them. But if you're only going to get a decent or marginal prospect, then there's an argument to be made that the value they given us next year is better than the return.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
My argument is that you shouldn't half way rebuild or tie an arm behind your back in any way like continuing a faux contend while you rebuild philosophy.
Click to expand...

your argument on this is based off something that hasn't happened yet. we have no indication the FO is going to be buying, or selling assets to contend this year.
 
smootness said:
I agree that we should go all-in on a rebuild, but you still have to be smart about it. We now should be looking to improve the major-league team with long-term options. We should try to build a postseason team for next year, so long as we can do it while still looking long-term.

But trading everybody you can trade isn't necessarily smart. Grilli and Maybin can be good players for us next year. If you can get a good, young, controllable player for them, sure, trade them. But if you're only going to get a decent or marginal prospect, then there's an argument to be made that the value they given us next year is better than the return.
Click to expand...

No question.

But the smart thing to do is to have EVERYTHING on the table. You don't fire sale which implies shipping off players at a reduced value. But, if you can get better value, or even equal value as part of a redistribution of talent, then you should be open to doing so.

Take Peraza for instance. The guy is projected to be a either a very good defensive SS and/or 2B whose bat would play well at either position, high average, few walks, no power and some SB. Making him a terrible 3B or mediocre CF is a terrible use of his talent doing so just because he is blocked at his real positions. They should either trade him at the maximum value that he would bring or make room for him in one of his best positions by trading the player standing in his way. And you can't say well, just move Jace over to 3B because then you have taken a decent 2B and made him a horrible 3B.
 
yeezus said:
your argument on this is based off something that hasn't happened yet. we have no indication the FO is going to be buying, or selling assets to contend this year.
Click to expand...

No, I am advocating that the Braves FO take the position that I support. I certainly hope that they do or are allowed to. My biggest concern is that they have oversight from ownership who wants to maintain the façade of a competitive team without regard to how that hampers a most effective rebuild.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
No question.

But the smart thing to do is to have EVERYTHING on the table. You don't fire sale which implies shipping off players at a reduced value. But, if you can get better value, or even equal value as part of a redistribution of talent, then you should be open to doing so.

Take Peraza for instance. The guy is projected to be a either a very good defensive SS and/or 2B whose bat would play well at either position, high average, few walks, no power and some SB. Making him a terrible 3B or mediocre CF is a terrible use of his talent doing so just because he is blocked at his real positions. They should either trade him at the maximum value that he would bring or make room for him in one of his best positions by trading the player standing in his way. And you can't say well, just move Jace over to 3B because then you have taken a decent 2B and made him a horrible 3B.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. And all evidence points to our FO also believing this and doing this.

The Kimbrel trade should have proven that to everyone who questioned it. The ownership doesn't have anything to do with any baseball moves; the FO doesn't have anyone in their ear.
 
smootness said:
I agree that we should go all-in on a rebuild, but you still have to be smart about it. We now should be looking to improve the major-league team with long-term options. We should try to build a postseason team for next year, so long as we can do it while still looking long-term.

But trading everybody you can trade isn't necessarily smart. Grilli and Maybin can be good players for us next year. If you can get a good, young, controllable player for them, sure, trade them. But if you're only going to get a decent or marginal prospect, then there's an argument to be made that the value they given us next year is better than the return.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Making trades just for the sake of it is stupid. Marginal prospects do not do anything for the long term but Maybin/Grilli/Uribe can help the team win in 2016 which will help at the gate and be more of an impact down the road financially.
 
thethe said:
Exactly. Making trades just for the sake of it is stupid. Marginal prospects do not do anything for the long term but Maybin/Grilli/Uribe can help the team win in 2016 which will help at the gate and be more of an impact down the road financially.
Click to expand...

Depth is never a bad thing and the Braves can use depth (any type of position player and lower level pitching depth). Those 3 likely aren't around whenever we are in contention for a playoff run.
 
gilesfan said:
Depth is never a bad thing and the Braves can use depth (any type of position player and lower level pitching depth). Those 3 likely aren't around whenever we are in contention for a playoff run.
Click to expand...

Well considering I think we could make a legitimate run at the playoffs next year and an outside shot this year I disagree.

The Braves will continue to stock the system over the years just like they did in the 90's and most of the 2000's under this regime.

Trading for an extra 2-3 C+ prospects doesn't move the needle.
 
thethe said:
Well considering I think we could make a legitimate run at the playoffs next year and an outside shot this year I disagree.

The Braves will continue to stock the system over the years just like they did in the 90's and most of the 2000's under this regime.

Trading for an extra 2-3 C+ prospects doesn't move the needle.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that they would be traded for C+ type prospects.

The emphasis should be on quality as opposed to quantity even if that player is low minors or even coming off injury (Fried) as long as the injury has a good history of full recovery.

You don't give any player away. But you shouldn't hang on to them at the expense of adding controllable talent based on a long shot hope of maybe, possibly being OK this year or next. The plan is 2017. Stick to the plan.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
You are assuming that they would be traded for C+ type prospects.

The emphasis should be on quality as opposed to quantity even if that player is low minors or even coming off injury (Fried) as long as the injury has a good history of full recovery.

You don't give any player away. But you shouldn't hang on to them at the expense of adding controllable talent based on a long shot hope of maybe, possibly being OK this year or next. The plan is 2017. Stick to the plan.
Click to expand...

And again, all evidence points to the FO also believing this.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Unless they are going to spend big dollars on Cubans, then that Latin American offense is a minimum of 5-6 years away.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad for the renewed effort there. But, expecting it to reap near term benefits just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

I agree there won't be any overnight sensations coming from the international signings, especially not power hitters. I was speaking more about the long term strategy moving forward.
 
FWIW, Callis is on record saying that he believes we now have the deepest system in baseball...

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/132950604/pipeline-inbox-what-is-brady-aikens-timeline

"With all of the talent the Braves added, they might have the deepest farm system in baseball. Factoring in both quality and quantity, while including current big leaguers who retain prospect/rookie eligibility and Draft picks who are expected to sign, I rate Atlanta as having the seventh-best system. My top seven:

1. Astros
2. Rangers
3. Pirates
4. Twins
5. Cubs
6. Red Sox
7. Braves"

The Twins have promoted Sano since then, so I'm relatively sure that drops them on that list (although I wouldn't think out of the Top 10).

I can see the arguments on both sides, but it now seems that "the plan" has been to go pitching-heavy (in both trade targets and the draft this year) and go on a spending spree throwing money around all over the place during the next international signing period.

As always, there are lots of "ifs", but IF we add 2-3 high-end impact offensive players on the international market to what he already considers the deepest system and a handful of top prospects from teams ahead of us on his current list graduate (Corey Seager, Joey Gallo, Kyle Schwarber, Rusney Castillo and a P or two from Boston) it will be awfully tough not to consider our system the best in the game at that point IMO.

Given where the current regime started, what they've done thus far is beyond amazing. If they're able to carry out the last step of "the plan", arguing that they've done anything other than a great job will be laughable.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
No, I am advocating that the Braves FO take the position that I support. I certainly hope that they do or are allowed to. My biggest concern is that they have oversight from ownership who wants to maintain the façade of a competitive team without regard to how that hampers a most effective rebuild.
Click to expand...

If a team offers a very good return, you consider it.

But if a team offers a fringe bullpen guy, you just dont give them away just for the sake of making a trade.

Gotta get some value.
 
This team refused to go on a 2-8 streak and become sellers, so as long as they are even remotely in contention I would be against trading any MLB contributors. If they finish July poorly then I would be for keeping Grilli and Maybin for next year unless they are used in a package to acquire a longer term talent.
 
Enscheff said:
This team refused to go on a 2-8 streak and become sellers, so as long as they are even remotely in contention I would be against trading any MLB contributors. If they finish July poorly then I would be for keeping Grilli and Maybin for next year unless they are used in a package to acquire a longer term talent.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to sell unless blown away. The farm system is in tremendous shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top