KB21
Where's My Cup of Coffee?
The Olivera mistake is more than off set with the brilliant acquisitions of John Gant and Rob Whalen. It also will not surprise me to see Akiel Morris as a mainstay high leverage guy in the bullpen down the road.
International News, Rumor and Signing Thread
- Thread starter rico43
- Start date
The Olivera mistake is more than off set with the brilliant acquisitions of John Gant and Rob Whalen. It also will not surprise me to see Akiel Morris as a mainstay high leverage guy in the bullpen down the road.
Sure, but HS picks have years of traveling the country and facing top HS arms while pro teams are in attendance. A 16-year-old international kid doesn't have that kind of exposure at all, making him significantly more risk.
KB21
Where's My Cup of Coffee?
I'm a big believer in the philosophy that you can play it safe and be good or take a risk and be great. If I were running a scouting department, how safe of a prospect a player is would not be much of a consideration. What kind of upside the prospect has would be strongly considered.
This is why I'm was not on board with Nick Senzel. Sure, he's going to make great contact and hit, but the upside is limited due to his limited in game power and limited overall athleticism.
This is also why I'm more in favor of drafting young high school prospects rather than polished college players.
I'm not exactly sure how that logic works, I don't think getting Gant/Whalen erases the Olivera deal considering the financial impact HO still has going forward.
Of course if Wentz is a stud that deals suddenly looks quite a bit friendlier.
I think it's dangerous to focus on only one or the other. Both floor and ceiling are really important considerations and should be weighed as such.
Having a bunch of high risk/upside guys doesn't do any good if they realistically aren't getting to those ceilings.
No one has called Moniak a safe, low ceiling prospect.
striker42
Well-known member
I don't know if it's more than off set. I've yet to hear a theory that fully explains why the scouting broke down so badly with Olivera.
After trading for him Hart said "And I think John accurately portrayed the Olivera deal. There’s a bit of an unknown, but I think with the eyes that we had on – Roy Clark, Gordon Blakeley, Fredi (Gonzalez) saw him – we had multiple, multiple looks at the guy, and knowing the market, that if this guy hits like he’s hit before and is the player that our guys have said that he is, then we’ve ended up making a nice deal."
So this wasn't a case of just one scout falling in love with the guy. We had multiple people raving about Olivera. But when we actually get to see him even the casual fan can see the huge flaws in his game.
I still don't understand how we were so wrong on this guy. The only thing I can think of is that they watched video of him playing in Cuba and just completely forgot that the guy on film was in his prime and the guy they were signing was aging and hadn't played in a couple years. That's not a good look for the scouting department.
KB21
Where's My Cup of Coffee?
Eh, I just chalk it up to you can't be right all the time.
striker42
Well-known member
Not all mistakes and successes are of equal weight. Grilling a hotdog to perfection doesn't make up for burning a T-Bone to a crisp.
At this point can we really say trading Wood and Peraza for the group we ended up with is that critical of an error?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I'm not sure why we can't wait a while to designate successes and failures. I'm seeing eggs where you're counting chickens.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
Value at the time of the trade made this a bad trade. That said, at the time of the trade, I thought HO was going to be a better person.. Paco would be ready this year.. Bird was a throw in... and I really, really like the draft pick up. I did not think we gave away the farm to get this trade done.. I didn't like HO's age and history.. but still gave the trade the benefit of the doubt. As time passed, it was clear we blew this trade.. (HO stunk, Bird struggling, Paco down).. But as more time passed, the trade started looking better.. Wood inconsistent and now hurt, Jose not very good, JJ is back, Avilan we all knew was horrible.. plus, Paco will be back.. Bird is starting to get more velocity on his FB and showing better results.. and the Draft was huge for us...
chop2chip
Well-known member
I think it more has to do with the track record against far superior competition.
Maitan has great tools, but he won't be held as highly as American players until he plays. Notice that Badler hedged his bet by saying Maitan had more power potential and could leap frog Moniak.
My point is they have been overhwelmingly good, but a few of us can't seem to let go of the Olivera deal as the primary measure of who they are.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Well, I'm with you on letting go of the Olivera deal. My bone to pick is that I have some trouble with deeming every move a success before we have any real indication that it's so.
Maitan has more talent than Moniak. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that.
I understand, but see the rebuild of the farm system as a success whatever happens. How successful it is, as you say, is still to be determined by how well it translates to the ML Team.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I don't know anyone who agrees with that either. What I do know is that every draft guru that I have seen talk about the question wouldn't take Maitan over most of the guys taken in the first round because he's 16 years old and unproven. That's not a slight against Maitan.
There are multiple people who have said he would have gone #1 overall if he had been available in the draft.