Objectively ranking the top farm systems

thethe said:
All this did was bring someone else's study (surplus value on prospect ranks) and projected to a farm system. This is not propietary. The study on surplus value of prospects is the original thought.

I've never refused to read into studies. Sorry that I have a questioning nature to me.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that you require completely original ideas to deem something an intellectual discussion.

And it's good to have a questioning nature. It is also ignorant to ignore what is actually happening in the world of baseball.
 
nsacpi said:
One of the interesting things in the OP is the mix of positional and pitching value in the top 4 systems. White Sox are heavily skewed toward pitching. Brewers and Yankees toward hitting.

And we have pretty good balance. Which confirms a belief I've held for some time. I'm fine with going pitching heavy in the draft as long as we balance it out the other way in the international market. And that's what we've been doing with Albies, Acuna, Maitan and others. I believe with pitching it is harder to pick the ones who will make it the younger you go. Obviously it is harder too with hitting, but my point has to do with relative difficulty. Therefore, it makes sense in the international market to have a strong bias toward hitting. You have exceptions like Teheran and Felix Hernandez. But in general you are on safer ground going after hitters in the international market.
Click to expand...

At what age would you jot want to invest a 5 year contract into a FA hitter?
 
thewupk said:
I am sorry that you require completely original ideas to deem something an intellectual discussion.

And it's good to have a questioning nature. It is also ignorant to ignore what is actually happening in the world of baseball.
Click to expand...

Again...because I don't agree with everything does not mean it's ignored. That's the odd reaction that I'm trying to figure out from your perspective.
 
thethe said:
All this did was bring someone else's study (surplus value on prospect ranks) and projected to a farm system. This is not propietary. The study on surplus value of prospects is the original thought.

I've never refused to read into studies. Sorry that I have a questioning nature to me.
Click to expand...

LOL and what propietary info have you brought other than "Coppy is a powerhouse GM"
 
thethe said:
All this did was bring someone else's study (surplus value on prospect ranks) and projected to a farm system. This is not propietary. The study on surplus value of prospects is the original thought.
Click to expand...

Research almost always involves building upon the work of others.
 
thethe said:
Again...because I don't agree with everything does not mean it's ignored. That's the odd reaction that I'm trying to figure out from your perspective.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you willfully look the other way. This is not that far removed from thinking Francoeur was a good offensive player because of how a hitter was characterized 20 years ago. When actual GM's talk about surplus value and how that effects trades I would think you would want to pay attention.
 
nsacpi said:
I think we should stick to what we did with Freeman, Simmons and now Ender. Extent them 3-5 years before they hit free agency.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of signing a late 20s guy as long as the pitching is cheap and young on the team.
 
One point on the changing farm rankings is that the Braves have more on the list so more likely risers. I know every team has their prospects to watch. I think it is clear the Braves have more. I wouldn't be surprised if you do this at the end of the season the Braves still hit top 3. Even if Ozzie and Swanson are gone.
 
thethe said:
All this did was bring someone else's study (surplus value on prospect ranks) and projected to a farm system. This is not propietary. The study on surplus value of prospects is the original thought.

I've never refused to read into studies. Sorry that I have a questioning nature to me.
Click to expand...

And all that study did was apply WAR values derived by someone else to prospect rankings developed by yet another source.

Do you realize this is how all analysis builds off prior analysis?

I think maybe you should stick to commenting on fluff pieces where your intellect is more suited.
 
I DO think the Braves have a decent chance to stay in the #1/2 farm argument even after Swanson gets dropped from lists just due to the sheer volume of top 300 guys we have. It wouldn't take much for Touki, Acuna,Demerrite, Riley, Newcomb...etc to move into the top 50 discussion and suddenly our depth keeps us at or near the top. No other team has our farm depth or number of guys who could be B or higher prospects come 2018. This stuff matters.
 
Its puzzling to me that there is so much commotion about where our farm system will rank in a year. If Swanson, Albies, Newcomb, Peterson, Minter, Sims and Ruiz graduate to the majors and turn into productive major leaguers, its not a big deal. To assess the "state of the system" it is better to look at both the farm and guys still in their pre-arb years. I would also add players like Freeman, Teheran and Ender who have been extented on team-friendly terms.
 
nsacpi said:
Its puzzling to me that there is so much commotion about where our farm system will rank in a year.
Click to expand...

It's a natural by-product of having nothing to brag about except prospects for the past three years.
 
nsacpi said:
Its puzzling to me that there is so much commotion about where our farm system will rank in a year. If Swanson, Albies, Newcomb, Peterson, Minter, Sims and Ruiz graduate to the majors and turn into productive major leaguers, its not a big deal. To assess the "state of the system" it is better to look at both the farm and guys still in their pre-arb years. I would also add players like Freeman, Teheran and Ender who have been extented on team-friendly terms.
Click to expand...

One could perform the same exercise by adding in the surplus value of all MLB players in each organization. Since I esssentislly calculated the total surplus value of the farm system, it would almost be an apples to apples addition.

I estimate teams like the Cubs and Red Sox would dominate that metric.

An interesting point will be valuing a guy like Swanson. His current prospect value is in the range of $75M, but projecting his production over the next 6 years compared to his salaries will probably make him much more valuable.

If he produces 18 WAR for a total salary of $25M, that represents $120M in surplus value right there.
 
Enscheff said:
One could perform the same exercise by adding in the surplus value of all MLB players in each organization. Since I esssentislly calculated the total surplus value of the farm system, it would almost be an apples to apples addition.

I estimate teams like the Cubs and Red Sox would dominate that metric.

An interesting point will be valuing a guy like Swanson. His current prospect value is in the range of $75M, but projecting his production over the next 6 years compared to his salaries will probably make him much more valuable.

If he produces 18 WAR for a total salary of $25M, that represents $120M in surplus value right there.
Click to expand...

Be careful not to double count. I believe the $75M is Swanson's expected surplus value. I assuming you are using the third column of the Point of Pittsburgh article.
 
nsacpi said:
Be careful not to double count. I believe the $75M is Swanson's expected surplus value. I assuming you are using the third column of the Point of Pittsburgh article.
Click to expand...

Yes, his surplus value as the #3 prospect is around $75m. His surplus value as a MLB player projected to produce 18 wins in 6 years while being paid $25m would be about $120m.

The question becomes: at what point do we stop valuing him as a prospect, and start to value him based on MLB projections?
 
Enscheff said:
Right, I don't think they have. I think they have done an average job, or maybe a bit below average. I think any professional sports GM could do what Coppy has done.

So to follow your logic....

I state that I think the Braves FO has done an average or slightly less than average job during the rebuild. In order to prove myself right, I spend 2 hours making this analysis that proves they have assembled the most valuable farm system in the game. I post the analysis, but make a comment about two eminent changes to this analysis that will dramatically alter it: Swanson losing rookie eligibility, and the ChiSox trading Q.

Literally no other probable scenarios will alter this discussion as much as those 2 scenarios, and both are going to happen with as close to a 100% probability as is possible in sports.

Now your logic skills pick up on the fact I said Swanson will lose eligibility after 3 games as me making a dig on the Braves? Are you serious? How about coming up with an actual point to contribute?
Click to expand...

You think any professional sports GM could turn a bottom 10 farm system into the best farm in baseball in just 2 years..... I'd like some of what you're smoking.
 
Carp said:
You think any professional sports GM could turn a bottom 10 farm system into the best farm in baseball in just 2 years..... I'd like some of what you're smoking.
Click to expand...

Padres GM has almost done it in under a year. White Sox GM pretty much already did it in a few months. Same with the Brewers and Yankees. Red Sox have done it. Astros did it. Cubs and Dodgers did it recently as well.

NBA and NFL teams rebuild all the time.

It's not that hard to restock the farm when you gut the MLB team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top