Reloading and Punting: Is there a Distinction?

Their top 2-3 hitters.

Let's see. Who would that be? Moncada, Devers, Margot.

Now, those three smoke our top 3. But take our top three—whoever you deem that to be—off the board. How do we stack up with Swihart, Jackie Bradley, Benintendi, Espinoza, Javy Guerra (15 HR as a defense-first SS in low A), Travis, Longhi, Chavis, Shaw . . . and more.

Shoot, I didn't even mention Devin Marrero and Mauricio Dubon, who is an afterthought in their system but hacking A+ at 20 since they had such a logjam of teenagers at low-A. Now, that may very well be us next year, at Rome, but it's them right now. For you to discount that just seems like homerism.
 
Julio3000 said:
No, he isn't.

No, we're not. Not even close.

And ignoring their top 2-3 is at least as big an oversight as you say my discounting out top end arms.

Who else thinks we have the deepest system?
Click to expand...

According to mlb.com, yes he is.

I'm not saying you should discount their top 2-3. I never said we had an overall better system. I said it's deeper.
 
smootness said:
According to mlb.com, yes he is.

I'm not saying you should discount their top 2-3. I never said we had an overall better system. I said it's deeper.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that being "deeper" with potential solid big leaguers is != "better"?
 
Julio3000 said:
Their top 2-3 hitters.

Let's see. Who would that be? Moncada, Devers, Margot.

Now, those three smoke our top 3. But take our top three—whoever you deem that to be—off the board. How do we stack up with Swihart, Jackie Bradley, Benintendi, Espinoza, Javy Guerra (15 HR as a defense-first SS in low A), Travis, Longhi, Chavis, Shaw . . . and more.

Shoot, I didn't even mention Devin Marrero and Mauricio Dubon, who is an afterthought in their system but hacking A+ at 20 since they had such a logjam of teenagers at low-A. Now, that may very well be us next year, at Rome, but it's them right now. For you to discount that just seems like homerism.
Click to expand...

We stack up pretty well there. Our top 3 according to mlb.com are Albies, Olivera, and Touki. So after that we have Allard, Jenkins, Fried, Sims, Banuelos, Riley, Davidson, Soroka, Sims, Sanchez....should I keep going? And if you're including Bradley and Swihart, then I get to also include Wisler, Folty, Bethancourt, Peterson, etc.

The Red Sox have a very good, possibly even great, system. I'm not trying to knock it. And I'm not saying I wouldn't trade ours for theirs; I might. I'm simply talking about depth. We have more guys currently in our system with the talent to become everyday major league players than they do.
 
Julio3000 said:
So you're saying that being "deeper" with potential solid big leaguers is != "better"?
Click to expand...

Correct. Depth is one way to evaluate a system, but it obviously isn't the only way. I think the Braves have the deepest system in baseball right now, but I've said in this thread already that I clearly don't view it as the top system in baseball right now overall. We are lacking in elite, top-end guys. We have several young prospects who could get there, but they're not there yet. But we are loaded with guys in the next tier.
 
I understand that some of this discussion is about what it means to have a deep farm system and how important that is relative to having elite prospects. We'll just have to disagree on those things.

I think we have a bunch of cup of coffee in the majors/low ceiling types. It is interesting that some are praising Hart for trading for a bunch of those types of players and "rebuilding our farm system depth". Wren has received a fair amount of criticism for presiding over drafts that were heavy in that category of player.

At the end of the day, I think the criticism of Hart and Wren on this score is well merited. Both did better when they shifted their sights to more high ceiling types. We saw Wren move in this direction in his last couple drafts. And under Hart I think we've done very well with going after high ceiling high school players in the last draft. The guys we brought in during the last international signing period (some signed when Wren was GM and others when Hart was in charge) are also a terrific group of high ceiling talent.
 
sturg33 said:
Our system is deep with OK pieces. I don't see any true difference makers others than Allard, maybe Albies. Hopefully Riley. All of them are very far away.

The quys we acquired in trades look more like depth fillers than true impacts.
Click to expand...

This is just a crazy assessment, IMO. You're calling guys like Max Fried, Matt Wisler, Folty, Ruiz, and Riley 'depth fillers,' as though they're future spot starters and bench players. They clearly have more talent than that.

Again, I think some people hear 'depth,' and view it the same way as depth on a major league team is viewed. If I thought our system was just loaded with Jace Petersons, I wouldn't be nearly as excited as I am about it. 'Depth' in a minor league system can mean a bunch of older guys who are close with AAAA talent; that's not at all what we have. It can also mean a bunch of young guys, many of whom aren't very close, with major league talent; that is what we have.
 
smootness said:
According to mlb.com, yes he is.

I'm not saying you should discount their top 2-3. I never said we had an overall better system. I said it's deeper.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to sidetrack the discussion into Sox vs. Braves, but I thought that the "deepest" superlative does not apply to Atlanta, and figured that was the simplest way to show it. We may be deepest in high-ceiling arms, but that doesn't equate to having the deepest farm system, or the best. Our positional talent outside of Mallex is at best a couple of years away. Then it's Albies and a few prayers before you get to the crop of kids who are in rookie ball now. I like our system, as do most of the guys who make the rankings, but let's not pretend that it's more than it is. We don't have a unique, generational crop of talent on the way—or, at least, there's not enough information to say that we do.
 
nsacpi said:
I understand that some of this discussion is about what it means to have a deep farm system and how important that is relative to having elite prospects. We'll just have to disagree on those things.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying it's not more important to have elite prospects. But I think the depth of legitimate young talent that we have will likely produce some of those elite prospects. That doesn't mean it's as good currently as a system that already has those guys, but it's also not meaningless.
 
Julio3000 said:
I didn't intend to sidetrack the discussion into Sox vs. Braves, but I thought that the "deepest" superlative does not apply to Atlanta, and figured that was the simplest way to show it. We may be deepest in high-ceiling arms, but that doesn't equate to having the deepest farm system, or the best. Our positional talent outside of Mallex is at best a couple of years away. Then it's Albies and a few prayers before you get to the crop of kids who are in rookie ball now. I like our system, as do most of the guys who make the rankings, but let's not pretend that it's more than it is. We don't have a unique, generational crop of talent on the way—or, at least, there's not enough information to say that we do.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that. We need to continue to upgrade our talent, especially our bats. But Keith Law, for one, ranked us as the #2 system in baseball based pretty much solely on the ridiculous level of depth we have.

Let's also not pretend it's less than it is. We have a very good system that has a very good chance to be even better in 1-2 years.
 
smootness said:
We stack up pretty well there. Our top 3 according to mlb.com are Albies, Olivera, and Touki. So after that we have Allard, Jenkins, Fried, Sims, Banuelos, Riley, Davidson, Soroka, Sims, Sanchez....should I keep going? And if you're including Bradley and Swihart, then I get to also include Wisler, Folty, Bethancourt, Peterson, etc.

The Red Sox have a very good, possibly even great, system. I'm not trying to knock it. And I'm not saying I wouldn't trade ours for theirs; I might. I'm simply talking about depth. We have more guys currently in our system with the talent to become everyday major league players than they do.
Click to expand...

****, I was just listing position players, except Espinosa.
 
Julio3000 said:
****, I was just listing position players, except Espinosa.
Click to expand...

I've never argued we are better in bats specifically, or even deeper. I don't know why you're trying to turn it into just a discussion of that. Clearly bats are not the strength of our system. I think the difference in the depth of our pitching more than makes up for the difference in depth of bats. Pretty easily.
 
smootness said:
Yes, he thinks they have the top system in baseball; he doesn't say it's the deepest. That's all this discussion was about.
Click to expand...

Having trouble finding it right this second, but Callis did actually say we had the "deepest" system when we got Toussaint from Arizona. Can't remember if it was in a tweet, one of his own articles, or an interview or podcast with someone else, but he is also on record (somewhere) as saying that - and it wasn't quantified as "in high-ceiling arms" He actually said more or less a little bit of what everyone's saying - that we might lack the "headliner" or two that a couple of the Top 5 systems had/have, but we were "the deepest".
 
We have terrific depth in high-ceiling arms. We're probably deficient in other areas. You're entitled to your opinion about whether one balances out the other. I'd be inclined to say that we don't have the deepest system if all we have is a wealth of mostly high-risk, high-ceiling pitching prospects. However, that's a semantic distinction. I really just wanted to understand what you meant by using the superlative "deepest." I think only time will tell, definitively.
 
Our system is strong at the lower levels. Less so at the upper levels. We have a good number of upper level arms who project as fifth starter/long reliever types. Maybe one of them will be a positive surprise.
 
smootness said:
Yes, he thinks they have the top system in baseball; he doesn't say it's the deepest. That's all this discussion was about.
Click to expand...

Yikes. I guess I'm having a hard time figuring why "best depth," predicated as it is on young pitching and it's associated burn rate, is preferable to "best."

If what you're saying is that it isn't actually preferable, then I feel like I must've misunderstood a lot of your earlier posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top