What was the stupidest thing the three Johns did?

[gilesfan]

And I think we got some decent position prospects. Too early to tell on Dustin Peterson, but I think people looked at his first full-season year and somehow discounted him. He was the 50th pick overall in the 2013 draft. Mallex Smith is off to a good start in AA, but I wonder if his bat will carry. Ruiz is scuffling right now, but the two-dimensional stat sheet portends that he isn't over-matched.

And I think we are growing some decent guys of our own. If Connor Lien can ditch his Francoeurish approach, he could develop. Still only 21. I'm high on Albies, of course, and I think we have to remember that a year ago, Davidson was probably worried more about his prom date than SALLY League pitching. Curious to see how they balance hitting and pitching in the upcoming draft and international signing period.

PS--Cubs' way was also helped dramatically by Billy Beane's brain fart.

Good points.

The Cubs are also loaded though and set up well for long term success. Especially when you factor in their ability to spend money. Rizzo/Bryant/Russell is a good core and the trade for Fowler looks like a steal.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

Yup, and the Cubbies signed a pitcher this off-season to big $$, and still need a lot more to actually compete.

That was The Hype Train. Anybody who looked at Baez' contact rates in the minors knew he would struggle. Hell, even a Luddite such as myself could divide the Ks by the ABs and see that coming.

Or, as Chipper told Schafer, "you don't make enough contact to stay at this level."

 

[GovClintonTyree]

Good points.

The Cubs are also loaded though and set up well for long term success. Especially when you factor in their ability to spend money. Rizzo/Bryant/Russell is a good core and the trade for Fowler looks like a steal.

Theo is no dummy, that's for sure. Agree, despite my defense of stockpiling pitching.

 

[zitothebrave]

My bad, not the trade I meant.

I got my trades bolluxed up in my mind. That one looks pretty good, I agree - four prospects, all off them look pretty good assuming Fried gets back. Smith looks downright exciting.

I didn't like the Houston prospects, so that was the Gattis deal. I don't fall in love with radar guns, and I think Folty lacks something. I thought Ruiz might hit, but, ye cats. Never heard of the third guy, Thurman. And for Gattis power, and four years control, that return seems a little thin.

Those who are saying Cahill was "just a flyer," yeah, he was, but anybody who's been watching him the last few years knew that was a lousy place to put chips, a lost cause. You either go with a decent veteran on payroll for a mil or two (and Wandy is that, even in ST he was that) or you give the slot to kids. There was no reason to light five and a half million dollars on fire and give it to a lazy, stupid, erratic pitcher.

In fact, I just don't like spending middle money. Use kids and $1m vets for bench and bullpen. Cahill, JJohnson, Callaspo, Grilli, EY...add all that up, you're getting close to saving enough to resign The Good Upton.

Wait you didn't like the Gattis trade?

FOlty and Ruiz were 2 of our top 5 prospects according to John Sickels. Of course they could bust out but their talent level is through the roof. I'm with a few others on here who think Ruiz is the best player we got back. High walk, low K, and still has power potential to add.

Fried is risky because he missed basically 2 years. The other Peterson is doing pretty well in A ball, but as we know it's the jump to AA that's the biggest, his career 22.2 K% is really concerning though. You can't strike out that much in the lower minors and be a great major league player. Jace Peterson basically tops out as maybe Omar Infante. Maybe that's his ceiling. He does 2 things well, walks pretty well (12.5% in the minors) and Ks really low (13.5% in the minors) but he has no power. If Tommy La Stella has a weak power bat, Jace Peterson has an anemic one. That just won't really cut it as a starter. Being a super sub isn't bad though. Would be a solid value. Mallex Smith is the ultimate wait and see. I'll start with the negatives. He has no power. He probably will make Michael Bourn look like he can mash. Now aside from this year, there's been things to be excited about. Struck out at 17.7% is too high, it's why his average in the minors hasn't been great despite his speed, But he walked at a cool 10.9%. Concerning this year though, I have a lot to be con erned about. Hopefully it's just a sample issue that corrects itself, but he's striking out more (19.6%) and walking so much less (5.2%) if he maintains those numbers we're boned. He'll have no major league value. He'll be a very poor man's Michael BOurn. Or a better version of Esix Snead.

 

[zitothebrave]

Good points.

The Cubs are also loaded though and set up well for long term success. Especially when you factor in their ability to spend money. Rizzo/Bryant/Russell is a good core and the trade for Fowler looks like a steal.

I think what he meant by the Cubs comment was the dumb**** trade for Samardzija. Giving up one of the 5 best prospects in baseball, and a very good position prospect, for a good pitcher. A's are now setup poorly for the future.

 

[Hawk]

If Tommy La Stella has a weak power bat, Jace Peterson has an anemic one. That just won't really cut it as a starter. Being a super sub isn't bad though. Would be a solid value.

This is where I think you are disadvantaged by not watching the players themselves but relying on statistics as your primary data source. Observation is an empirical measurement as well.

It's pretty clear (to me) from watching Peterson that he has exceedingly more raw power than Tommy La Stella, but that's just not the way he approaches the game. I think that, given time and comfort and coaching, we'll eventually see the boom stick from him more often but he's still young and still developing right now. I'll take the plus on-base potential, speed, and solid defense for the time being.

 

[Tapate50]

This is where I think you are disadvantaged by not watching the players themselves, but relying on statistics as your primary data source. Observation is an empirical measurement as well.

It's pretty clear (to me) from watching Peterson that he has exceedingly more raw power than Tommy La Stella, but that's just not the way he approaches the game. I think that, given time and comfort and coaching, we'll eventually see the boom stick from him more often but he's still young and still developing right now.

I can't disagree. Although I don't think we are looking at Simmons or anything with regards to power, but something more than what he has shown...certainly. I would imagine coming up and scuffling a bit, you shift focus toward "bat on the ball" philosophy instead of taking a rip when you see one you like. If you miss that pitch for a few weeks, he could be looking back at AAA.

 

[zitothebrave]

This is where I think you are disadvantaged by not watching the players themselves but relying on statistics as your primary data source. Observation is an empirical measurement as well.

It's pretty clear (to me) from watching Peterson that he has exceedingly more raw power than Tommy La Stella, but that's just not the way he approaches the game. I think that, given time and comfort and coaching, we'll eventually see the boom stick from him more often but he's still young and still developing right now. I'll take the plus on-base potential, speed, and solid defense for the time being.

Having more raw ability and the right swing are 2 different things. My brother was a big kid, he had the raw ability to have solid power, but his approach dictated his power which was basically none as he was a line drive spraying type who stayed back and threw the bat at the ball rather than attacking it with a powerful swing. He's 25 or 26. I severely doubt he's gonna change the approach that got him to college, got him drafted, and moved him along to the major leagues. I really severely doubt it.

 

[Hawk]

Having more raw ability and the right swing are 2 different things. My brother was a big kid, he had the raw ability to have solid power, but his approach dictated his power which was basically none as he was a line drive spraying type who stayed back and threw the bat at the ball rather than attacking it with a powerful swing. He's 25 or 26. I severely doubt he's gonna change the approach that got him to college, got him drafted, and moved him along to the major leagues. I really severely doubt it.

He doesn't need to change his approach, that wasn't the point.

He can still be exactly the same player that he is now and as he warms to the league and his position on the ball club then maybe he goes after more fat pitches or is greenlit more often. Magic! Home runs.

Maybe he doesn't.

Either way, that doesn't negate the fact that he has more raw power than TLS.

 

[chipchildress]

We got a draft pick in that Cahill deal, so I'm ok with that one.

And the early returns on the Upton trade are extremely good. Peterson is proving he can play at the major league level, Mallex Smith keeps hitting and is turning himself into a legitimate future CF option, and Peterson is raking. The stock for all 3 is much higher than it was when we made the deal. And the best prospect we got won't even play until next year. It's tough to consider that a bad trade.

I hated the Heyward deal, but that one is looking good so far. The Gattis deal gave us a possible future ace and Ruiz, who has yet to hit.

The Kimbrel deal may end up looking like the worst in hindsight, though getting rid of BJ may alone be worth it.

what is the benefit of getting rid of BJ? the owners get to save more money? what's the benefit to the club beyond that if they have no interest in reinvesting that savings? this feels like a total fleece job to me.

 

[Hawk]

what's the benefit to the club beyond that if they have no interest in reinvesting that savings? this feels like a total fleece job to me.

What has lead you to believe that they won't reinvest the savings?

It's barely been 30 days since the trade was made.

 

[zitothebrave]

He doesn't need to change his approach, that wasn't the point.

He can still be exactly the same player that he is now and as he warms to the league and his position on the ball club then maybe he goes after more fat pitches or is greenlit more often. Magic! Home runs.

Maybe he doesn't.

Either way, that doesn't negate the fact that he has more raw power than TLS.

His iso in the minors dictates likely projection in the majors. IN the minors he had a .124 iso. TLS had a .152. If he wasnt' comfortable sitting on pitches to drive in the minors or getting green lit as one of the best players on his minor league teams. What makes you think it happens in the majors?

And it's not like Peterson is 21-22. He's 25. He's added about as much muscle as he's gonna add.

Watch peterson swing

See how level his hitting plane is? See the low hip/shoulder seperation? Those things are why he doesn't have much power. You can't get much more warm than taking cuts in the batting cage. Guys like Harper don't have those issues, because their swing is naturally set up to generate more power. Peterson has elected to cut down on Ks and reduce his power, it's his right to do that. But given the 2000 or so professional plate appearances he has, I highly doubt he'll ditch his approach and go with something different when he "warms to the league"

 

[gilesfan]

It's pretty clear (to me) from watching Peterson that he has exceedingly more raw power than Tommy La Stella

I really don't see it.

 

[Hawk]

His iso in the minors dictates likely projection in the majors. IN the minors he had a .124 iso. TLS had a .152. If he wasnt' comfortable sitting on pitches to drive in the minors or getting green lit as one of the best players on his minor league teams. What makes you think it happens in the majors?

And it's not like Peterson is 21-22. He's 25. He's added about as much muscle as he's gonna add.

Watch peterson swing

See how level his hitting plane is? See the low hip/shoulder seperation? Those things are why he doesn't have much power. You can't get much more warm than taking cuts in the batting cage. Guys like Harper don't have those issues, because their swing is naturally set up to generate more power. Peterson has elected to cut down on Ks and reduce his power, it's his right to do that. But given the 2000 or so professional plate appearances he has, I highly doubt he'll ditch his approach and go with something different when he "warms to the league"

Again, going back to my original point; how many times have you seen Peterson play?

You are using minor league statistics in an attempt to defend the assertion that Peterson has less power potential than TLS. I think that anybody who has ever watched either play realizes that's a fallacy.

--

I hear Merv Rettemund is looking for an apprentice.

 

[zitothebrave]

I really don't see it.

I think the idea is that he's larger, more muscular, etc. But in the grand scheme, raw power means nothing if it doesn't show up on the field for one reason or another. Jason has more raw power than Freddie, but that hasn't stopped Freddie from hitting more homers than Jason.

 

[Hawk]

I think the idea is that he's larger, more muscular, etc. But in the grand scheme, raw power means nothing if it doesn't show up on the field for one reason or another. Jason has more raw power than Freddie, but that hasn't stopped Freddie from hitting more homers than Jason.

Yeah, but if Jason Heyward suddenly decided to become a one-dimensional Chris Davis/Mark Reynolds kind of ballplayer than it's fairly safe to assume that he would hit more home runs than Freddie. It's really a matter of approach.

 

[zitothebrave]

Again, going back to my original point; how many times have you seen Peterson play?

You are using minor league statistics in an attempt to defend the assertion that Peterson has less power potential than TLS. I think that anybody who has ever watched either play realizes that's a fallacy.

--

I hear Merv Rettemund is looking for an apprentice.

Because what evidence is there better to check that than numbers?

Peterson in 1732 minor league plate appearances compiled 73 doubles, 33 triples, 14 homers. La Stella in 1196 minor league plate appearances compiled 63 doubles, 14 triples, and 21 homers. It's pretty clear to me who's utilized their power better. We can even bring in their small major league samples. IN 156 plate appearances peterson has 0 doubles, 1 triple 0 homers, in 366 major league plate appearances TLS has 16 doubles 1 triple and a homer.

It's a fruitless exercise to bring up major league samples. But if Peterson has more power potential than La Stella, he'll show it at some point. THat's even with Peterson playing in the offensive happy PCL and Cal League where you traditionally discount power numbers. So yeah I'm using numbers. Because numbers are the true tale of what has happened, not just makign **** up because someone looks better.

 

[zitothebrave]

Yeah, but if Jason Heyward suddenly decided to become a one-dimensional Chris Davis/Mark Reynolds kind of ballplayer than it's fairly safe to assume that he would hit more home runs than Freddie. It's really a matter of approach.

SO basically you have no argument other than simply arguing over unquantifiable shenanigans.

 

[Hawk]

Because what evidence is there better to check that than numbers?

As I said in my original post, observation is empirical.

 

[Hawk]

Peterson in 1732 minor league plate appearances compiled 73 doubles, 33 triples, 14 homers. La Stella in 1196 minor league plate appearances compiled 63 doubles, 14 triples, and 21 homers. It's pretty clear to me who's utilized their power better. We can even bring in their small major league samples. IN 156 plate appearances peterson has 0 doubles, 1 triple 0 homers, in 366 major league plate appearances TLS has 16 doubles 1 triple and a homer.

Talk about trying to squeeze water from a rock.