Our farm??? or lack thereof

[Angelsjunky]

I think this is partially a matter of how deep you look. The more knowledgeable folks on AW may have an inherent bias that is hard to get around, but some of them have deeper knowledge of the farm than the "experts" like Eric Longenhagen do. But understand that nearly every expert recognizes that the Angels farm system is improving - so start with that. A couple years ago it was truly an atrocious farm system, but has been working its way up. I'd say it is safely in the mid-20s out of 30 teams, and could rate much higher in another year or two, as the talent is pooled at the very lower levels. In other words, the farm system--right now--has the talent to be somewhere in the 10-20 range, but we need another year or two to see how and who players develop.

Understand also that analysts like Longenhagen don't follow the Angels farm as closely as some folks here do. So listen to what folks in the stickied Prospects thread have to say, then maybe back off a step back towards the conservative side. In other words, split the difference between the AW folks and the Longenhagens of the world, and I think you get an accurate depiction of where the farm is really at. For instance, Longenhagen looks at someone like Hermosillo and might just see his stat line, possibly his age, but probably doesn't know the subtleties of his development and skill set.

As for that list, I'd probably push Ward, Rivas and Hermosillo ahead of Fletcher and Soriano, but otherwise pretty good. As others have mentioned, Adell, Jones and Marsh all have the potential to be at least solid major league regulars - and probably even more than that, especially Adell. Part of the problem with accurately assessing these guys is that they are all young: 18, 20, and 19, respectively, and Jones just turned 20 a few days ago. Only Jones has played above Rookie ball. A year from now we should have a better sense of how high Adell and Marsh project, but most experts see him as relatively high ceiling. But these are not the type of players you package in trades, because you really want to have a better sense of their upside and trajectory. Adell, for instance, really has star potential and a year from now could be on the fast track to the majors, a year or two away. But it is too soon to say whether he's going to be good or great, and until we have a better sense of that it would be foolish to consider trading him.

So I'd say Adell has the highest upside of the three, but Jones has the highest floor. Jones is also interesting in that he does every reasonably well, so he might be a player where the sum becomes more than the parts. For some reason peak Shane Victorino comes to mind - nothing too flashy, but a player who consistently hits .290 with average plus power, plate discipline, and speed. Imagine having a LFer who hits .290/.800 with 15-20 HR and 20+ SB - that's what Jones will be, and maybe better in his peak years. Marsh has explosive skills but seems to have trouble staying healthy, but he is right behind Jones.

[ettin]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Fair enough, i guess i just dont see how protecting this list is more important than winning at the ML level.   Ill drop it 

Flop is correct in my opinion, most of our prospects should not be a barrier to making our Major League team competitive in the Mike Trout window (2017-2020). Certainly there should be players that the Angels protect (perhaps two of Adell, Marsh, Jones, Lund, and Pearson or two of Rodriguez, Jewell, Gatto, Gray, and Barria as examples) but a large part of our system shouldn't be a road block to improving the Major League squad.

I trust Billy Eppler to make these decisions on who is expendable and who goes in trade to make our team better now rather than later. I think he will make good, strategic decisions that maintain the positive path our farm system is taking while shaving off the bread ends of our Minor League system to create some magic on the Big League team.

This seems to be the point @floplag was ultimately trying to make and if that is the case I agree.

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L1H_USzTBUu5Hloc45vJV3-LTX5vfr-les_DSszC_gs/edit?hl=en&hl=en#gid=17

Check out the run between 2003-2006.   Never less than 6 guys, I think they topped out at 7 -- that was one hell of a four year run..    The really interesting part is the guys they graduated who never made any top 100s -- like Naps..

Thanks IP! I don't remember that stuff remember the players though as they came up and stayed or left.

[UndertheHalo]

I don't pay much attention to these lists right now for a couple of reasons.  

The biggest one is like AJ and some others note most of our high end talent is in the low minors.  These guys making these lists are looking at guys that are near ready to play at the major league level.  So we aren't really gonna get a lot of points just yet for our most talented guys.  

2nd, the Angels have a shitty rep right now.  Until our development system produces some good players we aren't gonna do well on these system wide evaluations just based on the negative bias we have.  Look at the Dodgers, Red Sox and Yankees.  People are stupid about all their prospects.  So much of that is just bias based on the rep.  The Dodgers have produced some great players.  But they've also produced a bunch of busts recently.  Yet every dodgers prospect is treated like gold. Perception is such a big thing with this.  

The Angels have dramatically improved seemingly.  We'll see how these last two drafts pan out.  This is the biggest question mark on Eppler right now.  He appears to be doing a nice job with what was a pretty bad situation. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

4 hours ago, ettin said:

Flop is correct in my opinion, most of our prospects should not be a barrier to making our Major League team competitive in the Mike Trout window (2017-2020). Certainly there should be players that the Angels protect (perhaps two of Adell, Marsh, Jones, Lund, and Pearson or two of Rodriguez, Jewell, Gatto, Gray, and Barria as examples) but a large part of our system shouldn't be a road block to improving the Major League squad.

I trust Billy Eppler to make these decisions on who is expendable and who goes in trade to make our team better now rather than later. I think he will make good, strategic decisions that maintain the positive path our farm system is taking while shaving off the bread ends of our Minor League system to create some magic on the Big League team.

This seems to be the point @floplag was ultimately trying to make and if that is the case I agree.

I don't disagree entirely, but I do have doubts about what kind of trades we are going to be capable of making.  If we're talking about getting a legit major league every day player, then sure you want to make the trade.  Even if it costs a Jordan Adell or Johmani Jones.  We have to be careful here though.  Are we talking about getting another Andrelton Simmons ? Or are we looking at major league regular like Dee Gordon or Ian Kinsler ? IMO the Angels can't afford to erode what is let's face it, a system that is barely starting to form so we can get guys who don't project as long term contributors to the team.  We're better off holding our chips imo, and making our moves when we have both more depth and the opportunity to acquire truly impact players.  

I just don't see the Angels current farm assets acquiring that kind of player.  We got Simmons for a a guy that was near major league ready and well regarded.  

IMO for now, the Angels need to use money to reinforce the major league club.  Not farm assets.  Eppler appears to also be following this strategy.  Hopefully with more money this off season. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[eligrba]

I do not know if anyone will care or remember what kind of a prospect a player was if that player is able to contribute at the major league level.

[Jeff Fletcher]

If the players are so bad that you don't care about trading them, then what makes you think you can get anything good by trading them?

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If the players are so bad that you don't care about trading them, then what makes you think you can get anything good by trading them?

Because that's what we want! 

[Lou]

8 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Dont know how to bold quotes like everyone on here,

You can't do this and we trust you to carry a weapon in public? 

That's crazy!!!

[floplag]

33 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If the players are so bad that you don't care about trading them, then what makes you think you can get anything good by trading them?

I had let this one go but i want to reply to this.  With all due respect I think you missed the point of some things said here of late as this is a follow up to other threads.  

In short, literally every suggestion here is met with "but we cant trade the farm" for this player or that player.   On looking at that list i see little that irreplaceable or that should prevent any deals from being made that help the ML club to justify those statements.    This post was to illustrate that all the "you cant trade the farm" guys are worried about losing assets that are at best marginal, and leaving the major league club wallowing around mediocrity worrying about this list.  

I'm in the minority here as everyone else seems to want to be patient and let whatever Eppler's plan is come to fruition, however long that may take.  I want this team to win sooner rather than later and I see no reason it cant aside from our own choices.  I don't accept that we cant afford more or less whatever we want to afford and i am frustrated that we are wasting great years from the games best player.   We are not the old small market wannabee Angels, why are we acting like it?

since you asked though I don't think we can get anything great for them, i think the only way the club improves short term is taking on money, something they have shown they are not willing to do over the last couple years until some bad previous decisions fall off the books. 

I respect your views of course ive read you for years, but in this case, i simply do not understand the priority.  We are literally worried about losing a dime and costing ourselves a dollar to do it. 

[ettin]

3 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

I don't disagree entirely, but I do have doubts about what kind of trades we are going to be capable of making.  If we're talking about getting a legit major league every day player, then sure you want to make the trade.  Even if it costs a Jordan Adell or Johmani Jones.  We have to be careful here though.  Are we talking about getting another Andrelton Simmons ? Or are we looking at major league regular like Dee Gordon or Ian Kinsler ? IMO the Angels can't afford to erode what is let's face it, a system that is barely starting to form so we can get guys who don't project as long term contributors to the team.  We're better off holding our chips imo, and making our moves when we have both more depth and the opportunity to acquire truly impact players.  

I just don't see the Angels current farm assets acquiring that kind of player.  We got Simmons for a a guy that was near major league ready and well regarded.  

IMO for now, the Angels need to use money to reinforce the major league club.  Not farm assets.  Eppler appears to also be following this strategy.  Hopefully with more money this off season. 

To be clear I agree with what you are saying. The only type of player we should be sacrificing any of our best farm assets for is a truly impact player (say Chris Archer, Giancarlo Stanton, or Christian Yelich as examples). Someone who we feel can or will help change the landscape of our current run over the next 3 and 1/3 years.

I do believe we have enough trade currency for one truly significant trade. We might have more for a 2nd based on who we are trading with and what they need and want but I think we can pull off one really solid trade without crippling our farm system.

In regards to money I believe we will add one, possibly two significant free agent purchases this off-season. They may not be top-tier (Darvish/Martinez) purchases but they won't be small stacks either.

[Jeff Fletcher]

40 minutes ago, floplag said:

I had let this one go but i want to reply to this.  With all due respect I think you missed the point of some things said here of late as this is a follow up to other threads.  

In short, literally every suggestion here is met with "but we cant trade the farm" for this player or that player.   On looking at that list i see little that irreplaceable or that should prevent any deals from being made that help the ML club to justify those statements.    This post was to illustrate that all the "you cant trade the farm" guys are worried about losing assets that are at best marginal, and leaving the major league club wallowing around mediocrity worrying about this list.  

I'm in the minority here as everyone else seems to want to be patient and let whatever Eppler's plan is come to fruition, however long that may take.  I want this team to win sooner rather than later and I see no reason it cant aside from our own choices.  I don't accept that we cant afford more or less whatever we want to afford and i am frustrated that we are wasting great years from the games best player.   We are not the old small market wannabee Angels, why are we acting like it?

since you asked though I don't think we can get anything great for them, i think the only way the club improves short term is taking on money, something they have shown they are not willing to do over the last couple years until some bad previous decisions fall off the books. 

I respect your views of course ive read you for years, but in this case, i simply do not understand the priority.  We are literally worried about losing a dime and costing ourselves a dollar to do it. 

Well, I just think it's a false premise. 

Either the players have value or they don't. 

That value can be measured in a) future value to the Angels or b ) value to another team. 

If a team is willing to give you a worthwhile major league player for an Angels prospect then obviously they don't think the players are worthless. 

If they think the players are garbage, they won't give you anything for them. 

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Well, I just think it's a false premise. 

Either the players have value or they don't. 

That value can be measured in a) future value to the Angels or b ) value to another team. 

If a team is willing to give you a worthwhile major league player for an Angels prospect then obviously they don't think the players are worthless. 

If they think the players are garbage, they won't give you anything for them. 

Of course, which is why ive suggested more cash laden deals, something we "should" have available. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

You can't do this and we trust you to carry a weapon in public? 

That's crazy!!!

Show off!

[Second Base]

At the very best, FanGraphs is lazy and misinformed.  At the very worst, they're guilty of plagiarism, bias, unintelligent and have no business speaking on prospects in any way, shape or form.

 They've replaced Marc Hulet because he used to rant about how much he disliked the Angels and had no interest in writing about their prospects.  They've since assigned Eric whatever his name is, and while his rankings are adequate, the majority of his information is either paraphrased from other websites or just outright lies. 

So I'll let you decide if he's lazy and misinformed or guilty of plagiarism and unintelligent.  Either way, FG isn't the authority on anything prospect related, at least when it comes to the Angels.  Even MLB.com does a better job than FG does and they ignore our prospects. 

[arch stanton]

4 hours ago, Lou said:

You can't do this and we trust you to carry a weapon in public? 

That's crazy!!!

[eligrba]

11 hours ago, floplag said:

I'm in the minority here as everyone else seems to want to be patient and let whatever Eppler's plan is come to fruition, however long that may take.  I want this team to win sooner rather than later and I see no reason it cant aside from our own choices.  I don't accept that we cant afford more or less whatever we want to afford and i am frustrated that we are wasting great years from the games best player.   We are not the old small market wannabee Angels, why are we acting like it?
 

I do not know anyone who regularly posts on this forum who are not interested in winning sooner than later.  That impatient approach is a major contributing factor leading to the current conditions that all fans now have to live with.  The Angels essentially declared "baseball bankruptcy" after the Josh Hamilton/Jerry Dipoto  nightmares.

I hear that line about "wasting great years" and have to laugh because at some point in every team's history, great players had great years even though the team failed to win the World Series.

[floplag]

In good faith ill update my own post and saw that FG, regardless of what anyone thinks of them, today released a new list that quantifies some of Epplers progress in that it has us with 2 of the top 100, Adell at 82 and Jones at 93.  Marsh was also listed as given consideration. 
So our strength their is clearly in the OF and none of them are near ML ready playing mostly rookie ball or A
Just in the interest of full disclosure.  
Doesn't change my views, just being fair. 

[Stradling]

Would you trade these guys for Cespedes if you thought either of them could be everyday better players than Kole?   

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Would you trade these guys for Cespedes if you thought either of them could be everyday better players than Kole?   

Which ones and how many under what terms?  You're asking a blanket question without qualifying it but ill do my best to answer.  

First off assuming any of these guys would be better than Calhoun is a stretch at this point, none seem to project as such based on the reading and evaluations by people that do this for a living, but lets assume for the sake or argument that they are projected as such to make it easy.  

Would i for example trade any one of them, of course i would.  Were talking about guys that are at least 2-3 years away at best for a guy that can contribute to a post season run now.  I would do that without hesitation.  For a Cespedes, Stanton, Verlander type guy absolutely 100%.   For a lesser guy or a rental I dont know, maybe not #1 or at all, depends on the who in question.  

Would I trade 2 of them, perhaps, depends on the who its for and the terms involved.  If we are taking on more money then i would not likely do the top 2 or 3 for example, all depends on the terms.  Maybe in separate deals again it would depends on the details.  

Im not crazy, im not suggesting we deal all our tops guys for a desperation run or for some marginal player, i never have said that regardless of conclusions some people are jumping too.   Only that in this case given who they are and how they are projected i dont see anything untouchable here.   And I also don't have any illusions about a WS shot as that isn't realistic, but we know from history that the best team on paper doesn't always win.  One thing is an absolute though, if you dont make the playoffs you cant win anything. 

Let's be honest, we have had sooooooo many guys in recent years we all thought were untouchable that were little more than AAAA depth (ill spare us all the list).  As a result I've grown to not over value these guys till they prove to be something more and until our scouting team proves i should trust them more.

Maybe i should ask you, would you not do anything at all to protect them?  What if anything would YOU be willing to do?

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

Which ones and how many under what terms?  You're asking a blanket question without qualifying it but ill do my best to answer.  

First off assuming any of these guys would be better than Calhoun is a stretch at this point, none seem to project as such based on the reading and evaluations by people that do this for a living, but lets assume for the sake or argument that they are projected as such to make it easy.  

Would i for example trade any one of them, of course i would.  Were talking about guys that are at least 2-3 years away at best for a guy that can contribute to a post season run now.  I would do that without hesitation.  For a Cespedes, Stanton, Verlander type guy absolutely 100%.   For a lesser guy or a rental I dont know, maybe not #1 or at all, depends on the who in question.  

Would I trade 2 of them, perhaps, depends on the who its for and the terms involved.  If we are taking on more money then i would not likely do the top 2 or 3 for example, all depends on the terms.  Maybe in separate deals again it would depends on the details.  

Im not crazy, im not suggesting we deal all our tops guys for a desperation run or for some marginal player, i never have said that regardless of conclusions some people are jumping too.   Only that in this case given who they are and how they are projected i dont see anything untouchable here.   And I also don't have any illusions about a WS shot as that isn't realistic, but we know from history that the best team on paper doesn't always win.  One thing is an absolute though, if you dont make the playoffs you cant win anything. 

Let's be honest, we have had sooooooo many guys in recent years we all thought were untouchable that were little more than AAAA depth (ill spare us all the list).  As a result I've grown to not over value these guys till they prove to be something more and until our scouting team proves i should trust them more.

Maybe i should ask you, would you not do anything at all to protect them?  What if anything would YOU be willing to do?

I wouldn't trade Jones or Adell for Cespedes but I would trade two others.  I would trade Jones and probably two others not named Adell for Stanton.  

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I wouldn't trade Jones or Adell for Cespedes but I would trade two others.  I would trade Jones and probably two others not named Adell for Stanton.  

So truth be told were not that far off really other than some minor hair splitting.   Its those who are unwilling to trade any of them for anyone that i cant understand.  

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

So truth be told were not that far off really other than some minor hair splitting.   Its those who are unwilling to trade any of them for anyone that i cant understand.  

I don't believe there are any of those here.  They are just worried about doing it for rentals or taking on such huge contracts.  I personally wouldn't trade a top 15-20 guy in August for a rental.  

[floplag]

3 hours ago, eligrba said:

I do not know anyone who regularly posts on this forum who are not interested in winning sooner than later.  That impatient approach is a major contributing factor leading to the current conditions that all fans now have to live with.  The Angels essentially declared "baseball bankruptcy" after the Josh Hamilton/Jerry Dipoto  nightmares.

I hear that line about "wasting great years" and have to laugh because at some point in every team's history, great players had great years even though the team failed to win the World Series.

And yet all i read here is we cant trade this or that to every possible proposal, how do they think were going to do the whole winning thing?   People are very quick to bash other peoples suggestions but none of them seem to have any other ideas other than the same old "work the plan" of "have faith" ideology which essentially means we dont worry about the now.

I agree impatient mistakes were made in the past, but should we dwell on that ad nauseam or move on?  Its not the same guy at the helm, id like to see what he can do.  

Yes, every team has done so, but not all of them had the means to fix it, we do.  

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

I don't believe there are any of those here.  They are just worried about doing it for rentals or taking on such huge contracts.  I personally wouldn't trade a top 15-20 guy in August for a rental.  

I think going down to 15 or 20 is a bit of a stretch when the latter half of our top 10 is starting to get thin, but i understand the idea.  

Rentals arent always bad thing to a potential playoff team, which against all odds is precisely what we are right now. 

By your statement you are saying you wouldnt trade a top 20 prospect for a Darvish/Gray if you had the chance?  really?   

For me i think it depends on who that rental is and what prospect we a re talking about with the other terms of the deal.  If i could have gotten for example Darvish or Gray to shore up the rotation issues and give us an ace to run out there in a one game playoff or counter the other contenders #1s, can you honesty say thats not worth a guy that may never see the bigs?   Top 2 or 3, probably not, but beyond that i cant say i wouldnt have at least given it some really serious consideration. 

I hate absolutes, its hard for me to acknowledge almost any of them as realistic, simply too many variables.