Jean Segura Has Set a Precedent

[rageous]

Thanks AJ.  I see that happening too, prospects will still be viewed as currency.  But when you have super prospects, or prospects at key positions with extreme upside, I think we'll start to see ball clubs hold onto those guys more than in the past.  

 

Talking to this gentleman also confirmed what I've suspected for quite a while.  These "experts" with major publication syndicates that produce top prospect lists really do have an agenda or bias.  It's awfully hard to justify a young shortstop prospect with 5-tool talent in AA being hidden somewhere in the depths of a Top 100 list.  Kids like that don't come out every year, teams are lucky to find one every decade. 

 

Also sending their "scouts" to go watch an Angels minor league game, of course these guys are going to be preoccupied with Trout.  They're either looking for something bad to say about him or he's just so over the top good the scouts are left awestruck.  

 

I do my own personal scouting whenever possible, but when it comes to taking any prospect list seriously, what this gentleman with the Dodgers told me just confirmed that if you want the most accurate info, you gotta find the small sites that specialize on a team.  Sure, you have to sift through the bias but at least you're getting a full report and not some filler from some guy that didn't invest any time or energy into understanding a player's capabilities.  Yet that's the product that's being sold as "expertise".

Segura was never seen as a super prospect.

He is having a great season so far but let's not forget that he was barely ranked #91 by fangraphs prospect list when the trade was made and ranked #55 by baseball america.

[Tyler]

You look at Segura's minor league numbers.  And I would do that trade again in a heartbeat.

 

Rookie Ball 162 AB, .904 OPS

A Ball 515 AB, .829 OPS

2011 looks like he was hurt, only 185 AB in A+ Ball .758 OPS

AA Ball, 374 AB .749 OPS

 

Traded to the Brewers.  148 AB, .652 OPS last year.

 

Then he jumps to a .986 OPS this year.  If anyone could have predicted that, especially many posters, I call Bullshit.

 

He's certainly hot right now, but I knew he was going to be a great player. Lost in all of his plate discipline and batting average, is his speed and incredible defense.

[Tyler]

Segura was never seen as a super prospect.

He is having a great season so far but let's not forget that he was barely ranked #91 by fangraphs prospect list when the trade was made and ranked #55 by baseball america.

 

AW.com had him behind Trout in '11, and Richards and Trout in '12. The Angels farm system is weak, but he was most certainly the cream of the crop pre-Greinke trade.

[Docwaukee]

I think this scout and the gushing over segura is jumping the gun. 

 

this guy is making it seem like Segura was even remotely in Trout's league in terms of talent.  He's not.  He's gonna be a nice player and at the current time substantially outperforming any projection that anyone could have imagined.  His numbers are not sustainable.  To use 1/4th of a season of his first real time in the bigs as precedent for anything is massively presumptive.  If this scout is that good, then how come Dee Gordon sucks.  Why isn't the Dodgers system loaded with prospects. 

 

It's not that easy. 

 

There will continue to be trades.  Good ones and bad ones.  Some that are neutral.  Trading a player at a position of redundancy makes sense.  Yes, you have to get value.  Yes, it's risky.  Yes, on occasion, you are going to get burnt. 

 

People were all bent about giving up Sean Rodriguez in the Kaz trade.  He didn't pan out so it made it less painful.  Pat Corbin has done very well so now everyone is complaining that the Haren trade was a bad idea.  Kotchman and Marek didn't do squat so we never hear a peep about the Tex trade. 

 

Perhaps the dynamic of how guys get traded and for whom will change a bit, but there will always be teams trying to add proven for unproven talent. 

[avejoe1]

I think all of these comments are relevant.  The Angels have a proven track record of making free agent signings and trades that may have short-term benefits but stink long-term.  It is sad to go over these transactions and bemoan what could have been.  It is tragic that no one in management seems to learn anything from prior errors.  After Bottenfield and GMJ Jr. and Haren and Pujols and this years signing of Hamilton, I am convinced this brain trust lacks the capacity to understand the long-term effects of the decisions they make.

[RenoHalo]

Segura has a .394 BABIP. There is no way he maintains that.

He will if he keeps hangin' with Braun's 'cousin'.....never occurred to me until I saw those season by season stat comparisons...smells like fish.

[Brent Maguire]

Segura is on another level right now and he'll crash down soon. He's a .800 OPS guy with great speed and plus defense, not an offensive juggernaut. 

[Marsaka]

somethings fishy about segura, how do u go from a .750 ops in the minors to a .950 in a much better league like the majors?  hes prolly taking the braun stuff, or simply playing over his head, it's stupid to think he will continue this pace.

[Tyler]

He is in a big time hitters park batting in front of Braun and he uses the whole field. And yes, he is off to a hot start and will obviously regress some.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I think this scout and the gushing over segura is jumping the gun. 

 

this guy is making it seem like Segura was even remotely in Trout's league in terms of talent.  He's not.  He's gonna be a nice player and at the current time substantially outperforming any projection that anyone could have imagined.  His numbers are not sustainable.  To use 1/4th of a season of his first real time in the bigs as precedent for anything is massively presumptive.  If this scout is that good, then how come Dee Gordon sucks.  Why isn't the Dodgers system loaded with prospects. 

 

It's not that easy. 

 

There will continue to be trades.  Good ones and bad ones.  Some that are neutral.  Trading a player at a position of redundancy makes sense.  Yes, you have to get value.  Yes, it's risky.  Yes, on occasion, you are going to get burnt. 

 

People were all bent about giving up Sean Rodriguez in the Kaz trade.  He didn't pan out so it made it less painful.  Pat Corbin has done very well so now everyone is complaining that the Haren trade was a bad idea.  Kotchman and Marek didn't do squat so we never hear a peep about the Tex trade. 

 

Perhaps the dynamic of how guys get traded and for whom will change a bit, but there will always be teams trying to add proven for unproven talent. 

 

It's funny you mention Sean Rodriguez. I would say my perception of Jean Segura as a prospect was very similar to that of Sean Rodriguez (not that they are similar players, but that they were similarly rated). Both guys projected as major leaguers, but I don't think anyone expected them to be 'good' major leaguers. There is a huge difference between giving up prospects like Trout, or Profar, than guys like Segura or Rodriguez.

Guys like Rodriguez and Segura are worth the risk. Sometimes everyone is wrong about a player and you look bad, but you have to go with the information you have at the time.

[Tyler]

Rodriguez was not in the same class as Segura.

[stormngt]

Why are a lot of people forgetting that outside of 2009, Grienke has been decent to solid at best?   His ERA since then is around 3.90.

 

How many here would truly trade a VERY GOOD prospect with potentially 5 tools (Segura) for a rental pitcher with a high 3.00s ERA since 2010?    Knowing that said pitcher would command big dollars for basically having an ERA similar to Vargas since 2010? 

 

All I know is, Stoneman and Disney would never have made that deal.

Reagins would have likely fallen all over himself to make it.

 

Segura ISN'T Wood.   He actually has tools other than just hitting HRs and having poor plate discipline.

Segura's plate discipline was always pretty decent in the minors.

Stoneman wouldn't make any deal.

 

Disney would have traded Edmonds for Kent Bottenfield and a throw in second baseman named Kennedy.  Who says Disney wouldn't make such a trade?

[stormngt]

Segura wouldn't have been playing anyways.  There's no way Scioscia would have figured out his bat was better than Aybar's or worth moving someone to third.  Segura would have finally cracked our lineup maybe 2 years from now. 

Yes, that is why we have seen Harris play so much this year!

 

BTW if Scioscia is the obstacle than just blame Dipoto for not trading Aybar.

[stormngt]

I think all of these comments are relevant.  The Angels have a proven track record of making free agent signings and trades that may have short-term benefits but stink long-term.  It is sad to go over these transactions and bemoan what could have been.  It is tragic that no one in management seems to learn anything from prior errors.  After Bottenfield and GMJ Jr. and Haren and Pujols and this years signing of Hamilton, I am convinced this brain trust lacks the capacity to understand the long-term effects of the decisions they make.

You do realize the team won a WS and four division titles during the period of those trades and FA signees:  Bottenfield through Hamilton.  Maybe they are smarter than you think.

[bloodbrother]

Segura was never seen as a super prospect.

He is having a great season so far but let's not forget that he was barely ranked #91 by fangraphs prospect list when the trade was made and ranked #55 by baseball america.

 

After his breakout season in Low A, he was ranked as high as I think #35 on BP's top 100. Most other places had him in the 50 range, and this was when he was at 2B. The move to SS just upped his value. He was hurt and had a lost season in 2011 which caused him to drop a bit in the rankings, but he most definitely was a highly touted prospect. He was the main piece in the Greinke trade for a reason

 

At the time, the trade made sense though. Halos had locked up both their current MIF talents to long term extensions just a few months prior(Aybar and Kendrick), so they really had nowhere for Segura to play. It sucks to see Segura exploding and turnign into one of the more dynamic SS's in MLB, but I don't blame the Halos for the decision. They had their 2b/SS locked up and needed another good arm for the stretch run in hopes of makin the playoffs

[stormngt]

I really liked the article and make some sense with a new precedent being sent.  However, I have to wonder if this is just a pendulum being swung back and forth.  Yes we can pin point examples where trading top prospects have backfired for an organization.  The Wells, Haren, and Grienke trades are just examples for Angel fans.  However, outside of the Wells trade the other two made sense at the time.  However, it is not just us who got burned.  Some would argue that Texas rise to power can be taken directly from their trade of Teixera to the Braves where the Rangers got All Stars Elvis Andrus and Neftali Perez in addition to starter Matt Harrison.

 

However, it wasn't long ago where Angel fans were complaining that they never made trades and over - valued their prospects.  Please remember in 2004 when the Angels desperately needed an Ace starting pitcher in the playoffs and had the opportunity to trade for Randy Johnson.  However, we could not part with Dallas MacPhearson and Kotchman.  In hindsight, how many on here regret making such a move?  Dallas was a bust and Kotch nevermore than an average 1b.

 

Or how about the often talked about trade for Miguel Cabrera?  We couldn't make that move because  couldn't part with Santana, (who we gave away to KC this year) Adenhart (who is deceased), Brandon Wood, Howie Kendrick and the great Jeff Mathis.

 

Then there is the possible trade for Doc Halliday.  You remember that one don't you guys?  It was supposed to be a done deal except the Jays wanted both Aybar and Wood.  And we couldn't possibly  do that.  We know how good Wood turned out to be just a year later.  

 

Yes, there are a lot of examples where a team may have made a mistake making a trade by giving up prospects who turn into great players.  But there are also trades that were not made because the team can't part with a prospect who don't pan out (Wood, Macphearson, Kotchman).  

 

Hindsight is great, and unfortunately we don't have hindsight when the decisions are actually made.  Yes, a precedent might be set because Segura is killing it this year.  However, if a prospect such as Profor (the can't miss non-tradeable from Texas) ends up being a bust the pendulum might swing back.

[Angel Oracle]

I know that a delicate balance is difficult to achieve.

But it seems that this org has never settled on ONE long term strategy for the farm system.

One period, it's acquiring players for prospects to get over the top, and then the farm is trashed.

Another period, it's keeping every key prospect and thus missing out on that one or two acquisitions that could potentially put you over the top. 

 

Rarely has this org ever had a middle ground that combines a solid farm system with the ability to make a trade or two to get to that next level. 

[Mark68]

It's interesting that this is based on a conversation with a scout for the Dodgers.

 

The Dodgers, who have done essentially the same thing, and who are in last place.

[ettin]

Keep in mind gents, this is NOT about whether or not the trade was worth it.  This is about a potential shift in the way teams do business.  Prospects that have higher upside down in A Ball are bigger risks that organizations feel they could recuperate from if dealt.  But when you have an extremely high upside prospect (and though I didn't add it in the article, he specifically said that if national publications weren't so "unreliable" meaning they have an agenda, Segura would've been a legitimate Top 10 prospect) teams will no longer go about trading them away when they are at AA and AAA. 

 

Meaning if these guys are dealt, they'll be on the move down in A Ball, not when they're on the Major League doorstep as Segura was.  Which makes sense because the team that receives such a prospect receives a tremendous amount of value both short term and long term and no one has to wait around and wonder whether or not this kid is going to make it. 

 

This idea has been exhaustively discussed on different sites. It is simply a result of higher free agency prices and the recoginition that controllable, homegrown talent can be given long-term extensions that generally have a much better chance of being more value-added for their team.

 

Those teams that can run higher payrolls will have a slight advantage in that they can still use the free agent market to acquire areas of need but the trend is moving back to using free agency as a supplement to build your team not to create the nucleus of it (unless you are the Dodgers, Yankees, Angels, etc.).

[Angel Oracle]

Which is why by no later than after his 3rd full season, and assuming he continues on like this, Trout needs to be given a long contract deal.

And make sure that if he isn't given one after this season, that they don't again give him a low salary under $1 million.

[ettin]

Which is why by no later than after his 3rd full season, and assuming he continues on like this, Trout needs to be given a long contract deal.

And make sure that if he isn't given one after this season, that they don't again give him a low salary under $1 million.

 

I fully agree with this and I would go even further and offer him a record-breaking money contract that covers the rest of his career and keep him an Angel for the rest of his playing days. There is no denying his athletic ability and talent and I don't think the Angels would regret it (could of course be totally wrong).

 

$400 million/15 year contract? Plus option years? Don't give him the opportunity to possibly go into the Hall of Fame wearing another team's cap. This really is an opportunity for the Angels to give him the most massive contract in history and lock up what appears to be a perennial HOF talent. If you are a gambler this is about as sure a bet as they come in terms of baseball talent. I don't mind waiting another year or even two but this should get done two years before he hits free agency if not sooner.

[Second Base]

Perhaps the Angels problem ettin, that they've been using free agency to build a nucleus and not as something to supplement their team.  

 

And as for Trout, I'll say this.  If ever there were a player I'd be willing to gamble obscene amounts of money in, it would be him.  

[HaloFan85]

Segura doesn't walk much at all.  He's on pace for 36 walks in 600 at bats.

 

I agree with those who say he won't keep this up.

[ettin]

Perhaps the Angels problem ettin, that they've been using free agency to build a nucleus and not as something to supplement their team.  

 

And as for Trout, I'll say this.  If ever there were a player I'd be willing to gamble obscene amounts of money in, it would be him.  

 

Yes that is what I said at the end of my first post. Like you, I disagree with the idea that you use money to buy free agents to build a nucleus in principle. However some teams can afford to do that very thing and the Angels happen to be one of them.

 

I would love to see the Angels redevelop their farm system and I think Jerry is working on that issue as we speak (Draft is on June 6th right?). I think it is part of his long term goals for the club and I think a big part of the reason he went to free agency the last two years is that last years draft, this years draft and next years draft are overall very weak on talent. I recently read from one article that this years draft was given a 45 on the 20-80 scouting scale in terms of talent.

 

I think Dipoto looked at the opportunity to sign free agents and give extensions to core players to build a contending team now and for the next 2-4 years while we rebuild the farm system slowly last year and this year and then start to accelerate those efforts as we move forward. His idea, and I am paraphrasing Dipoto, was to have the "moving window of contention" that would allow us to field a team that has the potential to compete each and every year.

[stormngt]

I fully agree with this and I would go even further and offer him a record-breaking money contract that covers the rest of his career and keep him an Angel for the rest of his playing days. There is no denying his athletic ability and talent and I don't think the Angels would regret it (could of course be totally wrong).

 

$400 million/15 year contract? Plus option years? Don't give him the opportunity to possibly go into the Hall of Fame wearing another team's cap. This really is an opportunity for the Angels to give him the most massive contract in history and lock up what appears to be a perennial HOF talent. If you are a gambler this is about as sure a bet as they come in terms of baseball talent. I don't mind waiting another year or even two but this should get done two years before he hits free agency if not sooner.

So you would have Trout forgo his club control years and just offer 26.7 million a year?

 

This might be a shock to you but could probably get trout to jump at 10/150 million.  Why?  Because he is only guaranteed the minimum next year and even though he would get a big jump during his arbitration years it still will be limited.  Plus Trout would have guaranteed money for 15 years and would not have to worry about risk of injury.

 

However, if you want to give him another quarter of a billion dollars hell, it ain't my money.