2019-20 Free Agent Class

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, floplag said:

You keep saying this and have nothing whatsoever to back it up aside from opinion.   
There is literally no evidence or resources you can site to suggest this is likely to happen without help.  The projections do not support your position nor do the rankings. 
You may end up right, they may all take a giant Regnifo type leap this year and become future stars, but right now today you are guessing/assuming.  
Not being ready to help now doesn't suggest it will be ready at any point in the future, not everyone develops to the major leagues.. We've seen this how many times in the last decade yet somehow you assume all these kids are different.  
Till i see it, im not buying it, end of story. 

What you don’t understand is they don’t need to take a giant leap forward.  What I am telling you is our guys are a year away, so with normal growth they will move up, a lot of teams ranked ahead of us will be graduating those prospects that cause their farm to be ranked as high.  I’ll ask you this.  Is Toronto’s farm better with Vlad Jr or without?  Oh and your notion that “not being ready to help now doesn’t suggest it will be ready at any point in the future” is such a wad of shit.  So Forrest Whitley who I believe is the number one pitching prospect in baseball isn’t major league ready, but he is a legit prospect.  But according to your belief that means he shouldn’t be counted on.  If that is what you are saying then Houston probably shouldn’t be ranked very high because well their best prospect isn’t major league ready.  

 

[UndertheHalo]

It would be very excellent if they were able to land Cole.  He’s going to cost a shit load though and all the big boi’s will be in on him.  He won’t be easy to get. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by UndertheHalo

[Chuck]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

I’m not one to regret what the Angels do or don’t do, but man we should have pulled the trigger on a trade for Cole, assuming we had comparable prospects.  

Yeah and they got him for pretty much NOTHING. What a pisser. 

[angelsnationtalk]

22 minutes ago, floplag said:

You keep saying this and have nothing whatsoever to back it up aside from opinion.   
There is literally no evidence or resources you can site to suggest this is likely to happen without help.  The projections do not support your position nor do the rankings. 
You may end up right, they may all take a giant Regnifo type leap this year and become future stars, but right now today you are guessing/assuming.  
Not being ready to help now doesn't suggest it will be ready at any point in the future, not everyone develops to the major leagues.. We've seen this how many times in the last decade yet somehow you assume all these kids are different.  
Till i see it, im not buying it, end of story. 

Weather we are about ready to pop with young talent and become a top 5 farm or are on the back burner till 2022, we are all guessing. But signs do suggest we are closer rather to some major changes specially with contracts winding down. 

[floplag]

55 minutes ago, Stradling said:

What you don’t understand is they don’t need to take a giant leap forward.  What I am telling you is our guys are a year away, so with normal growth they will move up, a lot of teams ranked ahead of us will be graduating those prospects that cause their farm to be ranked as high.  I’ll ask you this.  Is Toronto’s farm better with Vlad Jr or without?  Oh and your notion that “not being ready to help now doesn’t suggest it will be ready at any point in the future” is such a wad of shit.  So Forrest Whitley who I believe is the number one pitching prospect in baseball isn’t major league ready, but he is a legit prospect.  But according to your belief that means he shouldn’t be counted on.  If that is what you are saying then Houston probably shouldn’t be ranked very high because well their best prospect isn’t major league ready.  

 

No my friend I think i get that just fine, you are leaving out a large piece of that puzzle though.  Other teams guys will also move up just as ours will and if they start from a better place or have more of them, why would our guys collectively suddenly become better than theirs?   Give me even one logical reason to assume that will happen?  Again its the difference between possible, and probable. 

Right now Hou is better both at the ML level and has a better rated farm and a deeper one with nearly twice as many rated prospects.  As they graduate guys they still have more better to step into that void than we do.  Thats not guessing, thats not opinion, thats fact as we sit today. 

Regarding Whitley, thats just an asinine statement.  You know as well as i do how many Woods and McPhearsons weve seen here, im not going to assume anyone is going to be anything till i see it.  Does that mean you dont develop them, of course not.   And your also talking about perhaps the BEST pitching prospect in baseball, do we have any of those?  Using an extreme example to support the view doesnt help.   

With regard to Tor, they are in basically the shape than we are WITHOUT Vlad jr.   They have the exact same amount of guys above 45 that we do per Fangrpahs if you ignore him completely, and more at 40 than we do.    So to answer your question they are in basically the same place wee are with a better chance to improve as they have more chances to do so than we have not even counting Vlad.

None of this is a given, its all guesswork when your talking about prospects.  All you can do is project based on performance and observation.  But we all know there is a huge difference between a major leaguer and a AAAA player.   Anything can happen, ive said many times you could be completely right in the end, but you refuse to even consider the possibility that you could end up being wrong.    I hope i am wrong, i 100% absolutely do.  
 

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

You know as well as i do how many Woods and McPhearsons weve seen here, im not going to assume anyone is going to be anything till i see it.

I understand this viewpoint and pretty much agree. However, if this is your stance, then why even concern yourself with prospects and prospect rankings? (you may have noticed that I don't, for this exact reason)

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

You keep saying this and have nothing whatsoever to back it up aside from opinion.   
There is literally no evidence or resources you can site to suggest this is likely to happen without help.  The projections do not support your position nor do the rankings. 
You may end up right, they may all take a giant Regnifo type leap this year and become future stars, but right now today you are guessing/assuming.  
Not being ready to help now doesn't suggest it will be ready at any point in the future, not everyone develops to the major leagues.. We've seen this how many times in the last decade yet somehow you assume all these kids are different.  
Till i see it, im not buying it, end of story. 

And what resources have you provided that support your opinions??  I mean what projections/rankings suggest it's unlikely the Angels won't continue to rise??  I know, "whatever, you're not going over this again", riiiight?  

People have tried to explain how other more established organizations will graduate guys and how that will likely impact future rankings but it doesn't matter how often or what information youve been shown ... you always always fall back to "I'm not buying it, you cant convince me", etc etc.  It's pointless.... 

You said it best when you went on record saying "my own council will I keep".

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

I understand this viewpoint and pretty much agree. However, if this is your stance, then why even concern yourself with prospects and prospect rankings? (you may have noticed that I don't, for this exact reason)

Because you have to of course.  You have to build and develop to have any kind of sustained winning.  It isnt that i have no faith in them or the process i simply am not going to make assumptions about it. 
You cant ignore it, thats how DiPoto got us into trouble.  Bu i also dont think you focus on it to the determent of the major league squad which is what i feel were doing now.

[Lou]

Just now, floplag said:

Because you have to of course.  You have to build and develop to have any kind of sustained winning.  It isnt that i have no faith in them or the process i simply am not going to make assumptions about it. 
You cant ignore it, thats how DiPoto got us into trouble.  Bu i also dont think you focus on it to the determent of the major league squad which is what i feel were doing now.

I didn't ask why the team concerns themselves with prospects (and their rankings), I asked why you do. 

[Stradling]

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

No my friend I think i get that just fine, you are leaving out a large piece of that puzzle though.  Other teams guys will also move up just as ours will and if they start from a better place or have more of them, why would our guys collectively suddenly become better than theirs?   Give me even one logical reason to assume that will happen?  Again its the difference between possible, and probable. 

Right now Hou is better both at the ML level and has a better rated farm and a deeper one with nearly twice as many rated prospects.  As they graduate guys they still have more better to step into that void than we do.  Thats not guessing, thats not opinion, thats fact as we sit today. 

Regarding Whitley, thats just an asinine statement.  You know as well as i do how many Woods and McPhearsons weve seen here, im not going to assume anyone is going to be anything till i see it.  Does that mean you dont develop them, of course not.   And your also talking about perhaps the BEST pitching prospect in baseball, do we have any of those?  Using an extreme example to support the view doesnt help.   

With regard to Tor, they are in basically the shape than we are WITHOUT Vlad jr.   They have the exact same amount of guys above 45 that we do per Fangrpahs if you ignore him completely, and more at 40 than we do.    So to answer your question they are in basically the same place wee are with a better chance to improve as they have more chances to do so than we have not even counting Vlad.

None of this is a given, its all guesswork when your talking about prospects.  All you can do is project based on performance and observation.  But we all know there is a huge difference between a major leaguer and a AAAA player.   Anything can happen, ive said many times you could be completely right in the end, but you refuse to even consider the possibility that you could end up being wrong.    I hope i am wrong, i 100% absolutely do.  
 

Dude all you do is use extreme examples and your opinion as your basis to any argument or discussion.  

You are incapable of answering direct questions

Wood and McPherson is about as logical in this discussion as saying the Dodgers shouldn’t have traded Puig because they once traded Lou Brock

You seriously don’t understand the way farm systems are ranked. 

[Lou]

I predict this will be the best 2019-2020 free agent class thread ever 

[Stradling]

According to this article the Angels have 5 top 100 prospects and Houston has 4.  They have more guys in the top 50 though.  

 

https://prospects-365.com/2019/01/02/ray-butlers-2018-december-top-100-prospects/

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

And what resources have you provided that support your opinions??  I mean what projections/rankings suggest it's unlikely the Angels won't continue to rise??  I know, "whatever, you're not going over this again", riiiight?  

People have tried to explain how other more established organizations will graduate guys and how that will likely impact future rankings but it doesn't matter how often or what information youve been shown ... you always always fall back to "I'm not buying it, you cant convince me", etc etc.  It's pointless.... 

You said it best when you went on record saying "my own council will I keep".

 

ive listed my sources, Fangraphs for example or BP who we use here often to rate players but apparently are idiots when it comes to the farm somehow.  

Counting on graduation to elevate us make little sense to me.   That not improvement that attrition.   Hou will graduate guys, and they have more than we do to fill that void, how does that somehow make us better? 

You do realize i hope that Hou and the Rays, the 2 teams we will be fighting with most in the next couple years, and already rated better than we are farm wise, yes?    If the Chisox make a couple moves, and they are supposedly in on Manny, that adds them to it as they are also higher than we are.   Oak is pretty much even but we all know they will make deals.   The teams that we are most likely to have direct competition with, have better chances to fill those voids, than we do.  

Please,  counter any of that with factual data and i will be more than happy to listen.  But this assumption that somehow our groups of guys will become better than other groups of guys on teams that are starting from a better place than we are and will be doing the same things we are makes no damn sense to me.
 

[Stradling]

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone complain about BA and their farm rankings, the only one that gets ripped regularly is Bleacher Report.  

[Stradling]

I still don’t understand how a farm system ranking that includes guys that won’t be in the minors means they will still have a better farm.  Hell I think that Chicago is getting their farm system ranking partly because it includes Kopesh, even though he pitched in the majors and had TJ surgery last year and is out the entire year this year, plus when he returns he will probably be in the majors.  Just like I didn’t like Ohtani being considered a prospect when we all knew he wouldn’t be spending time in the minors.  

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

According to this article the Angels have 5 top 100 prospects and Houston has 4.  They have more guys in the top 50 though.  

 

https://prospects-365.com/2019/01/02/ray-butlers-2018-december-top-100-prospects/

Nice article actually, i hadnt read that, and this is exactly what ive been asking for, a legit logical reason to expect them to improve to that level.  Thank you for that, however, im not sure it proves your point.  
Based on that is see that we have 5,  Canning at 98, Adams 87, Marsh 79, Jones 77, Adell 9
They have 4, James at 78, Alvarez at 14, Tucker at 12, Whitley at 6
Not a huge difference volume wise but it suggests we will have more depth, they will be better.    3 in the top 15 is pretty strong. 
Our farm is going to need help to pass that if we are to improve at the ML level to be better than they are in the next 3 years unless thier ML club is decimated by contract losses, which is possible.   

By the way TB had 7 on that list.   CHW had 6. 

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Nice article actually, i hadnt read that, and this is exactly what ive been asking for, a legit logical reason to expect them to improve to that level.  Thank you for that, however, im not sure it proves your point.  
Based on that is see that we have 5,  Canning at 98, Adams 87, Marsh 79, Jones 77, Adell 9
They have 4, James at 78, Alvarez at 14, Tucker at 12, Whitley at 6
Not a huge difference volume wise but it suggests we will have more depth, they will be better.    3 in the top 15 is pretty strong. 
Our farm is going to need help to pass that if we are to improve at the ML level to be better than they are in the next 3 years unless thier ML club is decimated by contract losses, which is possible.   

By the way TB had 7 on that list.   CHW had 6. 

Chicago had 6, one of which is out the entire season with TJ surgery and when he returns will return to the major league team, where he was when he got injured.  Also it looks as though their best prospect Eloy Jimenez will start the season in the majors.  

[Lou]

4 hours ago, Stradling said:

I’d be shocked if Goldy isn’t signed to an extension.  If Harper doesn’t end up back with the Nats they will re-sign Rendon.  

you weren't sure how to spell Goldschmidt, were you?

[Inside Pitch]

57 minutes ago, floplag said:

ive listed my sources, Fangraphs for example or BP who we use here often to rate players but apparently are idiots when it comes to the farm somehow.  

Jesus Christ...  that Fangraphs article did more to support the opinion that the Angels would rise than support anything you're trying to say.  You could have taken five seconds to look up who they were ranking among Angels farmhands -- you might have noticed that 6 of the top 20 weren't yet considered, or that when compared to everyone else listed the Angels players were the second youngest represented group.   Why?  Because we didn't have a farm system three years ago.   The fact that they were as high as they are while essentially sticking to a sample size of two drafts plus Jones/Hermosillo/Ward is amazing.   The Angels because they have focused so heavily on building their farm system will see a rise simply due to them having added more players.  They don't actually even  have to be good FFS ..  FG considers their 40 grade guys as follows..

40

Backend starters, FIP typically close to 5.00

0.0 to 0.9

40

Bench Player

0.0 to 0.7

So..  to avoid any further mistaking what that means -- they are talking about guys who's FIP is 5.00 -- so not even their actual ERA, just what their numbers suggest their ERA should be.  In other words..   Five guys with actual ERA's over 6.00 but with enough sabermetric oomph to rate out as 5.00 FIPs would rank as 40 FV types.  Offensively... the information is self evident.

57 minutes ago, floplag said:

Counting on graduation to elevate us make little sense to me.   That not improvement that attrition.   Hou will graduate guys, and they have more than we do to fill that void, how does that somehow make us better? 

Try keeping track of your arguments better.   The graduation of ranked prospects means teams with more talent further along than the Angels will take a dip in the rankings -- this is particularly true of Toronto and Houston.  Future value doesn't represent actual production, it's a valuation of what players could be -- once those players graduate they cease to be potential future value -- which is what that FG article was trying to rank.  Valuation rankings are massively impacted by the volume of players, so teams with established farm systems will always have more assets that can be counted, which again, is how Houston with it's entire top 20 prospects being ranked would be ahead of an Angels farm system with less established players.

Honestly, this would be a lot easier if you just understood what those rankings actually represented and how they should be used.

57 minutes ago, floplag said:

You do realize i hope that Hou and the Rays, the 2 teams we will be fighting with most in the next couple years, and already rated better than we are farm wise, yes?    If the Chisox make a couple moves, and they are supposedly in on Manny, that adds them to it as they are also higher than we are.   Oak is pretty much even but we all know they will make deals.   The teams that we are most likely to have direct competition with, have better chances to fill those voids, than we do.  

Oy vey....  So, you're using FG future value rankings, talking about the White Sox possibly adding Manny then turning around and arguing that will make them better....   You are counting something that hasn't happened, and then doubling down in saying the A's will likely make deals then turning around to argue those teams (who havent made those moves) will have better chances than we do.   Tell me again how others have nothing but opinions and assumptions to bank on?   

57 minutes ago, floplag said:

Please,  counter any of that with factual data and i will be more than happy to listen.  But this assumption that somehow our groups of guys will become better than other groups of guys on teams that are starting from a better place than we are and will be doing the same things we are makes no damn sense to me.

It's been done -- I did it the last time you tried to make this argument.  You didn't understand the data then, you still don't.... it's unlikely you ever will.   You will just keep talking about how others will just assume that our guys will be better than other peoples when in reality NOBODY has made that argument.  Why?  because that's not actually what those particular FG rankings are trying to measure so nobody should actually be trying to argue that...

Again, it's pointless

Edited January 5, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, Lou said:

you weren't sure how to spell Goldschmidt, were you?

Not at all.  Like the Shark guy that pitches for the Giants and used to be a wide receiver for ND.  

[Inside Pitch]

25 minutes ago, floplag said:

Nice article actually, i hadnt read that, and this is exactly what ive been asking for, a legit logical reason to expect them to improve to that level.

Glad you liked that -- I posted it in the minor league thread.   Adams BTW wasn't among the Angels prospects ranked in the FV piece.  

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Not at all.  Like the Shark guy that pitches for the Giants and used to be a wide receiver for ND.  

haha

you must be referring to Sama, er, Jeffy. 

 

[Inside Pitch]

Just now, Lou said:

haha

you must be referring to Sama, er, Jeffy. 

 

Jeff Samakardashian...  or something.   

[Roy Hobbs]

6 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Jesus Christ...  that Fangraphs article did more to support the opinion that the Angels would rise than support anything you're trying to say.  You could have taken five seconds to look up who they were ranking among Angels farmhands -- you might have noticed that 6 of the top 20 weren't yet considered, or that when compared to everyone else listed the Angels players were the second youngest represented group.   Why?  Because we didn't have a farm system three years ago.   The fact that they were as high as they are while essentially sticking to a sample size of two drafts plus Jones/Hermosillo/Ward is amazing.   The Angels simply because they have focused so heavily on building their farm system will see a rise simple due to them having added more players.  They don't actually even  have to be good FFS ..  FG considers their 40 grade guys as follows..

40

Backend starters, FIP typically close to 5.00

0.0 to 0.9

 

40

Bench Player

0.0 to 0.7

So..  to avoid any further mistaking what that means -- they are talking about guys who's FIP is 5.00 -- so not even their actual ERA, just what their numbers suggest their ERA should be.  In other words..   Five guys with actual ERA's over 6.00 but with enough sabermetric oomph to rate out as 5.00 FIPs would rank as 40 FV types.  Offensively... the information is self evident.

Try keeping track of your arguments better.   The graduation of ranked prospects means teams with more talent further along than the Angels will take a dip in the rankings -- this is particularly true of Toronto and Houston.  Future value doesn't represent actual production, it's a valuation of what players could be -- once those players graduate they cease to be potential future value -- which is what that FG article was trying to rank.  Valuation rankings are massively impacted by the volume of players, so teams with established farm systems will always have more assets that can be counted, which again, is how Houston with it's entire top 20 prospects being ranked would be ahead of an Angels farm system with less established players.

Honestly, this would be a lot easier if you just understood what those rankings actually represented and how they should be used.

Oy vey....  So, you're using FG future value rankings, talking about the White Sox possibly adding Manny then turning around and arguing that will make them better....   You are counting something that hasn't happened, and then doubling down in saying the A's will likely make deals then turning around to argue those teams (who havent made those moves) will have better chances than we do.   Tell me again how others have nothing but opinions and assumptions to bank on?   

It's been done -- I did it the last time you tried to make this argument.  You didn't understand the data then, you still don't.... it's unlikely you ever will.   You will just keep talking about how others will just assume that our guys will be better than other peoples when in reality NOBODY has made that argument.  Why?  because that's not actually what those particular FG rankings are trying to measure so nobody should actually be trying to argue that...

Again, it's pointless

I haven't seen a beat down like that since Ray Rice.Just straight facts,well done IP

[tdawg87]

15 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Jesus Christ...  that Fangraphs article did more to support the opinion that the Angels would rise than support anything you're trying to say.  You could have taken five seconds to look up who they were ranking among Angels farmhands -- you might have noticed that 6 of the top 20 weren't yet considered, or that when compared to everyone else listed the Angels players were the second youngest represented group.   Why?  Because we didn't have a farm system three years ago.   The fact that they were as high as they are while essentially sticking to a sample size of two drafts plus Jones/Hermosillo/Ward is amazing.   The Angels simply because they have focused so heavily on building their farm system will see a rise simple due to them having added more players.  They don't actually even  have to be good FFS ..  FG considers their 40 grade guys as follows..

40

Backend starters, FIP typically close to 5.00

0.0 to 0.9

 

40

Bench Player

0.0 to 0.7

So..  to avoid any further mistaking what that means -- they are talking about guys who's FIP is 5.00 -- so not even their actual ERA, just what their numbers suggest their ERA should be.  In other words..   Five guys with actual ERA's over 6.00 but with enough sabermetric oomph to rate out as 5.00 FIPs would rank as 40 FV types.  Offensively... the information is self evident.

Try keeping track of your arguments better.   The graduation of ranked prospects means teams with more talent further along than the Angels will take a dip in the rankings -- this is particularly true of Toronto and Houston.  Future value doesn't represent actual production, it's a valuation of what players could be -- once those players graduate they cease to be potential future value -- which is what that FG article was trying to rank.  Valuation rankings are massively impacted by the volume of players, so teams with established farm systems will always have more assets that can be counted, which again, is how Houston with it's entire top 20 prospects being ranked would be ahead of an Angels farm system with less established players.

Honestly, this would be a lot easier if you just understood what those rankings actually represented and how they should be used.

Oy vey....  So, you're using FG future value rankings, talking about the White Sox possibly adding Manny then turning around and arguing that will make them better....   You are counting something that hasn't happened, and then doubling down in saying the A's will likely make deals then turning around to argue those teams (who havent made those moves) will have better chances than we do.   Tell me again how others have nothing but opinions and assumptions to bank on?   

It's been done -- I did it the last time you tried to make this argument.  You didn't understand the data then, you still don't.... it's unlikely you ever will.   You will just keep talking about how others will just assume that our guys will be better than other peoples when in reality NOBODY has made that argument.  Why?  because that's not actually what those particular FG rankings are trying to measure so nobody should actually be trying to argue that...

Again, it's pointless

Hello, police? I just witnessed a murder.