Farm System Rankings

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

 

 

Yea, that wasn’t lost on me.  He calls you out for saying they don’t do their job, and then says you aren’t doing your job.  In other words dumbb.

[kevinb]

Just now, Stradling said:

Ok, I think you are being extremely stupid in this thread.  You are putting words in people’s mouths to “strengthen” your argument.  I don’t have to be sly, because I am perfectly comfortable letting people know they are acting dumbb.

I don't think I am being stupid. I am defending the writers and the sources of an MLB.com article. From people who are saying they aren't doing their jobs, and they don't really know what they are talking about. At the end of the day I believe they do their jobs, they do their work and they are grading each individual team and ranking them according to the grades of the prospects. You and @tdawg87 seem to disagree with their assessment or are saying they don't actually know what they are talking about. Either way that's very "stupid" to assume that. 

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Yea, that wasn’t lost on me.  He calls you out for saying they don’t do their job, and then says you aren’t doing your job.  In other words dumbb.

I am just pointing out the obvious. Telling people they don't work when they are writing an article for a legit website, and calling out the person who is saying they don't work who posts 31k posts on a fan site. Irony. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Kevinb said:

I don't think I am being stupid. I am defending the writers and the sources of an MLB.com article. From people who are saying they aren't doing their jobs, and they don't really know what they are talking about. At the end of the day I believe they do their jobs, they do their work and they are grading each individual team and ranking them according to the grades of the prospects. You and @tdawg87 seem to disagree with their assessment or are saying they don't actually know what they are talking about. Either way that's very "stupid" to assume that. 

I’m saying they aren’t capable of doing a thorough job because there are over 8000 minor leaguers.  It isn’t that they aren’t doing the best they can, it is the job is too difficult to be great at.  I’d be much more likely to believe someone on here like Doc or IP and not about ranking them, but on giving us a run down of their strengths and opportunities.  

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

I am just pointing out the obvious. Telling people they don't work when they are writing an article for a legit website, and calling out the person who is saying they don't work who posts 31k posts on a fan site. Irony. 

It is almost as ironic as putting words in someone’s mouth and creating your argument against them based on the words you put in their mouth.  

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

I’m saying they aren’t capable of doing a thorough job because there are over 8000 minor leaguers.  It isn’t that they aren’t doing the best they can, it is the job is too difficult to be great at.  I’d be much more likely to believe someone on here like Doc or IP and not about ranking them, but on giving us a run down of their strengths and opportunities.  

I like having both view points. I like the insight of both Doc and IP on individual prospects even if their glasses are rose colored. But also seeing how those individual prospects match up to the rest of the league. Which is what the article does, it is ranking our players and our system to every other system in the MLB. There is value in that as well. 

[kevinb]

43 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

That was kind of a weird post at the end there but the first part was spot on.

 

47 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

No one does their job, they just copy paste, have no information, they're wrong, biased...blah blah blah. Yep good response. CAPS LOCK!

@Stradling 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

I like having both view points. I like the insight of both Doc and IP on individual prospects even if their glasses are rose colored. But also seeing how those individual prospects match up to the rest of the league. Which is what the article does, it is ranking our players and our system to every other system in the MLB. There is value in that as well. 

Well I don’t know Doc’s background but he seems about as level headed as anyone on here.  I know a little bit about IP and he has the resume to do what they do.  Hell he’s done what they do.  

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

 

@Stradling 

Face!

[kevinb]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Well I don’t know Doc’s background but he seems about as level headed as anyone on here.  I know a little bit about IP and he has the resume to do what they do.  Hell he’s done what they do.  

I agree I like both of their insight. I don't know what the argument now is? 

[Inside Pitch]

17 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I like having both view points. I like the insight of both Doc and IP on individual prospects even if their glasses are rose colored.

Tell me a guy I've been too high on?  If anything I'm one of the harsher critics of our system.  Hell, I'm one of the very few that believes Adell is anything but a finished product and needs to show he can do more than out-athlete people at the higher levels. 

Maybe you're confusing me for someone else but, I'm pretty conservative when it comes to prospects as I tend to focus on what they can't do well and try to project how likely they are to overcome their shortcomings as opposed to fawning over what they can do.   

Tell you who I am likely too high on given his layoff and injury history... Chris Rodriguez. Why??? because the only thing he's had trouble with is staying on the field.  

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

Tell me a guy I've been too high on?  If anything I'm one of the harsher critics of our system.  Hell, I'm one of the very few that believes Adell is anything but a finished product and needs to show he can do more than out-athlete people at the higher levels. 

Maybe you're confusing me for someone else but, I'm pretty conservative when it comes to prospects as I tend to focus on what they can't do well and try to project how likely they are to overcome their shortcomings as opposed to fawning over what they can do.   

Tell you who I am likely too high on given his layoff and injury history... Chris Rodriguez. Why because the only thing he's had trouble with is staying on the field.  

I said even if they are rose colored. I enjoy all the prospects stuff I read here. I don't know much of anything at all about any of our prospects other than what I read here or other places. I don't go to very many Angels games let alone minor league games to look at stuff. Anything that can be contributed about our farm system I see as beneficial. 

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what I liked about the article that MLB.com posted was it's ranking our system to see where we are at compared to the rest of the league. I think that is also beneficial because it shows us how we compare. Angels being in the high 20's doesn't bode well, but I imagine that stuff can fluctuate a lot based on how someone does from year to year. But I still see value in both. That is all I am or have been saying. That and to think that the people who are writing these ranking things don't do their own research and do collaborate is silly. 

[Inside Pitch]

36 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what I liked about the article that MLB.com posted was it's ranking our system to see where we are at compared to the rest of the league. I think that is also beneficial because it shows us how we compare. Angels being in the high 20's doesn't bode well, but I imagine that stuff can fluctuate a lot based on how someone does from year to year. 

Rankings fluctuate from year based on a lot of different reasons.  Graduations and recent drafts probably have the biggest impact on rankings simply because they represent the taking away and addition of "talent".   And contrary to your earlier comments, pretty much every site carries a level of bias, be it them being prejudiced towards "numbers" or "tools" or any other number of different things.  There will always be teams viewed as being on the upswing and those at the opposite end of the spectrum.  There is a reason you see a pre-season ranking, a midseason ranking, and an end of season ranking.   The Angels' biggest riser on a national level last year didn't make that jump until after the minor league season had ended and he played in the AFL.  So, you can add regency biases to the equation.

Regardless of rankings if you were to poll most of the guys writing for these sites they likely all agree the Angels system is likely one of the harder systems to evaluate... It's one of the youngest systems in baseball, it's loaded with high risk, high reward, types and it saw a large number of guys who were aggressively promoted at nearly every level of the system.  There is a dearth of catching in the system and I do think that's an Eppler issue... but as a whole there are so many high upside guys in the system it wouldn't really shock anyone to see people view the system differently a few months now.

[kevinb]

22 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Rankings fluctuate from year based on a lot of different reasons.  Graduations and recent drafts probably have the biggest impact on rankings simply because they represent the taking away and addition of "talent".   And contrary to your earlier comments, pretty much every site carries a level of bias, be it them being prejudiced towards "numbers" or "tools" or any other number of different things.  There will always be teams viewed as being on the upswing and those at the opposite end of the spectrum.  There is a reason you see a pre-season ranking, a midseason ranking, and an end of season ranking.   The Angels' biggest riser on a national level last year didn't make that jump until after the minor league season had ended and he played in the AFL.  So, you can add regency biases to the equation.

Regardless of rankings if you were to poll most of the guys writing for these sites they likely all agree the Angels system is likely one of the harder systems to evaluate... It's one of the youngest systems in baseball, it's loaded with high risk, high reward, types and it saw a large number of guys who were aggressively promoted at nearly every level of the system.  There is a dearth of catching in the system and I do think that's an Eppler issue... but as a whole there are so many high upside guys in the system it wouldn't really shock anyone to see people view the system differently a few months now.

I do think everyone has inherent bias. I meant I don't think their bias is against a certain team. There bias like you said is how they view each prospect differently. One could rate this really well and one wouldn't rate the same skill set as high. The high risk high reward can be a huge benefit to the major league club or it could fizzle out. Which is either a good thing or a bad thing depends on your risk reward level. It would be like buying stocks, which ones are you buying and are you someone to buy and keep long term or buy and sell "willy nilly". I appreciate your input. 

[TroutCron]

To me, the Angels lack the quality player development that the top farms have. With the exception of the Dogs the teams at the top have consistently top five draft picks. The Angels have been picking middle of the pack for most of the century, therefore the need for quality player development is vital. They need to draft high ceiling pitchers and catchers. Mostly, Eppler and the Farm Directors must be held accountable for the lack of quality throughout the system despite the last four horrible years. 

[TroutCron]

The Angels have two players from their system that they drafted and developed. Trout is a savant who needed very little seasoning and Fletcher. That is not a lot to show for the organization’s ability to draft and develop. The Angels tend to draft “high floor types instead of high ceiling types. I think the whole organization needs an overhaul, new GM, Farm director, Scouts and new player development people.  

[Stradling]

Just now, TroutCron said:

The Angels have two players from their system that they drafted and developed. Trout is a savant who needed very little seasoning and Fletcher. That is not a lot to show for the organization’s ability to draft and develop. The Angels tend to draft “high floor types instead of high ceiling types. I think the whole organization needs an overhaul, new GM, Farm director, Scouts and new player development people.  

I don’t really think 4 years is enough time to judge a GM on building a farm.  One of those years was before he had his people in place to create a real draft philosophy.  I agree that there should be more to show than what we have, but in four years he has drafted Adell, Canning, Thaiss, Marsh, Adams and Jackson.  All of those guys (minus Thaiss) have been or will be on top 100 lists.  I am guessing when compared to most farms that is a pretty decent amount for the last 4 years.  He has also traded for Rengifo who is a pretty good young player.  Look at the four years prior, we got Fletcher, Ward and Middleton.  Are we the Dodgers, no, I don’t think anyone really is.  I just am not sure its possible to build a farm from scratch in 4 years, simply by drafting and international signs.  

[tdawg87]

7 minutes ago, TroutCron said:

The Angels have two players from their system that they drafted and developed. Trout is a savant who needed very little seasoning and Fletcher. That is not a lot to show for the organization’s ability to draft and develop. The Angels tend to draft “high floor types instead of high ceiling types. I think the whole organization needs an overhaul, new GM, Farm director, Scouts and new player development people.  

Canning and Thaiss. 

Your overall point is fair, but guys like Adell, Marsh, Canning, Adams, Chris Rodriguez, Jackson, Paris, Knowles etc... are all high upside guys, all drafted under the current regime, and all in our top 10 (except Canning who graduated last year).

[tdawg87]

God dammit Stradling

[Inside Pitch]

18 minutes ago, TroutCron said:

The Angels have two players from their system that they drafted and developed. Trout is a savant who needed very little seasoning and Fletcher. That is not a lot to show for the organization’s ability to draft and develop. The Angels tend to draft “high floor types instead of high ceiling types. I think the whole organization needs an overhaul, new GM, Farm director, Scouts and new player development people.  

Good Lord, you are woefully behind the times.  The Angels shifted from high floor to high ceiling the day Eppler was hired.   Adell, Marsh, Adams, Jackson.... All of them prime examples of high risk high reward. 

 

[tdawg87]

Fuckin Nonie ass Williams.

[Stradling]

14 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

God dammit Stradling

You remembered to add CRod and Paris where as I didn’t include them.  

[kevinb]

28 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I don’t really think 4 years is enough time to judge a GM on building a farm.  One of those years was before he had his people in place to create a real draft philosophy.  I agree that there should be more to show than what we have, but in four years he has drafted Adell, Canning, Thaiss, Marsh, Adams and Jackson.  All of those guys (minus Thaiss) have been or will be on top 100 lists.  I am guessing when compared to most farms that is a pretty decent amount for the last 4 years.  He has also traded for Rengifo who is a pretty good young player.  Look at the four years prior, we got Fletcher, Ward and Middleton.  Are we the Dodgers, no, I don’t think anyone really is.  I just am not sure its possible to build a farm from scratch in 4 years, simply by drafting and international signs.  

How long of a contract should GMs sign initially? 6,7,8,9,10? 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

How long of a contract should GMs sign initially? 6,7,8,9,10? 

Whatever the owner and GM agree upon.  

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Whatever the owner and GM agree upon.  

Thanks I know how contracts work. I’m asking you if you don’t think 4 years is enough time to build a farm. What is your opinion on how long GMs and even Managers contracts should be for ?