AngelsWin.com's Los Angeles Angels 2021 Top-30 Prospects

[Angel Oracle]

6 hours ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

Alot more direct to the ball, and a shorter load time. 

I would not be surpised if Adell rebound next year. 

Similar change worked for Walsh.

[Second Base]

45 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Similar change worked for Walsh.

I thought Walsh went with an even higher leg kick. But the hands have quieted, like Walsh's did.

[AngelStew43]

Just do not trade Jordyn Adams for anything.  Just looking at him gave me Bo Jackson flashbacks.  The healthy Bo Jackson flashbacks.  

In a year, this team will have major problems finding playing time for Adell, Marsh, and Adams.  

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, AngelStew43 said:

Just do not trade Jordyn Adams for anything.  Just looking at him gave me Bo Jackson flashbacks.  The healthy Bo Jackson flashbacks.  

In a year, this team will have major problems finding playing time for Adell, Marsh, and Adams.  

I agree - and would say the same for Adell and Marsh. Unless, of course, they were offered Mackenzie Gore or Wander Franco, but that isn't happening.

It will be a nice problem to face. Upton can be phased out and platoon with Ohtani at DH. Marsh can get reps at 1B. Adams probably won't be major league ready until later in 2022. If they have to, they can trade one of them, but it might not be until 2023 that it is a real "problem."

[tdawg87]

Well we aren't getting anyone of value in a trade, then.

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

Well we aren't getting anyone of value in a trade, then.

Not necessarily. A Sandoval/Barria plus Jackson plus Thaiss et al might get someone decent, although probably not Gray/Kendricks.

Each of the three has qualities that make them near "untradeable":

Marsh - highest floor of the group (3-4 WAR), thus the player who can be most counted on to be a solid performer in the majors. Pretty high ceiling, too (5-6 WAR).

Adell - that power potential and overall package makes him someone to not give up on.

Adams - Maybe the highest ceiling of the three, and also a year or so away from peak trade value. Even if he doesn't develop as hoped this year, he's young and athletic enough to not lose any value, so could be a trade chip a year from now, or at the deadline.

[tdawg87]

I'd be perfectly fine trading one of those 3 to get a good pitcher. We don't need "decent".

But that's just my opinion.

[Angelsjunky]

9 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I'd be perfectly fine trading one of those 3 to get a good pitcher. We don't need "decent".

But that's just my opinion.

Yeah, I get it, and it makes sense. Trading any of them for Gray or Kendricks would increase the team's competitiveness over the next year or two; Marquez or Castillo long-term, but they'd cost a lot more.

My perspective may be a bit anachronistic because I don't always see winning as the bottom line. I know that, in the end, wins are what matters, but baseball is also entertainment - and thus about enjoyment. I really enjoy having a buttload of high upside outfield prospects and want to see them develop as Angels. This is also why I never liked the idea of trading Trout to rebuild, even if for a motherlode of prospects.

But in terms of winning, there's an argument to made that Marsh will create more value for the team in 2021-26 (his years of club control) than Gray in 2021-22. As a general rule, I don't like to "trade older."

That said, to argue against my view, it makes sense to trade from an area of surplus value. It isn't like Adell, Marsh and Adams are the only outfield prospects the Angels have. They also have Calabrese, Ramirez, Knowles, and Deveaux, any or all of whom could develop into quality major leaguers.

So it isn't as much that I think trading any of the three would be bad for the team, but that I don't want to see them depart from the org - at least not yet. I do think trading Adams now would be a bad move, because of his likely increase in value, but I get why trading Marsh or Adell--if it yields at least a #2 type starter for two or more years of club control--makes sense.

[Second Base]

There's specific reasons not to trade any of our top prospects right now. 

1. Minasian and the rest of the front office need to get a better look at at them.

2. In Adell, as Maddon has said, he wasn't able to prepare. Just thrown in to the majors and tried to make it on athleticism alone, which is impossible to do. Let him develop into the star they think he'll be. Justin Upton clearly isn't a sure thing at this point. Either he's solid and under contract two more years of he needs to stay being phased out in LF and Adell phased in.

3. Marsh is next in line for RF. There's no one in front of him and unless Ward makes a developmental leap, that chance will come sooner rather than later. 

4. Jordyn Adams' value hasn't had a chance to inflate the way it otherwise would have. He's got the highest upside in the system and he still has two more years before he even needs to be on the 40 man. Trout won't be in CF forever, and Adams is growing into an elite defender out there. 

5. One report suggested the Angels have been trying to find a match in a trade that would've shed payroll, opening up the opportunity pursue Bauer. That means Upton. Not saying they'll trade him, that contract is under water and he has a NTC but in the even he is dealt to someone like the Dodgers for David Price, then the Angels would need outfielders. 

6. Don't trade Rodriguez, Detmers or Kochanowicz because they're pitchers and this team needs a lot more, just like them. 

[tdawg87]

21 minutes ago, Second Base said:

There's specific reasons not to trade any of our top prospects right now. 

1. Minasian and the rest of the front office need to get a better look at at them.

2. In Adell, as Maddon has said, he wasn't able to prepare. Just thrown in to the majors and tried to make it on athleticism alone, which is impossible to do. Let him develop into the star they think he'll be. Justin Upton clearly isn't a sure thing at this point. Either he's solid and under contract two more years of he needs to stay being phased out in LF and Adell phased in.

3. Marsh is next in line for RF. There's no one in front of him and unless Ward makes a developmental leap, that chance will come sooner rather than later. 

4. Jordyn Adams' value hasn't had a chance to inflate the way it otherwise would have. He's got the highest upside in the system and he still has two more years before he even needs to be on the 40 man. Trout won't be in CF forever, and Adams is growing into an elite defender out there. 

5. One report suggested the Angels have been trying to find a match in a trade that would've shed payroll, opening up the opportunity pursue Bauer. That means Upton. Not saying they'll trade him, that contract is under water and he has a NTC but in the even he is dealt to someone like the Dodgers for David Price, then the Angels would need outfielders. 

6. Don't trade Rodriguez, Detmers or Kochanowicz because they're pitchers and this team needs a lot more, just like them. 

So basically we have nothing to trade.

I understand the need to keep our prospects but you can't just go through the entire top 6-7 guys and say "these guys are 100% off the table". 

For the right guy, no one should be untouchable.

[Docwaukee]

47 minutes ago, Second Base said:

There's specific reasons not to trade any of our top prospects right now. 

1. Minasian and the rest of the front office need to get a better look at at them.

2. In Adell, as Maddon has said, he wasn't able to prepare. Just thrown in to the majors and tried to make it on athleticism alone, which is impossible to do. Let him develop into the star they think he'll be. Justin Upton clearly isn't a sure thing at this point. Either he's solid and under contract two more years of he needs to stay being phased out in LF and Adell phased in.

3. Marsh is next in line for RF. There's no one in front of him and unless Ward makes a developmental leap, that chance will come sooner rather than later. 

4. Jordyn Adams' value hasn't had a chance to inflate the way it otherwise would have. He's got the highest upside in the system and he still has two more years before he even needs to be on the 40 man. Trout won't be in CF forever, and Adams is growing into an elite defender out there. 

5. One report suggested the Angels have been trying to find a match in a trade that would've shed payroll, opening up the opportunity pursue Bauer. That means Upton. Not saying they'll trade him, that contract is under water and he has a NTC but in the even he is dealt to someone like the Dodgers for David Price, then the Angels would need outfielders. 

6. Don't trade Rodriguez, Detmers or Kochanowicz because they're pitchers and this team needs a lot more, just like them. 

all good points except that there isn't a single team that is going to take on the Upton contract in any way that would save the Angels money.  Unless they gave up substantial prospect capital to make him go away.  

[Second Base]

17 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

all good points except that there isn't a single team that is going to take on the Upton contract in any way that would save the Angels money.  Unless they gave up substantial prospect capital to make him go away.  

I don't picture it either.

[Second Base]

49 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

So basically we have nothing to trade.

I understand the need to keep our prospects but you can't just go through the entire top 6-7 guys and say "these guys are 100% off the table". 

For the right guy, no one should be untouchable.

The Angels do have ttradeable assets, you just need to set your sights lower than Luis Castillo and think more among the lines of decent #4 starter. Someone slightly better than Quintana. 

As much as you may not like that, it's all that is left on the free agent market too. They can get an Odorizzi type of starter using Rengifo, Thaiss, Ward, Barria and Sandoval.

I question if such a move is worthwhile however, because I'm higher on Barria than most.

[tdawg87]

6 minutes ago, Second Base said:

The Angels do have ttradeable assets, you just need to set your sights lower than Luis Castillo and think more among the lines of decent #4 starter. Someone slightly better than Quintana. 

As much as you may not like that, it's all that is left on the free agent market too. They can get an Odorizzi type of starter using Rengifo, Thaiss, Ward, Barria and Sandoval.

I question if such a move is worthwhile however, because I'm higher on Barria than most.

Oh I'm not talking about Castillo. He was never realistic. 

But IMO our sights should be a little higher than a decent #4. I disagree that that's better than Quintana. 

Maybe a starter like that isn't available, but how else are we going to improve the staff? We're in a bad spot.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to trade any of our top 5 guys. Well, I don't want to trade any of our prospects period. But if Minasian has a tight budget $$$ wise, and isn't going to trade any of our good prospects for a pitcher, then he is gonna have to pull a rabbit out of his ass. Maybe he can do it. I guess we'll see.

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

Oh I'm not talking about Castillo. He was never realistic. 

But IMO our sights should be a little higher than a decent #4. I disagree that that's better than Quintana. 

Maybe a starter like that isn't available, but how else are we going to improve the staff? We're in a bad spot.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to trade any of our top 5 guys. Well, I don't want to trade any of our prospects period. But if Minasian has a tight budget $$$ wise, and isn't going to trade any of our good prospects for a pitcher, then he is gonna have to pull a rabbit out of his ass. Maybe he can do it. I guess we'll see.

Ok this might be a bad example but hang with it for a second. Let's say the Dodgers are looking to offload David Price. He'll cost 16 million in 2021 and 16 million in 2022. Comparatively, I'd say he's probably equal in value to Jose Quintana, with obviously greater upside but he skipped 2020 and had an injury shortened 2019. 

So he's probably worth 8-10 million a year. Sure, the Dodgers might give him away for free at 16 million, but the Angels can't afford that. They're looking for something with roughly 4 million in value to them and they'll eat 12 million of the remaining 32 million owed, knocking his contract with the Angels down to a more reasonable 2/20. 

So where can the Angels get 4 million in value without dealing top prospects? If you figure that the Angels first round pick Will Wilson was worth 7 million to the Giants in the Cozart deal, you can get a rough estimate for the guys in AAA, that may not have the upside and will require a 40 man spot, but are also more of a sure thing.

We'll say Thaiss is with 3 million to them and Rengifo is with 2 million. 

If the deal is Angels trade Matt Thaiss and Luis Rengifo to the Dodgers in return for David Price plus cash (12 million), you make that deal, and so do they potentially. Gives them payroll relief and infield depth, gives the Angels a pitcher they need. 

Now I'm not saying that's a move they need to make, I'm just trying to illustrate that with some creativity, pitching (not specifically Price) could be acquired without dealing top prospects. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Second Base

[Angel Oracle]

6 hours ago, Second Base said:

The Angels do have ttradeable assets, you just need to set your sights lower than Luis Castillo and think more among the lines of decent #4 starter. Someone slightly better than Quintana. 

As much as you may not like that, it's all that is left on the free agent market too. They can get an Odorizzi type of starter using Rengifo, Thaiss, Ward, Barria and Sandoval.

I question if such a move is worthwhile however, because I'm higher on Barria than most.

It’s time they develop their own middle to upper rotation guys.

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

It’s time they develop their own middle to upper rotation guys.

I agree completely. Baseball has shifted, and getting offensively capable players is no longer a problem, especially given the offensively charged nature of the games right now. The ball is flying. 

As Maddon said, just call the game, "Pitching" now because it's that important. Eppler and Swanson did an amazing job infusing athletes into the farm system. Serious upside came from Eppler's tenure. But ultimately, he didn't win because he didn't get the pitching he needed. 

And it wasn't for a lack of trying. They developed Barria, Sandoval, Suarez and Canning, and were able to bring in Ohtani. Barria and Suarez were done in by Doug White, Sandoval is better suited for relief, Canning's elbow is showing signs of why he dropped into the 2nd round instead of going early in the first like his greatest comp Trevor Bauer. And Ohtani throws so hard his arm has detached. 

It's bad luck....so far. The rest has yet to be written. Barria rebounded and looks like he'll settle in as a #4/5 starter. Suarez and Sandoval both might be shut down lefties in the pen, throwing mid-90's. If Canning stays healthy, it's apparent he's still getting better, and he might be a solid #3/4 starter. And if Ohtani's arm can remain connected, he's an ace. 

And that's why, if I'm the scouting director, in the first couple rounds of the draft, I forget all about best player available and go straight to best PITCHER available. At least for the next half decade. Because right now, we think Rodriguez and Kochanowicz will be aces and Detmers a solid #3. But that's just the excitement of prospects. 

What if in reality, Rodriguez is an oft injured bullpen arm? What if Detmers is actually a lot more like Joe Saunders, who was a decent but not irreplaceable #4 starter? And what if Kochanowicz never develops? The future financial and competitive sustainability of this organization rests on those three arms and that just can't happen. This farm system needs one more Detmers, two more Rodriguez, and three more Kochanowicz. 

I'm not saying that's what will happen. I'm just saying they need to have the depth to sustain that.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Second Base

[Angel Oracle]

Sandoval showed signs of being a shut down reliever.   Main issue is the blow up inning.

Pitcher Ty Madden (UofTexas) is currently projected to go at #10 overall in the draft.    Only one spot after the Halos #9 spot

Edited January 31, 2021 by Angel Oracle

[Angelsjunky]

You have a funny perspective on Quintana, Scotty, if a "decent #4 starter" is better than him. 

[Docwaukee]

32 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

You have a funny perspective on Quintana, Scotty, if a "decent #4 starter" is better than him. 

he thinks that if he keeps posting it then it'll actually be true.  I presume it's a prediction even though he makes it seem like it's a given.  

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

he thinks that if he keeps posting it then it'll actually be true.  I presume it's a prediction even though he makes it seem like it's a given.  

@Angelsjunky And you two keep talking about Quintana as it he's anything more than a Harvey-Cahill-Teheran retread, as if you say it enough, it'll actually be true.

You can paint that picture however you like, it won't change anything.

Harvey will be good because he's recovered his lost velocity, he's still young, he's got the ace upside and the days of the Dark Knight will return.

Cahill is coming off a very good season. In fact, two and a half of his last three seasons have been very good. Even his underlying numbers like FIP prove that he's still a very good pitcher. Angels got a bargain. 

Teheran gives you innings and he outperforms his peripherals every single year. Three of his last four years, he's thrown at least 170 innings with an ERA under 4.00. 

And it's the same crap with Quintana. "Well his underlying numbers are good, and he'll have a better defense behind him, and he used to be good for the White Sox, and his stuff is still all the same." 

Maybe Quintana will be better. Maybe. But you don't know that. You can't. And the case for him being better is no stronger than any of the three piles of garbage that came before him.

The reason I call Quintana a number four starter? Because I'm not so naiive to pretend he's a mid rotation starter. The case for that is weak and it's just stupid to expect that. And I'm also not so pessimistic to believe that just because his predecessors were bottom of the rotation crap doesn't mean he'll be bottom of the rotation crap. The happy middle ground is #4 starter. Decent. Good enough to stay in the rotation, but not so good that I want him starting game four of the World Series.

I think everything I just laid out to you gents is logical and fair. And I mean no ill-will. I like that you're optimistic. I really do. I just don't share it for Quintana, at all.

[Angelsjunky]

OK, let's compare the four.

Matt Harvey was one of the best pitchers in baseball in 2013 (6.9 WAR), missed all of 2014, and came back very good in 2015 (4.0 WAR). He struggled through injuries in 2016-17 (0.9 WAR in 35 starts) and was healthier in 2018 but quite diminished from his earlier self (1.6 WAR). Meaning, by the time the Angels signed him, he was four years removed from being good and his 2018 performance (4.57 FIP) gave nothing to lead anyone to believe he'd be anything more than mediocre, and of course he was worse.

Trevor Cahill had never been anything more than a #4 starter, with his best WAR being 2.4. His 2.0 WAR in 2018 seemed ike a bounce-back to #4 levels, but of course it wasn't as he was terrible with the Angels (-0.8), although was a bit better in 2020. But the point is, he was never anything more a #4 at his very best.

Julio Teheran was a solid #4, borderline #3 from 2013-16, but more of a #4-5 in 2017-19. Last year he absolutely sucked, but his FIP the last two years (almost 5) foretold further decline.

OK, now to Jose Quintana. He was a bonafide #2 from 2013-17, with four of those seasons above the 4 WAR mark. He dropped in 2018, but rebounded in 2019, putting up a 3.4 WAR (4.68 ERA, but 3.80 FIP). Last year tells us absolutely nothing, because he only pitched 10 IP due to a freak non-pitching related injury. So if you ignore 2020, you see a guy with a strong track record whose latest performance was 3.4 WAR - which is a good #3 starter. The only thing of note for the 2020 data is that his pitch velocity was no different than in 2019.

So no, I don't think he's in the same category. Harvey was based on a wild and thoroughly unjustified hope that the Dark Knight could somehow find something vaguely resembling his form from long ago, but how'd that work out for Ben Affleck? Cahill and Teheran were never much anyway, although both underperformed expectations - but the writing was on the wall that they'd be, at best, back-end starters. They were all even worse than what might have been expected, rosy glasses or no, but none of them really gave any reason to believe that they'd be anything more than back-end filler, somewhere in the #4-5 range.

Quintana's most recent year was good. Not his prime good, but still #3 good, and his velocity in his brief appearances last year speaks to his arm still being there.

Is there a risk factor? Of course. He's 32 and hasn't really pitched in two years. But with his track record of consistency, his velocity last year, and his latest healthy season being easily in the #3 range, I don't see it as in any way accurate to suggest that a solid #4 is better than his likely outcome.

The most likely outcome for Quintana in 2021 is that he returns to 2019 form, which is as a solid #3 starter. A solid #3 starter > than a solid #4 starter. He could be better and he could be worse, but I highly doubt he'd be much better or worse than that.

Or to put it another way, while I understand feeling burned considering the Angels track record, all of those starters you mentioned were very different cases than Quintana. It is tempting to think, "Another one-year deal by the Angels - we all know how this will turn out." But that's a bit sloppy (if understandable). We have to look at these guys on a case-by-case basis, even more so because Quintana was signed by a new GM who likely has a different analytical approach.

So I'm cautiously optimistic that Quintana will be a solid #3, 3-4 WAR starter. I've got a tiny bit of hope he can pull off 4+ WAR but am not counting on it, and a similar bit of doubt that he'll be diminished. But I think a worst-case reasonable scenario is that he's a 2 WAR innings-eater, so a solid #4. But my bet is on 3-4 WAR.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[Second Base]

26 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

OK, let's compare the four.

Matt Harvey was one of the best pitchers in baseball in 2013 (6.9 WAR), missed all of 2014, and came back very good in 2015 (4.0 WAR). He struggled through injuries in 2016-17 (0.9 WAR in 35 starts) and was healthier in 2018 but quite diminished from his earlier self (1.6 WAR). Meaning, by the time the Angels signed him, he was four years removed from being good and his 2018 performance (4.57 FIP) gave nothing to lead anyone to believe he'd be anything more than mediocre, and of course he was worse.

Trevor Cahill had never been anything more than a #4 starter, with his best WAR being 2.4. His 2.0 WAR in 2018 seemed ike a bounce-back to #4 levels, but of course it wasn't as he was terrible with the Angels (-0.8), although was a bit better in 2020. But the point is, he was never anything more a #4 at his very best.

Julio Teheran was a solid #4, borderline #3 from 2013-16, but more of a #4-5 in 2017-19. Last year he absolutely sucked, but his FIP the last two years (almost 5) foretold further decline.

OK, now to Jose Quintana. He was a bonafide #2 from 2013-17, with four of those seasons above the 4 WAR mark. He dropped in 2018, but rebounded in 2019, putting up a 3.4 WAR (4.68 ERA, but 3.80 FIP). Last year tells us absolutely nothing, because he only pitched 10 IP due to a freak non-pitching related injury. So if you ignore 2020, you see a guy with a strong track record whose latest performance was 3.4 WAR - which is a good #3 starter. The only thing of note for the 2020 data is that his pitch velocity was no different than in 2019.

So no, I don't think he's in the same category. Harvey was based on a wild and thoroughly unjustified hope that the Dark Knight could somehow find something vaguely resembling his form from long ago, but how'd that work out for Ben Affleck? Cahill and Teheran were never much anyway, although both underperformed expectations - but the writing was on the wall that they'd be, at best, back-end starters. They were all even worse than what might have been expected, rosy glasses or no, but none of them really gave any reason to believe that they'd be anything more than back-end filler, somewhere in the #4-5 range.

Quintana's most recent year was good. Not his prime good, but still #3 good, and his velocity in his brief appearances last year speaks to his arm still being there.

Is there a risk factor? Of course. He's 32 and hasn't really pitched in two years. But with his track record of consistency, his velocity last year, and his latest healthy season being easily in the #3 range, I don't see it as in any way accurate to suggest that a solid #4 is better than his likely outcome.

The most likely outcome for Quintana in 2021 is that he returns to 2019 form, which is as a solid #3 starter. A solid #3 starter > than a solid #4 starter. He could be better and he could be worse, but I highly doubt he'd be much better or worse than that.

Or to put it another way, while I understand feeling burned considering the Angels track record, all of those starters you mentioned were very different cases than Quintana. It is tempting to think, "Another one-year deal by the Angels - we all know how this will turn out." But that's a bit sloppy (if understandable). We have to look at these guys on a case-by-case basis, even more so because Quintana was signed by a new GM who likely has a different analytical approach.

So I'm cautiously optimistic that Quintana will be a solid #3, 3-4 WAR starter. I've got a tiny bit of hope he can pull off 4+ WAR but am not counting on it, and a similar bit of doubt that he'll be diminished. But I think a worst-case reasonable scenario is that he's a 2 WAR innings-eater, so a solid #4. But my bet is on 3-4 WAR.

Yes but you say this with the benefit of hindsight. You could've (and may have) written a dissertation on why every single one of those guys would've been good and would've been wrong every time. 

Do I think there's reason to believe Quintana will work out better? Yes! Particularly because I feel Minasian has built an amazing brain trust around him. But there is just as much reason to believe he's going to be the same as the other three. 

According to bWAR, the last time Jose posted a 2 win or better season was 2016, give years ago. He's settled in around 1.5 wins in a yearly basis and that's where I expect him to settle in, on the bWAR scale. 

What this looks like in a more traditional sense is probably 160 innings, 140 K's, 1.30 WHIP and a 4.25 ERA. I think that if given equal opportunity, we'd see Jaime Barria perform on par with him, and I classify Barria as a #4/5 starter, though he'll probably start the year as the long man in the bullpen. 

[Angelsjunky]

48 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Yes but you say this with the benefit of hindsight. You could've (and may have) written a dissertation on why every single one of those guys would've been good and would've been wrong every time. 

Do I think there's reason to believe Quintana will work out better? Yes! Particularly because I feel Minasian has built an amazing brain trust around him. But there is just as much reason to believe he's going to be the same as the other three. 

According to bWAR, the last time Jose posted a 2 win or better season was 2016, give years ago. He's settled in around 1.5 wins in a yearly basis and that's where I expect him to settle in, on the bWAR scale. 

What this looks like in a more traditional sense is probably 160 innings, 140 K's, 1.30 WHIP and a 4.25 ERA. I think that if given equal opportunity, we'd see Jaime Barria perform on par with him, and I classify Barria as a #4/5 starter, though he'll probably start the year as the long man in the bullpen. 

Actually, the point is that you can see the writing on the wall without hindsight. There was little reason to expect those previous three would be what Eppler hoped they'd be; they were Hail Marys, Quintana is not - or at least a far less risky one with a higher expected floor of performance.

I think I gave good supporting reasons as to why there is definite NOT "as much reason to believe he's going to be same as the other three." Not sure what else to say about that.

As problematic as FG WAR is for pitchers, BR is even worse. I prefer FG for predictive value as it uses FIP.

 

 

[Angelsjunky]

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that Jose Quintana is a sure bet to be a good #3 or better. I just think it is rather myopic to say that a "solid #4" is better than his expected performance level. 

At the very least, Quintana for $8M is a far better risk than Harvey for $11M or Cahill and Teheran for $9M each.