Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

Stop gaps vs playing the young guys

After thinking about what KC has done with trading for stop gap mediocre veterans, I came up with a question: Is it better to have stop gaps and play .500 ball or let young and/or inexpensive guys play the positions and sink or swim and play .400 ball? Let me explain.

Look at what the Devil Rays did by having all those top draft picks and by making a few trades, they go from worst to the world series. By a team of mine showing me they can play .500 ball at best does not satisfy me. I would rather have the full on rebuilding mode, play poor ball, and get high draft picks. KC is not contending with these trades. I understand teams want a winning environment, but I would just rather rebuild from scrap with cheaper guys. Take the money you would have spent on crisp and jacobs and put it in the draft or International Free Agency. What is everyone elses thoughts?

0 recs  |  Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

depends on the perceived upside

just in terms of the two trades you mention…you are probably right on the first base situation, although it just depends on what you think of the players. with the center field situation…dejesus clearly could not stay healthy when in CF everyday, so moving him is probably teh right move. then the problem is the royals don’t have another legit CF (mitch maier does NOT count, he is a 4th OF at best) until you get down to high a, and even then you have to do A LOT of projecting.

i think DM’s plan (i said this on beyond the box score too) is to make the MLB team kinda good with a chance of getting lucky and contending in the short term, and building through the draft for the long term, which they have committed to by spending a load the past two drafts. chances are you can’t trade and free agent yourself into contention anyways…

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Nov 19, 2008 6:32 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Depends on your prospects

For one unless they have had at least half a season in AA they shouldn’t be used. The majors are not the league to develop your skills. It is the level to refine your skills. If you can’t hit you don’t go to the bigs to learn how to. You may get there and refine your swing or change some things but your general know how of hitting is already there. Just like with young pitchers. If they can’t throw strikes it doesn’t matter how good a curve they have or how fast their fasball is you don’t bring them up unless they have the general ability down.

Also by bringing them up while it may be cheap initially it quickens the time until it gets expensive. Why rush kids to the bigs if they are going to need 2-3 years to develop and pay them $400,000 to suck because then once they get good its gonna cost you in the millions and by then you only have them a couple years before FA.

As a Ranger fan we are going through these same times right now. There are several good young prospects who some have wanted to rush to the bigs. But I think its bets to let them continue to develop in the minors and hopefully once they do arrive in the majors that “getting acclimated” period will not be as long and we can maximize their amount of team control being good. Id much rather keep a prospect in the minors for an extra year or so and let him learn and then be good for the last 4-5 years of his pre-FA rather than rush that same kid and watch him play in the majors for 2-3 years before being fully acclimated and only having 2-3 years of his pre FA of being good.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Nov 19, 2008 6:53 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I agree with what youre saying

I wasnt specific. I meant do not rush the good prospects, but for example the marlins are putting gaby sanchez at first and trading jacobs, sanchez is cheaper and ready but also not the long term answer. Im talking about playing the cheap guys, not just the young guys. If you are not gonna contend then there is no reason to rush a young player and start his clock up

by FishHead on Nov 20, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think the Royals should evaluate who will be a member of a championship team in four years and trade anyone else who is currently making more than the league minimum. That goes for any team that’s rebuilding. Reinvest the money you save into restocking the farm system and look to add pieces from it down the road. If the Royals aren’t incompetent at player development they’ll have a nice group of emerging players to play or trade for talent and they’ll have loads of financial flexbility. So what if they win 60 games the next two years; long-term winning is much better for revenue anyway.

by 17843 on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Financially...

that’s not a smart move. You don’t get the casual fans to come to games by giving up on the season before it starts. You have to look like you are trying to win. Teams don’t make money by telling fans in March “Hey we suck. Come watch us suck. You haven’t heard of 23 of our 25 players, but come spend over 30 bucks a pop for a halfway decent seat. And don’t forget to buy plenty of our eight dollar beers to drown your misery!” Not sure if it is true, but I heard or read somewhere that the Royals owner was actually the richest owner in all of baseball. If this is true (or if he is even in the top third) I think it proves that he isn’t trying to win. He isn’t paying top dollar to try to get the best players in there. He wants to make money.

As a GM you have to look like you are trying to win to the owner to keep your job. Playing young guys and losing for three years might look good to us hardcore fans… but that GM will be out of a job after three straight 95+ loss seasons. Then if/when the team starts to win with those players… that next GM gets credit and a contract extension. And you’re taking any gig you can talking about baseball just to make ends meet.

It’s all great in theory… but fiscally, it’s a suicide mission. And Tampa didn’t exactly go “all young” either. They lucked out with Pena. He was a high K, low BA, high power journeyman 1B when they signed him. Cliff Floyd wasn’t exactly a top free agent when he signed either.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Nov 20, 2008 6:38 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Carl Pohlad - Minnesota Twins owner

He owns Pepsi Cola. Richest owner in baseball.

Go Pirates!!!

by cool hand Charlie on Nov 20, 2008 9:10 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, Pohlad is the richest

but he doesn’t own Pepsi. He’s part owner in the second largest Pepsi-Cola bottling company, PepsiAmericas Inc.

Glass of the Royals is pretty rich too though, he was the former President and CEO of Walmart.

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Nov 20, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed
Start posting on Minor League Ball »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Arizona Fall League 2009 Video Posted
Small
Top-10 Prospects of the Last 20 years: Hitters

Recent FanPosts

Adam_jones_small
Dustin Ackley to 2nd base
Super_grover_small
Throwing stuff against the wall: What would it cost the A's to trade for Florida's Josh Johnson?
Small
AFL Championship Game Thread
Small
Last year's rookies, top community prospects for future performance #10
Small
Any surprises with your team's 40 man protection today?
Small
Mock MLB offseason: Should A's trade for Reid Brignac?
Small
This Stephen Strasburg guy
Deadhorse_small
BP's Indians Top 15
Small
BA Astros Top 10

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Carew_small John Sickels


Site Meter