Best lefty prospect for Texas......and it's not Derek Holland?
by King Billy Royal on Sep 21, 2008 11:17 AM EDT
Email
PrintI found this quote from John Manuel at a recent Baseball America chat and found it very interesting:
Greg, TX: Who is the best left handed pitcher on the Rangers farm not named Derek Holland? 
John Manuel: It might be Martin Perez even INCLUDING Derek Holland. I got a Johan Santana comp on Perez from a scout in the Northwest the other day, he sounds extremely exciting.
I have to admit that this floored me. I don't know much about Perez but whenever someone receives a Johan Santana comp, there is plenty of reasons to be excited. His numbers are very good for short season ball and he only is 17 years old. Does anyone have any additional information on this youngster? Specifically, does anyone know what pitches he throws, velocity, etc?
99 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
UM
That isn’t Jim Callis. It’s John Manuel.
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
LOL
My bad. Relax Dewey, I know about your man crush on Dexter.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Sep 21, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh...
Dexter? I hope you mean Derek.
You are off your game today bud. :)
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
Should be a three pitch guy as he develops. I think he’s right around 90 mph on the fb for now and is a good athlete.
If you’re really interested in checking him out, I think that he played at Boise and that it should still be available as an archive on the Boise website. Also, that BA NWL top 20 is due tomorrow.
Perez is in short season ball and is 17?
I don’t care if he throws 105 MPH with plus-plus command. Derek Holland is a better prospect.
I know it’s sexy to take bold positions on extremely young prospects (if it works out, you look like a genius, if it doesn’t you just blame injuries or the fact that most prospects fail) but this is just retarded.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
+1
Though I hope you feel the same way when they start putting Inoa in various top 100 lists.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Sep 22, 2008 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely
I think that’s horseshit. I’m not sure I’d put him on a top 200 list. And not because I dislike him as a prospect— I endorsed the decision to sign him for the money they paid.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I agree but...
I agree that shiny new toy syndrome does exist and a player should prove himself, but one thing I disagree with on this sites and almost all sites is the grading scale. Im not saying one is right or one is wrong, but the way I grade a prospect is who has more value to your team? For example: Im trading with a team and I have to give them a pitching prospect and my options to give up are Michel Inoa and Aaron Laffey. I would give up Aaron Laffey. In my opinion that means I should give Inoa a higher rating. I should also mention I am a risk taker. I believe in taking a chance on a guy who may be a superstar ace than a guy who may be a 3 starter who is closer to the majors. My point is that on most lists, aaron Laffey would be rated higher than Inoa, but the question is who would you rather have?
I believe there is no right answer just a difference in oppinion and strategy. A person like me will get my few superstars but also bomb out on a few of my risks, whereas some people will not take the chance and have a safe solid team with solid players throughout. Im a believer of getting game changers, guys like Hanley Ramirez, Jose Reyes, Johan Santana. But you run the risk of having guys like joel guzman, andy marte, and Edwin Jackson (who is pitching alright now I know).
Your problem makes sense
But that’s why things like the league rankings are valuable.
A friend of mine is a movie critic who has the same problem, incidentally. He’s always complaining about the letter grade system. “If I give a grade A to both Ocean’s Eleven and United 93, I feel like I’m calling them comparable movies.”
If I rank a guy higher than another guy, it means I'd rather have him
Now, there may be some variance from this at the extremes of major league business models. Eg the Yankees can be fairly certain of their ability to buy an unlimited supply of league-average filler on the FA market, so they can evaluate prospects strictly on the chances that they become much better than average. And at the other end Pittsburgh has to fill out a roster and thus needs to put unusual emphasis on guys who will be decent MLBers. There might also be minor considerations of roster space (too many guys with similar value and you can’t keep them all) and “graduation class.” (See my prior comments on the Alvarez situation.)
But for the vast majority of teams, value is value. A hypothetical 100 ERA+ starter is more valuable than an Inoa-type lottery ticket for 25-29 out of 30 teams.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I agree
especially considering even if the Inoa lottery ticket comes up big, the team won’t benefit from it for at least 5 or 6 more years, by which point you could trade Laffey for prospects after benefiting from his pitching at the major league level for some time.
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 23, 2008 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
If Inoa is really a once in a decade prospect, I don't see how you could take
another prospect who has a #3 starter ceiling. Basically a #3 starter can be bought on the FA market for money. A once in a decade talent isn’t likely to be available at all to a team that doesn’t already have him under contract. Given that most pitching prospects don’t make it at all, I don’t see taking the #3 starter as all that much “safer” than taking the high ceiling guy. Doing what “feels safer” isn’t the same as doing the optimal thing.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 3:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
Another point is a “safe” pitcher with a #3 ceiling can flame out too. If a #3 flames out, he may be a long reliefe pitcher, if an ace flames out he can probably still be a three (edwin jackson) or a closer. Im a believer of the “there are only so many ________ on the earth.” or for this example there are only so many ______ in a baseball (fill in the blank with ace pitchers, superstar five tool talents, 40 plus home run hitters). For this reason I like to gamble on the high ceiling guys. I would pay big money to sign a dominant ace like until he is 32-33, and the same thing for big power hitters or five tool talents, like the marlins did with hanley ramirez and the brewers did with ryan braun. I think it is a smart move to sign these guys to eight year deals and enjoy the benefits of players like this for eight years, and you could always trade them in year 6 for three big time prospects.
A #3 starter can only be bought for money if you have money to buy him with
and spending that money there means NOT spending it on someone else.
Unless you are the Yankees, you do not have an unlimited supply of money to hire a free agent for every position that needs filling.
And it’s not OK to throw up your hands and say “eh, all pitching prospects have a high risk of failure anyway.” It’s obviously ludicrous to say that Kevin Slowey has the same odds of failure as Michel Inoa. Slowey’s odds of failure might be high by comparison to, I don’t know, Michael Beasley, but in the context of players at his position in his sport he is as much of a sure thing as you will ever find.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Terrible, terrible reasoning
C’mon are you gonna actually compare someone who is pretty much getting / is established in the majors to Inoa? The comp in this thread was between pitchers in the lower minors. HUUUUUGE difference. Prospect ratings are based largely on raw talent, especially in the lower minors. Guys with gobs of it get ranked higly, such as Felix Hernandez was. From what you’re saying, you would have rather had someone like Thomas Diamond or Zach Duke in 2005 over Felix.
In 2005
Zach Duke had just had a year where he had a 2.92 ERA in AAA and then a 1.81 ERA in 84.2 major league innings at age 22. Granted, in retrospect his K rates look low, but his FIP was still a terrific 3.09 in the majors – are you really telling me that you wouldn’t have taken Duke over Felix then? Of course pitchers are risky and you can always find prospects in the past – and present – who failed or will fail, but a 22 year old pitcher with success in AAA is so much less risky than a 16 year old pitcher, even with the very best scouting reports, that it isn’t even funny
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 24, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
F'n A!!!
Damn right I would NOT have taken Duke back then, neither would anyone else in their right mind. Go look at the prospect lists from that year. Felix was #2 on BA’s top 100 – Duke was in the mid 30’s. Same kind of situation at the root of this arguement between the 2 Texas pitchers. I’m taking the young phenom 10 times out of 10 over a pitcher who profiles as a middle of the rotation pitcher.
i agree with you
but i think that’s just a different philosophy. i understand what he’s saying in that he prefers to take the less risky option. also, it’s much easier for us to look back now and say what were you thinking?
having said that, i like to go for the gold and don’t think twice about it but because of that i’m still waiting for adam miller whereas had i gone with the safer option i might have had cliff lee instead.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Sep 25, 2008 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
So I'm an idiot
In 2005, Felix Hernandez did as well as Zach Duke did it in AAA and the majors at age 19. Obviously the 19 year old excelling the majors is a better bet than the 22 year old excelling in the majors. If Michel Inoa will be Felix at age 19, he certainly isn’t no
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 25, 2008 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Your words
not mine. Just saying that it isn’t unprecedented for them to rank someone highly who is immensely talented over someone older at a higher level (and be right about it). Guys like Holland are a dime a dozen – guys like Perez and Inoa don’t grow on trees.
That's a hard argument to make
First of all, do you actually believe that there are more people like Derek Holland, who have had success as high as AA and have excellent scouting reports, than like Michel Inoa, a 16 year old with astounding scouting reports but no track record to speak of?
Second, that’s what I thought your point was so I didn’t bother to check the stats for the particular players you suggested – Felix and Zach Duke in 2005 are not an example of people rating a high-upside young pitcher with no performance over a lower-upside pitcher at the higher levels – both Felix and Duke were at the exact same levels in 2005. You’re right that it wouldn’t be unprecedented to rate an untested young pitcher over a more experienced one, and in many cases it would even be wise to do so. That being said, it remains very risky to bet too heavily on any 16 year old pitcher, no matter how many scouts like him.
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 25, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
perez/holland
Holland is a dime a dozen but Perez doesn’t grow on a tree?
No way I’d take Perez over Holland at this stage. Inoa versus, say, Brett Anderson, may be a closer call.
dukes was good
again felix was a “once in a generation talent”
this is like saying you would rather have david murphy in the draft over miguel cabrera at the same point. murphy is probably gonna play in the bigs, be on a team for a number of years and is probably closerbut cabrera could be a star.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Sep 25, 2008 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Well...
he may not yet be considered a talent on par with Felix – but a Johan Santana comp is only a notch below. I’ll take someone like that over Holland eight days a week.
eh im in the middle
i like perez a lot BUT holland is at AA and perez is clearly not…
i would like to see how next year goes for both before making up my mind
my top 9:
1-feliz
2-holland
3-smoak
4-andrus
5-perez
6-main
7-max ram
8-beltre
9- teagarden
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Sep 26, 2008 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
rankings
you’re a tough sell huh? i don’t know about you but teagarden has impressed the hell out of me. i can’t see putting main, perez & andrus above max either but that’s just me.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Sep 26, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
tough sell?
im impressed, yes.
that said, his value lies in his defense, not his bat.
if he is strongly below average with the stick hes still a good player, not necessarily a star. the other guys on the list to me have a higher chance of being stars/better players.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Sep 26, 2008 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
strongly below average?
what evidence do you have that teagarden looks to be below average let alone strongly below average with the stick?
i understand that he struggled quite a bit at the outset of the yr. but i believe that was due to nagging injuries/ anamoly than true performance. after all, in 07 he hit a combined 27 homers and posted a line of .310/.426/.586 …. as bad as he was this yr he still managed 15 homers in only 289 combined at bats between the high minors and the majors.
Moreover, I’ve had the opportunity to watch him more than a few times and I really like his approach. My opinion, this guy can hit and play very good defense. The only issue for me is health.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Sep 27, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it was an "if" statement
He says (and I hope I’m interpreting this right) that Teagarden will be a competent major league because he’s a good defender, but that there are still questions about his bat and these questions hurt his rankings pretty badly.
I think it’s a legit criticism, though I see Teagarden as competent with the bat, albeit more of a TTO type hitter.
by David Tokarz on Sep 28, 2008 2:54 AM EDT up reply actions
santana comp
I wouldn’t go overboard on the santana comp for a low minor leaguer. Does’t mean he’ll be throwing complete game shutouts in 10 years on 3 days rest in a pennant ace.
i don't think
anyone making that comp is saying that.
There is a massive difference between the “I think this kid could be like this major leaguer” and the “this kid REMINDS ME of this major leaguer.”
I think this is the latter
if that's the case
then no one would be saying they’d rather have him then Holland. I know people realize he might not become Santana-esque, and Holland ain’t steve carlton either. I guess I was seeing in some of this thread the idea that Perez is a special case and Holland a dime a dozen. I just don’t see that with Perez yet, and somehow that Santana comparison seems to be what is driving some of it. Perez at 17 is maxing at 90 mph, Holland at 97? Is that right? I’d take Holand, with the good starts in AA.
I mean, wasn’t Danny Almonte supposedly throwing high 80s at 15 (turned out to be a bit older)? :)
Sorry for adding to the Holland hype. And I do have him in my fantasy league. I am not saying he is a sure thing, or that Perez may not end up better. But I’d never deal a Holland for a Perez, whether I was the Rangers (who don’t have to worry), the Pirates or the Yanks. And I understand all the arguments from both ides about the Pirates needing upside players, or needing to fill a whole roster. I see Holand as being more likely to contribute at all as well as having a pretty high upside.
Danny Almonte
I believe his age relative to league numbers weren’t so hot.
But more seriously, let’s remember that pitchers often peak at different ages. At the age when Randy Johnson began his peak, Dontrelle Willis appears done. You never know for certain, and some guys peak in little league.
What is today..
national follow slurve around and disagree day?
You take your Hollands, Dukes and Diamonds. I’ll take my Felix and Martin types. Neither is wrong though I do strongly lean towrads the upside guys over someone who has “proven” themselves at AA. I’ve got a pretty good track record on picking those guys – that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
I have feliz and holland
I hardly think Holland is equivalent to Dukes, give how hard he reputedly throws. I thought I’d seen that erez thre 90, not 94. Anyway, he is ver far away and I think you are discounting Holland’s upside.
Oh, you meant Felix, not feliz. Yeah, felix was over dules. I am just thinking Holland has higher potential upside then say, a Dukes. Perez is a ways away. I just don’t think one can say now that Perez has more upside potential. Manuel says he might, not he does.
Upside
From what I’ve seen – Holland’s upside is middle of the roatation – a 3rd or 4th starter. Granted, he does have a good chance to actually become that, but Perez has more upside, although it’s not as clear if he’ll ever realize it. I have an intuitive feeling he’ll be a top 5 pitching prospect by this time next year, with a real shot a being THE pitching prospect everyone will be gushing over.
Just out of curiosity,
When did you decide that Perez was one of the great pitching prospects? And why do you think Holland’s upside is that of a #3 or #4 starter?
For the record, I think Perez is a very good prospect, and I actually have both of them in a league. I think Perez could be a terrific prospect, with could being the operative word. I don’t have much doubt that Holland is now the stronger prospect
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 28, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
When do they all decide?
When King Billy Royal gives them the ‘thumbs up’, that’s when!!!!
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Sep 28, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Perez
I do have a few “connections” in the scouting world I’ve met, whether it be sitting next to them at minor league games and/or trading e-mails. Between those and reading things like what was posted here, watching video, etc… I’m usually able to formulate some fairly educated thoughts on players.
I became aware of Perez about 2 1/2 months ago and have followed him pretty closely since. Most that have seen him are completely ga-ga over him. I’ve seen enough patterns develop in how/what these guys say that I’m sold on Perez. Same thing applies for Holland as far as my assertion of middle of the rotation guy. Of course that’s not a best case scenario – we all know how guys like Beuhrle, Haren etc., surpass all expectations, but I think Holland is most likely a 3-4 guy.
Holland a 3/4 guy?
What makes you say that? I see him as a legit #2 in the majors in about 3-4 years.
do you really think
any GM in baseball would trade Inoa (as soon as he is eligible to be traded) for Aaron Laffey (or whoever, that type of guy).
And do you think any GM in baseball would NOT trade a Laffey-type for Inoa?
And, for what its worth, terrible teams like Pittsburg are the ones in the most dire need of upside over safety.
You never know
Someone on here was just swearing up and down that they wouldn’t trade Ryan Sweeney for Desmond Jennings. Someone actually DID trade Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. The world is a strange place, nms.
I'm so sick
of people pointing at exceptions and not the norm and running with it. There has been a rash of that here lately. Trades like the Kazmir deal are so rare and besides, for the most part, anyone who knew anything thought that deal was bad at the time – it was a bad deal then and it still is. nms is absolutely correct here. Unless Rick Peterson and his ego are hired by the Rangers – it aint gonna happen.
Relax
I was making a joke, and my point was just that you’d always be surprised how big an idiot you can find in any given room.
The point is an academic one. This is a baseball culture where something like the Young-Garza trade was a huge anomaly. How often has a prospect under 18 ever been traded at all? Engel Beltre is the only one that leaps to mind, and he was older than Inoa, without the same potential.
beltre
was also someone whose tools outweighed his actual results
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Sep 25, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Neftali Feliz
was traded just a couple months after turning 19 and only amassing about 55 innings of pro ball over two years… about 25-30 each in GCL and Appy Leagues
but yes, you’re right. it is rare
actually
I just realized that, stunningly, Elvis Andrus was somehow actually YOUNGER than Feliz when that trade was made.. despite the fact that he had been in full season ball for a couple years.
He was still 18 when that trade was made!
The amazing thing
is that he is STILL younger!!!
Um, yes
If Inoa was in the Phillies system (and trade-eligible), entering next season, I would trade him for a 100 OPS+ starter without batting a fucking eye.
They just gave up Cardenas/Spencer/Outman for Joe Blanton. Are you seriously trying to argue that Inoa is worth more than that group?
Inoa only cost $4.5 million to sign. Do you believe the A’s should sell off those three prospects for less than $4.5 million, because they just aren’t worth it?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Only?
4.5 mil is a good chunk of change. I’m thinking those three combined don’t make that much. I’m also thinking he is worth more than those three, monetary considerations aside.
is it not worth it though
if he has a 110 era+ it will cost him what 6.25 mil for 5 years + whatever young player he nets back if traded?
is that not worth it?
right now felix hernandez has cost them 1.47 million. is there ANYONE who doubts that it was 1.7 mil well worth it?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Sep 26, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
This is a really obvious logical chain here
Inoa is worth $4.5 million (and that is “a good chunk of change”).
Inoa is worth more than C/S/O.
Therefore, C/S/O are worth less than $4.5 million/a “good chunk of change”.
I mean, that’s ridiculous on its face. $4.5 million buys you one year of David Eckstein. What team in its right mind would choose one year of David Eckstein over those three prospects?
You’ve got two choices here. You can either argue that the A’s somehow stole Inoa, the most hyped Latin prospect in years, for significantly less than he was worth— or you can argue that a year of David Eckstein is more valuable than the prospects the A’s got back for Joe Blanton. I’ll do you a favor: don’t waste your time. Both of those arguments are losers.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well...
What you’re getting into now is how deflated the price of young talent is, because of MLB, the arbitration system, and so forth. Obviously, a sensible team would rather have either than Eckstein. I think the three players are more likely to be worth $4.5 million than Inoa, who obviously is most likely to never even reach the majors. Inoa is much more likely to be worth tens of millions more than that, because he has the greatest star potential.
disagree with
Obviously, a sensible team would rather have either than Eckstein
if thats the case why were so many teams willing to go over 3 mil for him?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Sep 26, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
Because they’re dumb in that regard? I’m not necessarily saying that Eckstein for 3 million is a horrible idea. I’m just saying that, especially for a team that won’t compete immediately, investing a few million in the draft or international signings is much smarter than investing it in a veteran who won’t be around for their next competitive squad. But teams don’t think of it in those terms. A team like the Royals continues to blow multimillion dollar contracts on guys who have zero chance of being part of their next good team, while letting teams like the Red Sox and Yankees outspend them on the draft. The Royals were good about that this year, but they’ve blown millions on Grudzelanek that didn’t make them any more competitive and could have gone into amateur talent.
sorry i misunderstood you
were on the same page
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
OK, but Inoa was A FREE AGENT.
This is not a draft situation, where a player is basically forced to play for a certain team for much less than he is worth, and where the draft pick is an independent form of opportunity cost. He was the subject of intense, competitive bidding by MLB teams.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That being said
There were reports that the Rangers offered more money than the As did for Inoa, but he chose to sign with them anyway, for non-monetary reasons presumably.
In terms of your larger point, I sort of agree with some caveats. Bonuses for any prospect are a little bit like buying a lottery ticket – you pay 4.5 million dollars for the chance of getting somebody worth 50 million dollars, but will probably be worth significantly less. The reason why an Inoa for Blanton or Laffey deal would make sense if because though Inoa can become significantly better than Blanton, the odds are pretty long against it actually happening, and even if it does, it will be in a very long time.
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 28, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
yes
apparently the A’s presented him with a portfolio detailing their exact plan for his progress and development and he was very impressed with how detailed their plan for his future was.
Oh well if they presented him with a portfolio
it is clearly the right place for him. Everyone knows that th A’s cheated the process with Inoa, and I don’t blame them one bit.
by Brett Perryman on Sep 28, 2008 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
wtf?
I mean, really, what the hell kind of a comment is that.
I assume you’re just trolling. How does everyone know the A’s “cheated” the process? I certainly haven’t heard that.
And what is so silly about someone choosing to accept one contract over another based on the quality of a business presentation and the idea one gets about the quality of an organization as a result?
Seems to happen in all sorts of businesses all the time
Everyone cheats the process
when it comes to Latin American signings. The “process” is a widely acknowledged joke.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
well ok
I’ll buy that.
But in that case it seems kind of silly to whine about any one team “cheating” when it comes to any one signing since that is the normal way of business down there.
zywica is anything but a troll
It’s been rumored that the A’s jumped the gun on the negotiating process and I believe the Rangers have filed complaints.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Well, for whatever reason
The money the As offered is not an appropriate way to think about how much value he had
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 28, 2008 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure
and like I said, I really did agree with the decision to sign him.
I’m just saying he’s less valuable than a lot of players he’s being compared to. I’d sure as f*** pay more than $4.5 million to get Brett Anderson, right now— if I was a GM and these transactions were somehow allowed by MLB, I’d go to at least 15, maybe as high as 20. Price is in the same range. I’d bid 25 or more for Kershaw. Holland would be worth at least 10.
This Perez dude? Maybe a couple mill, at most.
Point of fact, this would make a highly interesting post. What dollar values would you put on various top prospects? This is basically how things work in European soccer— instead of farm systems, they just have lower-tier clubs which are independent of the big boys but can sell and trade contracts.
It’s a bit ironic that the “free-market” US has much more of a control style of economics in its sports leagues than the more “socialistic” European nations. I’m not saying that system is better (or worse) than ours, but it makes an interesting imagining, doesn’t it?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The bulk of your argument
seems to lie on accepting whatever value you place on guys as truth.
As far as the irony of the economics in sports… I’d recommend George Will’s piece on it. He is a noted conservative columnist who also enjoys penning baseball columns. He is a baseball socialist and real-world capitalist.
There isn’t anything ideologically inconsistent with being such.
Well, that's the point
It would be interesting to find out how much other people would actually pay for a prospect.
My position on baseball is actually pretty much the same as my position on economics… ideally everyone starts off equal and then makes the most (or least) of it from there, within certain limits…
I don’t see how it’s not inconsistent to advocate one thing for public consumption and another for the “real world.” It’s sham fairness at its finest. Then again, “sham fairness” is kind of Will’s M.O., so I guess THAT’S consistent.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
because
you don’t have a choice in whether you want to pay taxes.
MLB is 30 different companies joining forces to do business with each other. Since these guys are all voluntarily entering in to business with each other there is nothing wrong with them deciding on certain parameters to abide by to make their business dealings the best they can be.
OK
Democratic government is the people of the society joining forces to do business with each other. One is a contract, the other is the social contract.
Too pithy by half, maybe, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Ummm...
Your positions sounds appealing but I don’t really know what they would entail. It’s nice to say that everybody should start off equally, but that all depends on what you declare the starting point. Do we take away everybody’s money every fifty years and tell them to start again? Considering money may be even less important than socioeconomic status, should we take away families too, that give different people different advantages? I’m not saying we necessarily shouldn’t – more than one member of my family tried to implement policies like these, and I sympathize with their goals if not methods, but they are generally considered to have failed, and been cruel.
It’s also a very strange definition of “socialism” that defends teams which pays 40 million dollars a year for players. In modern days, socialists argued for policies to guarantee everybody the chance to eat and live in a house – not win a championship. It’s about as strange of an argument as saying labor supporters should universally back players against teams – as Bill James noted, baseball player unions are exceptionally conservative institutions, because they are already very wealthy. Considering even teams with smaller payrolls can compete – your As being an excellent example, as are the Rays – then it’s even more difficult to call a policy backing small market teams “socialist.” Generally, you seem to be confusing fairness with parity. You might be right that we should work harder for parity – honestly, I’ve never thought about it seriously – but this really shouldn’t be confused with European and American economic systems.
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 29, 2008 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
The position, like all political positions, reduces to absurdity at the extremes
EG, people have different amounts of innate intelligence, or baseball ability, or focus, or any number of other skills, which it is impossible to correct for. Also, as you pointed out, families, neighborhoods, culture, etc.
It’s more a “vision statement” than a political program.
I can’t really answer your second paragraph, because I don’t understand what you’re getting at there.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Wait, what?
“This is basically how things work in European soccer— instead of farm systems, they just have lower-tier clubs which are independent of the big boys but can sell and trade contracts.”
What’s so different about this from American baseball? It’s the same thing essentially. They have lesser teams – just like our minors and they get promotions and demotions, just like our minors. I don’t know if they have salry caps or whatever, but the only thing I can see different possibly is a loose cap on how much players make here.
I think you're missing
the key point there… which is the fact that the Euro teams can buy/sell contracts.
In minor league baseball “purchasing” a contract from your affiliate isn’t really a purchase at all.
The fee paid is nominal.
In Euro soccer, I get the impression, the transfer fee actually a pretty solid payment.
The other big difference is that the lower level teams are independent franchises over there.
Here, they MLB club has most of the control on everything baseball-related that goes on with their affiliates.
The affiliates are still independent companies over here, generally, but while they have a development contract with an MLB team they don’t really operate with much independence
Soccer players are employees of the team that they play for
Baseball players are employees of the MLB parent organization. All salaries for players on a minor league team are paid by the big-league club. This is why minor league teams are so profitable— the labor costs are practically nil.
Minor league owners have no say— none, zero— over whether players get promoted from their team. They routinely lose great players (for them) in the middle of tight pennant races and have to suck it up and deal with it.
Soccer clubs actually pay and control player contracts; the Belgian League team can wait until the end of their championship season before putting their big name on the market in the big-boy leagues of Germany and Italy. And those big names are worth big bucks— well into the eight figures range for elite prospects.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
are you saying that
you would pay as much for brett anderson as you would for price?
and that anderson = price
because if thats the case, you quite honsetly have no clue what your talking about when it comes to prospects…or your waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of everyone else regarding anderson
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
Basically
Check out their numbers; Anderson’s are consistently better and he’s younger.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
actually it is rumored
he was not even aware that anyone offered more money becuse his handler set up a deal with teh a’s ahead of the signing day
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
Yes, and it's also rumored
that the Yankees didn’t keep bidding because they were mad that he had BROKEN the (illicit) agreement that he had with THEM like six months before that…
Like I said, the “deadline” is a universally acknowledged joke.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I don't think he meant it that way
He says that Perez may be a better prospect than Holland, and he doesn’t seem to be literally arguing that he is, but rather that it might be closer than we think. He seems to be just trying to find a way to highlight that some scouts who he respects thinks Perez might be a very exciting prospect, which from being a 17 year old who survived in A- ball, seems like a reasonable possibility
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 22, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
When did this become DerekHollandBall.com?
I feel like soon we’re going to be debating shortstop value by how well they would be able to field grounders generated by Holland.
+1
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
You guys diverted a long, long time ago
for whatever reasons.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 24, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Holland in AA
including 3 post-season starts:
46 2/3rds, 24 hits, 3 earned runs, 10 walks, 47 Ks. I’m watching Seinfeld, and wilhelm just became head scout of the new york mets. I hope he can find some relievers.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
