Tim Beckham or Jemile Weeks

by OldProspects on Feb 11, 2009 2:13 PM EST Comment 19 comments

Just to clarify from the start, I'm not actually arguing that they are equally strong prospects. Also, as fair warning, this is a fantasy-related question.

I'm in a deep dynasty league with fairly regular scoring where I will almost certainly not have the choice between them, but I was thinking about who I would choose if for some reasons, they fell down to my spot in the draft. According to the most favorable projections, Beckham could be a .290 hitting SS with average power and maybe 30 SB speed - in other words, maybe a Derek Jeter-type with less power but more speed. Jemile Weeks, on the other hand, will probably hit for a lower batting average and even less power, but may steal a few more bases. He's a 2B to Beckham's SS, and various people will have opinions about which is more valuable, but in dynasty leagues where defense is not a factor, it's practically impossible to foresee which position will be rarer in 5 years, making it relatively unimportant.

5 years. That seems to me the issue. So here's the deal - Tim Beckham might very well be a better hitter and player than Jemile Weeks, but it'll probably take an extra 3 or 4 years for him to even make the majors. It's possible that the Rays will move him up faster, but it's unlikely that he will be a serious contributor until at least 21 or so. By that point, Weeks will be 25, and probably have started for 3 years, even if his production was less impressive than Beckham's will be. So to begin with, even assuming that Beckham will be more valuable than Weeks, you have to trade 3 or 4 years of no production for the hope of future production, with all the caveats of injuries and so forth. This is before one even considers that it is relatively rare for a rookie to produce significantly in his first year, meaning it might take until Beckham is 23 or 24 or 25 before he becomes substantially better than Weeks - in other words, in 5, 6 or even 7 years.

I'm not sure how far I'm willing to take this argument, but it seems like there is a case that if you believe that Weeks is within range of being as valuable as Beckham, even if you think that Beckham is ultimately the superior player, that you should pick Weeks over him because the current value outweighs the theoretical future value. A similar argument could be made for Jason Castro over Kyle Skipworth, or a few other people. How much do you buy this? At all?

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think 3 - 4 more years of development is overestimating

Probably more like 2 – 3. Still, there’s a huge gap in potential, and a huge gap in trade value. To me, Weeks profiles as an average 2B offensively, maybe with a bit more OBP than average. He was mostly drafted for his defense, and though there’s a better chance that he’ll end up being a major league starter than Beckham, I think there’s actually a lower chance of him turning into the type of offensive player you couldn’t just pick up off the waiver wire in a 16 team league. If you were debating between Beckham and a guy who’s on the cusp of the majors (like Gordon Beckham), then I could see the debate, but Weeks is probably far enough away from the bigs that he’s subjected to many of the same problems as Beckham.

FWIW, in fantasy, I’d take Gordon Beckham over Jemile Weeks in a split second.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 11, 2009 2:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

An average 2B

with a bit more OBP and a lot more speed is more than an average 2B. I guess my only question, then, is what does Beckham give you that an average SS doesn’t? Some more speed and some more power in a few years.

The league I’m referring to has 24 teams, which makes a substantial difference, but you might be right that the possibility of a star is worth quite a bit. I probably agree with you, but I don’t think it is an exceptionally large difference

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Feb 11, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To me, Weeks profiles as an average 2B offensively, maybe with a bit more OBP than average. He was mostly drafted for his defense,

This is totally, utterly false. You could not be more wrong if you tried. Weeks was drafted as a Ray Durham type.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Feb 11, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just repeating what BA said

They may have said Ray Durham elsewhere too. I’ve never been that high on Weeks generally, which may play into it somewhat. I’m not necessarily that high on Beckham either, but his tools generally grade out better.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 11, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, I'm not saying Beckham is worse

Any game in which Weeks is considered the better prospect is, ipso facto, a terribly constructed one.

I’m just saying that Weeks was drafted as a leadoff/OBP guy with reasonable power and defense that you can cope with. I mean, his most obvious comp is… his brother. Hopefully without the batting average problems. I think he’ll actually end up playing CF.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Feb 11, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

is cardenas your long term at 2b then?

by Asfan4ever723 on Feb 11, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he ends up at third

My BA-esque (no trades or FA signings) 2012 A’s lineup is something like

CF Weeks
RF Doolittle
1B Barton
DH Carter
LF Buck
3B Cardenas
2B Coleman
C Suzuki
SS Christian

I know I have Cunningham squeezed out of the starting roster, but he can easily get 500 PA a season as the 4th outfielder, especially if Mr. Glass is still in the outfield.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Feb 11, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a pretty good lineup.

Has Coleman played short, or do you expect him to shift over there?

I’m a big fan of both him and Christian.

I’d also rather have Cunningham in the lineup than Buck.

Never, Never, NEVER give up

by hero66 on Feb 12, 2009 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

[psst]

I’m secretly hoping it’s Corey Brown instead of either of them. But I was going with a “most likely” scenario.

It’s very possible that Cunningham ends up better than Buck, but right now Buck’s ahead on the depth chart, so…

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Feb 12, 2009 1:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

barton

i know he’s young blah blah, but i honestly don’t even see him as a starter in 2012, much less hitting THIRD in the major leagues.

by richieabernathy on Feb 12, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

true...

if you put enough qualifiers on the argument, you can make Weeks the better player. I’d argue, however, that in fantasy, or MLB, you win with stars.

by my dixie wrecked on Feb 11, 2009 2:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

weeks vs the other beckham

gordon

if gordon shifts to 2b long term, which is a decent possibility…how would they compare?

by Asfan4ever723 on Feb 11, 2009 5:01 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

That

is a much better question.

by alskor on Feb 11, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take G-Becks

And if I’m concerned about the next few years, I’d strongly consider taking G-Becks over T-Becks. Gordon should have a better average and more power, Weeks should have a higher OBP and more steals.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 11, 2009 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Constipation!

If you like drafting, it’s always good to keep in mind what you are talking about here… that a super-young guy can constipate your system for several years. The flip side, however, is that if he takes a big step forward, you can often trade him for tons of worthwhile stuff.

I do think the limitations which have been placed in Jemile are a bit premature. Not that he’ll ever have Pedroia’s power, but the arguments seem reminiscent of things that were stated about Pedroia before he came up. Weeks is compared to Durham here, and since Durham has has so many crappy seasons, it’s easy to forget that he slugged about .450 from ages 26 to 32, and averaged about 25 SB in that period, making him a reliable fantasy force for the position. His bounceback year at age 34 was a pretty amazing .293/.360/.538. I’m rooting for him to become a great leadoff hitter… there really aren’t that many in the game today, and I miss them. :(

by BobbyMac on Feb 11, 2009 11:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh, sure

If Weeks has Ray Durham’s career, he’s a huge “hit” as a draft pick. Durham was damn good until he lost his speed and defensive range.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Feb 12, 2009 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I buy it

- a general point but, like to attempt to look at each player specifically even if I’m wrong. personally I think weeks has a chance to better than you think.

I KNOW I may get killed for this but, it is just my not-always-so humble opinion but, I think Tim Beckham was drafted with an eye on tools despight the fact that he hadn’t/ hasn’t shown much hitting ability so far. I know he’s young- i know he has major athletic skills but from what I have seen/ heard of him at the plate and of Weeks- I’d be SHOCKED if Beckham was ever nearly as good of an offensive player as Jemile Weeks.

A huge amount of players who end up as busts were drafted like this. They always think the hitting will come and it often doesnt.

I’ll really be watching Beckham close this year to see if he has any hitting ability. I’m pretty sure i know Weeks as a player already.

by casejud on Feb 12, 2009 12:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Beckham

Actually I rather agree with you on Beckham. He’s a solid prospect but I don’t quite get where all the hype is coming from. The prep performance (I’ll exclude pro performance for the moment due to expected adjustment issues) was good but not otherworldly. A pretty good contact hitter but almost entirely projection as far as power goes.

Going by the tools, you find more of the same. He’s a guy with a bunch of 55s and 60s but nothing that works as a real separator. The power MIGHT project as a 50 . . .of course with prep players who can say really, but it’s not very encouraging.

In a perfect world, he’s a solid defensive shortstop who steals 20-25 SBs and hits .280 with 15 HRs and a nice number of 2B/3B every year. And there’s a good chance he’s not nearly that.

by mrkupe on Feb 12, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tough call

I think the only reason to draft Weeks over Beckham is if you feel that Weeks is going to reach the majors significantly sooner than Beckham. Or perhaps if you think he’ll be productive in the majors sooner—if you project TB to rush Beckham.

Personally, immediately following the draft, I would have assumed that Weeks would have at least 2 full seasons in the majors before Beckham came up to stay merely because Weeks projected to be a much more polished minor league hitter. I felt that Weeks could shoot through the A’s farm system in a year and a half and be the projected starter in spring training for 2010. However, after Weeks’ injury, I became a little more reserved in regards to Weeks’ move through the A’s system.

It’s not that I feel that Weeks will be a superstar in the major leagues, that what Beckham is supposed to be. Right now, I’m somewhat tepid in regards to Weeks’ power and defense, but bullish on his ability to get on base and his speed. Beckham has the tools to be great, but I get a feeling it’ll be a good 3 years for that polish to come. Weeks, right now, will probably be lucky to hit the majors in July of 2010, so not that great of a difference. All this could change, of course, when we get more than 90 PAs from Weeks. For Beckham, I see a Lastings Milledge-like career path—maybe Jose Reyes—he’ll reach around 21 and take 2-3 years to become productive in the big leagues.

My current projections (pulled out of my butt)
Weeks: I’d guess a September call-up (or middle of year if injuries call for it) in 2010
Becomes a good OBP, great steal guy in 2011. Right around #8-12 among all fantasy 2B. (right around Kelly Johnson in 2008)
Beckham: Hits the league in May of 2012. Puts up a line of about .270/.310/.380 with 38 steals on the season. Small improvements in all slash categories in 2013 and then a much better year in 2014 with .295/.375/.475 and 35 steals.

That would make him one of the more valuable players in fantasy in 2014. However, I would personally go with Weeks, but that’s because I am an A’s fan (thus I agree with everything that Billy Beane believes). As a result I am the opposite of “my dixie wrecked” and I believe it’s easier to win with a group of above average players. So I would take the guy who wouldn’t give quite the punch if it meant a little bit of a quicker production.

by nobodyinparticular on Feb 12, 2009 3:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs