The Future of the AL West
by John Sickels on Jan 19, 2006 10:10 AM EST
in News
Email
PrintWhat does the future hold in the AL West, short term and long term?
Who wins this division in '06? I think everyone is capable of making a run if things go the right way. Longer-term, I think all four clubs have the ability to be competitive. The Angels have a particularly rich farm system, but Oakland has shown the ability to recharge quickly and their own farms are hardly barren. Texas and Seattle are a bit more problematic, but none of these teams have truly dry systems, and the talent should continue to flow.
141 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
An interesting question
Another question for the Angels is how they will manage their depth. For a while, the Twins system was vomiting up corner outfielders and Terry Ryan basically sat on them. The Angels, on the other hand, should use their middle-infield depth to patch up the holes in their roster in '07 and beyond. Whether or not they do so will probably dictate whether they dominate the division or allow other teams to compete.
Oakland's situation is obviously much more fluid. Given that the 2002 team is already practically gone in '06, one wonders what the roster will look like in the coming years. If Oakland cannot, as Billy Beane insists, purchase power on the open market, they will have to develop it from within. I don't think they have the prospects to do so in-house as of now, so the development of Bobby Crosby and Nick Swisher will be pretty important.
Texas is getting better, but I still think they have quite a way to go before they are relevant. That's even more true for Seattle. Then again, I don't follow either team very closely, so perhaps a better-educated person could enlighten me.
Prospect Depth
I don't think that is true. Brian Buchanan was traded for Jason Bartlett, who is again projected as their starting shortstop this year. Kielty was traded for Stewart and Gassner. Mohr was traded for a minor league pitcher.
I'd say that is a pretty good return for a group of role players. With Jones gone the Twins are going to have a competition in right field between a top prospect who missed last season with an injury in Kubel, a solid fourth outfielder in Ford and an erstwhile third baseman in Cuddyer. Far from having a surplus, the Twins may be in the market for a right fielder if none of those guys really pan out for this year.
I think this is the same challenge for any team with an apparent surplus of players who are still in the prospect category. You want to keep the best of them and there often isn't much demand for the second best player right behind them. They are the sorts of players a team will take in return for someone who doesn't have a future in their organization either. Those guys are rarely stars.
by TT @ Minor League Ball on Jan 19, 2006 1:52 PM EST reply actions
That said
Both were/are highly rated prospects except for Wood/Kendrick may both be in the top ten.
Are you saying they are throw in's in trades?
by Bud Light @ Minor League Ball on Jan 19, 2006 2:40 PM EST reply actions
Wait and see
The Twins, in my estimation, tried to use all their prospects in some kind of impatient rotation. If they had sold high on some of these guys while they were still in the minors, they might have had a real middle infield.
Angels' Prospect Depth
The Angels are hardly in a position where they need to make a trade just for the sake of making a trade. Kotchman, McPherson and Mathis should all "pop" this year. Wood and Kendrick are probably a year away.
But there's always the unexpected. Worst case scenario, Aybar could be converted to CF, Callaspo would make a fine utility infielder and might have more in him.
The whole point of having depth is to let older players leave via free agency and replace them with affordable young talent.
If the Angels need to make a trade, fine, but they really don't.
by FutureAngels on Jan 21, 2006 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
Athletics over Angels in 2006
The Athletics are spending monies now to compete with the Angels. Over the past couple of years it was the Angels new owner who was doing almost all of the spending. But the Angels have not been able to get the players that they really needed in order to run off with the pennant for several years to come.
Texas may get some good pitching going sometime soon. If so, they will be much more dangerous as a team than they have been anytime recently. They also have some decent prospects coming up through their system, but nowhere near as deep as the Angels.
Seattle has certainly spent the monies trying to jump start their team of veterans. But they will experience only limited success with the signings that they have made.
So it appears that the Athletics and the Angels will duke it out for the next couple of years. It will be a close race as they compete with each other.
Well,
Well, no
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2006/1/17/152950/413
and
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2006/1/17/12429/4525
by Hang Man @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Twins development
I don't think that is true"
Of/DH types-
Casey Blake, Restovitch, Ortiz...
these are all guys the Twins could have gotten something of value for.
Throw in Cuddyer, LeCroy, Tiffee
it seems the Twins generated a lot of these guys, above replacement level (decent but not great) hitters in their 20s- that they don't seem to know what to do with- they give them 50-350 at bats, seemingly at random, waste a few years (they don't seem to develop one bit after reaching the MLB) and eventually getting little or no value from them.
Part of the problem may be that none of these guys really stood out above the others. But really, teh Twins did a poor job of taking their surplus talent and forming it into a team.
by Johnny Ruin on Jan 19, 2006 4:28 PM EST reply actions
Outfielders?
Casey Blake, Restovitch, Ortiz...
Throw in Cuddyer, LeCroy, Tiffee
Restovich is the only outfielder in the bunch. Not exactly a huge surplus. There are no doubt prospects the Twins should have traded because they never worked out. Every team has a list like that.
They give them 50-350 at bats,
Which of the players you listed got fewer than 350 at bats? Tiffee, Blake and Restovich.
teh Twins did a poor job of taking their surplus talent and forming it into a team.
No. The Twins did a poor job of pawning off non-talent on other teams. No one has picked up LeCroy as a free agent, Restovich was released by about 4 teams this year, including the Twins, and signed a minor league deal with the Cubs.
They gave up on Ortiz as their DH when he became too expensive - bad move. But 29 other clubs passed him on waivers before the Red Sox signed him as a free agent.
Blake was a AAAA guy with the Twins with Koskie and Cuddyer ahead of him. They got him off waivers from Toronto and then Baltimore claimed him off waivers from the Twins and the Twins reclaimed him when Baltimore put him on waivers.
In other words an awful lot of teams passed on even the waiver price for Blake and Ortiz. What were they going to give the Twins for either of them.
And in terms of the American League West, I think that is the lesson. Only elite prospects really have much trade value. If the Angels and A's don't develop players from these guys, they aren't going to get all that much in return for them unless they find a team that wants to unload somebody.
by TT @ Minor League Ball on Jan 19, 2006 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
One thing
Andre Ethier is not an elite prospect, yet got the A's 2 MLB players (both of them pretty damn good to boot)
Unloading
by TT @ Minor League Ball on Jan 19, 2006 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
Elite Prospects
Any way- most if not all of the guys I mentioned had value (trade value) before the Twins dithered away that value. Of course someone is going to have no value if you play them sporadically, and then DFA them 2-3 years after the "prospect" label has expired.
IMHO opinion its pretty clear that the Twins did a good job of drafting and development and then mismanaged the process of fitting the talent they'd developed onto their roster. I get the impression that when ther teams asked the Twins about young players- the Twins got nervous- "what if so and so gets hurt"- "what if the guy we trade turns out better than the guy we keep"- "what do they know that we don't know"-
then eventually other teams stop asking about a player and then it's "safe" for the Twins to trade him (or waive him etc)
by Johnny Ruin on Jan 20, 2006 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
Being one of Oakland's top prospects
A's and Angels
With the A's:
Their rotation is set up for the next five years. No worries about that (and the system is set up perfectly with guys like Italiano, Lansford and Mazzaro high ceilings but far away). They haev several young players around the diamond. Swisher is here for 5 more years. Johnson another 5. Chavez has got 5 more. Crosby 4 more. Ellis a few more. Then they have it backed up with Pennington and Melillo on the way, and, farther down, Gregorio Petit.The infield is set.
In the outfield, along with Swisher, Kotsay has two more years (and then Javier Herrera or Richie Robnett to replace him). LF is the only "futureless" place. Danny Putnam is a nice candidate but would only be ready at midseason 2007 (earliest). Travis Buck will be on the fast track and i like him a lot, but midseason 2007 is a good time for him as well. Basically, the A's likely use a stopgap LF in 2007. Also, Daric The Great will take over the 1B/DH spot next year.
Catcher is a weak spot. Kendall has two years, though i think he'll improve enough. But in the farm, there are questions. Brown rebounded and could be a decent backup. But Suzuki was disappointing and Powell, who i really like, is coming off a torn meniscus (i think) which he missed the whole year so he has questions as well.
Relief: They have Huston Street as their closer. Justin Duchscherer has 4 years left on his contract, Calero 3 (if i'm not mistaken). Jairo Garcia will get his spot. Flores and Kennedy have the lefty roles (though i don't see Kennedy in the long term plans). On the cusp are other young guys like Chris Mabeus and Conor Robertson. The pen looks like it's in good shape as well (and Jason Ray, a 2005 draft pick is highly thought of as well).
Overall:
I think Beane has done amazingly to put together a team that is very deep and very young. There is a presuambly 3-5 year window now for the A's to win it all. They look primed to do it.
Anaheim:
The farm system is better, but the major league team is aging. There are holes like Erstad (though moving to CF alleviates this a tad). Kotchman looks very very good though. Wood will take over and Kendrick will as well, giving them a potentialy great infield (though Cabrera must hit better). They don't have much in the way of SP prospects and outfield prospects though. And Anderson and Erstad are weak hitters. The rotation has Colon and Santana as well as Escobar. Not many younguns.
The A's are better set up for the future, though there is always the possibility that Arte buys himself a (or a few new) toy/s.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 19, 2006 4:43 PM EST reply actions
Angels
As far as outfielders, you didn't mention Chone Figgins or Juan Rivera, and they have the possibility of moving Kendry Morales and/or Dallas McPherson to the OF, as well. Erick Aybar will most likely be their SS long term, as well. Plus, Jeff Mathis will be better than anything Oakland has behind the plate. Their RF is pretty good, too, and in his prime.
Oh, and they do have a pretty good bullpen, starting with K-Rod and Shields. They also have an excellent track record of developing relievers.
For 2006 and beyond, it's extremely close. I don't think Oakland is necessarily better set up for the future based on Zito's likely exit, Meyer's cloudy future, and the extremely average Esteban Loaiza.
Booooring
blatant brain fart
I didn't count their bullpen, but it's not as deep as it used to be. K-Rod is pretty prone to trouble though, but he still gets out of it. Shields is very durable and good. Donnelly is nice, though he's old and in decline.
Jeff Mathis: Well, he's pretty much a dissapointment. Hitters league and hitters park and he was just "good". Especially coming off that horrendous year in double A. If Landon Powell is healthy, he can easily outhit Mathis.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 2:30 AM EST up reply actions
Jeff Mathis *Not* a "Disappointment"
It's beyond me why so many people have written off a 22-year old who just posted a pretty darn good year in Triple-A. Mathis' AVG/OBP/SLG in 2005 were .276/.340/.499. Find another regular starting catcher in Triple-A last year who posted better numbers and was 22 years old or younger.
You'll find 22-year old catchers in Rookie-A ball. How many 22-year old starting catchers were there in Triple-A last year?
As a basis of comparison, let's look at Jason Varitek. Where was Varitek at age 22? Georgia Tech. He didn't start his professional career until he signed at age 23 and reported to Double-A. When he was in Triple-A at Tacoma, Varitek posted an AVG/OBP/SLG of .254/.329/.443. That was at age 25 -- three years older than Mathis.
The only thing wrong with Mathis is he's been very young for his leagues. Five years from now, barring injury, he's an All-Star.
by FutureAngels on Jan 21, 2006 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Point taken
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 21, 2006 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm...Angels
If there youth does pan out, they will potentially have an almost completely home grown roster.
mariners
True, but..
Not bad, but not the best
A's and Angels
However, Oakland's system isn't looking that good anymore. They have promoted so many players, it is not among the elite farms systems anymore.
It is not a bad system. Daric Barton is a great prospect. Who else do they have? Javier Herrera? He's good too. But then the talent drops off. Dan Meyer is a potential bust. They have some interesting guys they recently drafted, like Pennington, but their system is not what it once was. It is productive, as they promoted a ton a good players recently. But right now it is thin, especially at the upper levels.
I think that the A's have the worst system in the AL West right now.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 1:21 AM EST up reply actions
re
No way is it worse than Seattle's
it might be,
Ehhh
And let's not forget DB, BB's dream-hitter (except not Jewish/named Youkilis)
Of course, but...
You are correct, although I do know something about most of these guys.
The problem with the A's system is a lack of depth in the upper levels of the system. Guys like Putnam, Buck, Pennington, and Italiano are good prospects, but these guys are all recent draftees. I don't think any of them will be ready anytime soon, expect perhaps Buck and Pennington.
The A's have a great system in their ability to produce players who help their team, but they have promoted so many of them recently that there just isn't that much left in the system right now. Besides Barton, the A's don't have any blue-chip prospects. Herrera is their #2, and he is raw and overrated.
Plus, the M's have a lot of guys that 'only hardcore fans know about' as well. Really, this is true of most teams. The M's have guys like Luis Valbuena, Michael Saunders, Rob Johnson, Ryan Feierabend, Wladimir Balentien, Stephen Kahn, Sabastien Boucher, Bobby Livingston, Casey Craig, Jeff Flaig, Chia-an Huang, Robert Rohrbaugh, and Edgar Guaramato. Most of these guys are in the lower levels of the system. Guys like Johnson, Feierabend, and Livingston are more advanced, but are guys who could help the team relatively soon.
Plus, the M's have several guys in their system who aren't true prospects anymore (too much ML time) or are returning from injury, who would be left off most prospect lists. Guys like Clint Nageotte, Jesse Foppert, Travis Blackley, and Chris Snelling are all coming back from injuries, but are still in the M's system. All of these guys have the potential to be impact players at the ML level, and could play for the M"s in 2006 if they are healthy.
I really think the M's have the better system.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 21, 2006 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Feierabend advanced
You said he's advanced, yet he's a 20 year old in Low A with bad peripherals.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 21, 2006 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Feir...
Taking that away from his numbers, you're right, they aren't that pretty, but there are scouts out there who still say he'll be a ML pitcher.
by JY on Jan 21, 2006 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
thanks for enlightening
My main point was that the other poster claimed he was "advanced"
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 21, 2006 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
re: Feierabend
So is the California League low-A when trying to diminish a Seattle prospect and High-A when trying to pump up an Oakland one? Also, 2005 was Feierabend's age 19 season...
by TINSTAAPP on Jan 21, 2006 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not trying to diminish him
And yes, Oakland players are more advanced because in A ball they had players like Melillo, Travis Buck, Danny Putnam, Jason Windsor, Dallas Braden. These are good examples of advanced players.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 21, 2006 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
u so smart
second, those prospects you list are all about 3 years older than feierabend.
by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 1:38 AM EST up reply actions
sigh
And he turned 20 during the season last year...
Thirdly: I realize they are all three years older then Feierabend. THAT IS NOT MY POINT. I had originally thought (until Jerry cleared that up down below) that Jerry was saying Feierabend was an advanced prospect. My point was that Feierabend was not advanced looking at the stats. I then proceeded to give examples of advanced prospects, IE college players. I know they are older and therefore SHOULD be more advanced. But that doesn't change the fact: they are still advanced.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 9:47 AM EST up reply actions
Age
Feierabend's birthday is 6 days after Barton's. So I guess I can now hold you to referring to Barton's 2005 as his season as a 20 year old.
by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
alright
Still, you were pretty much clawing around the edges while ignoring the main point, which has since been cleared up anyways.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Further research
Kahn walks 7 guys per 9 innings, it's tough to make it in the big leagues based on a pickoff move per game, most of the above pitchers project as relievers anyway due to some major control probs and lack of SOs, and on there you had a .324 career minor league OBP guy
For comparison's sake, Travis Buck hit .341-.427-.472-.899 in his first full year with 19 walks to 19 strikeouts at A ball
The guys you mentioned are all either 20 and in A ball or 22 and in A ball... Some of the names I put in there are also in A ball, only with better stats, or some have already moved to AA
I'm not saying this to be mean, but maybe a player-by-player comparison of the players you mentioned towards the ones I did would help? The one I gave admittedly is not fair, but I don't have time to do more intensive research (exams)
Totally misleading
"Kahn walks 7 guys per 9 innings"
-yeah, but this is a sample size of 18 innings. Do you really think you can understand a guy by looking at 18 innings of pro ball?
"it's tough to make it in the big leagues based on a pickoff move per game"
-Feierabend has a lot more going for him than a pickoff move. You have no idea what you are talking about.
"most of the above pitchers project as relievers anyway due to some major control probs and lack of SOs"
-like who? Did you make these decisions based on your extensive analysis of Khan's 18 innings? You don't even mention who you are referring to, so there is no point refuting this.
"on there you had a .324 career minor league OBP guy"
I assume that you are talking about Rob Johnson. He is a very advanced defensive catcher, and he actually hit pretty well this year. He hit .272/.319/.430 with 9 HRs in Low-A, then .314/.381/.443 in limited time in high-A. That is not bad for a guy who was mainly seen as a defensive catcher, and in his first year of pro ball. It is funny that you bring him up, as he did better than your 'guy to keep and eye on' Landon Powell (.250/.374/.383) despite being drafted 3 rounds later in the same year.
"For comparison's sake, Travis Buck hit .341-.427-.472-.899 in his first full year with 19 walks to 19 strikeouts at A ball"
So what? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. Buck is a first round pick. The guys I listed are mainly young international signings or guys who are sleepers. We could also compare Jeff Clement with, say, Raul Padron. But is that very interesting? If you want to compare similar players, Clement hit .319/.386/.522 at the same level, and is a lot better prospect than Buck.
If this is what you call an "analysis", then that is pretty pathetic. It is just a bunch of out-of-context stats and comparisons between the M's #25 prospect and the A's #5.
Come on. You are better than this.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 1:22 AM EST up reply actions
I looked at the guys on your list
That said, i'd rather have the A's group. They are all producing very well in the Cal League or higher. They may be in the low 20's, college polished hitters (why they have better stats) but they all have solid upsides as well. Travis Buck still has pounds of muscle to add, which might add more homer power. That's the type of thing i'm talking about.
I'll admit, i don't know much about most of those guys, but looking on stats i'd take the A's players.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Re:
Secondly, if you're going to discount Kahn's 18 innings, discount Rob's 70 AB's at high A.
Third of all, I'd say Buck's #'s are pretty darn comparable to Clement's line, no? Sure, Clement is a better prospect. But Buck had an OBP .80 points higher than his average, vs. Clement's .70 points, and in general his OBP was .40 higher than Clement's while his SLG was .5 points less than Clement's. That's comparable, no?
Fourth, Landon Powell was severely injured last year. I mentioned him simply because he has a good power and posted great college #'s
Fifth, I called myself out for cherrypicking data because I didn't have the time or will to make more in depth comparisons (hence the "the comparison I make is unfair, would someone be willing to do a player-by-player comparison?" comment)
Sixth, I tried to be civil in my post because I realized that you have a legitimate argument and I had only done limited further research. Your comments are completely off base. If you want me to get firey about it and wish to discuss with blazing guns how the A's minor leagues stack up against the M's, lemme know in a week when my exams are over and I have the time and patience to deal with you and your comments.
As for the rest of the pitchers potentially projecting as relievers, I did a cursory glance at the stats and saw none had stats that stood out (some didn't have stats at all) except a few had high walk rates in college and minor ball with not a ton of strikeouts to go with them. I'm not going to look into it now because A) I have to study and B) I honestly don't care whatsoever at this point about nitpicking about your international signings.
Sorry about the grumpiness
I think that the best way to compare these two systems is to look at the top.
The Mariner's have three prospects who are undoubtedly top 100's in Jeff Clement, Adam Jones, and Asdrubal Cabrera.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but the A's top 3 are Daric Barton, Javier Herrera, and Dan Meyer, although perhaps Buck or Pennington belong ahead of him.
Barton is the best of this bunch, although Clement is not far behind Barton at all. However, Cabrera is arguably a better prospect than Herrera.
The M's #4 prospect is debatable. You could make arguments for Chris Snelling, Bobby Livingston, Clint Nageotte, Luis Valbuena and Matt Tuiasosopo. All four are very different types of payers.
Snelling put up absolutely monster numbers in AAA this year (.370/.452/.553) and then hit well in a very short period in Seattle (.276/.382/.448). However, he injured his knee, and has had lots of trouble keeping healthy. He might need to DH in order to keep him in the lineup. However, he is a much better hitter than any A's prospect besides Barton, and as a DH, he and Barton are very similar types of players.
Livingston doesn't get a lot of press because he doesn't throw hard or rack up K's. However, he did well in AA (2.86 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 78/27 K/BB in 118 IP), and held his own in AAA (4.7 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 41/15 K/BB in 51 IP at age 23 last season. His AAA numbers were heavily skewed by a disasterous performance in his first start after being promoted. He has great control, and managed to improve his game in 2005 after making the jump to AA.
Nageotte is a power pitcher, with a very good two-seam FB and one of the best sliders in baseball. He was injured in 2004 and coming in to 2005, and was moved to the bullpen to ease him in to pitching again this year. He was dominant in AAA this year, and returned to starting in the AFL with very good results. The fact that he is primarily a two-pitch guy had led to questions about whether he will remain a starter or move to the pen. But he has a great track record in the minors leading up to this year, and could be a great setup man or closer if he has to move to the pen.
The other two guys, Tuiasosopo and Valbuena, are both farther off. Tuiasosopo is a toolsy athelete, who the M's signed to a big contract to keep him from playing football. He held his own in the Midwest league last year at age 19 in his first year of focusing on one sport and his first full season in pro ball. He is not going to stick at SS, and probably will play 3B or RF later on. He didn't hit for much power last year, but did manage to control the strike zone pretty well. He is a candidate to break out next season, when he moves to the Cal League. The biggest hole in his numbers last year was power, but power potential is perhaps his best tool. He is a bigtime breakout candidate, and has similar tools and skills as Herrera.
Valbuena is also 19, and was rated the #6 prospect in the Northwest League by BA. He has very good power potential, and led the league in HRs. As a second baseman, he project to have good power for the position. He will have a big challenge ahead of him as he moves to the Midwest league and to a tough pitchers park. But he showed very good contact skills (33/35 BB/K) and very good offensive production for a middle infielder. He was the MVP of the Venezuelan league in 2004, so this level of production is not out of line with his previous performance.
Overall, the M's have better talent at the very top of their organization in Clement, Jones, and Cabrera. All three play premuim defensive positions. Going beyond the top, I think that Snelling, Livingston, Nageotte, Tui, and Valbuena fill out a better top-10 than Buck, Pennington, Suzuki, and Melillo.
In a lot of ways, this is a strange comparison, as the two organizations could not really be much more different. The M's have a lot more tools players, and a lot more international talent. The A's have a lot more polished college players, although they did draft more highschool kids this year. Thus, while the A's prospects may have nice looking stats (like Buck), the M's have more high-ceiling guys. At this time a year ago, Adam Jones was seen as a fringe prospect, but had a breakout year. The M's have toolsy players like Tuiasosopo, Shin-Soo Choo, Valbuena, Michael Saunders, Wladimir Balentien and Mike Wilson. All of these guys have the skills to be true breakout players, like Jones was this year. While guys like Buck, Pennington, and Melillo are nice players, they are not likely to go off and have monster years. You know what you have with them. But comparing the two clubs, the M's have better depth in the top of their organization, and a lot more potential breakout players in the lower levels.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 23, 2006 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Feierabend
Those guys are all pretty unknown outside of people who really follow the M's system. None of them are in the M's top 10, besides perhaps Valbuena and Livingston. It is a lot different than the list that you posted, which includes all of the A's prospects. The ones I listed are under-the-radar types.
Regarding Feierabend, he is a lefty drafted out of highschool. The M's have a lot of finesse lefties, but I think that this guy has better stuff than most of the others. His stats aren't really that impressive at face value. However, he was pretty young to be in High-A, and was pitching in the Cal league. The most impressive thing about him was that he started off just brutal. In the second half, he really turned things around. Like all soft tossers, he will face a big test in AA, but I think that he could be better than Livingston.
Last year, Livingston was in almost the exact same place as Feierabend, but he pitched well in AA and held his own in AAA.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 1:00 AM EST up reply actions
I don't see it.
Ichiro should be heading into his decline years and has so much of his value wrapped up in BA to make him hard to predict. He could be elite, as he was in 04, or just a solid starter, as he was in 03 and 05.
Beltre might bounce back (or not).
I like Reed and expect him to improve, but he may be traded.
Felix and Johjima will be substantial improvements.
I like Washburn, but the rest of the rotation is dubious. Moyer has only a limited future at best. Improving the rotation probably comes at the cost of Reed.
If everybody has their upside year, they should be competitive with the A's and Angels mid-level projections. I think they need both to exceed expectations and have bad years from both the A's and Angels to make the playoffs next year.
With only Reed (if he is there), Felix and Beltre of the 8 best players being < 30 this season and little star power in the high minors, the team should see decline beyond 2006.
I think a good match for the Mariners for the near future is the recent play of the Blue Jays.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 19, 2006 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
Jose Lopez & co.
Betancourt, meanwhile, could go in almost any direction when it comes to offense. Traditional statistical analysis just does not apply to a kid who came to America on a raft, took a year off, and then spent his first year of pro ball zooming up the ladder from AA to AAA to the majors. Our middle infield has the potential to be special.
Ibanez will be gone after this year, and Everett likely will too. That leaves only Sexson, Ichiro, and Johjima as our >30 crowd, with LF and DH slots to fill. In the high minors, you have Adam Jones and Chris Snelling, who should be healthy by mid-season, though it may only last five minutes. If either of those players pans out, we're in good shape. And don't forget Mr. Jeff Clement, who has yet to hit a snag and project to be DH'ing and backing up Johjima at some point in '07.
The rotation's a mess, but beside our #5 draft pick this year, our newer acquisitions Marcos Carvajal and Jesse Foppert, and lukewarm leftovers like Clint Nageotte, we have a front office that will spend money. And I just pray they'll spend it on the right pitcher next time.
Point is, some of the players on the '06 squad may decline, but this is a young team. There's no reason to predict decline after this year: Either our young guys develop and we start to get better, or they don't and we crash and burn.
Lopez
His EqA to date
A 255
AA 244
AAA 255
ML 225
ML 244
Although he underperformed his 05 prediction, Pecota did see him growing into a useful player.
If he does develop, that should offset the coming decline of Ichiro.
You say only Ichiro, Johjima and Sexson are over 30, but they are also the only good positional players the M's have. Reed should become good and maybe Lopez. But it all feels zero-sum to me.
I don't have any real desire to see the Mariners struggle. I have been to a few of their games in Seattle and some of my favorite players have been Mariners (notably Edgar Martinez). I just don't see them climbing out of the 500 +/- crowd. It's a lot better future than the Pirates or Royals.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 19, 2006 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
also true, but
Go Cards, 2006
re: also true, but
Has that been his problem? I can see how that would lead to a lot of injuries.
re
Strongly disagree
I'll throw some numbers out
Mathis is one of the better catching prospects in the minors and I think it's safe to say his defense will be at least equal to if not better than Kendall's. However, his numbers at Salt Lake last year were decent but not inspiring. He hit .276/.340..499 in 427 AB's with 85 K's to 42 BB's. When you take minto account his abysmal .227.310/.394 line in 2004, I think it's optimistic to project him any higher than .250/.320/.435.
I think that line for Mathis is pretty reasonable as to what we can expect from him. The wild card is whether or not Kendall can return to form. If he can get close to his .390 OBP days, he's the more valuable player in '06. If not, I think I've got to give the edge to Mathis.
by nothinlikethetown on Jan 19, 2006 11:53 PM EST up reply actions
re
I did the same thing you did. "Mathis is better" is not exactly a stellar way of convincing everyone of your opinion
OK, homer
Mauer
294/372/411
I think we can expect Kendall to hit similar numbers but probably lower with the power.
But can we expect Mathis who is a much worse prospect than Mauer to outperform him in his first year? Possible, yes. Probable, no.
Just as likely Mathis is in AAA 2 months into the season.
Enough with the Twins
Stop talking about them. Wait for the AL Central thread.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
LOL
by tmelander on Jan 21, 2006 7:17 AM EST up reply actions
test
The AL West
The Rangers made decent upgrades with their pitching but unless Juan Dominguez hits his ceiling of talent this team is still nothing more than a 86-88 win team. If they sign Clemens, 95+ wins and the AL Wild Card is a possibility
The rest of the AL is at the mercy of the Oakland A's for at least 5 years. I see Oakland winning 98+ games in '06. The A's went 65-38 in their last 103 games and Harden was out for most of those games. Young teams tend to get better, older teams get worse. The A's are a young team on the doorstep of their prime and are going to be a juggernaut for a while. Dig a hole and have God bless the women & children because the rest of us in the AL West are in trouble.
The Angels may take a step back in '06 but come back in a couple of years. The kids aren't ready yet and most of the vets have hit the wall. Vlad is a god and Scioscia might be the very best manager in the game but I think the Angels fall to around .500 next season.
The M's are a wreck and aren't coming back for a while. Go thru history and check out the similar solid teams like the M's had from '99-03 which were very solid but then suddenly got old and fell off the cliff (lost 99 games) like they did in '04. The recovery time usually takes at least 4-6 years. King Felix may be the goods but I don't see the M's winning more than 75 games in '06.
at the risk of inciting multiple.
pitching tends to win..
oakland has the best pitching..
duhh.. hmmmm..
yea, know doesn't make any sense.
but guess ah might as well go down in flames
...
Oakland
by dryice on Jan 20, 2006 1:12 AM EST reply actions
I agree
But the A's have a great rotation. Even after Zito leaves, they will still be a great shape with Harden, Blanton, Haren, and Loaiza. That is a great group. They are good now, and will likely just improve over the next few years.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
That rotation
Um, wrong
WHAT?!
Street was much better and more efficient than Frankie and Duschscherer (the all star) was also better than Shields. And not just on the ERA's. Duke was just as durable and useful as shields. So you are wrong on that count.
Street: 1.72 ERA, 78 innings pitched, 72 K's, 26 walks, 53 hits, 2 homers. 1.01 WHIP.
Rodriguez: 2.67 ERA, 67 innings, 91 K's, 32 walks, 45 hits, 7 homers. 1.14 WHIP
Street wins in everythingi but K/9 (and a tie in H/9)
Duke: 2.21 ERA, 86 innings, 85 K's, 19 walks, 67 hits, 7 homers. 1.00 WHIP .
Scot: 2.75 ERA, 92 innings, 98 K's, 37 walks, 5 homers, 66 hits, 1.12 WHIP
Duke wins also, though Shields has a tad more K's and a tad less hits.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 9:29 AM EST up reply actions
Track record
K-Rod from 2004:
1.82 ERA, 84 IP, 51 H, 33 BB, 123! K, 2 HR, 1 WHIP
OK, that's better than Street was last year. So, let's let Street do this year what he did last year before we crown him the winner in that battle. Oh, and do we forget the domination of the 2002 playoffs?
Shields also had a better year than "Duke" in 2004, although it is close:
JD: 96.3 IP, 85 H, 13 HR, 32 BB, 59 K
SS: 105.3 IP, 97 H, 6 HR, 40 BB, 109 K
I'll take the much higher K rate, better K/BB ratio, and less HR from that year over better hit rate and a little better control.
All in all, I'll take the Angel guys, although I would also seriously consider Rincon/Nathan as well.
Duke
So Duchscherer has 2 years of success. Street has 1 year of success (amazing success at that) as a 21/22 year old. He made the majors less than a year after being drafted. Track record schmack record, i think a lot of people here would take Street over K-Rod.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
People here
You're right, a lot of people would take Street. I would not. K-Rod's got better stuff.
Please
Unbiased?
I mean Oakland's duo looks slightly better based on last year's numbers, but I would put Anaheim's duo on a whole lower level just for that.
Seriously, Street and Duch arguably outpitched K-Rod and Shields last year. The Zips projections (from Primer) have them at basically a dead heat in 2006.
I can see an argument that you might prefer K-Rod and Shields do to better pure stuff (k rate anyway) but to say that 9 out of 10 would definately take Anaheim's pair over Oakland seems a bit well... biased
by Johnny Ruin on Jan 20, 2006 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
What's wrong
Stats are almost all we have to go on, unless you want to further analyze this without using stats... That'd be cool, and definately interesting to read. Would you do that?
I'm an A's Fan
Scoscia is getting very, very close to overextending K-Rod & Shields.
by Colorado Fan on Jan 23, 2006 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
2002 playoffs
by niallmack on Jan 20, 2006 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not an Angel fan
I disagree
Look at NRA from BP for last year/career and 06 season age
Colon 3.73/3.86 33
Lackey 3.64/4.39 27
Escobar 3.20/4.18 30
Santana 4.79/4.79 23
Weaver ? 23
A very good rotation last year, 2 of whom are into decline years and 3 of whom had better years than their career averages. Only Santana can really expect to exceed his career numbers going forward. Having all 4 have NRA over 4 next year would not be surprising.
Harden 2.92/3.67 24
Zito 3.98/3.70 28
Blanton 3.69/3.75 24
Haren 3.99/4.37 24
Loaiza 4.02/4.56 34
Every single career matchup favors the A's. And only Loaiza is into his decline years. With most of the rotation in the improving years. And they have several more legitimate pitchers who can fill in the next few years.
Seems like a slamdunk advantage to the A's.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
You can take the A's, but
Also, the assumption was made that Zito would be gone. Even though I think it is debatable as it stands now, what with the emergence of Lackey, the talent that Escobar has flashed the last 2 years, and the probable improvement of Santana, without Zito, that changes the equation greatly. Harden may be the best of the bunch eventually, but I'm not sure that both Lackey and Escobar are not better than Haren.
Also, why is it that Lackey pitched over his head, but Haren and Blanton did not? And, name that Oakland pitching prospect that can match Weaver.
30+
Many pitchers do pitch well after 30, just like many batters hit well after their well documented peak at 27 or 28.
Any of Colon, Escobar or Loaiza could stay at their established levels for several more years or they could start a significant decline this year. Pitching is much more difficult to predict than batting. I see little reason to believe that much of anyone on the Angels other than Santana will be much above their career numbers anytime moving forward.
You are right that the A's will probably lose Zito and that evens things up a bit.
I do not assume any pitcher who has 76 good but not great innings at A and AA will be a star pitcher. I think either of Cruz or Meyer could easily turn out to be better than Weaver. If I had to choose one, I would choose Weaver, but I wouldn't trade a star positional prospect for any of them.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
re
by bootsy on Jan 23, 2006 5:23 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe no one
Also
Zito and Colon:
Colon wins on last year but it's pretty close. Colon, with all his great stuff still has a career 3.94 ERA, 4 poinst higher than Zito. Zito is younger. I'll call it a slight win for Colon, because people here woudl be outraged if i said anything else (thanks to the Cy Young)
Lackey versus Harden:
Harden wins out here, though it's clsoer than it looks. Lackey enjoyed a serious brekaout year and you could say he was better than Colon. Lackey has great stuff, but mentally he can break down. But he had a really high whip (1.33). I'm sceptical that he can keep that high level up. Harden is younger though and is one of the top pitchers in the game.
Escobar versus Haren:
Escobar is 30, Haren 25. Escobar has good stuff, but Haren does too. Escobar has serious control problems and has had problems with that his whole career. Never really fulfilling his potential. He was great as a reliever though lasst year. Slight advantage Haren.
"Magic Santana" against Blanton:
No doubting Blanton's year, and Santanas rise to the majors either. I think Blanton is due for a slight regression (3.7-3.8 ERA) and Santana a slight progression (3.7-3.9) That would put them about equal. But, Santana has better long term potential. Slight advantage Santana.
Weaver vs Loaiza:
Well, seeing as that Weaver hasn't pitched in the majors and Loaiza is a succesful major league pitcher, there is a clear advantage for Loaiza.
The A's rotation is better.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 9:56 AM EST up reply actions
You're entitled...
As far as Loaiza and Weaver are concerned, just because Loaiza has the experience advantage, he has graded out as a very average pitcher, save for 2003 with the White Sox. To say he has a clear advantage over Weaver is not fair. To say that it is indeterminate at this time would be more fair. Weaver has the ability to be an above average pitcher, so that matchup could go either way. Personally, I'd take Weaver based on upside.
As far as Escobar's control problems are concerned, he walked 76 in 208 IP in 2004 and 21 in 60 IP last year. Those are serious problems? Based on what? I won't even mention his nearly 1 K/IP ratio (wait, I did!).
ok
In the minors he averaged 3.76 w/9: In the majors it's 3.96... Escobar had one good year as a starter in the majors: 2004. I think he might be better suited as a reliever, but then again, i just don't know. He had serious controls problems in Toronto. I mean, 2004 was his best ever walk rate, at 3.28 (for a non injured season).
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
Cherry picking, again?
The fact is that he has improved his control to the point of acceptability, especially with his outstanding K rate. If he was an A, then we'd all think that was here to stay, right?
2005 is Haren's ONLY full year in the majors.
"If he was an A, then we'd all think that was here to stay, right?"
Wrong, and Loaiza is a great example. We're not getting the 2003 career campaign, we're getting a league average third or fourth starter to pitch in the fifth spot in our rotation.
bring up homerism in every single post
I"m not cherry picking Haren's best year. I'm using his first full year in the major leagues, first full year as a starter. The data is the most relevant it can be (unless you wanna use minor league stats as well). Haren's minor league stats suggest he's right around where he should be, with more K's coming. Judging on Escobars whole career as well as his minor league career, he's a powerful but erratic right hander.
It's entirely possible some switch has somehow been turned on and he's not just throwing anymore. BUt odds are against that.
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
One last example
2001 (A): 4.60
2002(A-AA): 3.18 - 5.48
2003 (AAA - ML): 3.55 - 4.82
2004 (ML): 3.84
2005 (ML): 3.02
Minor League totals: 4.09 BB/9
If we looked at his erratic control in the minors, we would think that he couldn't improve it greatly in the majors, right?
Sometimes, pitchers just figure it out. Ask Randy Johnson. Hell, ask Rich Harden. If Escobar falls back with his control, then Haren will be better. But, until that happens, they are at least equals, and I'd give Escobar a slight edge due to the fact that every other ratio besides BB rate is better.
That's it. I'm done.
difference
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
Who cares?
No one wants to point it out but me, but it is extremely coincidental that he has figured it out since going to Anaheim. If Leo Mazzone was their pitching coach, he'd get the credit and Escobar would be assumed to continue on.
"No one has a better 1-2 punch
Well, we'll see what happens this year, but in 2005 Huston Street and Duke were third and fourth in MLB in RSAA. Here's the list:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jacob_luft/01/13/relievers.respect/1.html
So right now, Oakland has the better 1-2 punch in the pen. Also, Shields has thrown 344 innings the last three years combined, it's likely that catches up with him in 2006 or 2007.
As far as the rotation goes, Haren is MUCH better than Escobar. Haren is on the way up, Escobar the way down. While it's not fair to compare their MLB career numbers, let's compare their minor league numbers.
Escobar 512 IP 2.49 K/BB 1.36 WHIP 4.01 ERA
Haren 474 IP 5.37 K/BB 1.12 WHIP 3.15 ERA
Not all that close, huh?
Blanton vs. Santana is very close, based on their rookie years. That said, it's only close with Blanton's poor start factored in. He was a different pitcher down the stretch, and looked much better at the end of the year than Santana. I'd give a slight edge to Blanton.
Escobar 2004 vs. Haren 2005
KE 2004: 208.3 IP 192 H 21 HR 76 BB 191 K
DH 2005: 217 IP 212 H 26 HR 53 BB 163 K
OK, Haren has better control. That's it. H rate, HR rate, K rate are all better from Escobar. To say Haren is MUCH better than Escobar is folly. I'd say, based on these numbers, Escobar's year was better.
Now, if you say Haren will get better, I'd agree that he should. However, I don't see Escobar's numbers really going down much (he is only 30), so unless Haren takes a quantum leap, this is an even matchup.
Haren's better control leads to
When I compared the minor league numbers, I did so because the number of innings was much closer than their MLB innings. Cherry picking Escobar's career best year and comparing it to Haren's first full year in the majors doesn't show me Escobar is a better pitcher, or even equal to Haren.
Cherry picking
I don't see where Haren has the major advantage, except for age and potential improvement. Telling me that Haren will improve greatly this season doesn't mean that he will. You're basing your analysis on assumption, not hard numbers. Escobar's recent numbers are better than Haren's except for BB rate.
His most recent year,
Correction
59 2/3 IP, 45 H, 4 HR, 21 BB, 63 K.
Basically, the same ratios as the year before but even better. So, I'm basing his numbers on a couple of seasons, even if one of them was abbreviated. So, no, I don't think it's a fluke. Maybe he found the right fit with the Angels. That's probably the better explanation.
I'm sorry,
Like I said, it could be he turned the corner. Until we see what next year brings, I'm going with his larger body of work and saying it's an anamoly.
If he pitches at the same level again this year, then I'll reconsider and likely agree with you. But until then, I don't.
One thing
I would still take Haren, though. but Escobar is a damn fine pitcher
by Jgaztambide on Jan 20, 2006 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
This is a good point
The Mariner's
- The farm system is turned around. It doesn't look good right now, with Felix, Betancourt, Reed, Lopez, and other players being promoted. But the years of wasted drafts are over. Bavasi and Fontaine have gotten the farm system turned around, and it should improve soon.
- The M's have completed their roster overhaul. They went from one of the oldest teams in the league in 2003/early 2004 to one of the youngest this year. The roster turnover will be complete after 2006, as Moyer, Ibanez, Pineiro, Meche, Everett, and Guardado come off the books. That also frees up a lot of cash. The M's already have a nice core of improving young players right now, and they have money to make some big additions next offseason.
- They have maintained their payroll. While Josey Wales is correct that rebuilding usually takes time, the M's have done this quickly while maintaining great attendance. This has allowed them to rebuild while not cutting payroll. That is a huge advantage.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 1:33 AM EST reply actions
I agree
Thatrs the problem, now...
It's mostly the relif arms that are appealing in the short term (Cortez, Fruto, Jimenez), and that's the problem... Mid-minors is barren with the exception of Feierabend (owner of the minors' best pickoff move) and he's far from sure... the rest of the guys walked in place in Wisconsin... but there is some hope in the short-season leagues and I know that we're starting to get some solid returns out of the Summer Leagues and that'll only continue until 2008, at least. Things are looking up, at least long-term.
by JY on Jan 20, 2006 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
and marc reminded me below...
by JY on Jan 20, 2006 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Draft
At this point, the consensus #1 pick is pretty raw. I don't think that Andrew Miller will be there when the M's pick, but there are several other pitchers that should be available.
Max Scherzer could be the best pitcher in the draft by next summertime. He has great stuff, but has also had a great deal of success. He has a great mix of stuff and polish.
Ian Kennedy is similar to Scherzer, in that he has dominated as a sophmore and has good stuff. I don't think that Kennedy has the upside that Scherzer does, but he has 4 good pitches and could be the quickest to the big leagues among the elite pitching prospects in the draft.
One thing that the M's have going for them is financial resources. The M's are the first team in the draft that are not among the bottom 10 teams in payroll. With Kennedy and Scherzer being represented by Scott Boras, I could see them dropping several slots. The M's don't seem to have any issues with Boras.
I hope that the M's take the best player available. However, given the strength of this draft, that player is very likely to be a pitcher. And given the way that the draft order has worked out, the M's are likely to be in a good position to take the one guy who slides a few slots due to signability.
Right now, I think that Scherzer could be a great fit. However, things will change.
Regardless of what happens, it will just be nice to see the M's getting an early pick in EVERY round. Unfortunately, I think that this will also be the case in the 2007 draft.
by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
I think they're around .500
The general point holds, of course: it'll be awfully tough to leapfrom Oakland and LA anytime soon. It's possible, of course, but they need breakouts from basically all of their P prospects: Foppert or Nageotte are the most likely candidates, but they'll need Livingston too. It'll be interesting to see what they have in Carvajal, too. But things all have to break the right way for them to really compete in the next two years. After that, it's just too hard to predict.
by marc w @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Young Pitching
Having followed the Twins who are perpetually young, I think this is only partially true. Young teams tend to get both. Some players improve, others the league catches up with and they get worse.
Oakland has a lot of young players, mostly their pitching. If you take 28 to be a players peak, they mostly have position players who were very near that point last year and a couple well past it. Crosby, Swisher and Johnson are their only three young position players. And two of those guys are really DH/1B which is not what you usually build your team around. Ellis, Chavez and Bradley are young but not so young you would look for them to improve much. And Kotsay and Kendell are on the downside, although not so old you would expect them to fall off the cliff.
Oakland success will almost entirely depend on their pitching, as it has for a number of years. But young pitching is notoriously unreliable. Thats why they added Loiza. I am not sure that you can count on getting the same performance out of that group next year muchless expect improvement. So while Oakland helped themselves in the off-season, this year and their future depends on all their young pitching holding up. I don't know how likely that is.
by TT @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 8:25 AM EST reply actions
Texas
Oakland
Texas
LA
Seattle
I love this division
Every one of these teams has a chance to be a good team long term. They all have good young talent. There isn't really one of them that towers above the rest in terms of financial advantages. I love following these guys.
I do think the Angels are setup to me better longterm by virtue of their impressive talent up the middle, some nice pitchers that have already been mentioned, a young flamethrower in Krod, a great manager in Scosia (I think he's underrated, myself) and a great owner who is willing to spend
A's vs Angels rotations
biggest difference:
I don't think the Angels have any young starter with the potential of Harden (not many do) although the name Weaver comes up. He hasn't proved to compare to Harden yet, Harden was younger and better when he was in AA.
injury potential:
Escobar only has one healthy and effective (ERA under 4) season as a starter, he might be better suited as a reliever. Harden hasn't proved he can stay healthy. This upcoming year the Angels are really counting on Escobar (if they don't get anybody else) while the A's emergency starters are much better than anything the Angels have got.
next year:
The A's depth is much greater than the Angels. Hector Carrasco? HA! Come on Stoneman. I'll bet at some point Escobar needs a few starts off and Vlad can only carry them so far.
next few years:
Santana and Blanton seem similar, Colon is a good innings eater but so is Loaiza the last few years. I'd say the advantage goes to the Angels for two of those spots.
Harden is a big upgrade over Lackey if he can stay off the DL. I'd say they've gotta find a starter to match up with Haren to stay close in terms of starting pitching for the future and Weaver could do that. Look for them to sign a starting pitcher (and we know how that market is right now)
I'd say the A's have a huge advantage at this point in terms of depth with 4 spots taken for 3 years! Minor league systems go through big changes in 3 years and even if Meyer doesn't pan out to be more than a 5th starter (which would have seemed laughable before that shoulder injury) then that's exactly what he'll be anyway.
by niallmack on Jan 20, 2006 1:12 PM EST reply actions
hmm
hahahahahaha
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
sorry
The answer is no though. Harden is a top fiev pitcher in the AL at least. And he's still improving. Harden has the kinda stuff that makes me drool. I expect him to compete for the Cy Young for the next five years with Johan, Kazmir, Liriano (if he's as good as advertized). In fact, i'd bet Harden wins the Cy Young this year.
I realize that i might be juiced as an A's fan, but he's the best pitcher i've ever seen on the A's. Better than any of the Big 3 were at any time. When i watch Harden, i feel like he will dominate anyone, no matter who it is. I get the same feeling while watching Johan (against the A's). I'm scared he'll just shut them out. There are not many pitchers like this at any given time. I don't think Santana is on that tier (or can be either)
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
What about Felix?
But how can you talk about the best AL starters over the next 5 years and not mention Felix Hernandez? Rich Harden is the poor man's Felix, and I still think Harden will be an all-star for ten years in a row (if he stays healthy).
by marc w @ Minor League Ball on Jan 20, 2006 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
Another blatant error
by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Jan 21, 2006 2:43 AM EST up reply actions
A's-Angels again
Texas' moves puzzle me. Headscratchers (Chris Young) followed by brilliance (Soriano). It's hard to figure out what is most likely to happen in the long run if you have no settled opinion about the management.
Premature, but if we get Clemens......
Clemens
Millwood
Padilla
Loe
Eaton
that is easily the best rotation on paper the Rangers have had since I can remember being a fan
Their bullpen has some solid arms:
Benoit
Otsuka
F. Francisco (though he is recovering from Tommy John surgery)
J. Dominguez
Wilson, Rupe, Shouse, Wasdin, Castro, Feldman?
Cordero
Their offense is still quite potent also
Their farm system is pretty solid (I think somewhat underrated). Though they're lacking true depth, the top tier is VERY promising:
Danks
Volquez
Diamond
Arias
Kinsler
Hurley
Another thing about Texas is that their payroll is very flexible. Tom Hicks is not afraid to pay the money if need be, as we all know. If they nab Clemens, then they are a serious threat this year. And with a likely increase in payroll in the next couple of years to complement the young talent with some vets, the Rangers have a bright future.
The thing is, so does Anaheim and Oakland, and even the Mariners. This division has got to be one of the to in baseball
texas can rake
mediocre but not bad..
now will Eaton, Millwood...
could be REAL good.
think they can contend THIS year w/or without Clemens.
by dryice on Jan 21, 2006 10:08 AM EST reply actions
Huh?
Phils had Millwood once, and while he was good, he isn't an ace, or even a #1 starter. He makes a solid #2-#3 starter because his consistency isn't all that (at least it wasn't at the time)
Ranger starters
They've also got several young players- Teixeira, Blalock, Mench, Loe and Dominguez- who should improve this season.
I'll admit to being a Ranger homer, but I'm surprised at the short shrift they're getting here compared to the A's and Angels. Neither Oakland nor LA-Anaheim has an offense to match Texas (and in LAA's case, they're not anywhere close) and the Angels' pitching isn't THAT much better. The Ranger farm system isn't anywhere in the class of the Angels, but with Kinsler, Diamond, Danks, Volquez, Arias, and some of the lower-level prospects, I'd take it up against Oakland or Seattle's any day.
park effects
meanwhile, the rotation has added eaton or millwood, but i find it highly unlikely that either of them will be able to match the production of kenny rogers from last year (not that rogers himself had any reasonable shot of repeating that performance, either), or even of drese from '04. so while it's better on paper, the fact is that it'll be tough for them to actually outperform the rangers rotation of recent years. keep in mind that they also dealt chris young (the pitcher) in the eaton trade, so it's not like millwood and eaton are coming in to bump out the 2 worst starters from last year.
They added Eaton and Millwood
by niallmack on Jan 21, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
what are you talking about
okay, calm down
my comment about catchers was "over the last few seasons, catcher has been a black hole"; and it's true. in 2004 rangers catchers hit .234/.279/.387 and in 2003, .247/.282/.379; considering that half their games are in arlington, that's unspeakably horrible production. barajas certainly took a step forward this year, but his career OBP is still .278 and he's now on the wrong side of 30, so i don't love his chances to be a positive contributor going forward. also, your comment about laird being "on the rise" seems like wish-casting to me. he had a good half-season in AAA in '05, but that was the first time he's exceeded even an .800 OPS at any level ever, and he's never been anything but putrid in three MLB trials.
wilkerson is 29. mench is 28. they are neither young nor improving. fortunately for wilkerson, he's already good. mench not so much--his power is an arlington illusion, and he's not much for getting on base or playing defense.
gary matthews jr was discussed elsewhere.
also, just to clarify, i was not attempting to compare texas to oakland, anaheim, or anybody else. just saying that their home park makes people think their offense is better than it is and their pitching worse.
Mike Young
please tell me thats a joke
rangers offense
nope
- BP -13, UZR -32, Range -28
- BP -21, UZR -21, Range -34
Tex
they're close
Agreed...
Re: park effects
I also think you're discounting the rotation. While I'd agree that Millwood and Eaton will likely just replace what the Rangers lost in Rogers and Young, the 3-4-5 spots should be vastly better than what Texas ran out there last season. Loe and Dominguez both pitched well in spurts, and should only improve with experience. Padilla likely won't be great, but he's only got to be better than Park/Astacio were last year to be a net improvement.
Do I think the Rangers still have plenty of room for improvement? Absolutely. But the A's and Angels have plenty of holes of their own.
06 Millwood + Eaton < 05 Rogers + Young
I will be shocked if Eaton is even vaguely similar to the 05 Young. Eric Milton may be a better comparison to the 06 Eaton. I think acquiring Eaton may go down as the worst trade of this offseason.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Re: 06 Millwood + Eaton < 05 Rogers + Young
And I still believe that even if Millwood and Eaton don't pitch quite as well as Rogers and Young did last year (which is very possible) the staff as a whole will be improved. 06 Padilla-Loe and Dominguez/Rupe/Wilson looks to be better than 05 Park-Astacio-Drese-insert name-here. Otsuka can't be worse than Doug Brocail, and there's plenty of quality depth on the farm, if no real blue-chippers. Diamond, Danks, and Volquez should all crack BA's Top 100. Rupe and Wilson have had some success on the major-league level (albeit very limited) and Armando Galarraga, Wes Littleton, and Scott Feldman are decent prospects.
Texas' pitching still has a long way to go to be good, but it's in much better shape, both in the majors and minors, than it was a couple years ago.
forgot the Soriano deal
I think I just have a very bad expectation for Eaton this year. I think there is a VERY good possibility that we will go Milton on them. Which would probably leave the rotation worse off than last year.
I personally think the Mirabelli deal will look OK at the end of the year. If (and that is the risk for SD) Mirabelli can perform as well fulltime as he has over the last few years part time, he is a middle of the road starting C. If Loretta repeats his 05 numbers, he is a middle of the road starting 2B. Boston is taking some risk as well with Loretta's injury history. The upside for Boston is the chance that Loretta returns to his career years in 03/04.
If both sides get the "expected" behavior, the trade is reasonably even, especially when you consider contract status etc. The fairness of the trade is based on how you rate the 3 uncertainties. I think Mirabelli making the transition is the most certain thing in the trade, with Loretta staying healthy being the least likely.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
Loretta
Career 301
In his 10 team-years with 100+ AB, he has hit 290 or below in 7 of them.
Last year's .360 was the 4th highest OBP of his career.
Of those ten years, his median line is 287/354/384. That is pretty middle of the road offense for a 2B. People's expectations grew when he put up back to back years of 314/372/441 and 335/391/495. They also pulled up his career averages from the median line above.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 23, 2006 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
re
Rangers have enough that they could win the division if they are fortunate enough to have a season where a bunch of their guys have career years, but it's unlikely.
by bootsy on Jan 23, 2006 5:16 AM EST up reply actions
Gary Matthews, one of the better offensive CFer
Matthews Jr.
06 AL CF by 04+05 EqA
Damon 294 293
Crawford 280 294
Crisp 277 293
Sizemore 270 297
Figgins 277 284
Hunter 276 283
DeJesus 264 291
Kotsay 288 266
Wells 274 276
Matthews 276 267
Matos 222 267
I freely admit that simply adding the two numbers is unreasonable in some cases, notably for Jeremy Reed. I do not believe that he is the better offensive CF in the AL, but I would easily take him ahead of Matthews for this next 2 years, not to mention beyond that.
Because Anderson and Granderson do not yet have a reasonable number of ML ABs, I left the White Sox and Tigers out. Rowand would have tied with Sizemore.
Only the O's with Matos have a weaker CF offensively and it will probably be close in 06. Wells, Kotsay and Reed are the others similar to Matthews offensively.
While someone will probably be worse than Matthews, I would take him last out of AL CF in a draft.
On the good side, he has not been notably worse offensively than most of the AL CF's.
by cdamon @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2006 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
Angels should Win the AL West
As to the Angels prospects, I can't see any reason for moving any of them, now, unless they can pick up a very good player for one of them. Callaspo could be converted into an outfielder, Aybar could as well, or he could remain at SS in case McPherson's back doesn't allow him to play 3B regularly -- Wood could move to 3B. Anderson is getting a bit old and will be ready to become a full-time DH very soon. Erstad is in the same boat. Figgins could be a great utility player (3B, SS, 2B, CF), and I think he is far more valuable to the team in this capacity than as a starter at any one position. Kendrick is a year or so away from being ready, but he is a legitimate player. He is a very good 2B and has good base-running skills to go along with his bat and foot-speed.
The Angels also have some more pitching prospects on the horizon, so they should be fine there.
I guess there is a reason BBA calls their farm-system the best in baseball.
by luthanham on Jan 22, 2006 1:28 AM EST reply actions
re
re
Long term, the A's and Angels both look good. It probably depends on whether the Angels start spending more wisely. If they keep making enough of these not brilliant moves, it's probably going to be a dogfight for years to come. If they start getting a little more bang for their bucks, they will probably overwhelm the A's at some point. The next couple free agent pitching decisions the Angels make are pretty crucial.
by bootsy on Jan 23, 2006 6:19 AM EST reply actions
replying to previous comment
by Isisaston on Dec 21, 2006 10:55 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
