metafour

We are kind of in a blah position because unless something weird happens, we are more or less picking first among essentially the 3rd tier of prospects. It looks like a zero chance of Bleday being there, and a slim chance of Bishop being there (and even that is prob. a stretch given his overall athleticism + power + production this year). Corbin Carroll looks like the highest "rated" prospect who could potentially get pushed down to us. Jung, Thompson, and Busch are all completely underwhelming picks IMO. In that scenario I would rather just do what we did last year and "reach" for a HS bat that we like who will sign for a discount. Brett Baty is old as s*** but I'd rather take him than Jung who's bat is still largely a product of hype (his power doesn't seem to actually show up). This draft looked a lot better for us back when Misner was looking like a legit top 11 pick because it assured us one of those guys being there.

His name is Yeinier Cano; MLB.com placed him 2nd on their IFA list (ahead of Yolbert Sanchez who they have 5th). http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2018/?list=int

The money that they acquired is for the 2018 class. Who are they signing? Who knows. MLB.com just threw out a report on some new 25 year old Cuban reliever that just came on the market who could be MLB ready next year.

Those GM's don't even exist anymore.

Josh Donaldson.

You are trying too hard. Justin Woodell (also repeated by a nameless MLB scout) stated that the version of Alford he saw in spring training is a version that he hasn't seen before, and he has seen Alford a lot through his struggles. Players like him with elite tools and athleticism can flip a switch in a second, and its not like he didn't just come off a hamate injury.

This is a huge problem around the league. There is a massive disconnect between how virtually every front office approaches the game of baseball in 2019 and the "story" that these veteran broadcasters paint to fans. What you end up with is a bunch of casual fans learning some ridiculous 1980's version of the game that no longer applies because 9/10 MLB teams employ these 60 year old former players who just show up to the ballpark every day and shoot the s***. I don't understand why there isn't a movement to transition a new wave of younger broadcasters into the league.

He has starter stuff but there is concerns regarding delivery/injury history which is why most project him as a reliever.

Todd on suicide watch.

Good young player...you mean a corner outfielder with average speed and forgettable power, who can't play CF? So a guy who has no real place here, and is a 4th outfielder type anyway? Really?

Its 92 with sink, and he's hit higher than that as well....again from the left side. That isn't my grade, its what Kiley McDaniel wrote just last year. The scouting grades on him have been pretty consistent across all platforms: above average FB that may not be there yet, and a plus changeup. Again, I'm not sure what fringe 5th starters you guys are watching, but a LHP who features two above average pitches with at least average MLB command is pretty safely out of that "category" from a simple upside analysis.

55 future FB, 60 CH, throws from the left side with at least average command. Those are from actual scouting reports. "Average to below average" stuff on what planet, exactly? Mark Buehrle threw 85-87 for most of his career, Borucki has hit 94/95 and safely sits in the low 90's. I'm not making any comparisons; my stance here is pretty simple: a LHP with two above average pitches by definition has a higher ceiling than whatever the hell you want to quantify a "fringy 5th starter" as. His changeup has the upside to be among the top-percentile in the majors, hence why they literally wrote an article about it on Fangraphs. Again, simple question: do you seriously believe that a "fringy 5th starter" is going to possess a league-defining pitch? The answer is pretty obviously no.

No, I find the discussion that you guys clearly don't know what a "fringy 5th starter" is silly. Mark Buehrle had multiple entire seasons worth of performance that were as "unimpressive" if not moreso from a rates-standpoint, and he obviously wasn't a "fringy 5th starter". A fringy 5th starter by definition has no redeeming qualities, hence the title. I don't care what Borucki's rates are over 70 IP sample sizes; his arm is clearly superior to that of a "fringy 5th starter", he throws from the left side, and he keeps the ball in the strike zone.

His sample sizes are all tiny across ALL levels because of his injury history. That AAA sample was 77 IP over 13 starts. The year before that he was 8.16 K/9 and 1.55 BB/9 in AA (yes, I'm aware that it was at a lower level). The actual scouting looks on him have always been better than his small sample sizes indicate. As in: his overall stuff is above average, and he knows how to throw strikes.

So...just like Buehrle throughout his entire career LOL? I'm just finding this whole argument silly. He did what Buehrle did for virtually his entire career last year, but, "he cant be Buehrle"? His 97 IP sample is pointless to conclude anything on either way; but lets not kid ourselves here: the main difference between the two is that Borucki throws 5+ MPH harder and therefore should have much more leeway to get away with sub-optimal rates than Buehrle had, so its obviously entirely attainable. I'm just looking at this from a pure face-value approach: a LHP with above average velocity, an above average to plus secondary pitch, and good pitchability OBVIOUSLY has a much higher ceiling than "fringy 5th starter". Like, not even close.

Okay, you also seem to be extremely low on projecting a 4.5 to 5 ERA on a LHP with obviously above average stuff who also throws strikes. He was just at 92 mph average FB velocity last year and his changeup is a plus pitch. His HR/FB rate might not be sustainable, but why would you be so sure that his 6.17 K/9 and 3.04 BB/9 are true indicators of talent either? That walk rate is kinda high for a kid who threw strikes all throughout the minors, and his raw stuff is MUCH better than a ~6 K/9 would indicate.

He posted 1.7 WAR in 97.2 innings. Does that mean that he's a 4 WAR pitcher over 200+ innings? No, but I'm not sure what your argument is because I'd love to see what your definition of a "fringy" 5th starter is. Borucki's 3.80 FIP last year is better than Buehrle's career FIP.

That doesn't mean that they don't plan to use all of their money, which they will. They seem to alternate between using most of their money on one "big" signing and spreading it out between several high six-figure/low-seven figure signings.

This. He's a complete fake. Its obvious that he's trying to emulate someone like Michael Jordan. The problem is that athletes of that nature aren't putting on a front - their aura/projection is a result of their actions and is thus natural because it is validated by OTHERS. Stroman is like the guy who reads Jordan's autobiography and then thinks he can just "become" that persona if he talks enough. Michael Jordan wasn't a badass because he made sure to tell everyone every day that he was a badass.

Your lack of vision is comical. No prospect is "useless". Prospects are currency, which means that they don't need to actually even play for your major league team to provide some level of utility. We traded Dawel Lugo for Cliff Pennington, and then the Diamondbacks were able to move Lugo for half a season of freaking JD Martinez in a contending year. Was Dawel Lugo ever a top prospect? Absolutely not, he was a middle infielder with some intriguing (maybe) tools...kind of like the kid we just picked up. Here's the part you're missing: maybe Brito's power surge shows up even more next season, in which case even if he's a complete fluke he can be used as a piece in a potential trade elsewhere. Small deals like that over time build an MLB team. JB Woodman was a useless prospect who we were able to pawn off onto the Cardinals for a half decent MLB shortstop. Your stance is nonsensical because whatever value that Martin provides is completely irrelevant to a team in OUR position. I'm playing up your "mentorship" angle because that is literally the only semi-valid argument that you can make for why we should have considered keeping him. His 1-2 WAR does absolutely nothing to shift our team in either direction. His "versatility"? Why the hell does a team that has no chance of competing need a 36 year old who can double as a crappy third baseman? Again, this "value" is pointless on OUR team. The prospects, even if they turn out to be total duds, on the other hand ARE useful because we are in a point wherein we need to be hoarding as many prospects as possible. These minor prospects can be used in the future to make minor deals that can patch up a potentially competitive roster.

Dana Brown was here in a scouting-oriented role. He is apparently very well regarded as a scout. I hadn't heard anything about him "pushing" for MLB trades to be made.

Your stance is nonsensical. There is no quantifiable value to Martin "mentoring" anyone LMAO. Even if you want to play that game, you can have your choice of any number of scrub "veteran" catchers to play that role for the cost of next to nothing. Does anyone even have any proof that Martin possesses some magical "mentoring" quality that no one else does? Other than him being a likable Canadian lmao? Guys like Brito and Sopko ARE probably nothing, but you need to understand that the entire "ceiling" guesstimate in baseball has more or less been proven to be pseudoscience. Jose Ramirez was a 45-50 ceiling prospect until he suddenly became an 80 grade player...whoops. Its a best guess, which means that you can never have too many guys to roll the dice on. In this case we traded a player we had little to no use for, saved a bit of money, and picked up two prospects (one of which whom is at least kind of intriguing). That is a no-brainer trade, it had nothing to do with "optics" lmao.

Eddy Almaguer from Prospects Live just wrote today that Brito would have ranked #17 on his Dodger's Top 30 list. He also kind of took a s*** on his bat, but the point remains that Brito is a lot more intriguing than a guy like Abbadessa. I'm not going to pretend like I know how well the Dodger's system compares across the MLB, but a guy ranking in from 17-23 (or whatever MLB Pipeline had him) with supposed defense at a premium position is a pretty solid get for a 36 year old that we had zero use for.

You are underrating Merryweather and Thornton significantly. Those guys have much better stuff than Sopko. Both throw harder and both have more legitimate secondary pitches. Thornton was posting well above-average spin rates on his curveball in the AFL for example. Sopko is more of an "average across the board" type.

No, his line drive rate plummeted, his ground ball rate rose, and his IFFB% skyrocketed. His BABIP was s*** because he in fact hit like s***, not because he was rocketing balls right at defenders all season long. Even if you want to play your assumption that he'll go back to "normal" at age 36 after years of beating on his body, then he is what? A ~1.7-1.8 WAR player next year? That's not useless, but by holding onto him until the deadline you are eating half of that production yourself. Then you're back to the reality: no one is giving you anything more than we got for ~0.8-0.9 WAR of Russell Martin, and that is being optimistic. A player like Martin only declines in value, he's not going to do anything in half a season to convince anyone that they need to give up a legitimate prospect to get him. Not in today's MLB where no one wants to part with prospects.