Attachment to prospects

[primecougar]

I follow the jays but I'm not a die hard fan like most guys here. I read the board a lot and it seems that most guys here are pretty pissed about the recent trades and I was wondering why?

We traded for some really good players and we only gave up prospects. The prospects we gave prolly don't even have a 1% chance of becoming the players they were traded for.

I understand the point that some are making that it's too late in the seasons to sell the future and go for it but hypothetically if we miss the playoffs and the wildcard why can't we trade Bautista and Edwin and some of the other older guys for prospects and restock the farm?

[Lunchpailhero1]

Ya exactly. I will take proven players over prospects any day of the week. Rentals are a bit of a different story but sometimes you have to gamble

[Schad]

I follow the jays but I'm not a die hard fan like most guys here. I read the board a lot and it seems that most guys here are pretty pissed about the recent trades and I was wondering why?

We traded for some really good players and we only gave up prospects. The prospects we gave prolly don't even have a 1% chance of becoming the players they were traded for.

Because the economics of the game are such that no team can remain competitive for long without a good base of cost-controlled younger players providing good production. That includes the Yankees; despite having all the money in the world, they took a big step back in the preceding two seasons because they were old, and even $200m doesn't go that far if it's being spent on 30-something free agents. Both the Yankees and Dodgers refused to trade their top-end prospects this deadline because having those guys producing in a couple years would mean even more money to spend on other aspects of the team.

I understand the point that some are making that it's too late in the seasons to sell the future and go for it but hypothetically if we miss the playoffs and the wildcard why can't we trade Bautista and Edwin and some of the other older guys for prospects and restock the farm?

We can restock the farm a bit, sure. The return for Bautista and Encarnacion wouldn't even begin to replace what we've given up though. We'd have to fully detonate the team for that.

[satyr9]

It's only hard for me to get over my attachments, 'cause I hate taking out all those stitches.

[North_of_Border]

We gave up better prospects in the Marlins/Mets trades than this. Yet, looking back years from now, from all those prospects, the only guy we will regret trading is Syndergaard. Thats it. All others are either busts or replaceable, nothing special.

As in these trades, I think the only guy that "might" make us regret it is, Jeff Hoffman. Though, I dont think he is good as Syndergaard, plus he has Tommy John history now. As long as Tulo is a long term producer though, Hoffman's development will hurt less. We got a superstar in return..... though chances of him being another Sydergaard are, obviously low, like a lottery ticket.

[dagger]

It's not so much that we are attached to prospects as to the critical mass of good prospects that might well have started the Blue Jays down a path of sustainable success. The option chosen this week by the current management is to put all the chips on one number. At the cost of 11 pitching prospects, at least half of whom have a good to very good chance of making it to the majors in the next two years, we took a flyer on a two month rental and took on a shortstop who, though one of the best, comes at the end of the best/cheapest years of his contract, meaning we'll be paying him huge money during his inevitable decline. The sustainable option would have seen us begin retooling while bringing in guys capable of starting to build an above average starting pitching and bullpen at minimal financial cost.

The emphasis on prospects took into consideration the financial principles under which our ownership operates the ball time, and why it is unlikely to splurge or allow surge spending, even if the current attempt to compete for a playoff spot were to boost attendance.

[Lukeem]

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/1/8/105838/2139

Take a look at that list of our top prospects from seven years ago ago, take the best eleven ( with hindsight ) and tell me you wouldnt trade them for the players we've gotten over the past year ( price only real rental) and a chance at doing something this year and potentially beyond.

AA still kept many young controllable peices that make a major run over the next several years sustainable ( Pompey, Alford, stroman, Sanchez, osuana, Reid...)

[Schad]

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/1/8/105838/2139

Take a look at that list of our top prospects from seven years ago ago, take the best eleven ( with hindsight ) and tell me you wouldnt trade them for the players we've gotten over the past year ( price only real rental) and a chance at doing something this year and potentially beyond.

AA still kept many young controllable peices that make a major run over the next several years sustainable ( Pompey, Alford, stroman, Sanchez, osuana, Reid...)

The list from seven years ago is a list of JP Ricciardi's prospects. The fact that he was a miserably bad drafter is well known, and renders moot any comparison to the players we actually traded...our farm system was utterly horrific. There are just three players there that Sickels rated above C-level; by comparison, there were eleven such ratings for the 2015 edition, and that was after trading a couple away.

Use a different year, get a much different result. Take 2012...the best eleven listed would be something like D'Arnaud, Syndergaard, Hutchison, Osuna, Gose, Marisnick, Sanchez, Hechevarria, DeSclafani, Wojciechowski, and one's preference of Musgrove/Nicolino/Nolin/Perez occupying the final spot (or Yan Gomes, who was in the system but didn't make the cut).

[Lukeem]

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/1/8/105838/2139

Take a look at that list of our top prospects from seven years ago ago, take the best eleven ( with hindsight ) and tell me you wouldnt trade them for the players we've gotten over the past year ( price only real rental) and a chance at doing something this year and potentially beyond.

AA still kept many young controllable peices that make a major run over the next several years sustainable ( Pompey, Alford, stroman, Sanchez, osuana, Reid...)

The list from seven years ago is a list of JP Ricciardi's prospects. The fact that he was a miserably bad drafter is well known, and renders moot any comparison to the players we actually traded...our farm system was utterly horrific. There are just three players there that Sickels rated above C-level; by comparison, there were eleven such ratings for the 2015 edition, and that was after trading a couple away.

Use a different year, get a much different result. Take 2012...the best eleven listed would be something like D'Arnaud, Syndergaard, Hutchison, Osuna, Gose, Marisnick, Sanchez, Hechevarria, DeSclafani, Wojciechowski, and one's preference of Musgrove/Nicolino/Nolin/Perez occupying the final spot (or Yan Gomes, who was in the system but didn't make the cut).

Problem with looking at the 2012 list is they are all still prospects and while syndergaard looks good right now, its been less than a year of success. Most of the other players have yet to produce more than middling vets that can be picked up on cheap contracts.

Also a big reminder AA did not give up the top 11 prospects he gave up 11 prospects ( some of them deep relivers with little upside )

[Schad]

Problem with looking at the 2012 list is they are all still prospects

The first nine named prospects aren't just 'still prospects' at this point; they have all spent a decent amount of time in the bigs, and have combined to post 15.6 fWAR. Put another way: as a group, they have produced over $100m in value at the current free agent $/fWAR rate, and have exceeded the career wins above replacement of RA Dickey.

[Lukeem]

Problem with looking at the 2012 list is they are all still prospects

The first nine named prospects aren't just 'still prospects' at this point; they have all spent a decent amount of time in the bigs, and have combined to post 15.6 fWAR. Put another way: as a group, they have produced over $100m in value at the current free agent $/fWAR rate, and have exceeded the career wins above replacement of RA Dickey.

How does that compare to a season of Donaldson and tulo?

And again AA did not come close to trading the top 7 either. He kept his favourites, not all im sure but definitely some ( hence why he has so many deals in play and told Alford he was safe)

[Schad]

How does that compare to a season of Donaldson and tulo?

Best combined season of Donaldson/Tulo was 2013, clocking in at 12.9 fWAR.

[Sifu]

Problem with looking at the 2012 list is they are all still prospects and while syndergaard looks good right now, its been less than a year of success. Most of the other players have yet to produce more than middling vets that can be picked up on cheap contracts.

Also a big reminder AA did not give up the top 11 prospects he gave up 11 prospects ( some of them deep relivers with little upside )

Problem is you're arbitrarily where picking a historical year and painting an entire generic narrative on that. The narrative being prospects bad, mlb players good.

Using that logic, you would trade a prospect Trout or Stanton away for rentals. Hey I'll give you Trout and Garrett from the minors in return for two months of Price!

Prospects pan out. They become all stars and hall of fame players.

A better analysis would be to take the top 200 prospects each year for the past 15 years and plot prospect ranking vs success.

[dagger]

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/1/8/105838/2139

Take a look at that list of our top prospects from seven years ago ago, take the best eleven ( with hindsight ) and tell me you wouldnt trade them for the players we've gotten over the past year ( price only real rental) and a chance at doing something this year and potentially beyond.

AA still kept many young controllable peices that make a major run over the next several years sustainable ( Pompey, Alford, stroman, Sanchez, osuana, Reid...)

The list from seven years ago is a list of JP Ricciardi's prospects. The fact that he was a miserably bad drafter is well known, and renders moot any comparison to the players we actually traded...our farm system was utterly horrific. There are just three players there that Sickels rated above C-level; by comparison, there were eleven such ratings for the 2015 edition, and that was after trading a couple away.

Use a different year, get a much different result. Take 2012...the best eleven listed would be something like D'Arnaud, Syndergaard, Hutchison, Osuna, Gose, Marisnick, Sanchez, Hechevarria, DeSclafani, Wojciechowski, and one's preference of Musgrove/Nicolino/Nolin/Perez occupying the final spot (or Yan Gomes, who was in the system but didn't make the cut).

Problem with looking at the 2012 list is they are all still prospects and while syndergaard looks good right now, its been less than a year of success. Most of the other players have yet to produce more than middling vets that can be picked up on cheap contracts.

Also a big reminder AA did not give up the top 11 prospects he gave up 11 prospects ( some of them deep relivers with little upside )

Not all 11 are top prospect, and some will never make it to the majors, but a handful of the best will. If you are a good drafter, and make this trading for vets to try to remain relevant a core strategy, over time you will trade off the equivalent of a very good team that could be sustained over time even with a middling payroll. If you make three or four trades like we saw this week, at least one player in each is likely to make it as a starter or other front line player. And as each would be cheap, you have to think of the opportunity cost lost - money on a Syndergaard is minimal, money on an equivalent veteran is monumental. You not only surrender talent, you surrender financial flexibility. You handcuff yourself. If we had different ownership, I might think differently, but this owner has shown it operates within strict financial parameters, and team performance has had little if any influence on is budgeting for the Jays.

[Lukeem]

How does that compare to a season of Donaldson and tulo?

Best combined season of Donaldson/Tulo was 2013, clocking in at 12.9 fWAR.

So comparing the top 7 (again we didnt lose our top 7) to just two of the players that we got and will still have moving forward Throw in having David price for a chance at a playoff run + others and I'm happy. I know theres a big gamble but with the Jays core getting older I think the bigger gamble is being passive.



Throw in the fact that we have a chance

[Lukeem]

Problem with looking at the 2012 list is they are all still prospects and while syndergaard looks good right now, its been less than a year of success. Most of the other players have yet to produce more than middling vets that can be picked up on cheap contracts.

Also a big reminder AA did not give up the top 11 prospects he gave up 11 prospects ( some of them deep relivers with little upside )

Problem is you're arbitrarily where picking a historical year and painting an entire generic narrative on that. The narrative being prospects bad, mlb players good.

Using that logic, you would trade a prospect Trout or Stanton away for rentals. Hey I'll give you Trout and Garrett from the minors in return for two months of Price!

Prospects pan out. They become all stars and hall of fame players.

A better analysis would be to take the top 200 prospects each year for the past 15 years and plot prospect ranking vs success.

Some pan out some dont.

Comparing our prospects to trout is ridiculous. Weve traded some of our top prospects and kept some of our top prospects.

Players like trout were THE top Prospect in baseball not just the respective teams

[Lukeem]

Problem with looking at the 2012 list is they are all still prospects and while syndergaard looks good right now, its been less than a year of success. Most of the other players have yet to produce more than middling vets that can be picked up on cheap contracts.

Also a big reminder AA did not give up the top 11 prospects he gave up 11 prospects ( some of them deep relivers with little upside )

Problem is you're arbitrarily where picking a historical year and painting an entire generic narrative on that. The narrative being prospects bad, mlb players good.

Using that logic, you would trade a prospect Trout or Stanton away for rentals. Hey I'll give you Trout and Garrett from the minors in return for two months of Price!

Prospects pan out. They become all stars and hall of fame players.

A better analysis would be to take the top 200 prospects each year for the past 15 years and plot prospect ranking vs success.

I picked a year far enough away that wet can somewhat tell where the players are at

You want to do that analysis go right ahead

[Schad]

So comparing the top 7 (again we didnt lose our top 7) to just two of the players that we got and will still have moving forward Throw in having David price for a chance at a playoff run + others and I'm happy. I know theres a big gamble but with the Jays core getting older I think the bigger gamble is being passive.



Throw in the fact that we have a chance

Okay, but now we're veering down a much different path. You posted our farm system from a time when our draft/development was a leaguewide laughingstock; I pointed out that it wasn't a representative sample. You stated that they were just prospects; I pointed out that said prospects are already producing a fair amount of value at the major league level. Yeah, Tulo and Donaldson are better players, there's no doubt about it. But part of the reason the core is so old is that we shipped out so many of those prospects previously, which is also a contributing factor to our struggles to maintain any sort of depth...even with all of our top-end talent, we're one injury to a starter away from having a major problem on our hands.

[Lukeem]

So comparing the top 7 (again we didnt lose our top 7) to just two of the players that we got and will still have moving forward Throw in having David price for a chance at a playoff run + others and I'm happy. I know theres a big gamble but with the Jays core getting older I think the bigger gamble is being passive.



Throw in the fact that we have a chance

Okay, but now we're veering down a much different path. You posted our farm system from a time when our draft/development was a leaguewide laughingstock; I pointed out that it wasn't a representative sample. You stated that they were just prospects; I pointed out that said prospects are already producing a fair amount of value at the major league level. Yeah, Tulo and Donaldson are better players, there's no doubt about it. But part of the reason the core is so old is that we shipped out so many of those prospects previously, which is also a contributing factor to our struggles to maintain any sort of depth...even with all of our top-end talent, we're one injury to a starter away from having a major problem on our hands.

I picked a prospect group that we can see their value over the past 7 years ( most of their control years)

I like that the Jays are not just waiting and seeing it might end up they give away a future super star, it also might end up they kept the biggest stars and gave themselves a chance to win it all over the next couple of years.

Lets wait and see, id rather enjoy the next couple years with hope as opposed to pining over what could of been 5 years from now if they didnt trade away so and so

[Schad]

I picked a prospect group that we can see their value over the past 7 years ( most of their control years)

I like that the Jays are not just waiting and seeing it might end up they give away a future super star, it also might end up they kept the biggest stars and gave themselves a chance to win it all over the next couple of years.

Lets wait and see, id rather enjoy the next couple years with hope as opposed to pining over what could of been 5 years from now if they didnt trade away so and so

Again, still missing the point of those advocating building through the far system. It's not just about future superstars: baseball isn't basketball, where having a handful of elite players means that you can fill the remainder of the roster with dregs. There's a tonne of value in having a clutch of league-average players making pennies a year, because league-average players are very expensive. Getting them cheap makes it far easier to afford to have both elite players and a complete roster.