ESPN's Keith Law puts the Braves farm system in an unfavorable light (or at least, not as favorable as Braves fans are used to) as he ranks it 16th in his latest farm system rankings. Here is what he had to say about the Atlanta system:
They have reaped as little from the draft the past two years as anyone, taking low-ceiling college guys with early picks, staying at or under MLB's bonus recommendations and having less luck on the international market. It's telling that the major question on every position-player prospect in their top 10 is whether he'll hit.
It's true they've been spending less on the draft and on international free agents compared to other clubs, but they've used that strategy to draft and sign a lot of mid-level talent, creating a great deal of depth in the system. This was their stated strategy for the last two drafts. Compare the Braves system to the Pirates system. Pittsburgh has had years of drafting high picks and handing out big bonuses and signing international free agents to big money. Law ranks the Pirates eighth in his rankings.
To better compare the two systems, let's look at how another prospect evaluator ranks systems and players. John Sickels ranked the Braves eighth in his 2012 organizational rankings, while the Pirates come in 12th. When one looks at the way Sickels evaluates players, by assigning letter grades, one can see the differences in the two systems. The Braves had A or B quality prospects through their top-16, while the Pirates had A or B quality prospects through their top-8. This shows the Atlanta system's depth.
While the Pirates need all of their top guys to pan out, the Braves have the depth to allow for some of them to be busts (which every system will ultimately have). One also has to believe that the Braves will get more out of Teheran, Vizcaino, and Delgado than the Pirates will get out of Cole and Taillon.
It's almost like Law is looking ahead to the 2013 rankings, which will likely not be as good for the Braves. A lot will depend on how the Braves hitting prospects fare this year -- there is a lot of boom or bust in some of those guys -- but the Atlanta system will likely look a lot weaker once Teheran, Vizcaino, and Delgado all graduate to the Majors this season.
Evaluation of this sort is not a perfect science, but it does seem that Law is not giving the Atlanta system its fair due, focusing too much on whether hitters will hit, and ignoring all the pitching.
0 recs | 207 comments
Law is not someone I think too highly of
He’s good at what he does in terms of being a good writer, being witty, and mildly funny with his trademark snark (and I hear he’s a good guy in person). As far as prospect evaluation goes, he seems to be even more hit and miss than most other sources out there. His reports on players just contradict the the other sources out there (in terms of tool and skill evaluations) too much for my tastes. Seems to go with his guy a lot and ignore any data that disputes his initial assessment. Still the only person I’ve seen call Teheran’s curve below average and complain about the lack of progress he’s made with it over the past 2 seasons.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Nope
You haven’t read enough scouts then. His breaking ball flashes above average potential but it is incredibly inconsistent.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
It flashes plus or better, and is consistently average to above-average
Try to find scouting reports from someone other than Law that terms as anything but average or above average. If scouts really thought it was a currently below average pitch, Teheran wouldn’t rank nearly as high on scout based lists like Mayo’s or Baseball America’s.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Well....
Is it that crazy to say Shelby Miller, Matt Moore, Carlos Martinez, Gerrit Cole, etc. are better pitching prospects? I’m actually surprised at people who think Teheran is the best RHP prospect in the sport. He’s good, but have you actually seen his curveball?
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
I’ve seen his curveball a lot. I love it. I did see one night where he couldn’t get it to break and it ended up being one of his worst outings all year.
I didn’t see all of his starts this year, only 4 or 5, but still, he couldn’t have had the season he had at his age if his curveball wasn’t plus and relatively consistent.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
Not crazy on Miller and Moore, but pretty darn crazy on Martinez and Cole
Have you actually seen his curveball? Because you’re the one disagreeing with the consensus grading on it. And despite the fact that you claimed I would know it was below average if I read more scouting reports, I haven’t see you quote any of these scouting reports. The only people I’ve seen say that are Law and Project Prospect (in a dated report, they now say it will be above average).
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
The low-ish amount of strikeouts Teheran had at triple-A is at least somewhat concerning. He was young for the league and he can obviously improve, but it’s scary that he struck out under eight batters per nine at that level.
BenDuronio - February 8, 2012
I’ve never really thought of him as a strikeout pitcher though. He’s always been a guy who’s comfortable letting the other team put the ball in play and letting his defense work. I’m sure that scares some people, but to me something like that is a sign of a mentally advanced pitcher, and guys like that tend to be more successful.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
And his walk rate is great, which means he will probably be successful as a MLB starter even with a K/9 rate around 6.5-7, but to me that makes it less likely that he becomes an ace and more likely that he becomes a 1 or 2. Not that becoming either of those are bad, just tempers my expectations of him being a perennial Cy Young candidate that some seem to expect. I can picture Moore being that type of guy more so than Teheran.
BenDuronio - February 8, 2012
Ks are facist
and if he has great control, there’s been legit aces with K rates that low. Hudson for one. Maddux for another.
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
Command, not control
It may be nitpicking, but control is just the ability to throw strikes, while command is the ability to throw quality pitches to the exact location you want. Teheran already has great control, it’s how his command develops that will determine just how good he can be. You are correct though in realizing that great command of above average stuff is better than mediocre command of great stuff.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
It's not nitpicking, it's semantics
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
Not really semantics
That’s the accepted usage of the two words in baseball. The ability to throw strikes is not the same as the ability to consistently hit your spots, thus you need two different words to describe them.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
"that's the accepted usage of the two words in baseball"
congratulations, you hit the definition of the word semantics.
Agreed there is a difference between simply “throwing strikes” and “hitting your spots”. I figured my examples of Hudson and Maddux showed which one of those two I invoking to say Teheran could be a legit ace even if his K rate never reaches 8 per 9 innings.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
I figured you'd rather use the words correctly
Instead of having to use examples.
And what does explaining the accepted usage of words have to do with the study of word meaning? It doesn’t have to do with study or arguing about what they mean. They have accepted definitions in baseball.
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
thanks for being an argumentative prick
and usage = meaning. But I’m glad you could be a prick over the semantics of baseball’s widely accepted definitions for control and command when the point conveyed was pretty obvious.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
I'm being the argumentative prick?
This from the guy resorting to personal insults that decided to being up the whole semantics thing in the first place…I think we can both agree that this is now an argument about semantics. On that not I’m out.
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
It was semantics in the first place
you’re the one who said it’s “Not really semantics” as the title on a comment that described it being semantics.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
Why are you continuing an argument about the semantics of the word semantic
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
Just curious why you say it's "not really semantics"
and then give a comment saying exactly that.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
I feel like semantics involves actual disagreement
No one, except apparently you, disagrees with the uses of command and control.
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
And I say that where? Considering this, that’s pretty much full of it.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
BTW how does it not fit the definition of nitpicking
Since, you know, you said it was not nitpicking, it was semantics
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
See the definition of semantics linked above
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
Google the definition of nitpicking
This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever had
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
This argument is an example of everything wrong with the internet.
cbwilk - February 10, 2012
Since you asked
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nit-picking
I was trying to give you credit. It wasn’t unjustified criticism, it was a valid point that I used the wrong word there. Aka semantics. That’s why I made what you call a “personal insult”.
Mr. Sanchez - February 10, 2012
Dumbest argument ever
Its over man, just stop…
And you called me an argumentative prick?
nixa37 - February 10, 2012
you aren't exactly proving me incorrect with that statement
Mr. Sanchez - February 10, 2012
You’re right, there have been. It’s just less likely, and all three of the aforementioned are all very different types of pitchers. And I love Hudson and think he’s a great pitcher, but I don’t believe he would qualify as an “ace.” The term loosely, at least to me and others I’ve heard also say this, would denote top-15 pitcher in the league, with No. 1 starters being the next 15, and number 2 starters being the 30 following, etc…
There have been times and seasons where Hudson has been at that level, but he was more of a number one starter for most of his career.
BenDuronio - February 8, 2012
just wow. Hudson for most of his career has been close enough to ace to not quibble.
fandave - February 8, 2012
I guess he may have been at that level in Oakland from ‘01-’04, but he’s not been quite at that level in Atlanta. He’s been really, really good for most of the years, but he only really had the one elite season.
BenDuronio - February 8, 2012
This.
fandave - February 8, 2012
Moore is also two years older. I think it’s going to be interesting to see where Teheran is when he’s Moore’s age now. But all good points.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
Not sure why you would find that scary
Let’s keep things in perspective here. There have been something like 210 innings thrown by pitchers during their age 20 season in the International League since 2006. Over 140 (so roughly 2/3) of those were by Teheran and he did it while posting the lowest ERA iand the second lowest FIP among qualified pitchers (3rd and 4th among guys with 70+ IP).
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
It just is not a good sign. Is it an awful sign, one that means he is destined to be much worse than scouts expect? No, not at all. It just is not a good one, and one that at least deserves some observation this season.
BenDuronio - February 8, 2012
You're the one that said you found it scary
I don’t know, to me that implies that its a bad sign. I just thinking you’re missing the forest for the trees. He dominated the International League while throwing roughly twice as many innings there as every other 20 year old the past 6 seasons combined. Meanwhile, you’re focusing on a K rate that was still quite good and choosing to worry. Perhaps neither he nor the Braves were worried about how many guys he could strikeout this season, but were instead focused on improving the things that need work in order for him to make the majors.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
By the way
John Sickels is a joke. He is someone NO ONE in the industry thinks highly of. Terrible to bring him up.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
I think you’re completely wrong here. I see all sorts of people talk about Sickels in Fangraphs articles, BTF, and other sites. Rarely does anyone cast him in a negative light.
-C
cthabeerman - February 8, 2012
Did I mention Sickels?
I mean I completely disagree with you anyway, and I’m wondering who these insiders you’ve talked to about him are, but why did you respond to my post with this?
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Wrong.
Scott Coleman - February 8, 2012
Wow
Dude you are so wrong here!
Jay212033 - February 8, 2012
NOPE
Timothy Shu - February 8, 2012
ummmm
you’re an idiot if you think Sickels is a joke.
care to prove that, or are you talking out of your ass?
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
I think it’s better than 16 with those 3 still as prospects (all these systems with lots of A-ball talent would kill to know that 3 of those guys would turn out as good as our 3), but after they lose eligibility as prospects this year the system it might be bottom 10.
I’d rather have a ton of really young talent in the majors than a ton of talent in the minors, but you’d still love to know that there is more star potential in the minors and I don’t think there really is much after those 3.
We have lots of guys who have a legit shot to make it and contribute, and that is great, but I wouldn’t disagree with saying we are thin on high ceiling guys in our lower system.
The Goche - February 8, 2012
But it is also fair to say that Law really really values high ceiling guys and doesn’t seem as interested in the guys who are very likely to be solid, but not very likely to be great.
The Goche - February 8, 2012
Ranking the Padres #1 seems to contradict that
As he mentions, they don’t even have a single top 25 prospect
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Yes
Exactly. And everyone should value upside and high ceiling over depth. Depth gets you mediocre major league rosters.
I’m a big believer that you win with stars in baseball and sports overall. Not depth.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
Right
because the Cardinals last year had no depth. They won with a star studded pitching staff of aces.
jman07 - February 8, 2012
One instance does not make it evergreen
Ridiculous notion by yourself, jman.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
I'm sorry but yours is ridiculous as well
How have the Yankees fared of late? One or two superstars and nobody else doesn’t make a team either. You have to have depth over the course of a 162 game season.
How about the Giants? They were a star studded group as well. Need I go on?
jman07 - February 8, 2012
Giants didn’t really have any stars the year before. They were rotating in and out a lot of depth.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
Look at the Rays even. Tons of teams go with that type of strategy. Flexibility by having a roster of good players who can move around or do different things has a lot of value.
BenDuronio - February 8, 2012
Frankly over the grind of a season you need guys to be flexible, in the field and in the lineup. And if you can spend the same amount of money on two or three players instead of one because they’re not stars, it’s a better plan all around.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
All I got to say is this system has put out Heyward, Freeman, Venters, Kimbrel, Beachy, and Minor in the past two years, and I’m probably forgetting somebody. We’re about to put out three more high ceiling players in Teheran, Vizcaino, and Delgado.
If we still rank in the top echelon of farm systems after that, I say we are cheating.
bwellnjonesco - February 8, 2012
Not to mention that Saltamachia, Elvis Andrus, Matt Harrison, Neftali Feliz came out of our farm system a short 5 years ago… Saltamachia starts for Boston, Andrus an allstar shortstop starts for Texas, Matt Harrison and Neftali Feliz both start for Texas as well.
jdelsandro - February 8, 2012
Old wives’ tale…those guys were never part of this system.
bwellnjonesco - February 8, 2012
then by that measure, the Rays are cheating. Because they’ve produced just as many studs in the past few years as us and they’re still ranked as one of the best farms. Gotta be in awe of that.
HeyBattah - February 9, 2012
Law being wrong? Inconceivable!
Delmon Young is gradually turning into Dmitri Young, and Jeremy Hermida hit .319/.400/.524 in 2011… after being demoted AAA.
He can’t get ’em all right.
royhobbs - February 8, 2012
Let's not forget putting Freeman well down his list last year
Then claiming that Freeman’s performance this season somehow supported his contention that Freeman’s ceiling was the good Lyle Overbay, a level of performance that Freeman came just short of as a 21 year old.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
I might be mistaken
but I thought most of the experts were wrong on Young—and not just Law.
jhf884 - February 8, 2012
Pretty much everyone was
But as you can see he had someone even worse ranked higher
royhobbs - February 8, 2012
True,
but he wasn’t alone there either.
Law is a bit boom or bust, but I like him, b/c he is willing to take stronger stances on high upside guys than some of the more conservative prospect guys out there.
That said, I think Atlanta is underranked at 16 here.
jhf884 - February 8, 2012
You can call everyone out on that though. Delmon Young was almost certainly consensus number one that year
eaheckman10 - February 9, 2012
Look I don't care enough about prospect rankings to go much further
But if it’s not obvious, I’m one of those that doesn’t take KLaw’s opinions or rankings with any more importance than anyone else’s opinions or rankings, as many of his sheep do, and this easy-to-remember quote was just a reminder of how volatile prospect ranking and projecting really is.
It’s just funnier to me because KLaw though higher of Jeremy freaking Hermida than the so-called consensus number one.
royhobbs - February 9, 2012
Wasn't Mike Minor
a “low ceiling” college guy when he was drafted? I’ll take the Braves’ judgement over Law’s any day.
jman07 - February 8, 2012
And.....
Mike Minor is a #3 starter, which is pretty much what Law has always said and you should be shooting higher than that #7 overall. Law knows what he is talking about.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
Law has admitted he was wrong on Minor
He initially thought he’d struggle to consistently throw 90, while his average FB velocity is already 91. And getting a #3 starter out of the #7 overall pick is a win. That’s way better than the average #7 pick turns out.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Source?
Cammando2317 - February 8, 2012
Source on Law's quote?
You’re welcome to search through his chat transcripts from last year if you want, because that’s when it came up. I might get around to it later, but I’m not sure I really care that much either way.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
he didn’t say minor would be a #3 starter. He said he’d be a back of the rotation starter. law straight up values upside too much.
telemakhos - February 8, 2012
Minor
He is also the best first round pitcher from the 2009 draft not named Strasburg. How exactly was picking him #7 a bad decision?
Timothy Shu - February 8, 2012
Hate to argue that point because I like Minor, but
Drew Storen, Alex White, Aaron Crow all would outrank Minor, and some would rank Kyle Gibson higher even though he had a rough 2011. We drafted Minor that high because he was good and we knew we could afford to sign him.
rxadam - February 8, 2012
Add to that Jacob Turner as well
rxadam - February 8, 2012
We couldn't afford Turner
He’s not exactly proven either as his numbers in AA this year were less than impressive.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
I don't think any of those guys are clearly ahead
Storen is a pure RP that only went as high as he did because the pick was unprotected and the Nats were going to have to break the bank for Strasburg. White hasn’t exactly proven anything yet and he’s struggled horribly in the majors. Crow sucked as a SP in the minors and only succeeded in the majors as a RP. Gibson is undergoing TJS this offseason.
I wouldn’t trade Minor for one of those guys.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Looking at the entire draft, not too many of the top prospects came from 2009. Arrendo for the Rockies is about the only post 1st round prospect that I recognized.
rxadam - February 8, 2012
they NE
you seriously have what you’re talking about, do you?
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
wtf?
i must have been drunk.
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
That wasn’t just Law’s perception, that was everyone’s. At the time he was drafted, that was a fairly accurate description. His increased velocity has helped him move into a potential front line starter.
BenDuronio - February 8, 2012
I wouldn't say everyone
That’s basically what BA and Law said, but the rumors the day before the draft seemed to point to Minor being significantly higher on some MLB team’s boards. IIRC there were a couple teams in the top half of the first round interested in him. I honestly think the scouting reports they looked at were flawed. I believe they talked about Minor struggling to touch 90+ on the gun, but people I’ve talked to who saw him that year seem to be in agreement that he was already sitting in 89-91 range and touching 92+. The whole increased velocity thing has mostly disappeared at this point, as it came up when he was sitting 92-94 in the minors in 2010. He’s probably 1, maybe 2, MPH faster now than he was in college, but that alone isn’t enough to push a guy from a BOR starter to potential front line starter.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Since it seems like good fodder for this topic as well, ...
….I will repost this chart (click to read without squinting) that I used in the prospects ranking story from yesterday. You can pretty well see the busts, the successes, and the shocks (Beachy, Hanson). Beachy, for instance, was a 2010 AA All-star before he got noticed… then suddenly he was the Baseball Prospectus #10 prospect. Hanson was … what? a 22nd round pick or something?
Obviously, it would be a good idea to compare this Braves’ prospects chart to those of other teams. Then again, it would be nice to be paid to do this kind of speculation for a living! :D
carpengui - February 8, 2012
Hanson was a draft and follow and blew up over the course of the year the braves had his rights. The night before the draft, they signed him when he was expected to go considerably higher.
telemakhos - February 8, 2012
thanks – my lazy journalism caught up to me!
carpengui - February 8, 2012
Also, I’m pretty sure the Braves went well over slot to sign Hanson.
BravesFan - February 8, 2012
He ended up getting late first round, supplemental round type money.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
I will be perfectly content having a top 20 prospect system (even low teens) if that means we haev a rotation with 4 guys under 28, 2 more in the minors, a bullpen under 30), and 3-5 guys in our lineup under 25.
I love having prospects (gives us stuff to fight over), but having young cost controlled ML talent is infinitely better, graduating players is a good thing. Thats the problem with prospecting and not paying attention to the ML team. Thats why the Rangers are so damn scary they have people that are blocked at like 3-4 places in their system that are elite players and a bunch of high upside dudes in the low minors.
Swo12bv - February 8, 2012
Wow
This is ridiculous. I’ll take great Top 8 over “depth” as you say Gondee. The Braves have drafted poorly the last few years and it is showing up in this ranking. They have very little after the Top 3 pitchers and the Pirates have much more in terms of projectable bats like Robbie Grossman and Josh Bell.
I’ll take Taillon, Cole, Bell, Grossman, Marte over Teheran, Viz, Delgado, etc.
The Braves have done nothing the last 2-3 drafts and graduated a lot of players into the major league team, that’s why they are 16th out of 30 teams and they’ll be maybe 10 spots worse next year if they don’t have a strong 2012 draft.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
And they maybe higher if .....
A bulk of their top 20 prospects break out and have big years ! Alot of the Braves positional prospects are very young – I don’t think anybody can judge the 2010-11 drafts accurately at this point.
bravesfaninchitown - February 8, 2012
We do lack many future bats in the system...
But our pitching depth is pretty good.. not sure why they always draft soft throwing left handed pitchers in the first round every year, but Glavine, Maddux, and Neagle couldnt blow their pitches past anyone really.. instead they relied on location, location and location… Which didnt always help when the ump didnt give them their just do
jdelsandro - February 8, 2012
If you have pitching, you can trade for bats. At least that’s what I’ve heard.
ChillyMutt - February 9, 2012
Can being the key word
you still have to pull the trigger on trades, which Wren has been reluctant to do unless it was for a lesser thought of arm as we saw with Bourn.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
Defensive Fans
Everyone sounds pretty defensive over what Keith Law has to say. Keith Law is pretty good at what he does. He’s not always right. Evaluating prospects is a pretty inexact science. But at the end of day who cares what Kieth Law thinks.
I also think its absolutely useless to quibble over whether the system ranks #12 or #8 or whatever. What difference does it make? But I do think that these kinds of reports serve as a useful barometer on the overall health of the system.
The general points he makes are completely valid. When you’re trying to evaluate the overall health of the system recent grads like Freeman and Kimbrel are completely irrelevant. They aren’t part of the equation in any way.
At a cursory look the system looks healthy because the bluechip pitching prospects look so great. Those guys along with Bethancourt add up to 4 prospects in the top 100. That sounds really good. But a closer look shows that all those pitchers are all likely to be in Atlanta by July, and that after that the cupboard is pretty bare.
Teheran and Delgado were signed way back in 2007 and 2006. Heyward and Freeman were signed in 2007. Its a long pipeline. and its about to run dry. Its likely to remain dry for awhile.
Bobby Hill#1 - February 8, 2012
Simmons seems destined to make as many or more top 100s than Bethancourt
If you’re going to count Bethancourt as a top 100 prospect (he’s pretty borderline IMO), than you really should count Simmons as well.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
"Keith Law is pretty good at what he does"
Which is write about prospects and formerly work in a front office. Being great in a front office isn’t the same as being great at evaluating prospects. John Schuerholz wasn’t great at evaluating prospects, he was great at evaluating scouts. As Law has admitted himself, he’s not a professional talent evaluator.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
Yeah, I totally agree. Not really sure where there’s much evidence Law is pretty good at what he does. I think it would be more accurate to say that Keith Law does what he does.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
He's getting paid by ESPN to evaluate players
That makes him a professional.
Bobby Hill#1 - February 8, 2012
He gets paid by ESPN to write about players
Do you really think they give two craps if he is actually accurate in his evaluations? Of course not, they only care about the number of people who read his stuff and will pay for ESPN Insider in order to get it.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
This is accurate...
It’s Law’s job to take hard stances and stick with them, essentially. There’s a feeling among many fans, commenters, bloggers, etc., that Law is negative about “their team.” Guess what?? He’s negative about almost everything, every team.
Why?? Because when a prospect evaluator puts something in a poor light, the first thing commenters, bloggers, etc. do is go find his article, read it, and bitch about it.
Law’s not the first journalist to cast everything in a negative light in order to spark his amount of readers. ESPN pays him to get online hits. He does that well.
-C
cthabeerman - February 8, 2012
So in that sense I guess he is pretty good at his job. Not in the doing his actual job sense, but in the making ESPN money sense.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
That’s my feeling as well. ESPN found a writer that likes to be contrary, use back-handed compliments, etc., so that readers can pick something apart as negative, even if it’s a fairly positive evaluation.
Here’s the Rockies evaluation, for instance…
There’s just enough negative in the way the summary is worded to tweak Rockies’ fans nipples, even though he says outright that the organization’s young talent is probably underrated and he still gave them a pretty good ranking.
-C
cthabeerman - February 8, 2012
ESPN found a writer that likes to be contrary, use back-handed compliments, etc., so that readers can pick something apart as negative, even if it’s a fairly positive evaluation.
Bayless, Marrioti, etc, etc, etc. Seems we find their standard procedure.
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
It depends on what you deem "his job"
I’d take the second part, writing stories and driving hits/interest/money to ESPN’s website.
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
Well then it’s worth questioning the credibility of ESPN as a whole. If a writer’s job is to just drive hits to the site by any means necessary instead of actually reporting, then that’s a real problem.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
true, but that is what modern journalism has become too
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
I’d take the same stance on it I take on movies, just because a lot of people saw it doesn’t mean it’s good.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
And I'd agree with you
simply saying is all. ESPN is a business, in pursuit of money. Law helps them make money. Whether he’s right or wrong, his hardened, negative stance drives responses, which drives hits, which makes money.
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
They shouldn’t really call him a baseball writer then, maybe something like shit-talking controversy starter.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
that description would fit the vast majority of their baseball, football, basketball, etc writers
and countless of their TV talking heads.
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
Agreed. Thus, the petition for the name changes.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
This made me laugh. Does anyone consider most of the folks at ESPN credible journalists?
Fatvirus - February 9, 2012
No. Of course, I don’t consider most journalists of any kind credible.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
I think so
that’s why they get so many hits on their websites, eyes on their channels, etc. Some may not trust them, but I think the general public does feel they are credible journalists if only because it’s too many people’s only source of information.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
What does being a professional have to do with being pretty good? Julio Lugo is a professional baseball player but I think you’d have a hard time finding anyone around here who thinks he’s pretty good.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
Someone asked for a professional?
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
Is he...gliding?
buzzdeadwax - February 8, 2012
with flip flops?
drumzalicious - February 8, 2012
A professional writer and media personality, yes
a professional scout or baseball talent evaluater, no.
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
In the immortal words of Judge Dredd, “I AM THE LAW!”
GumpBrave - February 8, 2012
Law has an ugly girlfriend.
ChillyMutt - February 8, 2012
Need evidence
royhobbs - February 8, 2012
Moneyball.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
He’s still dating Jonah? I thought they broke up after ‘The Sitter’.
bwellnjonesco - February 8, 2012
Curious, since you might know some who know him
is Art Howe as big a dickhead as the movie made him out to be?
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
I’ve never met him. I could ask a few guys who probably have. I’m guessing through the prism they were looking at things pretty much anyone who wasn’t on board with the newfangled way of doing things would look like a dickhead. I’d guess if it had been Bobby Cox with a GM telling him how to set lineup we’d be thinking he came off like an a-hole too.
cbwilk - February 8, 2012
true enough with that last line
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
I enjoy Talking Chop, but the comments section here is so different from DOB’s. Gotta love it……..(sarcasm).
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
Funnily enough you seem perfect for the DOB comment section. I mean you have an opinion, that’s fine, and are not totally stupid, it’s just your tone. That confrontational, know-it-all kind of cockiness that turns to indignation and anger at the first sign of challenge.
Having scanned over the DOB comments out of morbid curiosity, the people here are in a totally different league. One opinion, or set of opinions, does not in any way resemble the knuckle-dragging, fecal throwing imbeciles over at DOB.
GumpBrave - February 8, 2012
Regulars
The regs there are pretty good. The in-gamers are awful.
Passionate opinions does not equal “know-it-all”.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
Last off-season I would occasionally visit DOB and the comments, but even during the off-season it seemed like it was trash. So much trash that it was difficult to sift through and find the intelligent regulars though I’m sure there are a few. Thankfully that ratio is generally reversed here.
GumpBrave - February 8, 2012
ha! well done.
fandave - February 8, 2012
Well then don’t comment. What do you want, an apology and for us to change the site to your preference?
Scott Coleman - February 8, 2012 via mobile
Don't get defensive
I didn’t mean it’s not a good blog. It is. Just very different from the comments section of O’Brien’s blog.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
"Gotta love it……..(sarcasm)."
What sort of response were you expecting when you ended with that?
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
It's a joke
Reeeeelax.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
Read: I used to be considered smart on DOB’s blog
The Big Yak - February 8, 2012
So is most here's opinion of the AJC comments sections
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
Last
/AJC’d
Mr. Sanchez - February 8, 2012
OGT
That really should be green.
bighop - February 8, 2012
?
if you talk smack about posting in a POST, doesn’t that make you a tool?
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
I couldn't agree more with Law.
The Braves have become cheap in the draft and with international signings, possibly because Wren was holding out for the new collective bargaining agreement. If any team will benefit from the new cap placed on draft pick bonuses it will be the Braves. Hopefully in the future the Braves will not shy away from signing top talent. Considering the Braves current TV deal, they will be a midpayroll team for decades. Getting the greatest value from the draft is the best way for them to remain competitive.
roberty - February 8, 2012
DeMacio
It went college heavy after Frank Wren hired him. 19 of the first 20 picks being college players is ridiculous. DeMacio wants cheap, signable, high floor players. Awful strategy.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
Maybe you should give it time before writing it off
We have little idea at this point exactly how all those players are going to pan out. I don’t love the strategy, but I’m willing to give it a chance since the people putting it in place have far more experience doing this than I do.
Besides, its not like the last time we spent big on a prospect (Salcedo) is looking like its working out great at this point either.
nixa37 - February 8, 2012
You said it yourself, we don't know how that'll work out yet
But maybe the one time the org decided to spend a boatload of money on a toolsy prospect, they shouldn’t gave gone for an 18 year old coming off a significant layoff. He might take a while to develop yet, if he does at all.
OrangeBravo - February 8, 2012 via iPhone app
The last high upside high-schooler we took hasn't really worked out well.
Bronn - February 8, 2012
If that's a reference to Lipka...
Maybe it’s because we took a guy BA had ranked 76th on their draft board 35th overall. Getting a HS player by making a massive reach for signability doesn’t exactly help with the issue of infusing talent to the farm. Acquiring talent in the draft, especially outside of the first round, is incredibly difficult to do without spending money.
OrangeBravo - February 8, 2012 via iPhone app
It’s too early to say Lipka hasn’t panned out.
The last High-upside we took were Heyward and Freeman.
Broccoman - February 8, 2012
You're forgetting 08
Our first two picks were Brett DeVall and Zeke Spruill, both of whom were upside gambles. DeVall was a total flop, but Spruill is looking up.
OrangeBravo - February 8, 2012 via iPhone app
Perhaps
But he’s a 20 year old whose offense hasn’t developed, and we’ve already had to move him to the outfield.
Bronn - February 8, 2012
Let’s be real … he is just turning 20 in April … was one of the youngest players in the SALLY this year – saw a graph where he was the 15th youngest in the league and was moved to the outfield because of the influx of shortstops we have in the system. Also, let’s not forget that he was a GCL All-Star and the GCL Braves POY in 2010.
That being said – he does need to work on his offensive skillset but to say he hasn’t worked out well is being a little aggressive to say the least.
bravesfaninchitown - February 8, 2012
He’s not even 20 yet! The dude just played his first full season and you’re writing him off? That’s really extreme.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
He was also an athlete, and expected to eventually move to the OF or at least off SS
he was a raw baseball player with tools (since he’d spend summers, etc playing football instead of focusing fully on the stick). Just because he struggled in his first full season, to say he “hasn’t developed” seems extremely reliant on a small sample size. He has plenty of time to improve with the bat. Seeing progress in the next two years as he slowly climbs the organizational team ladder will be key.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
we get it
you don’t like the strategy. but, does that mean it won’t work?
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
agree
to agree. The last few drafts we have been cheap and it has cost us. Even if several of the guys pan out and we look back and consider the drafts successful it will be the scouting department to thank, not the strategy. it has been clear that spending in the draft (and internationally) has been the most efficient way of acquiring talent, and somehow Wren missed the boat on that.
Rodrda01 - February 9, 2012
International
No problems on my end the way they have handled the international market. It’s more risky than the draft. But going college heavy has not just been criticized by Keith Law. Baseball America too. They ranked them #15 among 30 teams. Not sure why that isn’t getting more press here. But of course, the polarizing Keith Law says something and it’s grab your pitchforks and head to the castle gate.
NEBravesFan33 - February 8, 2012
Baseball America
Do you have a link for this year’s organization rankings?
Timothy Shu - February 8, 2012
prove to me where BA and Law are
considered “good” in prospect analysis in the industry?
until then, shut it.
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
Who doesn’t think BA is good?
eaheckman10 - February 9, 2012
They're not some bastion of success or anything
That’s not to say they’re bad at what they do, but they’re just the biggest name in the industry. Not too dissimilar to Mel Kiper’s situation a couple years ago before his competition picked up.
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
I'm really not sure what approach this organization is taking with the farm.
It seems like they aren’t spending money anywhere for amateur talent. BA noted they aren’t in the market for big-money LA bonus babies, which I suppose is fine, but they haven’t compensated in the draft. It’s not the end of the world to grab a Gilmartin in the first round, but they didn’t compensate with any upside later on. Its probably a moot point with the new CBA, but they could really use an infusion of upside in my opinion.
OrangeBravo - February 8, 2012 via iPhone app
he does make good points
we have 3 great pitchers (Teheran, Delgado, Vizcaino) After that its a group of really solid guys but no one with that real “wow” factor. Hitting wise there is definitely no hitting prospect that makes you say “wow”.
I wish the team would do just a swap of prospects. A couple of arms for a good bat.
drumzalicious - February 8, 2012
Think Joe Terdoslavich would disagree with you – the year he had in 2011, .286/.341/.526 with 20 HRs and a record 52 Doubles + his performance in the AFL gets me pretty excited !!! Through in the AFL performance of Bethancourt and you have got to think he will break out this year pretty significantly – heck, although he has been in our system for a few years – he is still only 20 – very young !!
The point is – we have a strong enough ml team that is built to compete for years so we can take our time developing some of the younger talent or get that talent via trade and I think the Braves brain trust will do exactly that when the time comes.
bravesfaninchitown - February 9, 2012
Sorry ...
above post – through should be throw
bravesfaninchitown - February 9, 2012
AFL performances shouldn’t get anyone “excited”.
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
No ...
but it’s a step in the right direction – don’t you think ?
bravesfaninchitown - February 9, 2012
Weren’t you excited when Tommy Hanson won AFL MVP? I think most Braves fans were.
roberty - February 9, 2012
I was more excited about his year to that point
the AFL just confirmed his ascent.
JoelGuzman'sScout - February 9, 2012
Apples Vs Oranges.
Lennox - February 9, 2012
The AFL is an incredibly hitting friendly environment
Putting up ridiculous numbers there as a pitcher is impressive (especially when they are far and away the best numbers ever in the league for a SP). As a hitter, not so much.
nixa37 - February 9, 2012
this
drumzalicious - February 10, 2012
no thanks
the kid looks defensively like his only position will be 1B and we have Freeman there. I should have re-phrased and said hitters in positions where we will need them in a few years 3B, LF, CF, SS
drumzalicious - February 10, 2012
But Law doesn’t point out that we were able to trade for Bourn without giving up any of our elite prospects.
rxadam - February 8, 2012
Its all about where the system is rigth now, not six months ago.
Bobby Hill#1 - February 9, 2012
I don't disagree with his sentiment...
…because he’s right about the multitude of questions over whether any of our position players will hit. The common thread I see is that player X will “need to work on his patience at the plate and take more walks,” which is maybe the hardest thing for a player to really improve upon substantially. That scares the hell out of me, seeing that we don’t seem to value OBP in our prospects, or that at the very least, we’re really bad at finding players who do it naturally as of late. I see a lot of “tools,” but not enough “baseball skills” in there.
And while we’ve been pretty good on the pitching end, even there we could be better, particularly if we had been drafting for ceiling rather than floor in the last few drafts. We don’t need guys who will “move through the system quickly” when we have 9 guys who could be in our starting rotation tomorrow. Unless the plan is to trade these lower-upside, fast-rising prospects for hitters, it seems we’re missing the point lately.
FineHamAbounds - February 8, 2012
The real question: has anyone tried regressing some measure of “prospects in the top X” on wins Y years down the line, or average wins Z through A years down the line?
I mean, rankings are nice and all, but I’m just wondering whether anyone has actually looked at whether “depth”, “top-end guys,” neither, or both are correlated with future success in any meaningful way. (You’d obviously have to control for a ton of crap… but it could be doable.)
Ivan the Great - February 8, 2012
I don’t think people who make their living writing about prospects want anyone to go back and look at their track record.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
Haha… but isn’t that the job of the people who write about the people writing about prospects?
Ivan the Great - February 9, 2012
We don’t go back and check on what they’ve said enough. There definitely should be more checking up on how good of a job they did guessing who was going to turn out good. I’ve been writing about prospects on this site for a few years now and I know I’ve had some wins, like saying Eric Campbell was terrible and would get cut, believing in Teheran and Freeman when people were doubting them, but I’ve also had some major whiffs, like thinking Cody Johnson would turn out fine. I think if we better knew people’s track records with their prognostications we’d know whether or not they’re full of it. I don’t even go back and check myself enough.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
exactly
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
Interestingly...
Sickels took a stab at this recently. 4 articles at http://www.minorleagueball.com/ have looked at his past rankings.
Elite Prospects, 2003-2006: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/2/6/2775828/the-elite-prospects-2003-through-2006
Elite Pitching Prospects, 2003-2006: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/2/7/2782845/the-elite-pitching-prospects-2003-through-2006
Prospect Analysis: Lessons Learned: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/2/8/2785017/prospect-analysis-lessons-learned
Prospect Analysis: Elite Prospects from 2007: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/2/9/2785875/prospect-analysis-elite-prospects-from-2007
Some interesting reading for sure…
-C
cthabeerman - February 9, 2012
Am I the only one who likes Sickels better for this?
good stuff. Thanks for sharing -C.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
2013 Rankings?
So a year from now when all the big prospects are in Atlanta, where are going to rank?
We have to assume that Wren will continue with the same general draft philosophy.
A can’t imagine that JJ will still be with the team at this point in 2013. If he could net a prospect of two that could sure help.
Will Prado still be here? If he doesn’t hit he won’t be worth anything in a trade. It may depend on what Chipper does and how Terdo does in 2012. I don’t imagine that a 3rd year arb Prado would net much of a return.
Will Wren flip Delgado or Viz for a bat of similar ranking? I would be all for this, but I think Wren loves hoarding pitching too much to trade one of his babies.
If we don’t get an infusion of talent we could slip a long way by this time 2013. 25th?
Bobby Hill#1 - February 9, 2012
You’re really positive.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
Well, I think he’s also correct…. Because most of the top prospects in the organization are with the MLB squad, the ranking should be a lot lower in 2013. Unless guys like Betancourt, Terd, Lipka, Salcedo, etc have big years…
Fatvirus - February 9, 2012
That’s the thing though, all of those guys could have huge years. 3 of them are 20 and going to be playing in A ball. Their potential to bust out and become big time prospects is obvious. And Terdo just had a big year, so he can do the same. And who knows who’ll pull a Beachy and suddenly be a prospect. And who knows who we’ll pick up in the draft or on the international market. Looking a year out and saying, oh our system will be terrible is just short sighted and unnecessarily negative. We have no way of telling what will happen that far in the future, especially when 30-50 players that we’ve never heard of will join the organization. If even a couple of these supposedly mediocre guys suddenly have a big year they all of the sudden look great. If guys like Carlos Perez and Abraham Espinosa and Maurico Cabrera and Andy Otero bust out and show their potential the system suddenly looks better. You can’t look look at a year from now with prospects because you have no clue what things are going to be by then.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
Maybe?
Its possible that several of guys on the top 20 list explode and have breakout years. Its also possible that some guys currently not considered prospects could come out of nowhere like Venters or Beachy.
But its also possible that Lipka and Salcedo continue to fizzle, and that Terdo can’t stick at 3B, etc, etc.
I think the best opportunity to improve the system will come through trades.
Bobby Hill#1 - February 9, 2012
It’s possible the Mayans were right and the world ends before the 2013 prospect lists come out. If we’re just going to list off a bunch of possibilities then we might as well cover them all.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
Justin and I have been agreeing on a disturbingly large amount of subjects lately
I’m getting scared.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
All of those are valid points and if the Braves are considered to have a top 10 farm system this time next year, it’ll really speak to how great our front office is.
But, again, great points. It’s much to early to guess how the system will look.
Fatvirus - February 9, 2012
Exactly,...
we have plenty of potential in the lower minors with Perez, Espinosa, Lipka, Salcedo, Bethancourt, Marte, Garcia, Graham, Drury, Kubitza, Elmer Reyes. Saying we will be lower ranked next year ignores the possibility that several of them, among others, may turn a corner this year and show a restocked system still strong overall.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
This is a comparative rating......
There are 29 others teams that also have a long list of fringe prospects. There is no reason to think that the Braves’ fringe prospects are any more likely to blossom than that any other teams. And given the lack of effort and money the Braves have spent on the draft the past 3-4 years there are several reason to conclude that the Braves fringe prospects are less likely to blossom than those of teams who drafted players with higher perceived ceilings.
Bobby Hill#1 - February 9, 2012
True
although several aren’t so much “fringe” as just young and yet to break out (Perez, Espinosa, Lipka, Salcedo, Drury, etc) or are on the cusp and one big season will see them top 50 or better (Bethancourt).
And if you want a “reason to think the Braves’ fringe prospects are more likely to blossom”, you could argue our developmental staff is superior. That may well be the case in terms of pitching prospects considering how many we produce. Not saying that’s the case, just it could be a reason.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
I’m glad you brought up the other teams, because your assertion that the Braves would be in the bottom 5 in a year seems predicated on the idea that other teams simply stay where they are and don’t have variations in their own players, like all the teams below them will simply move up because the Braves graduated some prospects. The teams ahead of them could get worse, the teams behind better, there’s no definitive way of predicting how 30 organizations of players will stack up against each other a year from now.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
He's probably being overly harsh in his ranking this year to drive the point home
But I don’t like the direction our FO has been taking in recent drafts either.
Lennox - February 9, 2012
This is my feeling exactly.
soup du jour - February 9, 2012
Why aren't the Braves spending on the draft?
Bobby Hill#1 - February 9, 2012
Because that is the Braves philosophy … they don’t tend to go for the big free agent’s for the big club either … you may like it or not – agree with it or not – that’s how it is. Now with the new CBA the field becomes a little more level in regards to the draft.
bravesfaninchitown - February 9, 2012
I’m hopeful that with our pitching talent seemingly solidified for awhile, that we start going back to drafting high ceiling guys.
I do think we should look to draft a SS/3B in the first round this year. Seems to be our weakest spot.
Sparhawk - February 9, 2012
If the best player available is a SS/3B then yes, that’s what they should get. But that would be the only reason. Drafting in the first round for a specific position is a terrible plan.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
I agree.
With most sports, but especially with baseball. Best Player Available. Always.
soup du jour - February 9, 2012
Mainly because how often does that player provide immediate impact
we drafted for need with Joey Devine. His career improved in Oakland, but it didn’t work out well for us. I can see targetting a position throughout the draft to restock spots, but that goes more for later rounds. Especially in the top 10 rounds, always take the best player available. Injuries, trades, improvement and deprovement, you never know what you’ll actually need when the players finally develop.
Mr. Sanchez - February 9, 2012
Hey, thanks for reminding me of the Houston game in ‘05. True story: I got as drunk as I’ve ever been in my life that night. ROUGH game.
Fatvirus - February 9, 2012
I think you ate my chocolate squirrel.
cbwilk - February 9, 2012
I remember there were horses and a man on fire. I think i killed a guy with a trident.
Fatvirus - February 9, 2012
This explains Law's ranking
Atlanta Braves
1. Arodys Vizcaino, RHP (14)
2. Julio Teheran, RHP (18)
3. Christian Bethancourt, C (94)
4. Randall Delgado, RHP (98)
5. Andrelton Simmons, SS
6. Tyler Pastornicky, SS
7. Sean Gilmartin, LHP
8. Zeke Spruill, RHP
9. J.R. Graham, RHP
10. Matt Lipka, OF
LEastCoastBears - February 9, 2012
He is kind of down on Teheran, saying that Julio appears further away from being ready than last year and worry about Teheran’s ability to get lefties out. He is also down on Randall Delgado’s stuff.
LEastCoastBears - February 9, 2012
Check out the LA Dodgers Rankings according to Law – you think we have a lack of positional/hitting prospects – their list 1-10 are all pitchers and nine of them are right-handed. WOW !!
bravesfaninchitown - February 9, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.