Blue Jays Discussion: Post Non-Waiver Trade Deadline Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Discoverer

Registered User
Apr 11, 2012
10,735
5,873

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,211
82,939
Vancouver, BC
Is this not the same criticism AA shared prior to the team actually making the playoffs? For years people were wondering why the rotation, bullpen, and infield had little to no depth. When you are top 3-5 in man games lost there is usually a good chance your team isn't making the playoffs (unless you operate like the Dodgers).

Depth had been much better the past few seasons. This year, it took a massive step back.

Would it have been better to move those prospects for help now? I don't really get the argument against patience when the previous regime also started off doing everything in their power to stock up on potential.

It would have been better to move those prospects in a good deal, yes. A bad deal, no.

But again, there are lots of ways to acquire good players and the bottom line is that this group hasn't found really any good players (starter or depth) in any way. Save Happ.

Also just for reference, 13 of the top 30 prospects (according to mlb pipeline) have been acquired within the past two seasons. That includes 6 of the top 10 listed and a couple of guys we can dream on in Bichette and Pearson.

Most of the top guys date from 2015 or prior, and this was clearly tracking to be a quality system with or without anything the new guys have done. I agree that early returns on their drafts are positive as well.


The holes going into the season were in the outfield and DH/1B. Pearce has done well offensively and in the field he hasn't been good. Jose was a logical fit. He hasn't turned out. Morales has been a dud. Starting pitching hasn't been good mainly due to injuries and inconsistency (Lirano and Estrada). Smoak has done very well so Pearce wasn't needed at 1b which is a good thing but that has left him in LF. Additionally, the production from SS and 2B have been brutal mainly due to injuries. I don't see how they logically improve SS and 2b without trading prospects.

To fill the corner outfield/DH spots, they picked up Morales/Pearce/Coghlan and re-signed Bautista. Pearce has been the big 'winner' there at 0.6 WAR. That's not good. Average bats that are slow and old and terrible defensively.

You want to look at good managment? Seattle has nearly 6 WAR this year in the outfield from Jarrod Dyson, Ben Gamel, and Guillermo Heredia - three guys picked up in the last year for nothing at a combined salary of less than $4 million.

Starting pitching they got lucky last year and had ZERO injuries, which you know wouldn't happen again. And when the predictable happened ... the first option up was Mat freaking Latos. Same at catcher where they signed a guy who had a negative WAR last year in Saltalamacchia and then had no options when he was predictably terrible.

Agreed in middle infield that injuries were and issue and it wasn't possible to predict that Barney/Goins would hit this badly.

Nobody is saying they should have traded Guerrero Jr. for a short-term fix. But they could have made shrewd signings or traded depth prospects for quality assets ... and they didn't. And when they're claiming that their goal is to be competitive now, of course they should be judged for that.

I'm not saying it's been ghastly management. But their job is to find good players at good value and so far there have been a lot more misses than hits, and this isn't a well-built team. Hopefully they can do better moving forward and have a better offseason this year than last year.

Going by MLB top 10 prospects 6 of them have been brought in by the current regime. When AA left the team ranked 25th in the league I believe in terms of prospects. Now they are ranked 12th. AA deserves some credit but we shouldn't dismiss what the current regime has done in terms of building up the farm system.

The new guys have been good also, but any management group that made reasonable selections with their #1 picks in 2016 and 2017 would have seen a similar-ish result.

I also disagree that 6 of the top 10 prospects are new regime guys.

My current list would be:

1. Guerrero
2. Bichette
3. Alford
4. Jansen
5. Pearson
6. Warmouth
7. Borucki
8. Reid-Foley
9. Ramirez
10. Hernandez

I know Zeuch was a recent #1 pick but he isn't missing bats in A-ball. So 6 of my top 9 would be old regime guys.


Where would Ramirez fit in with the following, Vlad, Bo, Alford, Jansen, Pearson, Warmoth, Borucki, Zeuch, SRF, Hernandez and I am probably forgetting a few.

I like from what I have seen from Ramirez. He has got better the more he has pitched. He is going to be 27 next year but he is new to pitching. His ceiling is a top bullpen arm. His run he has had has been great but IMO it is a small sample. Those are reasons why I wouldn't rank him in the top 10.

I'd have him ahead of Zeuch and Hernandez for sure.

It's getting to be not a small sample anymore. 30 IP at that level for a reliever is a big chunk of innings, and the level of dominance is just ridiculous. I'm really looking forward to seeing him in September.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Right, and that comment by Cistulli the other day about Longenhagen's reports being "not optimistic" is a bit weird considering Longenhagen said today that "Jansen is a solid defensive catcher, an average receiver with an average arm and a good ground game."

he reiterates in his chat today that "he can catch".

and really, based on how the org has used him, that seems to be the case. this isn't an org with a lack of "C in name only" guys that play 1B half the time like Yorman, R.Smith, Gold, etc.

but Jansen has never been treated like that - he's exclusively played C and based on his promotions they don't seem overly concerned with him needing lots of time to develop the craft.

he may not be a great defender and maybe not even an average one but he has never seemed to be one of those catching prospects that was considered to be an automatic move to another position in mlb.
 

Discoverer

Registered User
Apr 11, 2012
10,735
5,873
They may yet prove to be a good management team, but so far the early results aren't great and I don't see how anyone could take a great deal of confidence from them.

When did you first decide you had confidence in Anthopoulos?
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
My percy ranks:

AA: 1.Vlad, 3.Alford, 5.Jansen 7.Urena 9.Reid-Foley 11.Maese 13.Tellez
SH: 2.Bo 4.Pearson 6.Warmoth 8.Hernandez 10.Zeuch 12.McGuire 14.Gurriel
 

metafour

Registered User
Apr 6, 2008
1,795
610
Most of the top guys date from 2015 or prior, and this was clearly tracking to be a quality system with or without anything the new guys have done.

Actually, you can't really quantify what effect the new attention to player development has had in the actual growth of these prospects. If you remember, when John Farrell left he had extremely negative things to say about the attention to player development in the minor leagues. So while its easy to claim that most of these guys were already here, you really have no idea whether or not they would have developed in the same manner. Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have. The old regime's abysmal track record with position players doesn't exactly mesh with our current system wherein most of the top prospects are in fact position players. Who gets credit for Danny Jansen? Yes the old regime drafted him, but most of his development has happened within the past year or so. Would Vlad Jr. be on the same path today under the old regime? Maybe, or maybe not.

This is a much more complicated discussion than just looking at who brought who in.
 

Discoverer

Registered User
Apr 11, 2012
10,735
5,873
Actually, you can't really quantify what effect the new attention to player development has had in the actual growth of these prospects. If you remember, when John Farrell left he had extremely negative things to say about the attention to player development in the minor leagues. So while its easy to claim that most of these guys were already here, you really have no idea whether or not they would have developed in the same manner. Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have. The old regime's abysmal track record with position players doesn't exactly mesh with our current system wherein most of the top prospects are in fact position players. Who gets credit for Danny Jansen? Yes the old regime drafted him, but most of his development has happened within the past year or so. Would Vlad Jr. be on the same path today under the old regime? Maybe, or maybe not.

This is a much more complicated discussion than just looking at who brought who in.

Old regime drafted Jansen, new regime got him to wear glasses. 50/50.
 

canucksfan

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
43,748
9,404
British Columbia
Visit site
Depth had been much better the past few seasons. This year, it took a massive step back.

It would have been better to move those prospects in a good deal, yes. A bad deal, no.

But again, there are lots of ways to acquire good players and the bottom line is that this group hasn't found really any good players (starter or depth) in any way. Save Happ.

Most of the top guys date from 2015 or prior, and this was clearly tracking to be a quality system with or without anything the new guys have done. I agree that early returns on their drafts are positive as well.

To fill the corner outfield/DH spots, they picked up Morales/Pearce/Coghlan and re-signed Bautista. Pearce has been the big 'winner' there at 0.6 WAR. That's not good. Average bats that are slow and old and terrible defensively.

You want to look at good managment? Seattle has nearly 6 WAR this year in the outfield from Jarrod Dyson, Ben Gamel, and Guillermo Heredia - three guys picked up in the last year for nothing at a combined salary of less than $4 million.

Starting pitching they got lucky last year and had ZERO injuries, which you know wouldn't happen again. And when the predictable happened ... the first option up was Mat freaking Latos. Same at catcher where they signed a guy who had a negative WAR last year in Saltalamacchia and then had no options when he was predictably terrible.

Agreed in middle infield that injuries were and issue and it wasn't possible to predict that Barney/Goins would hit this badly.

Nobody is saying they should have traded Guerrero Jr. for a short-term fix. But they could have made shrewd signings or traded depth prospects for quality assets ... and they didn't. And when they're claiming that their goal is to be competitive now, of course they should be judged for that.

I'm not saying it's been ghastly management. But their job is to find good players at good value and so far there have been a lot more misses than hits, and this isn't a well-built team. Hopefully they can do better moving forward and have a better offseason this year than last year.

Pearce, Smith, Lirano, Grilli and Leone have been brought in by this group. Lirano and Grilli sucked this year but were good last year. Lirano also returned a good prospect.

With starting pitching it is very difficult to get good depth in AAA via free agency. You have to rely on prospects more often than not to get good depth. Like pitching, catching is even more difficult to get good depth.

This management group has made some good moves but they also have made moves that aren't. They have been pretty low risk which I am fine with. Not signing stupid contracts and restocking the farm system is what they have done.

Guys like Latos are players you wouldn't call a miss. He was signed to a minor league contract. Misses are Morales and Jose and to a lesser extent Salty.


The new guys have been good also, but any management group that made reasonable selections with their #1 picks in 2016 and 2017 would have seen a similar-ish result.

I also disagree that 6 of the top 10 prospects are new regime guys.

My current list would be:

1. Guerrero
2. Bichette
3. Alford
4. Jansen
5. Pearson
6. Warmouth
7. Borucki
8. Reid-Foley
9. Ramirez
10. Hernandez

I know Zeuch was a recent #1 pick but he isn't missing bats in A-ball. So 6 of my top 9 would be old regime guys.




I'd have him ahead of Zeuch and Hernandez for sure.

It's getting to be not a small sample anymore. 30 IP at that level for a reliever is a big chunk of innings, and the level of dominance is just ridiculous. I'm really looking forward to seeing him in September.

MLB recently ranked the top Jays prospects and 6 of them were new management players. I would take their list over yours. Although I would have Jansen in the top ten for sure. Gurriel also isn't eligible. He has been on other top ten lists.

A 50/50 split in the top ten seems the consensus between the new/old management group. This shouldn't be a surprise. It takes a long time for prospects to develop. AA picked up good prospects and this management group seems to be doing the same.

I wouldn't have Ramirez over Zeuch at all. Zeuch has battled injuries all year which has had an impact on his development. Still when he has pitched he has done well. Considering relievers aren't as valuable as starters I don't see how it makes sense to rate Ramirez in the top ten.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,211
82,939
Vancouver, BC
Old regime drafted Jansen, new regime got him to wear glasses. 50/50.

:laugh:

Pearce, Smith, Lirano, Grilli and Leone have been brought in by this group. Lirano and Grilli sucked this year but were good last year. Lirano also returned a good prospect.

Liriano had -0.5 WAR as a Jay and Grilli had -0.4 WAR. They had small blips last year and then were worse this year than they were good last year. Pearce is barely over replacement level as a corner outfielder. Leone has been a good bullpen arm.

This is not an impressive list of acquisitions.

With starting pitching it is very difficult to get good depth in AAA via free agency. You have to rely on prospects more often than not to get good depth. Like pitching, catching is even more difficult to get good depth.

This management group has made some good moves but they also have made moves that aren't. They have been pretty low risk which I am fine with. Not signing stupid contracts and restocking the farm system is what they have done.

Guys like Latos are players you wouldn't call a miss. He was signed to a minor league contract. Misses are Morales and Jose and to a lesser extent Salty.

Just because it's hard to get depth at those positions doesn't mean they somehow get credit when they don't do it. And no, it shouldn't have been hard to do better than the likes of Latos and Saltalamacchia as first-up depth.

This management so far has done a whole lot of not much. They've protected the assets they've had in the farm system and drafted well based on early returns ... which is good. On the MLB squad, they've done nothing of significance aside from losing EE, and have generally made iffy-to-poor patchwork short-term moves for mediocre old players.


MLB recently ranked the top Jays prospects and 6 of them were new management players. I would take their list over yours. Although I would have Jansen in the top ten for sure. Gurriel also isn't eligible. He has been on other top ten lists.

A 50/50 split in the top ten seems the consensus between the new/old management group. This shouldn't be a surprise. It takes a long time for prospects to develop. AA picked up good prospects and this management group seems to be doing the same.

I wouldn't have Ramirez over Zeuch at all. Zeuch has battled injuries all year which has had an impact on his development. Still when he has pitched he has done well. Considering relievers aren't as valuable as starters I don't see how it makes sense to rate Ramirez in the top ten.

The MLB list has a catcher hitting .162 in rookie ball in the top 10, 6 spots ahead of Jansen. And has Hernandez and Pentecost WAY too high.

I place a value on being a likely MLB player very close to sticking. Ramirez looks like an extremely likely bet to be a quality bullpen arm next year. Zeuch - for whatever reason - isn't missing bats in A ball at age 22.

Of course starters have more value ... but when you're miles from MLB and struggling, I'll take the dominating reliever.
 

metafour

Registered User
Apr 6, 2008
1,795
610
Liriano had -0.5 WAR as a Jay

No he didn't. He had 0.7 WAR in just under 50 innings last year and 0.8 WAR this season. The most important thing about Liriano is that he was actually the sole reason why Britton didn't make it into the WC game against Baltimore. Liriano was lights out in relief after being acquired and had pitched 1.2 dominant innings against the Orioles that night. Due to how strong he was looking, Showalter panicked and sent in his own starter-turned-reliever (Jimenez) fearing that Liriano would be able to last 4 or 5 innings that game. Without Liriano, there is no threat of a game of relief attrition.
 

stickty111

Registered User
Jan 23, 2017
26,532
32,731
I love this arguement any management team could have made reasonable selection. If thats the case, how come reputation guy AA couldnt find any positional players where the new management seems to have already hit on atleast 1? If AA made the selections, everyone would be worshiping him but Shapiro makes them and its anyone could have done it? I know reputation guy AA can do no wrong to some but so far new management is taking him to school in drafting and not trying to look good in front of the media.

Also this whole Zeuch isnt missing bats thing is incredibly dumb. SRF misses bats and he is struggling in AA(another marvelous reputation guy AA draft pick and lets not get started on Davis and Harris). Reputation guy AA only cares about his look good metre and doesnt know how to build a team aside from getting expensive contracts. Zeuch has been solid when healthy but not surprising people poke at one aspect just because he is this new management's first pick.
Shapiro>AA
 

stickty111

Registered User
Jan 23, 2017
26,532
32,731
No he didn't. He had 0.7 WAR in just under 50 innings last year and 0.8 WAR this season. The most important thing about Liriano is that he was actually the sole reason why Britton didn't make it into the WC game against Baltimore. Liriano was lights out in relief after being acquired and had pitched 1.2 dominant innings against the Orioles that night. Due to how strong he was looking, Showalter panicked and sent in his own starter-turned-reliever (Jimenez) fearing that Liriano would be able to last 4 or 5 innings that game. Without Liriano, there is no threat of a game of relief attrition.


Its a good thing we have a management group that thinks ahead instead of trading for expensive contracts
 

Mach85

Registered User
Mar 14, 2013
3,896
671
~30 innings is enough to make him a top 10 prospect in one of the best farm systems in the league?
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,211
82,939
Vancouver, BC
No he didn't. He had 0.7 WAR in just under 50 innings last year and 0.8 WAR this season. The most important thing about Liriano is that he was actually the sole reason why Britton didn't make it into the WC game against Baltimore. Liriano was lights out in relief after being acquired and had pitched 1.2 dominant innings against the Orioles that night. Due to how strong he was looking, Showalter panicked and sent in his own starter-turned-reliever (Jimenez) fearing that Liriano would be able to last 4 or 5 innings that game. Without Liriano, there is no threat of a game of relief attrition.

My bad - was looking at WAA instead of WAR as I quickly looked it up. But he was at 0.0 this year, not 0.8.

Absolutely Liriano was useful last year. And then brutal this year.

~30 innings is enough to make him a top 10 prospect in one of the best farm systems in the league?

He's thrown 75 innings with a 1.20 ERA over the past two seasons, and all of his peripheral numbers this season are frankly absurd. And he's the only pitcher in the organization that looks like he'll be ready to win a job in the MLB squad next season. Yes, that's enough in my eyes. And it's certainly more than a guy like Hagen Danner has done to be in the top-10 on some lists.

Also, the team's system is top-10 in baseball based more on top-heaviness than on depth.
 

Eyedea

The Legend Continues
Jan 29, 2012
27,390
3,208
Toronto, Ontario
We saw the same thing with Danny Barnes last season. Very good potential as a reliever but a #4/5 starter could essentially trump that value. He's simply not a top 10 prospect.

And the farm system being top heavy is lies IMO. There's plenty of depth that goes unnoticed.
 

Canada4Gold

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
42,969
9,179
For me to put a reliever in the top 10 he'd have to be a pretty sure thing, high chance to be a closer type of player. You rarely see pure relievers in the top 10, most of the highest value ones become relievers because they fail at being a starter, often at the major league level. Ramirez is still far from a sure thing, and not near a top 10 prospect IMO. Not even sure I'd put him in my top 20 TBH.

Also metafour was using fWAR which is FIP based and generally seen as better. Which Liriano was a 0.8 in this year.
 

Mach85

Registered User
Mar 14, 2013
3,896
671
My bad - was looking at WAA instead of WAR as I quickly looked it up. But he was at 0.0 this year, not 0.8.

Absolutely Liriano was useful last year. And then brutal this year.



He's thrown 75 innings with a 1.20 ERA over the past two seasons, and all of his peripheral numbers this season are frankly absurd. And he's the only pitcher in the organization that looks like he'll be ready to win a job in the MLB squad next season. Yes, that's enough in my eyes. And it's certainly more than a guy like Hagen Danner has done to be in the top-10 on some lists.

Also, the team's system is top-10 in baseball based more on top-heaviness than on depth.

~30 innings at AAA for a reliever, and around 40 in lower levels is a ridiculously, ridiculously small sample size. Yes, he's been super impressive, and he very well could end up being a nice pen piece. But this isn't Aroldis Chapman. You can find many relievers who have 30 dominant innings. It puts Ramirez on the radar, because he's so new. But putting him instantly into the top 10 over guys who have pedigree and a higher floor (and ceiling in almost every case) is very reactionary.

This is in no particular order:

Guerrero
Bichette
Alford
Pearson
Warmoth
Jansen
SRF
Urena
Borucki
Greene (with his stuff, he could dominate in relief)
Hernandez
Tellez


All those guys are clearly ahead of Ramirez. Zeuch's ceiling is debatable, but I'd probably put him there too. Maese as well. We'll see what Pentecost becomes, but his risk is now greater and I can't include him on that list.
 

Bad News Benning

Fallin for Dahlin?
Jan 11, 2003
20,249
3
Victoria
Visit site
I'm on the Ramirez bandwagon( I think he could have a few decent years out of the pen) but I have a hard time putting him in the Top 30 with all the interesting names in the lower minors. Zach Jackson is better and he would probably only sit somewhere between 20-30 on my rankings. The only time you should ever see a relief prospect sniff the Top 10 is when they have elite closer potential.
 

Bad News Benning

Fallin for Dahlin?
Jan 11, 2003
20,249
3
Victoria
Visit site
~30 innings at AAA for a reliever, and around 40 in lower levels is a ridiculously, ridiculously small sample size. Yes, he's been super impressive, and he very well could end up being a nice pen piece. But this isn't Aroldis Chapman. You can find many relievers who have 30 dominant innings. It puts Ramirez on the radar, because he's so new. But putting him instantly into the top 10 over guys who have pedigree and a higher floor (and ceiling in almost every case) is very reactionary.

This is in no particular order:

Guerrero
Bichette
Alford
Pearson
Warmoth
Jansen
SRF
Urena
Borucki
Greene (with his stuff, he could dominate in relief)
Hernandez
Tellez


All those guys are clearly ahead of Ramirez. Zeuch's ceiling is debatable, but I'd probably put him there too. Maese as well. We'll see what Pentecost becomes, but his risk is now greater and I can't include him on that list.
My list would be longer. I can easily think of 15 names (potential regulars or starting pitchers) I'd have ahead of Ramirez. This isn't a shot at Ramirez but more a reality of the combustibility of bullpens from year to year.


Relievers tend to be recycled quite often from team to team. How many relievers actually spend 5+ years with a team? Very few of them are consistent from year to year so it's quite easy for a reliever to fall out of favor as quickly as they gained it. Ryan Tepera might be garbage next year but that's just the fluidity of bullpens.
 

Canada4Gold

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
42,969
9,179
So when is Neil Wagner going to be good for us again? I was too busy tracking Mike Zagurski to notice what happened to him after
 

Mach85

Registered User
Mar 14, 2013
3,896
671
My list would be longer. I can easily think of 15 names (potential regulars or starting pitchers) I'd have ahead of Ramirez. This isn't a shot at Ramirez but more a reality of the combustibility of bullpens from year to year.


Relievers tend to be recycled quite often from team to team. How many relievers actually spend 5+ years with a team? Very few of them are consistent from year to year so it's quite easy for a reliever to fall out of favor as quickly as they gained it. Ryan Tepera might be garbage next year but that's just the fluidity of bullpens.

Oh my list is absolutely longer. I'm just listing the absolute no-doubters, even if Ramirez ends this season impressively. Based just on where we sit right now, on this day, Ramirez is probably somewhere around 20-25 for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->