Today they had a list of their top 20 Sophomores for 2006. Edwin made it in at #7. Here is what they said:
www.baseballanalysts.com for the entire list.Originally Posted by Baseballanalysts.com
Originally Posted by dougdirt
That is very interesting to me because as I have posted on here before I once spoke to a Brewers scout at a Lookouts game and asked him about EdE and his potential. He stated to me that he was one of his favorites and might be second in the league (of all players) behind only Marte. He stated that he wasn't that far behind him in his mind.
Tim McCarver: Baseball Quotes
I remember one time going out to the mound to talk with Bob Gibson. He told me to get back behind the batter, that the only thing I knew about pitching was that it was hard to hit.
Aaron Boone is a good measuring stick for EdE. Both are more athletic than the average 3B. Both are free swingers with gap power. Both are rangey, but erratic fielders.
Edwin's ceiling is much higher than Aaron Boone, due to the fact that he is naturally more athletic than Boone. However, the Reds would do well if Encarnacion settles into Aaron Boone territory. The key, however, is to trade him when you can get maximum value rather than at a deep discount in a clearance sale.
Thats all if you choose to trade him Red Heeler, you have to figure the Reds can control him for 5 or so more years. Hopefully by then we can be contending for something, and maybe we wont be in the position to trade him at that point in time becuase we will be contending for a playoff spot.
Oh, I certainly don't mean that they should trade him now unless bowled over. I was referring to Boone, who provided excellent value for the Reds so long as he was cheap. Once he got going on the arbitration train, he no longer had as much value on the field for the Reds as he did in trade. They did not recognize that until it was time to hold a liquidation sale.Originally Posted by dougdirt
Whether or not Brandon Claussen goes all Harang on the league this year, Boone should have fetched a better return if the Reds had dealt on their terms instead of someone elses.
OK, I gotcha.
There was an interesting comment I read earlier, not sure where, about how awesome Ryan Howard was going to be. Interestingly, after raving about him, it said there's no way the Phillies should sign him long term after his arb period, for a number of reasons it went in to not the least of which is his likelihood to break down physically after ago 30 or so.
This is such an interesting point that is often over looked. Too many teams get tied in to guys like Aaron Boone after they've hit peak value, build around them, and completely miss the window to improve the overall value of the organization. Albert Pujols is worth 15 Million and unless you pay the man, he's gonna get it somewhere else. However, a team on a 60 million dollar budget can not field a roster full of players earning market value dollars. You don't want to pay market value to guys unless they are truly irreplacable in terms of talent. You can't just bring another Adam Dunn or get his production from a different position. Of course, maybe you do have that great player in the pipeline, in whch case you CAN trade Adam Dunn and reap the rewards (see Mulder, Mark).
Keep good, but not great talent on your roster so long as it's cheap, or at least sub market price. However, once the player becomes market level, you should trade him to somebody who is willing to pay market price for good talent. This is the mistake the Reds made with both Graves and Casey. Graves, in his decent form, was worth 6MM a year to the Mets or Yankees. But as the Reds closer, there's no way. You could pay a David Weathers 2MM in free agency for almost identical performance, even if he doesn't have that sliver of breakout potential you think Graves might have. You give Adam Dunn 13MM because you can't make up for his talent. But if you trade an Aaron Boone to a team that could use them upgrade, you can improve your system without significant performance dropoffs.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 02-28-2006 at 05:19 PM.
Sadly though with that, is that the Reds thought there would be no dropoff with Brandon Larson at third.... The organization needs a lot more infield depth, and really has for a while.Originally Posted by RedsManRick
One of the ways you get that depth is by trading your Aaron Boone's. Not trading those types of players when they have trade value is part of the cycle of a poor minor league system. It's hard to explain to a mediocre at best team that the best way to get better is by trading their mediocre players.Originally Posted by dougdirt
In the short term you might be worse, but if you do it well, you suddenly find yourself in the spot that the Twins and Indians are in where they have enough high quality talent in the minors to actually supplant the mediocre guys as well as produce some guys worth keeping long term. You trade your AJ Pierzynski and go with Henry Blanco & Matt Lecroy for a year.
The real point though is that there's no reason to give Sean Casey 8MM per when you can get Kevin Millar for half that. Instead you trade Casey when he only costs 4 or 5MM to a team who thinks Casey would get 7-8MM on the open market, but who wants to have him for sure right now or is in desperate need of a 1B for the stretch run. Granted, if Casey performed at 1999/2004 levels, he'd be worth it 8MM, but he simply hadn't shown the consistency to merit one of those precious few "franchise player" contracts. But the point remains, average talent at fair market value is the worst spent money in baseball.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 02-28-2006 at 05:40 PM.
Rick, in no way do I disagree with you. I think everything you said was spot on target. I just hate Brandon Larson with a passion....and anytime I can talk bad about him, i seem to even though I probably shouldnt.
Larson is proof positive that steroids don't help you hit a curveball.Originally Posted by dougdirt
Or any other pitch for that matter.....or help you feild the ball, or throw it....
Actually I don't have a problem with that. It's always been my view that you pay for what you need inside of what you can afford.Originally Posted by RedsManRick
For instance, people have made that argument with Jason LaRue. Why pay $3.9M for him when you could save a bunch of money at that position by switching to a Geico catcher?
The answer is because a consistently average or better catcher in MLB is hard to find and worth a little money (or some good prospects in trade). Saving money isn't the point. If you're building a team right you'll always have some cheap production to go along with the production you pay for.
Plus, average players can help you win a championship. The White Sox are almost wholly comprised of average players. It's important to remember that statistically average players are actually in the top 25-30% at their position.
The worst spent money in baseball is on guys who are below average. Take a look at Jack Wilson's latest contract. Or, as mentioned by others in this thread, the Eric Milton deal. I'll add in Paul Wilson and Ramon Ortiz. That was a threesome that had no realistic shot of improving to average and the Reds will have paid close to $40M for them when all is said and done.
Raisel Ghul, the Demon's Head
Make that a thing.
This is an incredibly important point, I think, and sheds light on how insane it is to think you have to have good -- or even average-- offensive players at every position, especially when some of these players could be replaced by far better defenders. (In my view, Krivsky may have a harder time revamping the Reds defense than bringing the pitching up to league average.)It's important to remember that statistically average players are actually in the top 25-30% at their position.
"Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini
If Jason LaRue was a free agent, he'd be making 6-7MM a year. We have him at below market price.Originally Posted by M2
The Sox also had a payroll in the 80's, not the 60's.
Could you clarify the "statistically average players are actually in the top 25-30% at their position." There seems to be an obvious failure of logic there, but I'm sure there's a reasonable point behind it.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 03-01-2006 at 09:46 AM.