Dominikk85

High K with low power doesn't really work. I don't think last years 34% are his real talent level but even his mid 20s from the minors is not low enough for a 120 ISO. Last year in AAA he did show some pop in limited sample size but not sure if that was a real improvement or just the environment. He actually is a fly ball hitter (unfortunately also with an extremely high pop up rate) so that might already be about maxed out.

Sox should take the best player no matter what position. Ideal would be a shortstop but a tor starter would also be nice.

I don't really know about alonso, but could very well be true.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 11:44 PM) I didn't mean intentionally putting hitches into their swing, I meant working with kinesologists with backgrounds in biomechanics to build their swings, or for teams, hiring them as hitting coaches. I can believe the line of thinking that most hitting coaches are awful, but if some players and teams have found the right people that can help them work with their swing mechanics and make their swing effective, why aren't players and teams flocking to these people? It doesn't work for every guy of course but I think it is no coincidence that we see more late breakout players and almost all of them have gotten input from sources outside the game. Here is s list of guys of that mold -justin Turner -daniel Murphy -josh Donaldson -chris Taylor -aaron judge (he recently credited a guy I know from the internet for his success - the the dude is a giant asshole who insults anyone and got banned from about every forum but apparently he worked with judge, kingery and ian happ who all had great years) Sure it is no guarantee that it works, but conventional hitting coaching basically has a play it save and don't ruin the top guys philosophy.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 18, 2018 -> 10:27 AM) My only question is whether he's a catcher. If he is, he's an All Star in my opinion. He spent the offseason straightening out the hitch in his swing. The knocks were the strikeout rate and batting average. This player is good though: 2017 Winston-Salem: .223/.365/.443 118K, 76BB, 17 homers 130 wRC+ and .367 wOBA 2017 Birmingham (small sample): .235/.422/.471 .414 wOBA and 166 wRC+. 2016: .885 OPS after his college season. I don't really have a problem with a hitch. Many great hitters had a hitch, josh Donaldson and Barry bonds among them (If you mean a pre swing hands drop). Issue with the hitch is the timing, a hand drop and bat tip can be a great loading mechanism. You just need to do it early enough to give the hands time to work back and up. Donaldson explains the hitch thing here at 6:45 he says the hands need to go down at the foot is lifted so the hands go back as the foot goes down. A hitch is bad when it is so late that you still move the hands back up when you should start. Donaldson (who is a great hitting expert by the way) is a big opponent of quieting things down. Is is an easy fix done by many mlb orgs and it can improve some things but it can also kill athleticsm and power. So if I hear batting coaches want to simplify things , eliminate movement and such stuff I'm very scared.great hitters don't eliminate movement but control it. Most of the time those simplified swings kill the upside of players. Sure a hitch is not for anyone and many are great without it and maybe no hitch is really better for Collins but I'm always wary if teams talk about quieting things down and simplify stuff. Some it can help but many are ruined. Problem is that most pro hitting coaches suck. Donaldson literally said he told them to GTFO and did his own thing (he worked with my loose internet friend Bobby tewksbary), in fact many good players have now private coaches who intensively studied kinesiology and biomechanics while most team batting coaches are still ex players with little biomechanics understanding. The Astros have actually hired such an expert (Jeff Albert) and more teams will do so, but most still give away their hitting coach jobs based on merit as a player and clubhouse connections.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 23, 2018 -> 10:36 PM) I actually thought his write-up on Hansen was very favorable. What were we expecting here? He's a top 55-60 prospect in the game. Could be a TOR starter. What's the issue? Yes, ranking him in the top50 and saying he could be an above average starter is definitely not underranking him. He could also be better than that but he could also be worse.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2018 -> 04:02 PM) You can't just take FVs at face value. A chunk of these guys will bust and/or disappoint. Sure, it is more an expected outcome. Could err either way.

I think Fg was not updated yet and longenhagen is stingy with grades but mlb is also a little too generous with 50s. It think the truth is somewhere in between. Also I'm pretty sure eloy will be a 65 in the next lists.

I used the mlb.com grades (although they tend to be a little to generous with 50 and 55 grades in my opinion) to translate the grades into future value in their prime. Using this article https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-ex...scouting-scale/ 1. Eloy Mlb grades 55 hit, 60 power, 60 fv Fg grades 50 hit, 55 power, 60 f2f 270 average, 35 hr, 3 WAR 2. Kopech Mlb 60 fv Fg 55 fv 3 WAR 3.Luis Robert Mlb 50 hit, 55 power, 55 fv 260 average, 20 hr, 2.5 war (but that could go up) 4.Rutherford Mlb 55, 55, 55 Fg 60, 55, 55 280, 20 hr , 2.5 war (but might drop next year) 5. Cease Mlb 55 Fg 45 They are really split here, Fg has him as a future 1.5 war guy and mlb 2.5 war guy 6. Hansen Mlb 55 Fg 45 I go with the higher grade, Fg grade might not be adjusted yet to strong 2017 2.5 war guy 7. Collins Mlb 45 hit, 55 power, 50 fv Fg 40 hit, 60 power, 50 fv 240 with 25 hr and 2 WAR 8.dunning Mlb 50 Fg 45 2 war 9.fulmer Mlb, Fg 50 2 war player 10. Burger Mlb 50 hit, 55 power, 50 fv 260, 25 hr, 2 war (I think 2 war is correct, but I expect more power and worse defense,more like 30 hr) Mlb also has 11-16 as future 2 war players ( Gillespie, burdi, Adams, Adolfo, sheets, Cordell) before it drops of to bench players. Personally I think that is a little too optimistic and Fg also sees it that way. But I also think that eloy should be bumped up to a 65 after last year (I,e future 4 win player). Keep in mind that the WAR are average during their prime (say 25-29 years old). A future 2.5 win player might also have one 4 win season in his prime (but also maybe a 1.5 win season). For comparison: 2 sox players last year had 4 war (avi, abreu), then they had 4 more guys in the 50fv (2 war) range (Sanchez, Quintana, Frazier, swarzak - although Quintana of course was a 4 win player for the whole year and Frazier was at 3 WAR, so they essentially where a 60 and a 65 ) and then they had 3 more in the 1.5 war range (45s) and the rest was one and under (40 fv). So you can see how much deeper they will get, last year it was essentially 65,65, 60, 50, 50, 45, 45, and then 40s In the future it will be 65, 60, 55, 55, 55, and then 50s in every spot and nothing worse than 45s on the bench.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jan 26, 2018 -> 02:12 PM) It is both ways. You can't complain that 33 year olds aren't signing 150m deals anymore AND still have 100% guaranteed contracts. Way too much risk and it just took a good couple decades for teams to realize that. If you want to say its a trade off for younger guys playing for peanuts fine, but there's nothing preventing a younger guy like Bryant from signing a 50m deal at 22 vs. betting on himself getting a 300m deal at 28. There's risk on both sides of that. But it still less money than it used to be in an industry that is making more money. That is not acceptable. The owners should make profit but they can't cut player salaries while making more profit. No team ever was crippled by an albtratros contract. I'm not saying teams should continue to sign pujols deals but they need to give the money they save back to the players in some way. It is really not about the players getting more, it just is about keeping their share of baseball revenue stable. I think a 50/50 revenue share between players and teams would be fair (like it is in nba). Maybe even 60/40 for the owners but players can't put up with any less.

Fortunately there is a trend of really good young players not signing extensions anymore. For a fringe guy like Anderson or singleton it makes sense but there is zero reason for a guy like Bryant or Harper to sign a 50m extension and hurt their future earning . Agents of the really good guys need to make sure to find other income sources for the superstars (like doing tons of commercials) so that they don't need to sell themselves cheaply for security. Every year earlier counts in free agency. For a superstar one year earlier might be worth like 30m or so.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 26, 2018 -> 10:08 AM) Except it is becoming more and more common for teams to identify and offer their younger players better contracts that take them through their arbitration years. It isnt a perfect system by any stretch, but every young player isnt playing for peanuts Actually those extensions are peanuts, that's why they are called team friendly. Usually it is like 30m for 5 years. That someone signs an extension at market value is pretty rare.

Good deal for both sides. My math has yelich at a surplus value of 120m and the prospect package being worth around 110m. No haul for the Marlins but also no rip off. Pretty even value deal, the time of 50m plus surplus value deals is over, the teams now know what they do.

Of course it makes sense that teams don't want to overpay 30+ year olds as we all know the aging curves now. Any intern or hobby sabermetrist can now calculate aging curves and dollar per war. But you also have to see that 22-28 year old players are massively underpaid. If you want to stop overpaying the veterans you instead need to pay the young guys right.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 05:03 PM) Can't have it both ways. Can't have massive guaranteed contracts...then b**** that teams aren't handing out potentially crippling 100m+ deals like candy anymore. Some teams are tanking/rebuilding yes, but lots of teams just aren't going to pay stupid amounts of money for aging players based on what they did in previous seasons. Houston & KC proved a rebuild & smart signings can work, you don't need a bunch of guys making 20m+ to win s***. Except is isn't really both ways, yes a few players get massive guaranteed contracts but the compensation is that ALL players are very cheap during their first 6-7 years which is their prime years. Sure it sucks you have to pay 30m to washed up pujols but both ways would mean giving pujols at 35 30 millions and trout or Bryant at age 24 50 millions per year instead of 500k. The overpaying of (a few) veterans was the price owners paid for getting young talent to work for almost free. It worked excellent for the owners, sure there are the pujols deals but overall the players share of mlb revenue dropped a lot in the last 10 years (salaries went up but less so then mlb revenue). If the teams now stop giving big contracts without raising young players pay (or shortening team control) that is simply a big pay cut while mlb makes more revenue than ever. Sure owners need to make some profit and I think the tipping point isn't reached yet but if the players lose any more of the cake the union needs to do something. Really the union did a bad job here. They were always selling the young guys but they didn't realize that teams got extra greedy (I.e. more efficient- which they can't be faulted for of course) and leaned more on young and cheap players instead of fulfilling their part of the deal and overpay the veterans. Union missed that trend. I don't blame the GMs for finding a loophole and get more efficient but of course they can't continue to underpay young guys and get more efficient with veterans. Owners need to make a decision which of the two groups they want to pay. Union will never get pay for both groups but no group of course isn't acceptable either.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 04:22 PM) Good perspective here: Lewis (America): How many of these guys could conceivably be a No. 1 overall in some years? I get the sense that anyone from 1-4 could be. Do Tatis, Robles, and Senzel have No. 1 overall tools? J.J. Cooper: Great question. I’d prefer Eloy (No. 4) to Benintendi (No. 1) on last year’s list. Robles (No. 5) vs. Benitendi would be a great debate. So I’d say five. Torres (No. 6) or Senzel (No. 7) or even Bichette (No. 8) could have a case, but I would say any of those three being No. 1 would mean it was a weaker year for the Top 100. Read more at https://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2018...QFgJ5TyEo8by.99 To be fair benintendi's calling card have never been tools but that he has such a well rounded profile with good contact, plate discipline and decent but not great power. He never had the upside of other top prospects that were first overall but the floor is really high (higher than moncada and Acuna) because he was such an advanced and we'll rounded bat.

QUOTE (frogsplash31 @ Jan 13, 2018 -> 07:30 PM) Seems a little light, but coming off of two disappointing seasons, the Pirates were selling low anyway. The Pirates may still get two mid rotation starters and a average third baseman out of it. Not really, moran is 25 years old, he doesn't have enough power for third and at his age there is no room for development left. Feliz is a reliever and musgrove either a reliever or back end starter (longenhagen said innings eating 4 starter). There really is no upside as both musgrove and moran are old prospects.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 12, 2018 -> 10:19 AM) There's no reason Avi can't add some power to his game and be a 20+ home run hitter Yes he could do that. His exit velo is well above average, easily enough for 30 hr. Problem is he hits the ball too low, just 7.5 degrees average launch angle, the good hitters are usually 11-15 degrees. That is good for his babip but hurts his power.

He is good but a 390 babip is not sustainable. He always was a high babip guy but 350 would be great. That leaves him at a 115 wRC+ or so with average ish defense unless he improves his power or walk rate. That is a good player but not a 4 win player of course. More like 2.5 or so.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 7, 2018 -> 03:15 PM) If that happens, it'd be safe to assume that the majority of the young players struggled really badly. It won't happen. Actually the young guys need to improve a lot to even repeat last years result. -no half season of quintana -no kahle and Robertson -no todd frazier (wasn't great but at least like league average) -abreu is a year older and might regress a little -avi is due to some regression as he had a huge babip (fangraphs projects him for 2 wins less than last season) That is at least 7-8 wins going away. Will the young guys make up for all of that especially when eloy and kopech likely won't be up at least until august or so?

Don't love the timeline and would prefer more tanking but if it doesn't cost too much it would be worth considering. He would require 2-3 top100 guys and more but the marlins want to save money and the white sox have plenty of miney the next 2-3 years. Now the sox aren't a huge revenue team but there is so much money coming off that they could take on 20-30 and still have a super low payroll (like bottom 5). So what would it take if the white sox take on the entire salary of chen and ziegler? That would be a lot of money but the sox payroll still wouldn't wouldn't exceed 70m and by the time they need the money those contracts are up. Marlins would save like 40m in 2018 and still like 30 the next year (including yelichs salary) and white sox could get a big discount. Still would take one top100 and a few lower prospects but no top30 prospect and probably no top50 either. Like one top80 and two 45s (like hansen/collins,sheets, cordell). The marlins fans would hate that but then again they already hate the marlins anyway:).

Definitely high variance. If eloy and kopech come up early and dominate, moncada becomes a star and giolito and lopez become useful starters I could see them winning 77. But they just as well could have a few young guys having a sophomore slump, one or two pitching injuries and quickly they are a 57 win team. I would pick the middle ground and around 65 wins. Better than fangraphs projections but not by much.

Yes generally a top5 overall prospect is better than a first overall pick. Usually a first overall pick is ranked like 15-20 immediately and might climb with a good year. Top 5 pick is like top50 and top10 lower level top100. Definitely prefer a better return but I still think they should tank all the way next year and start improving in 2019.

I actually think almost nobody of the current young guys has a future with the sox because the prospects coming up are so much better. I don't see a reason to improve next year and, why not do maximum tanking and build that super team for 2020-2026 or so? Yeah they don't need a first overall pick but why not get it anyway? Also regarding delaying eloy and kopech I think you could easily do that. Kopech is great but still too wild to start in the majors (4.5 bb per 9 last year) and eloy has only played 18 games at AA last year. If you let him play in AA for 2 months and then get him to AAA you could wait until next year without causing too much trouble. I would take that extra year of control.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 08:10 PM) For a team this young I don't think that's unreasonable at all. But which of the young guys is actually good? Most of the good young players are in the minors? Avi and abreu are good but they won't be any better than last year. The only guys with upside are imo moncada and rendon everyone else is just a placeholder for the real prospects.