Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 5-24-15

[Guest]

Tradetradetradetrdade. Dazzle some dopey GM with his minor league magic and then sit back and laugh while smoking a big stinky cigar as Baez perpetually flails at the major league level and whoever we get for him is amazing forever.

 

so you think javy is a 22 year old AAAA player?

 

i have a hard time believing AAAA players are a thing (barring like guys who have played at AAA for years and years and are dominating it in their late 20s), especially 22 year old ones.

Edited May 24, 2015 by David

[Guest]

I don't know if there's really a ton of urgency to get Baez back to the MLB roster. He has had similar stretches like this before:

 

July 2014 at Iowa: .300/.344/.655, 24% K%, 6% BB%, 69% contact

May 2015 at Iowa: .325/.409/.481, 24% K%, 9% BB%, 71% contact

 

That May line is only getting better since it excludes today, and peripherally it's a bit better regardless, but it's not a day/night turnaround that shouts 'call me up this instant' either. There may be non-statistical progress Baez has made/not-made that is a better determinant, but I'm not in a big hurry to see him in Chicago unless they've decided that Bryant is not playing 3B again.

 

yeah. let him do this for another 3 weeks, then call him up and pu thim at 3B

[Sammy Sofa]

Tradetradetradetrdade. Dazzle some dopey GM with his minor league magic and then sit back and laugh while smoking a big stinky cigar as Baez perpetually flails at the major league level and whoever we get for him is amazing forever.

 

so you think javy is a 22 year old AAAA player?

 

i have a hard time believing AAAA players are a thing (barring like guys who have played at AAA for years and years and are dominating it in their late 20s), especially 22 year old ones.

 

I just think the scenario I presented is very humorous.

 

Personally, I don't think Baez' actual output will match or top what they could get in return if they move him at the right time in the right deal.

[TruffleShuffle]

it seems rather dumb to bury a guy after a piss poor debut in the big leagues at age 21, especially since mike trout and anthony rizzo were also God awful in their first crack at the bigs. the risk is still high, but i don't think the ceiling is any lower than it was before he stunk it up the second half of last year.

[Sammy Sofa]

Trading high isn't "burying a guy."

 

Holding up other player's unsuccessful first go-arounds never fails to be way too simplistic. And now we've gone from just lazily using Rizzo in that example to also inexplicably using Mike Trout, too? Mike Trout, who manged to be a 0.7 WAR player in 40 games at 19-years-old.

[Sammy Sofa]

And hyperbole aside, I don't think it's the end of the world if the Cubs hold on to him; personally, I think he'd end up being a Soriano-esque player, which I'm more than happy to have. That said, I think the potential that so many people are enamored with plus what he's done in the minors could very realistically make him the main part of a deal that could bring back a player that would be even more valuable than what I think Baez is likely to pan out as.

[Guest]

Torres back in the lineup for South Bend, 1 for 2 with a K so far.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Nice to see Almora and Torres back in their respective lineups.

[Little Slide Rooter]

And hyperbole aside, I don't think it's the end of the world if the Cubs hold on to him; personally, I think he'd end up being a Soriano-esque player, which I'm more than happy to have. That said, I think the potential that so many people are enamored with plus what he's done in the minors could very realistically make him the main part of a deal that could bring back a player that would be even more valuable than what I think Baez is likely to pan out as.

 

If we're talking about Soriano in his prime, there probably isn't a position player prospect on earth whose team wouldn't be thrilled to death if they ended up that.

[Sammy Sofa]

And hyperbole aside, I don't think it's the end of the world if the Cubs hold on to him; personally, I think he'd end up being a Soriano-esque player, which I'm more than happy to have. That said, I think the potential that so many people are enamored with plus what he's done in the minors could very realistically make him the main part of a deal that could bring back a player that would be even more valuable than what I think Baez is likely to pan out as.

 

If we're talking about Soriano in his prime, there probably isn't a position player prospect on earth whose team wouldn't be thrilled to death if they ended up that.

 

No, I'm talking Alfonso Soriano, very streaky monster-hitter. I doubt Baez would have the SB numbers that gave Soriano his best player ratings; better defensively, but Soriano really only had one truly bad defensive season during his peak years (2002-2008).

 

So like I said, would be perfectly fine if Baez panned out a la Soriano with the bat, but I think if moved at the right time he could net the Cubs something even better.

[TruffleShuffle]

Holding up other player's unsuccessful first go-arounds never fails to be way too simplistic. And now we've gone from just lazily using Rizzo in that example to also inexplicably using Mike Trout, too? Mike Trout, who manged to be a 0.7 WAR player in 40 games at 19-years-old.

 

yes, based purely on his defense. his offense was bad.

 

i don't see why it's lazy to compare him to other players who were bad in their first stint against mlb pitching. yes, baez was especially abysmal, but we already knew that his risk profile was much higher. he'll probably end up not being good. but it's possible that he ends up being really good.

 

i can't really say what "selling high" on him would be, because i'm not sure how other clubs will value him. he can rebuild his value above where it was after last season, but it's never going to be higher than it was before he was called up, at least until he actually shows he can face major league pitching without striking out half the time.

[Sammy Sofa]

Holding up other player's unsuccessful first go-arounds never fails to be way too simplistic. And now we've gone from just lazily using Rizzo in that example to also inexplicably using Mike Trout, too? Mike Trout, who manged to be a 0.7 WAR player in 40 games at 19-years-old.

 

yes, based purely on his defense. his offense was bad.

 

i don't see why it's lazy to compare him to other players who were bad in their first stint against mlb pitching. yes, baez was especially abysmal, but we already knew that his risk profile was much higher. he'll probably end up not being good. but it's possible that he ends up being really good.

 

i can't really say what "selling high" on him would be, because i'm not sure how other clubs will value him. he can rebuild his value above where it was after last season, but it's never going to be higher than it was before he was called up, at least until he actually shows he can face major league pitching without striking out half the time.

 

But that's actually where he is similar to Rizzo; teams are going to still be willing to go in big for him if he keeps mashing and being more patient in the minors. They'll be willing to take that chance because of the expectations/hopes for what he can be. Plus I disagree that the highest time to sell on him was before when he was first called up; you could argue it's higher if he keeps improving in the minors since it could be looked at/hoped that he went through a good chunk of his major league growing pains already.

 

And it's lazy to just point to someone like Rizzo and Trout and say, "see? He can be fixed!" when basically all they have in common is they weren't as good as anyone wanted in their first go around. It would hold a lot more weight if you point to players who have similar skills/flaws/results as Baez and then succeeded after initially floundering. He just doesn't seem very similar to Rizzo or Trout at all.

[davell]

I actually don't think that's true at all. He's as much of a boom or bust guy as there is. Think about it: If you're a GM of an opposing team, would you trade your best piece for a guy like that as the lead piece or would you take a guy who's maybe not quite as talented, but probably has the higher floor? Most would take door number 2 and not think twice about it. Even analysts and writers have said as much when it comes to Javy. All teams would LOVE to have him, but they're going to try and steal him, not give up the main asset they're trading to get him.

 

It's fine with me, we've obviously got the depth to whether him busting, if he does. But if he doesnt(and I honestly don't think he will), we've got a phenomenal asset.

 

But what I can't see is Theo selling low on him. So if he IS dealt, then my guess is it'll come with him carrying the value of a top 10 prospect in the game and Theo has convinced some GM to take that shot. One that could potentially get him fired at some point.

[treebird]

this is a fun argument in that all the pro-baez people shout "EVERYONE ELSE THINKS HE SUCKS, LET'S KEEP HIM AND ENJOY THE DONGS"

 

whereas all the anti-baez people shout "HE'S GARBAGE, LET'S TRADE HIM AND GET A WHOLE BUNCH BACK SINCE EVERYONE ELSE LOVES HIM SO"

[Sammy Sofa]

I actually don't think that's true at all. He's as much of a boom or bust guy as there is. Think about it: If you're a GM of an opposing team, would you trade your best piece for a guy like that as the lead piece or would you take a guy who's maybe not quite as talented, but probably has the higher floor? Most would take door number 2 and not think twice about it. Even analysts and writers have said as much when it comes to Javy. All teams would LOVE to have him, but they're going to try and steal him, not give up the main asset they're trading to get him.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this, which is why I think the best use of him in a trade would be as A big piece as opposed to being THE big piece. On his own the risk is too high to really bring something gamechanging, but the appeal of what he could be if he actually clicks would make him an insanely appealing asset in a big trade. Given them the less spectacular with a higher floor gets you an OK return; that player + Baez gets you gold, Jerry, GOLD. It's like trying to sell someone a car and instead of trying to win them over with a bunch of add-ons you're like, "ah, [expletive] it, you get the hover-tires. Sure, there's a good chance they'll fail and you'll die, but if they work you can FLY."

[treebird]

I actually don't think that's true at all. He's as much of a boom or bust guy as there is. Think about it: If you're a GM of an opposing team, would you trade your best piece for a guy like that as the lead piece or would you take a guy who's maybe not quite as talented, but probably has the higher floor? Most would take door number 2 and not think twice about it. Even analysts and writers have said as much when it comes to Javy. All teams would LOVE to have him, but they're going to try and steal him, not give up the main asset they're trading to get him.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this, which is why I think the best use of him in a trade would be as A big piece as opposed to being THE big piece. On his own the risk is too high to really bring something gamechanging, but the appeal of what he could be if he actually clicks would make him an insanely appealing asset in a big trade. Given them the less spectacular with a higher floor gets you an OK return; that player + Baez gets you gold, Jerry, GOLD. It's like trying to sell someone a car and instead of trying to win them over with a bunch of add-ons you're like, "ah, [expletive] it, you get the hover-tires. Sure, there's a good chance they'll fail and you'll die, but if they work you can FLY."

 

you know, this used to be jon voight's javi baez.

[Sammy Sofa]

I actually don't think that's true at all. He's as much of a boom or bust guy as there is. Think about it: If you're a GM of an opposing team, would you trade your best piece for a guy like that as the lead piece or would you take a guy who's maybe not quite as talented, but probably has the higher floor? Most would take door number 2 and not think twice about it. Even analysts and writers have said as much when it comes to Javy. All teams would LOVE to have him, but they're going to try and steal him, not give up the main asset they're trading to get him.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this, which is why I think the best use of him in a trade would be as A big piece as opposed to being THE big piece. On his own the risk is too high to really bring something gamechanging, but the appeal of what he could be if he actually clicks would make him an insanely appealing asset in a big trade. Given them the less spectacular with a higher floor gets you an OK return; that player + Baez gets you gold, Jerry, GOLD. It's like trying to sell someone a car and instead of trying to win them over with a bunch of add-ons you're like, "ah, [expletive] it, you get the hover-tires. Sure, there's a good chance they'll fail and you'll die, but if they work you can FLY."

 

you know, this used to be jon voight's javi baez.

 

I'm going to compare these bite marks to the ones on this bison dog.

[davell]

I guess my main issue with that would be what in the hell would we be trading for that would require him as a second piece?

 

And I guess that's a good segue to ask who all do we have that would be considered more valuable in trade currently than Javy?

 

I'd go....

1 KB

2 Rizzo(he'd be 1st if he wasn't a 1B)

3 Russell

4 Arrieta

5 Soler

6 Schwarber(not sure if I actually think he'd bring more than Javy, if no team is sold that he can stick behind the plate)

7 Starlin

8 Javy

 

I'll try to get to 10....

 

9 Lester(even with the contract?)

10 Hammel, Edwards, or Torres? No idea. Maybe Alcantara?

 

At any rate, if we're trading Javy and someone above him on this list, I'm not sure there's 10 guys in MLB I'd do it for, once contracts are taken into consideration.

[RammyFanny]

Holding up other player's unsuccessful first go-arounds never fails to be way too simplistic. And now we've gone from just lazily using Rizzo in that example to also inexplicably using Mike Trout, too? Mike Trout, who manged to be a 0.7 WAR player in 40 games at 19-years-old.

 

yes, based purely on his defense. his offense was bad.

 

i don't see why it's lazy to compare him to other players who were bad in their first stint against mlb pitching. yes, baez was especially abysmal, but we already knew that his risk profile was much higher. he'll probably end up not being good. but it's possible that he ends up being really good.

 

i can't really say what "selling high" on him would be, because i'm not sure how other clubs will value him. he can rebuild his value above where it was after last season, but it's never going to be higher than it was before he was called up, at least until he actually shows he can face major league pitching without striking out half the time.

It would hold a lot more weight if you point to players who have similar skills/flaws/results as Baez and then succeeded after initially floundering. He just doesn't seem very similar to Rizzo or Trout at all.

I don't really think anyone's making a direct comparison, just a general acknowledgement that most good players sucked at 21 (so yeah, the Rizzo mentions probably aren't even necessary).

 

There aren't many meaningful comparisons to actually make. So few players have his issues and were still simultaneously awesome enough in the minors to make the majors by 21. Most guys barely walking and K'ing near 30% are about to be demoted; Baez was hitting .294 and on pace for a 50 homer season with those peripherals as what I think was the youngest player in his league. He's such a goofy bastard.

 

Like, you think maybe Carlos Gomes at first thought but the more you dig into his past the more you see that they weren't that alike at all coming up. Gomes just randomly found a power switch years into it.

[TruffleShuffle]

Holding up other player's unsuccessful first go-arounds never fails to be way too simplistic. And now we've gone from just lazily using Rizzo in that example to also inexplicably using Mike Trout, too? Mike Trout, who manged to be a 0.7 WAR player in 40 games at 19-years-old.

 

yes, based purely on his defense. his offense was bad.

 

i don't see why it's lazy to compare him to other players who were bad in their first stint against mlb pitching. yes, baez was especially abysmal, but we already knew that his risk profile was much higher. he'll probably end up not being good. but it's possible that he ends up being really good.

 

i can't really say what "selling high" on him would be, because i'm not sure how other clubs will value him. he can rebuild his value above where it was after last season, but it's never going to be higher than it was before he was called up, at least until he actually shows he can face major league pitching without striking out half the time.

 

But that's actually where he is similar to Rizzo; teams are going to still be willing to go in big for him if he keeps mashing and being more patient in the minors. They'll be willing to take that chance because of the expectations/hopes for what he can be. Plus I disagree that the highest time to sell on him was before when he was first called up; you could argue it's higher if he keeps improving in the minors since it could be looked at/hoped that he went through a good chunk of his major league growing pains already.

 

And it's lazy to just point to someone like Rizzo and Trout and say, "see? He can be fixed!" when basically all they have in common is they weren't as good as anyone wanted in their first go around. It would hold a lot more weight if you point to players who have similar skills/flaws/results as Baez and then succeeded after initially floundering. He just doesn't seem very similar to Rizzo or Trout at all.

 

he's similar in that he sucked in his first crack at the big leagues.

 

plus i don't understand your angle here at all. you seem really down on baez because couldn't make contact for [expletive] when he was in the majors, and his flaws are not similar to other players who turned it around. yet you believe that other GMs are going to overlook this information because he starts hitting well at a level he already hit well at last year?

 

this isn't to say that he won't have significant trade value, but people seem to believe that baez can be a cornerstone in a deal for a frontline starter, and i don't really think that is true.

[fiver]

So I watched the chatanooga lookouts and mobile baybears play yesterday. Byron Buxton and Miguel Sano are both physically impressive. The wind was howling and Buxton is able to cover a lot of ground in the OF. Sano's arm strength at 3B definitely caught my attention, and he seems to have fully recovered from tommy john surgery. Sano also hit a hr, his 10th of the year.

[Sammy Sofa]

I guess my main issue with that would be what in the hell would we be trading for that would require him as a second piece?

 

And I guess that's a good segue to ask who all do we have that would be considered more valuable in trade currently than Javy?

 

I'd go....

1 KB

2 Rizzo(he'd be 1st if he wasn't a 1B)

3 Russell

4 Arrieta

5 Soler

6 Schwarber(not sure if I actually think he'd bring more than Javy, if no team is sold that he can stick behind the plate)

7 Starlin

8 Javy

 

I'll try to get to 10....

 

9 Lester(even with the contract?)

10 Hammel, Edwards, or Torres? No idea. Maybe Alcantara?

 

At any rate, if we're trading Javy and someone above him on this list, I'm not sure there's 10 guys in MLB I'd do it for, once contracts are taken into consideration.

 

Think of Baez as the "first" piece in the deal if it helps you process it better. He just sits in a nebulous spot value-wise where on his own he's probably too scary, but combined correctly his monster potential could probably get a team a lot in return.

[Sammy Sofa]

he's similar in that he sucked in his first crack at the big leagues.

 

And that's pretty much it.

 

plus i don't understand your angle here at all. you seem really down on baez because couldn't make contact for [expletive] when he was in the majors, and his flaws are not similar to other players who turned it around. yet you believe that other GMs are going to overlook this information because he starts hitting well at a level he already hit well at last year?

 

I'm not some baseball savant who knows what Baez will be; I just know I'm not a big fan of his due to strikeout issues and I think even if he pans out as a ML starter he's not going to be anywhere near the levels people were breathlessly talking about him maybe being at. That said, a lot of people a lot smarter than me still think he can turn overcome (or at least minimize) his flaws enough to became a really valuable player. There's a still a ton of temptation to pick up a player like him. I would just prefer another team take that chance instead of the Cubs.

[Guest]

Javy's 2nd HR yesterday

 

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=130485383&sid=milb

[Sammy Sofa]

Is he still standing closer to the plate?