Aaron_Kennelly

Meh on the return. But still: http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Ron-Swanson-Says-Dont-Even-Care.gif If he becomes something, then great. At worst, he's another option. And he's one that we control for awhile and can be stashed in AAA, where the options are thin.

Yes, please.

We are projected to win eleventy billion games.

Man, this is just some excellent news. I'm so happy. This was the one move that I have been wanting to see done. I am thrilled with everything. I just love this team so much. As far as if the wording was wrong on that chart and who was speaking in that video:

McKinney, by default, for me. I do really like a lot about him. Doesn't strike out much, walks a bit. He's a professional hitter. He's got a nice floor. Now, with the lack of power and defensive value, I am sure some of these guys below him could leap him rather quickly this year. I just don't know who will. I am a big fan of Eloy and Cease, but I'll wait until they prove it.

Yeah, I kinda like this signing as a "yeah, he might be better than Clayton Richard" kind of thing. It's at least nice to have that option.

From that thread: Well, most likely, by beating the [expletive] out of everyone.

Agreed. In general, it's a good discussion: "Hey, do we have enough middle infield depth? What's our outfield depth look like? More importantly, what's our rotation depth look like?" But, in this instance, it is: "What happens if possibly our worst position player gets hurt? Do we turn to last year's top catching prospect in all of baseball or this year's top catching prospect in all of baseball?" It's just absurd.

I mean, I get the point. But, Miguel Montero/Mike Trout? I am not comparing the two. I'm just pointing out the lunacy in him worrying about everything. As in: Yes, it would suck if our guys get injured, but every team could say the same thing. But, you actually bring up a more solid point. While I am sure Angels fans would be distraught if Trout were to get injured, they aren't sitting at home prepping for life without him. And yet this guy is worried about Miguel horsefeathering Montero getting hurt.

Do you do anything but worry about stuff? Had to throw your favorite team in there at the end too, eh? Thank you for taking a legitimate question and giving a sarcastic non helpful answer in return. I'm trying to simply throw out a scenario which could occur to stir up some discussion, and you act like a total smug turd in return. People like you are way the quality of Internet discussion tends to be so bad. So feel free to continue to drive topics into the ground. I personally don't see the point though. The reason you received that response is because it was yet another in a long line of weird, doomsday posts from you. Yeah, it would suck if our starting catcher suffered a major injury. But, why are you so worried about that happening? I don't think Angels fans are constantly on edge, worrying about what would happen if Mike Trout were to tear up his knee. Luckily for us, we have the top catching prospect in all the minor leagues sitting at AAA. And we also have a mammoth dong masher in LF that has played catcher his whole life that would be able to slide back there in a pinch. It's not something to worry about.

Hmm, so apparently that one thing everyone is searching for that could bring this team down will be a season long feud between Lester and Zobrist that divides the clubhouse. I can see it already: It will be kinda like a Shaq/Kobe-type feud, where Kobe decides to not pass the ball to Shaq. "Dude, seriously, you have to believe me, I can't throw you the ball."

Man, that thing is a real doozy. It really could use the FJM treatment. He keeps referring to it as "sabre-metrics." (Though, he also uses "saber-metrics.") So it is definitely some sharp analysis. I also enjoyed this part: He then goes on to talk about all the championships Derek Jeter has won. So, yada yada yada, stats don't matter as much as your "presence." I'm just extrapolating here, but I believe what he is implying is: The Nationals were loved by stat nerds last year, but they couldn't win it all because Jonathan Papelbon was a cancer. So, though you nerds may love Papelbon because of his stats, he isn't a winner in my book because of his presence. That is why the Nationals didn't win it last year. Except... from a cursory glance, it appears that Papelbon was the only pitcher on the Nationals last year that has ever won a World Series. So, maybe it was the rest of the team's presence that actually brought down Papelbon's championship presence.

oh look, another guy who thinks sabermetrics means predicting exact numbers for future seasons YAWN From the article: Um, John you do realize that people in nearly every field of work use algorithms and data to predict how things will turn out in the future? I mean, trillions of dollars change hands every year thanks to people using data to predict the future. Has he ever looked at a weather forecast?

I have grown incapable of climaxing to anything other than Kyle Schwarber home runs. And, as such, I have replaced my porn intake entirely with Cubs highlights. So... pretty much all the time.

Is it a conflict of interest for Safelite to be working with us? I figured the Cardinals probably had them on retainer, what with all the broken windshields they have had to deal with.

http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2015/10/17/635806927394236348-1293350699_kY4xRLj%20-%20Imgur.gif

Yeah, his numbers in South Bend scare me a lot. Looking at his Eugene stats: 17.7% BB%, 21.5% K%. OK, I can deal with a >20% K-rate if you are walking that damn much. You could even attribute the K-rate to him just being uber-patient at the plate. Looking at the South Bend stats, though: 10.3% BB% and 23.6% K%. Well, you moved up to full-season ball. The K's are about the same, a little up. To be expected. The walks are down quite a bit, though. Still a fine walk rate, but it isn't exceptional. It's certainly not enough to make up for an astronomical strikeout rate from a college bat in A-ball. Granted, these are both incredibly small sample sizes, so it doesn't mean much -- especially when comparing them against each other. But, one thing is for certain: from his time in both places, it is pretty obvious that he is going to strikeout a fair amount. If he walks like he did in Eugene, I'm all in, K's be damned (unless it gets up near 30%). But, if that gulf between K% and BB% remains about where it was at South Bend -- or, gasp, even widens -- then I'm out on him. He just doesn't have enough other positives for me to be OK with him striking out like that, especially considering what level he is in.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseason 8 MLB executives think Jason Heyward was the worst free-agent signing of the off-season. 13 think his was the most outrageous contract of the off-season. Both were the second-highest vote total. I'm pretty glad our executives aren't in that camp. And, moreover, I'm glad they get to compete against the people that are in that camp.

I'm going Almora, but certainly not emphatically. Good defense at a prime position, plus really good contact skills... that's enough for me to feel secure about this pick. I would love to see him continue to draw more walks and keep up his hot hitting from the end of last year. If he truly is laying off the junk and looking for pitches to drive and can show himself to be a guy that could reasonably be a >.700 OPS guy, then I think he is the best of what is left, given his proximity to the big leagues. I might be way off on Happ. But, I am just not comfortable with him K'ing like that in the lower levels. Given me the safer pick in Almora.

Ryan Kellogg has a 6+ ERA, doesn't strike guys out, gets hit around pretty badly, and is, generally, just awful.

I have Contreras here, by a lot. I'm not a huge fan of Happ. There's still some questions on defense... which, he might be passable at second, or maybe could play center. If not, fine, he can be a pretty good corner outfielder. So, it's not like defense is a huge knock, if there is a chance he can stick at a spot up in the defensive spectrum. But, it's certainly not a huge positive. But, really, I just don't like all the swing-and-miss. I love the walks, but I don't think he'll hit for enough power to make me OK with that K-rate. I just am not a huge fan. If he can cut down the K's and stick at second, then I'll come around. Until then, I don't have him anywhere near Contreras.

I will play devil's advocate. If you combined the Dodgers and White Sox, the White Sox could easily have 3 of the top 4 starters and the top 2 position players. They also play in a less competitive division. That said I don't really think it's all that likely to happen, the Sox still have a gaping hole or two and no depth, but I do think the collapse(maybe not collapse, but large disppointment) risk is higher for the Dodgers than is generally thought. Yeah. I can see all that. But, I have a hard time believing any projection system would output the White Sox with more wins than the Dodgers. I just don't think there were any stats or data used at all in that thing. Not that it is going to be wrong. But, it seems more like some person just picked everything out of their mind.

"Semi-scientific?" I would love to see the algorithm that would lead to the White Sox having more wins than the Dodgers.

Interesting that another stats-based projection system is that high on Almora, given that we have castigated his stats for awhile now, with his only real saving grace being his scouting reports.

I'm a little late on this. I went with Gleyber. It's pretty much a toss-up and I go back and forth on this myself. My choosing Gleyber is no knock on Contreras; I really like Contreras. I am fine with him only having a single year of stand-out numbers offensively. I certainly would like to see him do the same thing again, but I think the changes were real. Strikeouts down, walks up, etc. He hit in the AFL, too. I think he is for real. I would have him in my top-25 in all of baseball. I understand why he's not, and it's on him to prove that last year wasn't a fluke. I'm not sure what to expect from him defensively, but he has a nice arm and I'm hoping he is able to be a decent backstop. Gleyber is another player I really like, though. It's easy to mark him down a notch for how he finished off the season. But, I keep forgetting just how young he is. After seeing him in person, I was taken aback by how impressive he is with the bat. He has a really nice stroke and has a great feel for hitting. I think the power will come -- at least double-digit homers. He hits the ball hard, but it's all on a line. I think there is power there already and that it will come out with time. Regardless, I think he is a pretty safe bet to hit for a high average. The strikeouts are concerning, sure. But with his feel for hitting, I think he will be just fine. I also am not too concerned with him about sticking at short. I like his arm a lot. And I think he has good instincts. It's close. They are both borderline top-20 to -25 guys in baseball, in my mind. But, I am going to go with Gleyber because of his age. There is definitely a little there to dream on with him being so young. Sure, he doesn't have elite potential or any elite tools, and he is praised for being advanced. So that dampers those hopes a little. But, it doesn't take much offense for a legitimate big league shortstop to be really good. And I think he can fit the bill.