Aaron_Kennelly

Also on the optimistic side: He now has had a 250-inning season. So at least we don't have to worry about him never having pitched deep into a season.

Again, not hard evidence, but the obvious implication would be that we may be better at picking our spots for shifts and that we MIGHT, therefore, be saving runs more often by not shifting in other spots, too, which is pretty cool to think about. Interesting article; thanks for sharing. I'm hesitant to take anything from it, because, as you said, there is no hard evidence. But, it sure would be pretty awesome if we were doing a better job at identifying when to shift.

i don't get either of these references http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1419978444971801.gif

lol and the 8th guy actually has done it, even though he's not gonna again He can get close if you include his framing runs.

If they're going to blow their 2nd round pick, it would have been very, very foolish to blow it on Kendrick. Being willing to move some picks in their recent past doesn't mean you blow all the picks. A FA worth blowing that pick on isn't available unless they can maybe convince Fowler to play LF. I mean, I can get on board with you here. I never suggested that doing so would be a smart thing, on balance. I think doing so still leaves them a bit lacking in terms of contending for the playoffs. So why blow that pick on a 30-something league-average-at-best middle infielder? The answer to my question would be: Well, they spent a [expletive] of money on Greinke and they pretty much have to go for it now, so why the hell not? At least it makes them better, and makes their chances of making the playoffs a little better, with some variance here and there. The problem is: This Segura trade doesn't even make them better. Segura sucks. So now, they gave up a decent prospect, and they still didn't get better. At least Kendrick makes the team better.

They gave up prospect in rookie ball that nobody cared about until he got traded and didn't eat the whole contract. Say they get the same deal the Dodgers got - 2/20 - for Kendrick, and pay some team the rumored $6.5 million in a separate move to get rid of Hill. What about spending $16.5 million at one position for the age 32 season of a player coming off a 1 WAR season sounds like a good idea or better move? D'Backs give up picks...bad. D'Backs don't give up pick for Kendrick....bad. All bases are covered. Why do you keep tacking Hill's money onto Kendrick? That's not how things work. If you want to describe it as paying $16.5 million for Kendrick, then can I describe this as 2.6 for Segura plus 6.5 for Hill as being $9.1 million for a replacement-level player in Segura?

So with Segura's 2.6 + the 6.5 they are sending, and losing Hill's 12, they saved about $3 million with this deal. Well done!

The D'Backs just went through Hill's age 32-33 seasons at the same position for a similar salary. While Kendrick was a little better than Hill as a player, they're not wildly far off career wise, and Kendrick enters the exact ages where Hill fell off a cliff with the D'Backs. Why set themselves up to repeat the situation, cost themselves pool money and a draft pick, and *still* have to deal with Hill's situation? Do they pay someone to take on Hill? Not to mention that Kendrick showed signs of decline last year, and got $10 million off a 1 WAR season. I have seeeeerious doubts people would be praising the D'Backs if they signed Kendrick - they'd be talking about having he and Hill on the payroll, how they gave up a draft pick and pool money...I could imagine Dave Cameron now. As flash and exciting as "one of their top-ten prospects" sounds these days, it's a player who just repeated - albeit mashed - rookie ball. They drafted him in the 4th round, so possibly they fill that giant hole he left with the second round pick they still have. Now a FA that maybe should start interesting them is Dexter Fowler... Umm, yes. They just paid someone $ and one of their top prospects to take him on. So why couldn't they do the same thing if they signed Kendrick?

Yeah, except Kendrick isn't a replacement-level player like Segura. And they also gave up one of their top-ten prospects and a generic depth arm, who happened to be better than Segura in each of the last two seasons.

Hill was a sunk cost. Why are you factoring that into a Kendrick signing?

None of these things matter when you are a replacement-level player. Cool, still better off with them than without. If he bounces back a little on offense - this is a guy who hit .313/.367.439 in the minors to go with that age 23 season in the majors - the D'Backs found themselves a bargain. Like I said - all it cost was their oldest, most expensive player (after Greinke) coming off a .640 OPS, one of their generic depth arms, and some SS prospect that got a bunch of new fans today by virtue of being in the trade. TT, yeah I thought Owings was LH. Getting Segura and clearing Hill's deal is a big plus for them overall, clearing the contract and improving the youth and defense from Hill's roster spot - that has plenty of value in itself. While there are question marks about all their IFs outside of Goldschmidt and Lamb to a lesser extent, all these guys hit in the minors and were on top prospect lists as recent as 2014. All have at least flashed above average bats in the majors, Segura for a whole season in 2013. It's not a slam dunk good group, but it is a young and talented one with good depth. I agree with the first part, sure. The start of this second sentence is what I am alluding to, though. Those things only matter if he improves -- a lot, not a little -- offensively. If he doesn't, then he is still the replacement-level player he has been the last two years, and him being healthy and durable doesn't really matter at all. Also, his minor league stats got progressively worse as he went up each rung of the ladder. He might just be a guy that is over-matched by big league pitching, as evidenced by his 2.2% BB% and .268 wOBA last year.

Segura had a .616 OPS last year which was 138th out of 141 qualified players. That was a slight improvement over his 2014 numbers when he had a .614 OPS 143/146. He's been the worst offensive everyday player in baseball over the last two years. I'm aware. Still only 26, only making $2.6m, healthy and durable, already has a .752 OPS season under his belt from his age 23 season, has a good track record of hitting in the minors, proven ML MIF defense....There's a lot to like, and it only cost them a contract and player they didn't want or need, a depth arm, and some prospect I assume everyone likes now. davell, Cameron misses that they'd be giving up pool money in the draft and that Diaz is a short season/rookie ball SS on a team with a bunch of 24-26 year old shortstops. Kendrick signed for more than 3 times what they will pay Segura, they got to dump Hill's contract (long a goal), Segura is half a decade+ younger and can play SS.....That guy, I can't stand that guy - Dave Cameron. None of these things matter when you are a replacement-level player.

I don't really care about lineup construction either, as long as the better hitters are hitting early, but I don't think I've ever heard that the 3rd spot is less important than 4 or 5 before.(if I have, I've glossed over it due to indifference). That's at least kind of interesting. Essentially, it comes down to the fact that the three-hitter will often come up with two outs and nobody on in the first inning. So he's getting more ABs in situations that aren't conducive to run-producing. But, like others have said, it doesn't matter much to me. There is certainly value in lineup optimization. But as long as the construction isn't completely crazy, then I don't mind too much if Bryant or Rizzo or Schwarber or Heyward is in the 2-hole or 5-hole or wherever. As long as we aren't, say, batting Javy lead-off and Rizzo 7th, or something like that, then I just don't care too much. There's a lot of other factors at play that can also have an impact, like splitting the lefties and righties up, or knowing which guys you might pinch hit for when a reliever comes in.

Yeah, we signed him to a minor-league deal after we non-tendered him. Is he actually physically able to pitch, though? I thought it was more of just a stash-and-wait kinda thing with him this year?

Thanks. That was pretty awesome. He's clearly made a lot of changes as a player, and I've heard him talk some about it. But, to hear him mention that he looked at stats and what ones teams were looking for, and that he tried to improve himself in ways that were actually beneficial to team success was fascinating. I'm not sure I buy his improvements defensively. In fact, I flat out don't believe he really improved defensively, And, he doesn't really say what helped him improve, other than that he focused more and really wanted to do better. Don't get me wrong: I think he was better defensively last year. He didn't make as many egregious lapses as we saw in 2014. In fact, he wasn't credited with any errors last year. But, I think he kinda just stumbled into a solid year defensively. He seemed to still take a lot of horrible routes, but miraculously was able to track down a good amount of balls after taking bad routes. He's just doesn't have good instincts out there -- bad jumps, bad routes, etc. But, maybe by focusing on his defensive and really making it a priority and holding himself accountable, then he might be able to stay around league average instead of well below it? As for his hitting, it's pretty great what he's done. The results have blessed us with some cheap wins from a guy that we literally got off the scrap heap.

So he thinks we should get rid of Theo because of an article he read in a magazine?

Feel free, it doesn't actually change anything. Like - it couldn't possibly have less effect on the outcomes. I'd still rather take my chances with this guy and that kind of prospect than the Jeffrey Baezs of the prospect world (which also has zero effect on how things turn out). I was actually just joking. I'm not that spiteful. And, anyway, if he did fail, I know that it will just be another name that pops up to take his place and get repeated ad nauseum.

Man, I hate to root against our own prospects. And I am sure that Kellogg's a real nice guy. But, it's going to be hard for me to not hope that he fails spectacularly.

Contreras became a consensus top 100 prospect within a year, there's nothing really vague about it. I clearly wasn't asking who we will talk about more, or who will have a good year. I was asking for a guy who'd be getting the kind of attention Contreras is getting after a year. It's vague if you want it to be, but I think anyone willing to participate would make the distinction right away. I'm sorry you feel that I [expletive] on those prospects by pointing out that, perhaps, they aren't the kind of prospects who suddenly fly up to the top of a system - let alone towards the top of all prospects in general. My goal wasn't to [expletive] on them - if you take the time to actually read what I wrote about them I didn't even kinda sorta [expletive] on them in the first place. horsefeathers, dude. I've tried explaining the problem several times. The problem isn't even really with them having to end up in the top 100 or top 75 or wherever. The problem is that Willson Contreras pulled off the near impossible last year of jumping from an unknown quantity -- barely a top 50 guy in his own system into the top 50 in all of baseball. It is a near certainty that no player will do that this year. So, when people give you answers, they aren't saying they think those guys will end up in the top 100. To think otherwise is asinine. People are answering the question as such: If someone does pull off what Contreras did, then this is my answer as to who it will be. Now you want us to give answers that are likely to end up in the top 100? There aren't any.

No [expletive]. It's almost like what Contreras did is insanely tough to replicate. It's almost like his ascension was extraordinarily noteworthy. Whoa, sorry to leave a semantics loophole. I'd still give the Markey/Penalver/Baez exceptionally longer shots than pre-2015 Contreras to have a significant breakout season. I think this should be obvious given Markey being older than Contreras was last year, Baez not on track to play in AA until he's 23/24 next year as a corner OF, and Penalver's .533 OPS last year and career .608. Well, the semantics aren't the only problem with what is going on here. There are semantics issues: You asked for someone "noooobody" was talking about. So people gave names that nobody is talking about. Then you said they would become a "top prospect." This is pretty vague. But, the main problem isn't with the semantics. It's that people named a bunch of guys that aren't likely to become top prospects and you horsefeathers all over them. By definition of the question, no answer that anyone gives is going to be likely to become a top prospect. So I am not sure what you were looking for with your question.

I was gonna mention him, but wasn't sure where others had him right now. I figured he was top 30 still, but I'm not sure if he is in mine. This would certainly be a good answer, if he fit the parameters of whatever it is that we are trying to answer.

Ugh you're right...That's so dramatic. I thought at least Sickels had him in there. Who goes from consensus not-a-system-top-30 to top 60 or potentially better overall prospect at 23, 7 years into a pro career? That's odd, but so is ranking prospects instead of talking about them. In my defense, I had him safely in the top 30, IIRC even top 20, and assumed all the big ones did too. I'd still give the Markey/Penalver/Baez trio an exceptionally long shot at taking the kind of leap Contreras did. No horsefeathers. It's almost like what Contreras did is insanely tough to replicate. It's almost like his ascension was extraordinarily noteworthy.

First of all, Contreras was not a top-20 guy last year, at this time. I'm not even sure he was a top-40 guy. I mean, maybe in someone's list he was, but that person probably would have been labeled as crazy to think as such. He was coming off of a season with a .679 OPS as a 22-year-old in high-A and he wasn't viewed exactly as have a great pedigree. I've looked through a few lists from last year and don't see him anywhere near the top 20. He isn't even in the top 30, or in the honorable mention, for that matter. I don't think he was in NSBB's top 30, either. So, that being said, what are you looking for with your question? I said Jeffrey Baez because, well, I don't think it is likely that he becomes a top prospect -- about as likely as I thought Willson Contreras becoming a top prospect was last year. Also, if you had given me the top-75 parameter originally, then I probably wouldn't have chosen him. However, there is a chance he becomes a top-75 guy. He would need to do something like hitting 25-30 homers, stealing 40 bases, and getting his walk rate up to 10% or so to do so. But, it's possible. It's possible in the sense that, horsefeathers, some guy not in our top 40 last year led the Southern League in batting. I'm simply trying to name a person who fit your parameter of "a guy noooobody is talking about that flies up to top prospect." But, now it seems that you want to mention guys that a lot of people are talking about, which doesn't really fit with Contreras's profile of last year. Baez does fit that profile: Older prospect; unclaimed in the Rule 5; nobody mentions him; if you squint enough there might be something there. Anyway, I'll amend my answer: I don't think anyone will do what Contreras did last year and jump from out of our own top 40 into the top 50 in all of baseball. It's not gonna happen. That's not as fun, though. I thought the question was fun, but not if you want us to be realistic. If we have to be realistic, then there is no acceptable answer.