kenag122002

Members
  • Content Count

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

125 Excellent

About kenag122002

  • Rank
    Veteran

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Good list to analyze. The first thing that jumps off the page for me is that while they used a similar mix of pitches, none of these guys came close to Paddack's elite control. Isn't that what separates him?
  2. I believe you. I'm interested in what you are bringing up here -- Give us a few examples that looked similar to Paddack and then failed. I'd like to look into those
  3. I think the whip could be closer to 1.1, he's never had a whip above 0.981, throughout the minors and in his first season. And the elite control supports a low whip.
  4. Article from the time of the trade https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/with-trade-the-james-shields-signing-proves-to-be-disastrous-for-the-padres/ the Padres gave up a high pick and $40 million to acquire 44 average-ish starts from Shields, Johnson, and a lottery ticket in Tatis. Woof.
  5. Lets stop playing games. He was a 40 FV type prospect at the time of the trade. That's a bag of balls/lotto ticket like I said. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/evaluating-the-prospect-in-the-james-shields-deal/
  6. I didn't call growth spurts dumb, I was referencing this whole discussion. It's beyond silly. Yes, he was 17 when traded. And if anyone was privy to his "growth spurts" or his work in instructionals it was the White Sox. The Padres traded Shields for the proverbial "bag of balls" - not a top prospect, but a J2 guy. Which, to their credit is a high reward play. It rarely hits, but when it does, it has value. ANY one of the dozens of J2 signings could turn out. That's the nature of the beast - we are discussing literal kids. Just as no one can effectively identify MLB talent from HS freshmen with a high degree of precision, these kids are similarly difficult to pin down with a high degree of success. Some of them are more likely to hit - say the top 5-10 in each J2 class. The rest, are effectively lotto tickets. The Padres hit on their lotto ticket. In retrospect we can call them geniuses. Or we can just admit they got lucky and hit on a kid that was not one of the elite J2 signings (based on either "rankings" or signing bonuses).
  7. Not sure if serious, but this thread is dumb enough that I'm not interested in arguing anymore. All 16 year old J2 signings are above average prospects. Genius! All sons of mlb players should be further moved up prospect lists because we only pay attention to the ones that succeed and not the thousands that don't. Genius! Let's move on.
  8. I cannot imagine how naive a person has to be to think that they have the magic pill for MLB scouting and they are smarter than every team. Just pick the kids of mlb players! How can all your mlb scouts be so dumb! Can we move on? This thread is ridiculous. You know absolutely nothing about prospects.
  9. But they didn't have a father who was an MLB player! Don't you see it. We all should have known he was going to pan out because of his dad! Forget moneyball, all teams need to do is draft/buy kids of former MLB players. It's genius!
  10. Heh, I'm not in denial of anything, I'm not even a White Sox fan. The revisionist history always amuses me though.
  11. What an incredibly odd statement. Almost all J2 signings are 16 years old. It does not, in any way, make them above average prospects just because they sign at that age. Feels like you haven't followed J2 very much if that's what you actually think. The vast majority of them fail. They are not above average. They are signed at 16 years old because that's the agreement in place and it doesn't cost a team a draft pick. So the opportunity cost is low. But what a weird view to take that all J2 players are above average because of the age that they sign at. Very strange perspective.
  12. So why didn't the Padres have a verbal agreement with him well before he turned 16? The reality is that this is all a game of revisionist history. Most international prospects do not live up to the hype. Some of them do. Tatis was one of those. The Padres did great in identifying him as a player they wanted to trade for. But suggesting that they *knew* he would turn out to be the player he became is beyond ridiculous. 21 teams, including the Padres, passed on Mike Trout in 2009. It happens.
  13. Is it? Why didn't the Padres pay more than 800K to sign him in the first place?
  14. While I agree in the general sense, Tatis had 0 AB in the minors between the time when he signed as an international prospect and the time when he was traded. Sure, perception of him could have gone up based on instructionals, but I'm having trouble understanding this revisionist history that he went from a decent (not elite) international signee to an elite prospect, ahead of all those other international signees, with zero ABs.
  15. That... doesn't make any sense. It takes time because they have to establish themselves as prospects. It's not a shoe in. Many of them don't. You can't look at it in reverse. You are saying the 27th best international prospect would have magically been higher on prospect lists because he ended up as Fernando Tatis. But that's ridiculous. What bout the 26th, and the 25th? The reality is that he was the 27th best because he *wasn't* as highly regarded as many other international prospects. So it was very unlikely that he'd end up being worth Sheilds. Yes it's easy to say now that he was, but that's only due to hindsight. The decision made, at the time, was for an average prospect. Not for a great one.