OnlyBucs

071A3E3C32570 wrote:



The farm isn't good.   The dead giveaway is the continuing number of top guys in the low minors.  Thats markedly different than years ago, when the farm was actually good.



Low minors guys are complete wildcards and that's why the prospectors love them.   They can be anything we want them to be when they grow up! Lol



Keller, meadows, Tucker, possibly Kramer.  Lower level than that, the guys might as well not exist...yet




This is a bad take IMO.



And in addition to the guys you mentioned, there's also a collection of other either recent graduates or aged prospects (Kingham, Holmes, Moroff, Luplow, and Glasnow) and not to mention Kevin Newman.


Moroff and luplow do interest me.   My not mentioning them has to do with their being AAAA or higher.    While it seems unlikely they will end up as great players, I believe they are both needing a serious look this season. I'm particularly interested in Moroff.



Holmes I cannot even consider a real prospect.  Hes not a very good pitcher.  Organizational depth with his control issues paired with inability to miss many bats.  He will wash out eventually or be lost to minor league FA as a depth starter.



Glasnow is a complete mess.   Hes a prospect in name only at this point.   



I understand you disagree.  I've seen this minor league sales pitch too many times to be fooled (again).  And I have never seen a pitcher as screwed up as Glasnow ...for this long, (key point, for this long) ...turn it around and be a good pitcher.   Doesn't mean it's never happened.   Just means I've never, EVER seen it. 



If Glasnow ends up a top of the rotation starter after this many disasterous innings to start his career, there will be a book written about it.


I also can't think of anyone off to this disastrous of a start in the majors.  However, Glasnow does remind me a bit of Randy Johnson.    One big difference that is a positive for Glasnow is that Glasnow has been much better in the minors that Johnson ever was.  Looking at the stats, Johnson had a tough transition into the majors.  He also was very wild.  He led the league in walks and hit batsman a couple of times.  In fact, one year he led the league in walks, hit batsman and strikeouts.  To be clear, I'm not saying Glasnow will turn into Johnson, but given their stature and skillsets, it is an interesting comparison.
I don't see the comparison other than being tall. Johnson began his career with 4 outstanding starts for Mtl in 1988. He started 1989 with 2 good starts and 4 bad ones and was then traded to Sea. He pitched decently for Seattle the rest of that season and had ERAs under 4 for the next 13 years. Altho he led MLB in walks 1990-1992 he had low hit totals and high K totals as well as ERAs from 3.65-3.98 those yeas in the DH-filled AL. So those walks weren't hurting much because he was otherwise hard to hit and getting batters out.



Other than a couple games, Glasnow has been terribly ineffective. He's not only wild but he also gets hit hard when he throws strikes. He just can't get batters out.



Glasnow has appeared in 22 games, 17 as a starter. Johnson's first 22 games included 21 as a starter. After 22 career games:



Glasnow 85.1 IP, 103 hits, 64 ER, 57 BB, 80 K ERA: 6.75

Johnson 124.2 IP, 109 hits, 54 ER, 73 BB, 103 K ERA: 3.90



Johnson during that time averaged 5.9 innings per start. Glasnow has averaged 4.3 innings per start. And altho Glasnow has pitched roughly 40 fewer innings at this stage, he has given up nearly as many hits and more ERs. His ERA as a starter is 7.24. I just don't see any valid comparison between the two other than height. And for that matter, Johnson was 2 inches taller.

6D404D5C5B4A5D1D1E2F0 wrote:



The farm isn't good.   The dead giveaway is the continuing number of top guys in the low minors.  Thats markedly different than years ago, when the farm was actually good.



Low minors guys are complete wildcards and that's why the prospectors love them.   They can be anything we want them to be when they grow up! Lol



Keller, meadows, Tucker, possibly Kramer.  Lower level than that, the guys might as well not exist...yet




This is a bad take IMO.



And in addition to the guys you mentioned, there's also a collection of other either recent graduates or aged prospects (Kingham, Holmes, Moroff, Luplow, and Glasnow) and not to mention Kevin Newman.


Moroff and luplow do interest me.   My not mentioning them has to do with their being AAAA or higher.    While it seems unlikely they will end up as great players, I believe they are both needing a serious look this season. I'm particularly interested in Moroff.



Holmes I cannot even consider a real prospect.  Hes not a very good pitcher.  Organizational depth with his control issues paired with inability to miss many bats.  He will wash out eventually or be lost to minor league FA as a depth starter.



Glasnow is a complete mess.   Hes a prospect in name only at this point.   



I understand you disagree.  I've seen this minor league sales pitch too many times to be fooled (again).  And I have never seen a pitcher as screwed up as Glasnow ...for this long, (key point, for this long) ...turn it around and be a good pitcher.   Doesn't mean it's never happened.   Just means I've never, EVER seen it. 



If Glasnow ends up a top of the rotation starter after this many disasterous innings to start his career, there will be a book written about it.


I also can't think of anyone off to this disastrous of a start in the majors.  However, Glasnow does remind me a bit of Randy Johnson.    One big difference that is a positive for Glasnow is that Glasnow has been much better in the minors that Johnson ever was.  Looking at the stats, Johnson had a tough transition into the majors.  He also was very wild.  He led the league in walks and hit batsman a couple of times.  In fact, one year he led the league in walks, hit batsman and strikeouts.  To be clear, I'm not saying Glasnow will turn into Johnson, but given their stature and skillsets, it is an interesting comparison.
I don't see the comparison other than being tall. Johnson began his career with 4 outstanding starts for Mtl in 1988. He started 1989 with 2 good starts and 4 bad ones and was then traded to Sea. He pitched decently for Seattle the rest of that season and had ERAs under 4 for the next 13 years. Altho he led MLB in walks 1990-1992 he had low hit totals and high K totals as well as ERAs from 3.65-3.98 those yeas in the DH-filled AL. So those walks weren't hurting much because he was otherwise hard to hit and getting batters out.



Other than a couple games, Glasnow has been terribly ineffective. He's not only wild but he also gets hit hard when he throws strikes. He just can't get batters out.



Glasnow has appeared in 22 games, 17 as a starter. Johnson's first 22 games included 21 as a starter. After 22 career games:



Glasnow  85.1 IP, 103 hits, 64 ER, 57 BB, 80 K  ERA: 6.75

Johnson 124.2 IP, 109 hits, 54 ER, 73 BB, 103 K  ERA: 3.90



Johnson during that time averaged 5.9 innings per start. Glasnow has averaged 4.3 innings per start. And altho Glasnow has pitched roughly 40 fewer innings at this stage, he has given up nearly as many hits and more ERs. His ERA as a starter is 7.24. I just don't see any valid comparison between the two other than height. And for that matter, Johnson was 2 inches taller. 








Thanks for that great comparison. Good stuff.

Sounds like things are tough in Tampa Bay also -- (from MLBTR)



"Rays ownership has directed the front office to reduce payroll, and the team still projects to have a higher Opening Day payroll in 2018 (currently $86.6MM) than it did in 2017 ($70MM). There’s no indication that Tampa Bay has to cut it back to that $70MM level, nor is there a specific target that has been reported in recent weeks. But Topkin notes that the Rays are in a tough position of having to move veterans..."

3F3D272137520 wrote: Sounds like things are tough in Tampa Bay also -- (from MLBTR)



"Rays ownership has directed the front office to reduce payroll, and the team still projects to have a higher Opening Day payroll in 2018 (currently $86.6MM) than it did in 2017 ($70MM). There’s no indication that Tampa Bay has to cut it back to that $70MM level, nor is there a specific target that has been reported in recent weeks. But Topkin notes that the Rays are in a tough position of having to move veterans..."


They did trade (salary dump) their best player in their franchise history.

040F070B0E0F145157201901080F0F4E030F600 wrote: Sounds like things are tough in Tampa Bay also -- (from MLBTR)



"Rays ownership has directed the front office to reduce payroll, and the team still projects to have a higher Opening Day payroll in 2018 (currently $86.6MM) than it did in 2017 ($70MM). There’s no indication that Tampa Bay has to cut it back to that $70MM level, nor is there a specific target that has been reported in recent weeks. But Topkin notes that the Rays are in a tough position of having to move veterans..."


They did trade (salary dump) their best player in their franchise history. 




Dog,



Are we allowed to trash the Rays now?  For how many years did we listen to the smart baseball blogging guys talking about the Rays model?  Then it was the Twins model...   



Which model are we following now?

I think the whole model idea is a farce. The "model" is based on the underlying roster. The Rays hung around because the made some good draft picks and then some smart trades to trade some players at peak value. But then the players got too expensive, injuries, free agency and what not, and they became mediocre. The Cubs "model" was to fleece the Padres for Rizzo and luck out when the Astros took Appel over Bryant. The whole Astros "model" was to suck long enough to come out of tanking with studs at 2B, SS, 3B and CF.

2E130D000F050E2C0413020405610 wrote: I think the whole model idea is a farce. The "model" is based on the underlying roster. The Rays hung around because the made some good draft picks and then some smart trades to trade some players at peak value. But then the players got too expensive, injuries, free agency and what not, and they became mediocre. The Cubs "model" was to fleece the Padres for Rizzo and luck out when the Astros took Appel over Bryant. The whole Astros "model" was to suck long enough to come out of tanking with studs at 2B, SS, 3B and CF.


So, having good drafts are the key to success?

4C716F626D676C4E6671606667030 wrote: I think the whole model idea is a farce. The "model" is based on the underlying roster. The Rays hung around because the made some good draft picks and then some smart trades to trade some players at peak value. But then the players got too expensive, injuries, free agency and what not, and they became mediocre. The Cubs "model" was to fleece the Padres for Rizzo and luck out when the Astros took Appel over Bryant. The whole Astros "model" was to suck long enough to come out of tanking with studs at 2B, SS, 3B and CF.


OK.  So there's no model.   I'm down with that because we've certainly never completed any of the plans we were reportedly mimicking.      



There's nothing new with tanking and eating up high draft picks.  It's been going on since the Marlins won a WS in 1997 and then sold off in 1998.   Went on to build a core and add to it in 2003 for another WS win, as a wild card.



We locked up players to long term deals and bought out their arb plus 1-2 years of FA.  Just did it again with Rivero.   BUT...  



Without a US domestic draft program that actually creates valuable ML players instead of mythical future valuable ML players, we won't win anything worthwhile. Alternatively, NH can trade better and land JHay's in return for John Grabows and Tom Gorzellannys. 



or maybe it's all just luck?

4348404C4948531610675E464F4848094448270 wrote: I think the whole model idea is a farce. The "model" is based on the underlying roster. The Rays hung around because the made some good draft picks and then some smart trades to trade some players at peak value. But then the players got too expensive, injuries, free agency and what not, and they became mediocre. The Cubs "model" was to fleece the Padres for Rizzo and luck out when the Astros took Appel over Bryant. The whole Astros "model" was to suck long enough to come out of tanking with studs at 2B, SS, 3B and CF.


So, having good drafts are the key to success?




The MLB draft is mostly roulette though. Outside of can't miss guys that are known quantities. The rest is a crap shoot.

656C64757B010 wrote: Sounds like things are tough in Tampa Bay also -- (from MLBTR)



"Rays ownership has directed the front office to reduce payroll, and the team still projects to have a higher Opening Day payroll in 2018 (currently $86.6MM) than it did in 2017 ($70MM). There’s no indication that Tampa Bay has to cut it back to that $70MM level, nor is there a specific target that has been reported in recent weeks. But Topkin notes that the Rays are in a tough position of having to move veterans..."


They did trade (salary dump) their best player in their franchise history. 




Dog,



Are we allowed to trash the Rays now?  For how many years did we listen to the smart baseball blogging guys talking about the Rays model?  Then it was the Twins model...   



Which model are we following now? 


TBMTIB is now following the Rinky Dink model.  Click on the link for a complete definition.  It fits the management and the team it has assembled.  From here on in if I can remember to do so I will refer to TBMTIB as The Rinky Dinks!