SB Nation User Blog: jc3

Furcal to the Braves

jc3 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:51:39 -0000

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8947764/Source:-Furcal-to-sign-with-Braves

Very interesting... does this open up Peavy to the Braves talk again? Clearly, both Furcal and Escobar are very capable SS defensively and moving one to 2B would probably be a waste of resources considering they have an excellent offensive 2B in Johnson already. I guess another option could be to move Johnson to LF and Escobar to 2B, but that's probably not leveraging Johnson's offense as well as they could.

What does everyone think?

Tony Thomas

jc3 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:19:24 -0000

I was looking at all of the prospect guru lists for a possible NL-only sleeper, and this guy keeps coming up. He hit like crazy at Florida State as a junior after struggling his first 2 years, then hit very well in the NWL (308/404/544, 5 HR, 28 SB in 182 AB), ranking as the #4 prospect there according to BA. He's apparently very athletic and has a decent eye at the plate, although 41 K's in 182 AB is a bit disconcerting.

Is this guy for real with the bat? Is his defense so bad that he won't stay at 2B? I'm really just wondering more about why I haven't heard more about him.

Is there any hope for Chris Nelson?

jc3 — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:41:47 -0000

I was reading through John's book last night and I came across him... it's funny how you forget about someone so quickly! :)

I went and looked at what he's done this season and I (mostly) like what I see, although it does come with the pretext of being in the CAL. His numbers (275/347/422) don't look great in comparison to last year (260/313/416) except for his higher OBP. However, he looks like he's improved his plate discipline relatively significantly. His AB/BB rate has gone from 14.56 to 10.55. His AB/K rate has gone from 4.61 to 5.55. Those are both relatively significant improvements. Since the end of April, his BB/K/AB ratio has been 15/20/121, which represents an even further improvement.

However, his power has gone a little backwards this year, hitting less 2B and HR than last year. This is not a good sign from a player in the CAL.

I'm very interested to see if he can take his new-found plate discipline and turn it into more production, especially in the power department. Scouts have always been impressed with his physical tools, so it would be surprising to me to not see him develop more power as he begins to swing at better pitches.

By no means do I think he will be a star, but I'm beginning to believe that he is showing signs that he can be a productive major league hitter if this improvement does not stall. Remember, he is only 21. John gave him a straight C in the book and I would think that will be higher by season's end.

Any thoughts? It would be great to hear from people who have seen him play this year.

Ryan Zimmerman

jc3 — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:56:55 -0000

John rated him very highly before the season started and I was quite skeptical of that, but considering what he is doing this year, I have no doubt he will be a star in this game. His numbers are very surprising to me. A quick comparison of David Wright and Zimmerman at age 21:

DW: 263 AB, 293/332/525, 17 2B, 14 HR, 14/40 BB/K 6/6 SB

RZ: 262 AB, 286/343/485, 20 2B, 10 HR, 23/60 BB/K, 5/9 SB

A quick look shows that they are very similar at the same stage in their ML careers, with Wright hitting for more HR power and showing better contact skills, but drawing less walks. His K rate is a little high, but not out of bounds, and should improve with more experience.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman will develop into the hitter that Wright has become, but it looks to me that his power has been quite underrated. He also plays a superior 3b, which is backed up both the stats and scouts opinions. He looks like a franchise player to me, and I certainly did not believe that before the season.

The NL East is loaded with young 3b, that's for sure, with Cabrera included. It's pretty hard to believe, but if Atlanta had held on to Andy Marte, he would only be considered the fourth best young 3b in the NL East. Wow...

Speaking of Marte, he's starting to really pound the ball in AAA, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him up soon with the way Cleveland has struggled.

What does everyone think?

Felix, Liriano, Hamels -- AD NAUSEUM

jc3 — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:22:13 -0000

I don't know how many diaries have been dedicated to the "future aces", but I wanted to give my impressions from watching them, last night in particular.

Hamels: Tremendous control, far better than Liriano or Felix. Hit his spots at will. The only reason he walked anyone in the game is because he lost a little after running the bases in the 5th. Struck out the first 2 guys, then none after, but Arizona hit maybe 2 hard balls all game off of him. I don't understand, personally, why people can't put him in the same class as Felix, Verlander, or Liriano...

Felix: I don't understand why he doesn't throw his fastball more, and for more strikes. He's got such great movement on it... one example was a 2-0 2-seamer to Morneau that darted away and he got a routine grounder to SS out of it. Good for him that he was facing the Twins because he could have been hurt a lot more by his lack of control, which put him in hitters counts all night long... got a break when Hunter bailed him out by swinging at a tough slider on a 3-1 pitch to get out of a jam. He needs to develop more confidence to throw strikes before he takes a step further. I see a kid with all of the stuff and a lack of confidence at this point.

Liriano: Didn't have his best stuff, as evidenced by only 3 K's... also seemed to get agitated by things going wrong. I'm not sure if it's immaturity or a temper, but he really seemed bothered that Seattle was hitting him a little last night, and Gardenhire and company had to go to the mound a couple of times to calm him down. He needs to gain some poise for sure. He throws the hardest of the 3, but I wouldn't say he has better stuff than Felix. Definitely has the look of an ace, but has got to gain control of his emotions when things aren't going his way.

One last thing... if I had to pick one young position player to build my team around, it's Joe Mauer. The guy is phenomenal. He's great defensively, hits line drives all over the place, draws walks, doesn't strike out, runs well... pretty much everything except hit for a lot of power, and he will as he gets older. You can argue that picking a catcher is risky to build a team around, but I'll take my chances with that guy.

Jose Reyes

jc3 — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:52:55 -0000

Admittedly, I am a big Reyes supporter, so I may be seeing something more than there is, but hidden in his hideous looking 242/296/363 line is 7 BB in 91 AB, a major improvement so far. I've watched him a lot this year and he seems to be getting underneath the ball a lot and not using his speed to leg out hits like he did in the 2nd half last year, but if he can combine this new batting eye with his groundball approach from last year, we could be looking at a legitimate leadoff hitter after all. He looks like a guy who could be putting it all together in very short order.

BTW, 18 runs in 21 games with a .296 OBP is pretty remarkable considering he's only got 1 HR...

Don't call me Jairo!

jc3 — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:02:19 -0000

Interesting news... Santiago Casilla. He's also aged 2 years. To me, that doesn't matter that much for pitching prospects (especially relievers), but it probably knocks him down a peg on the prospect list.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/27/SPG55GTKVG1.DTL

I wonder if they are going to officially change the name or if they are just going to stick with Jairo. It is a pretty cool name...

Is Johnny Damon really overpaid?

jc3 — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:55:20 -0000

Is Johnny Damon overpaid? That is the question.

Well, from an average player perspective, yes he is. He is not one of the best players in baseball. But, from a baseball economics perspective, you can make an argument that he is not.

Let's use round numbers and say that the Yankee payroll is $200 million (it's probably more). If that is the case, Damon's salary is 6.5% of the payroll, hardly egregious. For perspective, that is the same as the following (using estimates of payroll):

$125 million payroll (e.g., Boston): 8.125 million
$100 million (e.g., LA Dodgers): 6.5
$60 million (e.g., Oakland): 3.9

So, basically if you are the Red Sox GM and you had 8.125 million to spend on him, would you do it? Yes. As a matter of fact, they actually offered a higher percentage of their team salary than the Yankees did! It's just the advantage the Yankees have in revenue. For reference, Esteban Loaiza's contract with Oakland will cost them more than 10% of their total payroll. Could that end up costing them Barry Zito?

In another thread, Damon was compared to Mark Kotsay, who is not as good of a player. There's not a HUGE difference, but all things being equal, most would select Damon to be on their team. In 2005, Kotsay made $6.5 million (from USA Today) and Oakland had a $55.4 million dollar payroll. So, he made 11.7% of Oakland's payroll, nearly twice as much as Damon's percentage. Who's more valuable to his team payroll-wise? I understand that Kotsay would have more trade value based on total salary, but if you intend to keep Damon, who cares about that? Damon's salary does not preclude the Yankees from making any further moves to strengthen their team. Kotsay's might.

Want examples of overpaid?

Jermaine Dye (Oakland, 2004): 11.67/59.4 = 19.6% (265/329/464). Bad contract.
Mike Sweeney (KC, 2005): 11/36.9 = 29.8% (300/347/517). Best player on the team, but is this the way to balance a small payroll?
Preston Wilson (Col, 2005): 12.5/48.1 = 26% (258/322/491 @Col). Numbers a little off because he was traded, but you get the idea.

I could go on, but I think it's simplistic to say that Damon is the most overpaid or even one of the most. It should all be taken in context. Mike Lowell is taking more of Boston's payroll than Damon is from the Yankees. There are different rules for the Yankees and everyone else. They have more money and they are willing to (over)spend it to fill their own needs.

Is that really fair? No, I don't think it is fair. If they could implement a salary cap in baseball, I would be all for it. But, it is reality that the Yankees have at least 3 times as much money to spend as the A's do. Any time a Yankee salary is examined, I find it to be comical because they don't care about spending it. The small and medium market teams need to worry. To some extent, even Boston and the Mets need to, although in my opinion, that is completely overblown.

In the end, I don't believe he is overpaid in the context of being a Yankee.

#1 starters

jc3 — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:52:54 -0000

I have a question.. if there are 30 teams, shouldn't there be 30 #1 pitchers? Or, is that too simplistic?

I notice from a lot of different prospect analyses that there are very few potential #1's out there, probably only 4: Cain, Verlander, Billingsley, and Liriano. Even highly thought of pitchers like Lester, Olsen, etc. do not project as "#1 starters". Where do they all come from?

I will now try to list my top 30 starters for 2006 (in no particular order), with no prospects and excluding Clemens, to see if I think they are all #1's...

Johan Santana
Roy Oswalt
John Smoltz
Pedro Martinez
Dontrelle Willis
Mark Prior
Carlos Zambrano
Chris Carpenter
Ben Sheets
Jake Peavy
Jason Schmidt
Randy Johnson
Josh Beckett
Roy Halladay
A.J. Burnett
Mark Buerhle
Felix Hernandez
Bartolo Colon
Rich Harden
Andy Pettitte
Tim Hudson
Barry Zito
John Patterson
John Lackey
Jeremy Bonderman
Brandon Webb
Kevin Millwood
Curt Schilling
C.C. Sabathia
Dan Haren

In retrospect, I'd say there are about 20-22 sure-fire #1 pitchers (depending on how you feel about guys like Burnett, Zito, Hudson, and Pettitte) with Patterson, Lackey, Bonderman, Scott Kazmir, and Oliver Perez representing some potential #1 guys. I wouldn't consider Webb, Millwood, Schilling, Sabathia, and Haren to be shutdown #1-type guys, either, but they seem to be in the mix of the top 30, so maybe they should be considered #1 starters.

Long post... whew!

Another silly poll

jc3 — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:58:15 -0000

The continuing saga of a member (who shall remain nameless) to try to put Dustin Pedroia atop the list of prospects in the entire league has now reached BJ Upton, who is technically not a prospect, but spent the entire year at AAA last year. For our intents and purposes, we will label him as a prospect.

The poll is, as usual, who will have a better career, BJ Upton or Dustin Pedroia. Now, most people will think this is silly, but I want to see how many people actually think Pedroia will have a better career. For reference, John Sickels lists Pedroia outside of the top 40 hitters, while Upton, if still eligible, I'm sure would reside in the top 10, if not the top 5.

Thanks.

Poll

Better career: BJ Upton or Dustin Pedroia?

BJ Upton

73 votes

Dustin Pedroia

10 votes

83 votes | Poll has closed