View Full Version : The Thing With The Feathers
01-27-2003, 11:08 PM
In a preview of his 2003 Top 120 Prospects, John Sickels writes that the Indians:
- have 2 of the top 4 prospects in baseball
- have 7 of the top 44 prospects in baseball
- have 9 of the top 83 prospects in baseball
- have 10 of the top 95 prospects in baseball
Not making this a thing on the Tribe - - more so, just having a stocked farm in general.
Is this a good thing?
Does it matter?
Does it just provide hope?
Make no difference?
Or does it depend on the team?
01-28-2003, 12:17 AM
How many of those guys (namely the 10 of the top 95) are pitchers? It's generally good to hoard pitching prospects, since there's really no such thing as a pitching prospect due to injury and the like. But if only 1 or 2 of those guys pitch, I'm not so sure. All of those position players are not going to pan out, and that might create some large holes come time for the Indians' project to be finished around 2004 or so.
01-28-2003, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by NickG
How many of those guys (namely the 10 of the top 95) are pitchers?
I think it was like six of them.
Good point on pitchers - - I do believe that that you grow position players and trade/buy pitchers. It's one of the best proven approaches to winning these days.
Even the O's "pitching" teams of the past traded for most of their pitchers.
01-28-2003, 09:50 AM
I imagine that having a stocked farm system is a lot like having the ability to afford a large payroll. The stocked farm is great but you have to be able to do something with it. That means:
1. making room for the new guys in the lineup when it's time to get them major league PT, even if that means trading/letting go of experienced good players
2. handling the prospects well - not rushing them, not placing outrageous expectations on them from the get-go, not destroying their arms if they are pitchers, not bouncing them back to AAA if they have an 0-fer or two.
3. most of all, knowing when to trade some of that farm depth for a key piece that can mean the difference between playoffs and otherwise.
There are teams in recent memory who have had farm depth and squandered it, and others who made the right combination of development, trade, and augmentation through free agency to capitalize on it.
01-28-2003, 10:29 AM
A stocked farm system is a good thing. ALL CAPS, if you wish.
Yes, one has to manage a stocked farm system well, since (as ridiculous as this might sound) too much depth at any one position can make for a waste of talent. So, sure, you have to know when to use a prospect as trade-bait and when to hold onto an asset... but it's better to have that (ahem) problem then to have nobody in the pipe.
Red Sox Nation experienced both the good and the bad with this. From the Dick O'Connell days when we had one of the best farm systems in the land (and put some of the best teams of the day on the field) to the Dan Duquette desert of prospects. The Sox were able to field contenders most seasons, but at a horrendous financial burden, with no room to wiggle when it came time to patch holes.
Lots of good prospects are a good thing, but, like any good thing, smart people are required at the top to know how to handle wealth.
01-28-2003, 10:39 AM
I can't think of a single negative to a good farm system unless you trade them all for used up veterans as some teams have.
01-28-2003, 12:09 PM
I'd rather have a farm system deep in position players, because you never know with pitchers, but this is good for all Indians nay-sayers.
01-28-2003, 01:17 PM
...and the Indians proved that in the 90's, the expos, etc...how could it NOT be?
01-28-2003, 01:26 PM
Is this a good thing? - yes, of course
Does it matter? - it depends on management's recognition of its asset, as well as of its position in a 'success cycle'
Does it just provide hope? - not just.
Make no difference? - it can make a difference.
Or does it depend on the team? - yes.
Ytown Tribe fan
01-28-2003, 09:48 PM
The Tribe of the '70s and early '80s had decent prospects coming up. Then they traded them when they started playing well and asking for more money. We were always in year 3 of a perpetual "five-year plan".
The Expos were even worse. They stocked more teams with major league talent than Branch Rickey's organization ever did. You could look it up.
If you can keep those talented players until they're 29, then trade 'em for more prospects, and hire a good manager to keep 'em pointed in the right direction -- then you have something.
01-29-2003, 03:14 AM
Buying pitchers - at least good ones - can get expensive. I like the A's model of drafting high ceiling college pitchers which is both reasonably successful and cheap. There will be a problem as more teams realize this and slow the drafting of HS arms, but it could take ten more years and by then, Beane and JP will have figured something new out.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.