Just a short post.
Here are the values for the prospects acquired in the deadline deals as determined by
MLB Pipeline,
FanGraphs, and
2080 Baseball. An absent value may not mean the player is lowly valued. He may not be considered or simply not enough was known by the site when handing out grades.
| Machado |
MLB |
FG |
2080 |
| Yusniel Diaz |
55 |
45+ |
55 |
| Dean Kremer |
45 |
40 |
45 |
| Rylan Bannon |
45 |
35 |
|
| Zach Pop |
45 |
40 |
50 |
| Breyvic Valera |
|
40 |
|
Fairly typical through these lists is that FanGraphs tends to grade down players 5 to 10. I have talked to evaluators and they tend to generally like how FanGraphs rankings come together, but all seem to think that the values associated with players are overly conservative. That said, Kiley McDaniel, who helps put together these values, was employed by MLB teams, so this might simply show a differences in scouting grade spectrum preference between organizations and it may be better to look at similar players grouped together.
| Britton |
MLB |
FG |
2080 |
| Dillon Tate |
50 |
40+ |
50 |
| Cody Carroll |
45 |
40 |
45 |
| Josh Rodgers |
|
40 |
|
You get a similar playing out of grades as you do from the Machado trade. FanGraphs tends to be a bit harsher.
| Gausman/O'Day |
MLB |
FG |
2080 |
| Jean Carlos Encarnacion |
45 |
40+ |
50 |
| Brett Cumberland |
45 |
45+ |
45 |
| Bruce Zimmerman |
|
35+ |
|
| Evan Phillips |
|
40 |
45 |
MLB and FanGraphs seem to be narrowing here. Zimmerman and Phillips are considered as below the top 30 for the Orioles and more or less organizational filler.
| Schoop |
MLB |
FG |
2080 |
| Luis Ortiz |
50 |
45 |
50 |
| Jean Carmona |
45 |
40 |
|
| Jonathan Villar |
|
|
|
From 2080, I heard good things about Carmona, but I think he is such a young breakout player that they wanted to get more information on him before putting a grade on him.
6 comments:
Can you comment on the Oriole decision to use the Gausman trade as a salary dump? The return sure seems bad.
In general the only return that has had positive results so far is Villar, and he’s not a prospect but a second division regular on a good day.
Don't we have to wait a bit to determine if the Gausman trade was bad? I think Encarnaciov is pretty intriguing based on his description. It seems including O'day as a salary dump probably cost the Orioles one of the Braves top 10 pitching prospects. But Encarnacion is less risky as a position player even though he's not in the top 100. Let's not pretend Gausman was a surefire front line starter either.
What I basically hear is this...the trade was either the best of a bad situation or very good. Specifically, I am told JCE is interesting and that getting rid of ODay salary was huge. I dont quite comprehend the ODay comments I keep getting.
Originally, the Orioles were asking for a Archer like package. It sounds like suddenly toward the end that they were tasked to get rid of salary obligations.
I think grading trades on what happens in incorrect. I think what matters is trading players based on percieved quality at the time. I think around early next year that you will know what the Orioles knew when they made the deals. So now is early simply because a lot of what we know is heavy on last year's information.
Fangraphs ratings tend to avoid the huge bloat of 45ratings players the mlb list has. It makes it easier to decipher where some guys fit rather the. Prospect 210 having the same rating as prospect 350.
Really didnt like thw Gausman deal. They are going to suck next year getting a better player was more important then the money saved.
Payroll will be significantly lower next year. Get a better haul of players from the Braves.
Also if o day came back next year and played half decent they could get another prospect or at least international bonus for him.
Post a Comment