- This topic has 559 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
31. O’Reilly So far, he gets people out. He wins games.
32. Denton ‘Baseball rat’, or so they say. With that kind of commitment, you have to think he will continue to improve.
33. Mendoza Maybe, just maybe….. Too early to be certain of anything.
34. Poncedeleon He’s back and healthy. MLB middle reliever?
35. HurstI dont get the Denton love. Yepez is the same age and hit better at a higher level. Denton in his 3rd year of short season ball. His career OPS is .623. I repeat: .623 What has he done other than be a highly bonused draft pick to be rated this high?
Did everyone vote now? Pads takes the weekends off during the football season. We could use the weekend for 36-40 if it is closed today.
I voted for Denton mostly because of make-up. Whenever I read something about him, it sounds positive.
I don’t have a high level of trust in the numbers any player puts up until they start seeing an effective breaking ball at AA. At low A the numbers don’t mean much at all, IMHO. Rowan Wick was at one time was going to be the next Dave Kingman. Now he’s trying to make it as a relief pitcher.At some point the players have to perform, but at the low levels tools probably matter just as much and Denton checks most of the boxes still.
Not sure I agree DG. What tool has Denton shown? Hit for avg? No. Hit for power? No. Speed? No. Fielding? No. Throwing? No specific info.
Hope I’m wrong but 3 years in short season ball for a guy who got a first round bonus is rare. And he still hasn’t had any sustained success.
What do you look at as you try to project which players are going to progress – size, speed, bat speed, strength, frame etc. The belief is that he has the bat speed and raw power but hasn’t tapped into it yet. Will he? I don’t know. We’re ranking him in the 30s not the top 10 at this point.
For me, this isn’t the place to discuss prospects in a negative light. Pads said he welcomed any comments about why we are voting for certain prospects. When you question another’s selection it may dissuade the people who are following along.
I’ll just say this, there are some names that have popped up that I think are premature and some that already have #s that I don’t agree with. But that’s me. I’ve been using the list I put together when the season ended. No two of us have the identical lists or perceptions… that’s why 18 names have shown up for #s31-35 alone.
No disrespect to pads, but I think 31-35 should be called. Noonan already stated that he wasn’t going to continue on.
I agree Nyquist. We waited like 3 days for the previous round because guys weren’t voting “in a timely” manner.
“Now the negatives of a prospect can’t be discussed? What is the point of this exercise if you can’t?
As long as it is baseball prospect talk, I am not going to limit myself unless Brian dictates such.
The concerns of those that disagree are noted and actually were already considered. I have disagreed with many but only publicly questioned two (Mercado and Denton). In the past I have been convinced by questioning votes, so I consider it a valid excercise. It only makes sense to question what you don’t understand. If not, you are missing a learning opportunity. I also have no issue with anyone questioning one of my choices.
The community has voted on these lists for about a decade now. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time I have seen any concern over looking at prospects from all angles, and frankly, I don’t get why you wouldn’t be open-minded to evaluating player weaknesses as well as strengths. Doing so, as long as it is done responsibly – addressing the player’s characteristics, not the voter – would not be against the posted site rules in any way. If some are not comfortable participating in that part of the discussion, just opt out of that conversation.
I have to weigh in on if the voting should be called. Quite frankly, it has bothered me from the get go that there was not a set time frame stated for the voting to take place; for example, a specific voting window of 48 or 72 hours in which voting would be allowed. As the has voting progressed, it seems that a precedent was being set that the window would be three days. Okay, I can live with that… and I have tried to make sure I have followed the rules and voted within the window. However, back a few rounds ago, the statement was made that the voting was not going to be called until some folks who had not yet voted chimed in… and the voting went beyond the three day frame that had been established. I thought it a bit odd that the precedent was being ignored to accommodate someone who had not bothered to vote within the time frame that had been unofficially established, especially since waiting for someone to weigh in knocked some prospects to lower positions than what they would have been in IF the 72 hour time frame for voting had been observed. To call the vote after a little more than 24 hours when a precedent of 3 days has been set is leaving me shaking my head. For future rounds, I would suggest that the time frame in which votes will be solicited be made clear at the start of the round and not randomly declared.
24 hours is more than an adequate amount of time for people to vote. We are pretty much aware at this point who the voters are.
As a former moderator of this thread, I always tried to give at least one weekend day for the vote (as their is the occassional voter who can only vote during the day and cant vote from work) and at least one weekday as their are th9se who can only vote from work.
I think 24 hours is too short. If I am traveling, I often am out of touch all day while on the road.
14 feels that shooting down someone else’s prospect might become negative and confrontational.
I agree. CC and the moderator think it’s okay. So be it. Confrontation rules.As far as time to vote is concerned. Those of us who work full time might feel comfortable with a little
longer timeframe the 24 hours. That’s a pretty short timeframe for those of us who consider this
a low priority hobby and pastime.My counterpoint is I’ve seen a few posters who will comment on other topics of this forum while not voting here for several days. So saying its a short time frame is bogus.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.