- This topic has 559 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
O’Neill #4 Still too many K’s and swings at too many out of the zone but we haven’t seen this kind of power since Pujols. He meets all of the other things; defense, speed and arm as well. Has more upside than Bader.
Can I play too? I’d like to vote for Tyler O’Neill. He is the complete package and at only 22 years old I think there is time to adjust his swing to cut down on the K’s. He could be our clean-up hitter for years to come. That’s significant.
Just want to offer an opinion on the rookie rules. Going by memory here; if Carson Kelly has been on the active roster consecutively since July 19th right through August where he has accumulated 40 days and adds the 6 extra days in the first week of September, I don’t know why that doesn’t count as 45 days in the major leagues. I know, Sept doesn’t count, but that’s just asinine. He’s not a Sept call up, albeit he was last year and that time doesn’t count. I get that, however, he’s been up with the big boys for 2 months now. If its consecutive time then that idiotic Sept rule shouldn’t apply. Luke Voit lost his rookie status to over 45 days on the active roster and he was up and down. Thanks for listening, just had to get that off my chest.
This is not a voting for the best non-rookie. It is a prospect vote. What makes a player a prospect? There has not been sufficient oppertunity to evaluate how they will perform at the major league level. A guy that comes up for 4 months and sits on the bench for 4 months and never plays is still a prospect in my book. One could argue that 130 ab’s or 50 ip is not sufficient either but you have to cut off somewhere. We have never used service time as a limiter on the prospect list. This is because when we started doing this list there were very few others doing them. The main one was BA and they also did not use service time as a cut off. Most lists still do not. I hope that clarifies things a little.
I find it odd that one would vote a prospect at #3 and then skip over him to vote for another at #4. I don’t get that. I work off a pre-created list that I take the time to put together. That’s just me. KIR
I agree with the sentiment 14NyquisT. How can someone say, “This guys a #3” but then skip him for #4. I created a list myself before I started posting and I’m working off that list. If one of my guys doesn’t land where I thought he should I’m sticking with him until he finally gets on the list.
You have to consider that opinions and information posted by others will infleunce some to change opinions during the process. That doesn’t mean they are wishy washy in every case, but that they have an open mind and respect the opinions of some.
For example I suspect that I will be pushing Adolis Garcia earlier than most of the posters. He is potentially a five tool player. Hits the ball extremely hard and has better plate discipline that his previous record indicates. Excellent defensive player and has probably the best outfield arm in our system; majors or minors. Had 17 outfield assists and made the best throw to the plate I have seen in years to easily nail a runner who had a fairly routine chance to score on a sac fly.
I like Alcantara a little better than Hudson actually.
Bader Ks less than O’Neill, but also walks less. He’s not that much faster, but he is definitely the better defender.
He’s slightly ahead of him due to playing in AAA last year, but they are very close.
Just curious, is there a time limit on the voting or what? How do you determine its time to call the vote? Just wondering. Greenwald is the only one who hasn’t voted yet in this round.
Another reason for changing who you are voting for from one round to the next is not wanting to waste one’s vote if it is obvious there is not going to be a consensus for the player you have next on your list. I have done this from time to time but I usually have stated my reasoning for doing so at the time I do it.
Some people simply change their minds. Or make a slight adjustment to their list. I did. Hope that’s okay.
Guess I am just piling on, but isn’t the purpose of explaining your logic behind making a pick to try to convince others to see it your way?
O’Neill has an extremely high ceiling and is very young for his level. I originally had Hudson ahead of him, but decided that O’Neill’s possible impact as a middle of the order bat has a higher over ceiling as a plus to the Cards than a middle of the rotation starter.
People who put down other posters are abrasive. Hopefully we’re not here to insult or be insulted by others.
Right, Brian?Frankly, this argument about changing your mind on pick order should be a non-issue. Seriously guys! I’ve made a list that I go by, but its not exact. There are times when I read another persons sell job on a prospect (where are you Bob Reed) and I’ll move that person up. Sometimes you have to bough to expertise. There are times when voting for a prospect I like is not in line with a lot of others thinking, however, I note that a vote is close between a couple other players, so I’ll forego my pick to help decide who between those two I think is better.
I believe, although we all take this very seriously, that its meant to be fun. Opinions can change on prospects for whatever reason, which means we all have the right to change our minds on who we vote for from # to #. I think we’ve also been guilty of questioning someone else’s pick, but we shouldn’t question there right to make that decision. Now can we all move on to voting.
I went for Hudson at #4 mostly because of the way he rocketed through the system. He’s in the starting rotation at Memphis only a year after being drafted. Its really hard for me to know what a pitcher has until there is a camera behind his back that shows his control and the movement on his pitches. But it sure seems like he is destined to be a 1, 2, or 3 starter. I like O’Neill but not the strikeouts. Also, if they’re going to get an impact bat during the offseason, then O’Neill is likely to be part of the package that gets that impact bat because everybody loves the long ball. I have a hard time voting for a player that I don’t think is going to be around very long. Of course, you could say that about every player in the top 10 except Reyes. (IMHO, Reyes is untouchable.)
I thought this was a recreational excercise that was supposed to be fun and enjoyable. And then “14” says “you can figure out the caliber of some enrolled in this trek”. Seriously? You judge people in a negative way like that?
Then BlackHills seconds the motion? And worst of all our moderator piles on, when he’s supposed to monitor and correct things like this.I respect a lot of people on this board. If someone comes forth with a vote for a player and supports it with logic that alters someone else’s thinking about his vote in that round, I would think it would be a good thing. Not something to be rudely criticized and slammed for.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.