Reader Top 30 #2 – Jesse Biddle

2014 Reader Top 30

Maikel Franco took the first spot in the rankings in what will likely be the largest victory in this exercise.  Kelly Dugan joins the poll for the first time.

Unknown's avatar

About Matt Winkelman

Matt is originally from Mt. Holly, NJ, but after a 4 year side track to Cleveland for college he now resides in Madison, WI. His work has previously appeared on Phuture Phillies and The Good Phight. You can read his work at Phillies Minor Thoughts

73 thoughts on “Reader Top 30 #2 – Jesse Biddle”

  1. Biddle again. Should not be close here either. Guy had whooping cough and got through the season. That earns him “tough” points. It should be noted, however, that tough points are worthless unless you’re a smallish white middle infielder.

    Like

  3. MAG Makes 12 million and he is not # 1 ???? This is why he shouldn’t be in the voting. How can you have other kids in front of this 27 year old ?

    Like

    1. I would say the reason why MAG isnt the top guy or top two is nobody has seen him pitch against any competition in years. He is by the rules still a prospect and will probably work his way into the list around 4 or 5.

      Like

      1. People can determine their criteria for who is a ‘prospect’ and who isn’t. Hockey players can not win the rookie of the year award (Calder trophy) if they are 26 years of age as of September 15th in their first season. I think something like that for baseball would make sense. I always thought it was wrong for Ichiro to win rookie of the year. He may have been a first year MLB player, but he wasn’t a “rookie” in my mind.

        If the Phillies signed Masahiro Tanaka he would technically be considered a rookie by MLB’s eligibility rules… If you go by talent and likely ability to be an impact MLB pitcher next year he may deserve to be a top-5 prospect in ALL OF BASEBALL… but to put a professional pitcher who has years of experience (just not in MLB) among prospects who are 20/21/22 doesn’t sit right with me. So by my criteria I don’t consider MAG a prospect. I consider him a FA signing.

        Like

        2. The counter argument would be a Latin American player in AAA in his early 20’s. Same as Tanaka he has experience in Professional leagues since he’s 16. Why not discount him as well? Or, the most similar to MAG, why have Ruf eligible for lists last year? NEarly the same age as MAG and he played Pro-ball for several years. It’s not like the Cuban Leagues are equivalent to MLB (some teams are, frankly, Low-A quality) or even that NPB is equivalent to MLB (though it’s closer than Cuba in terms of consistent level of competition).

          In my mind, Ichiro, Nomo, Irabu, Dice-K, Contreras, Puig, Soler, etc. haven’t proven anything as Major LEaguers until they play, same as the guys in the Minors. Guys dominate AAA all the time and can never make a MLB roster. Same holds true for guys from Japan and Cuba.

          Like

        3. I determine who is prospect by the rules of MLB when they change it I will too , If you havent played in the MLB you are a prospect ( well if you are good enough) , age is but a number after you get to a certain point.

          Like

    2. $12 million for 3 years is cheap for a free agent pitcher. The value of a free agent win is $7 million, so the market says MAG is a 0.6 WAR per year player, or a 1.7 WAR player over the life of his contract. An average MLB has a WAR of 2.0 per year. Perhaps the voters think that Franco, Biddle and others will be worth more than 1.7 wins in their first 3 seasons. I know I do. I’m voting Jesse Biddle here and then J.P. Crawford before Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez.
      .

      Like

    3. You can bluster and blow all you want, which I did also, but Matt set the rules yesterday. Matt said, as voted by people on this site, we vote our top 30 based on MLB rookie status rules. If MAG is eligible for rookie status, he’s essentially a rankable (which is not a word but I choose to use it) prospect. On your individual list that you send to Matt at the end of the top 30 exercise you don’t have to rank him. So pick a slot during voting and don’t rank him on your personal list.

      Like

    4. Why is MAG not #1? Maybe it’s because people are talking about his ceiling being a 4 or 5 or he might even end up in the bullpen. I’d say Biddle is a better prospect than that at this point

      Like

      1. +1 – $12m over three years is not an inspiring contract for me. Without analysis of recent contracts, it seems to me to be about what someone might pay for an upper echelon FA set-up man, a barely-top-half-of-the-league FA closer, or middling fifth starter. His upside and proximity is what makes him an interesting prospect, but to judge the man as an elite prospect because he got a $12m contract seems unrealistic.

        Like

    5. The big league Phils are banking their season around MAG and he’s not #1 maybe not going to be in the top 3. You’re right why is he in the voting. No one knows anything about him, it’s impossible to make an pick regarding him.

      Like

    1. My two cents on each player is simple Crawford was the 16th pick in the draft. He is a SS for now and potentially a lead off or 3 hitter in the line-up. Besides the athletic ability the reports are he gets the game offensively. He knows the value of OBP, he works counts. I value that more than what I think Biddle is at this point.

      Biddle could turn out to be Cliff Lee or Randy Wolf we won’t know until his big league career gets under way. I think we can agree he is not Cole Hamels in terms of stuff so a 3 Rank seems appropriate at this point in time.

      Like

      1. Crawford isn’t a #3 hitter type, shortstops rarely are, and he doesn’t have the speed for a #1 hitter either but, he’ll probably be a #2 hitter long term. Biddle absolutely projects as a solid #3 starter which is not too bad actually. Like most people, I have Biddle, Crawford and MAG in that order after Franco. I think the real fun will be next week because I could make a case for a bunch of guys for #5. Unfortunately, its actually easier to make a case against guys for #5 because of injuries and blemishes.

        Like

        1. I don’t think we can say what sort of hitter Crawford will be. If he develops 50 power and he keeps hitting well he could be a 3 hitter. If he develops 60+ power, he could be a middle of the order hitter for sure. Maybe not likely, but possible at this point. Power develops late.

          Like

          1. Agreed but a more realistic expectation (I think) for Crawford is that he’ll be a good hitter, not a #3 hitter. There are very few #3 hitting SSs (excluding steroid users). None of us would be upset if Crawford hit like Jeter and he wasn’t a #3 hitter. Nether was Larkin but what a player.

            Like

        2. I guess that depends on who you talk to, last year I heard Biddle’s ceiling was a 3 and more likely he would be a 4th or 5th starter if the Phillies were lucky

          Like

  5. This spot was really tough. I could’ve gone for any of Biddle, Crawford or MAG. On my personal list, I probably have Crawford next (barely edging out Biddle based on ceiling), but given the rules, I voted for MAG here.

    I don’t know how good MAG is, but the Phillies paid 12 million for 3 years of him. In the current market, that really isn’t that much, but it’s probably more than a team would pay for Biddle or for Crawford right now.

    That said, Crawford and Biddle’s CONTRACTS are worth more than MAG’s, because if they make the show they will be underpaid quite a bit and produce a lot of surplus value, while I don’t expect MAG to outproduce his contract in expectation. So if we were ranking based on surplus value, I would vote Crawford here, but since it seems we are voting based on expected lifetime WAR while under team control, I have to go with MAG.

    (This distinction is one reason why I don’t agree with ranking foreign free agents with prospects, because the contract structure is not comparable).

    Like

  6. I voted Crawford. Biddle just didn’t look at all right at end of season and the health of his arm is a big issue for me. He likely is my #3. I can’t put MAG this high if he wasn’t even able to pitch off the mound by the end of FIL. He could be in the Phillies rotation in 2014 or he could be recuperating from elbow surgery. He’s a strange guy — kind of good two years ago in Cuba, almost nothing since, very diverse reaction from the big-spending FA teams on his worth and then the Phillies drastically dropping their offer and MAG accepting without anyone else stepping in. I think he helps us in the future, but he first needs to return to health and that may well not be in 2014.

    Like

  7. It hasn’t come up on this thread yet, but I was writing a reply to someone on the last thread and realized it probably wouldn’t be seen since the voting was moving on, so I’d like to throw it out here. In any case, it was in response to quite a number of comments bemoaning how weak the system appears to be. And while I agree that the system pales in comparison to the really elite ones out there–I don’t see it producing a Michael Wacha–I think a lot of people are allowing their dark feelings about the state of the big club to shade their assessment of the team’s prospects.

    I think you can make an argument that the farm system now is stronger than it was in 2011 before the Pence trade. At that time, Brown (our #1 preseason prospect) had graduated, and Singleton was our consensus #1. Franco’s age 20 offensive numbers are cumulatively better than Singleton’s and I think there’s an argument, based on positional value if he can stick at 3B, that he’s a better prospect. Not saying it’s definitive, just that it’s worth discussing. Cosart was the #2 prospect, no question he has more upside than Biddle, but if Biddle’s floor is a 4th starter and Cosart’s is a back-end reliever, Biddle could still turn out to be the more valuable prospect. The next two prospects in the reader Top 30 were Colvin and May–two good examples of how good feelings about the major league club can infect our assessment of prospects, as some Clearwater PR person dubbed them the “Baby Aces” in explicit comparison to the big league rotation. Flawed/mysterious though they are, I’d be a lot more confident in MAG and Ethan Martin having major league careers at this point than I would have been with Colvin and May in 2011. The rest of the 2011 Top 10 goes Valle, Worley, Biddle, Gillies, De Fratus, and if you look at the bottom half of the list, it’s filled with lottery tickets (Santana, Altherr) and, stiffs like Matt Rizzotti.

    This year’s list, by contrast, includes 1 first round draft pick who has surpassed expectations in a SSS–Crawford, who I voted for at #2–and who should be Top 50 prospect by the end of the year. It also includes names like Quinn, Tocci, Altherr, Pujols, Cozens, all of whom are still highly risky but who compare very favorably to #5-15 guys as of a couple years ago.

    Perhaps I’ve gotten carried away here, but all I’m trying to say is: our memories get colored by our general mood about the organization’s direction. Even in the best of times, the system was never among the best in baseball. And these are definitely not the worst of times. There’s plenty of room for optimism on this list.

    Like

    1. I think a lot of the negativity is because of the injuries. Think how good our system would be if Joseph, Morgan, Quinn, and Watson had put in healthy years!

      Like

    2. That 2011 list before Brown exhausted his eligibility was a Top 5 farm system. That being said, I think you are completely right as a whole here.

      I think a lot of people are comparing the system to the Top ones in baseball and finding it coming up short, which is fine. However, it was never going to turn around overnight and the Phillies did not have people to trade away this year. There is definitely some industry optimism about the system right now, as a whole people loved the draft, and while Knapp has had a setback we haven’t even talked about Cord Sandberg in a while, and he might be the highest upside guy in the system. Yes there have been setbacks, but remember this team graduated a back of the rotation starter, a starting 3B, and a host of relievers last year. There is talent coming up, it is not generational or immediate impact, but it is not barren.

      Like

      1. I checked–BA had the Phillies system as #10 on its list before the 2011 season: good, but still only in the top third. (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-talent-rankings/2011/2611472.html) That ranking was was influenced by Brown’s position as BA’s #4 prospect in all of baseball–BA’s team writeup said that there wasn’t much depth behind him, with much of the best talent in A ball (Sound familiar?)

        And I’m not entirely certain those rankings are not skewed in a milder way by the same organizational halo effect. The press narrative prior to the 2011 season was that the Phillies were a smooth running machine with a stacked farm system and savvy management, and I think that can’t help but influence something as arbitrary as a system-wide ranking process. The closing line to BA’s 2011 writeup: “One veteran scouting director said it’s possible that the Phillies could go on a Braves-like run of division titles.” Just goes to show: the scouts are wrong a lot of the time.

        http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2011/2611043.html

        Like

    3. I get your point but don’t fully share your optimism. Partly because the major league team is so lacking in players who are going to be good 2 or 3 years down the road. Yes, it’s not fair to blame the current minor league system for that; the point is that the current major league roster combined with a mediocre system is quite depressing. One reason that I have been commenting less lately.

      I think another reason for the disappointment is that immediately after the draft last year the system was looking like it might take a big leap forward. Then a bunch of injuries hit – most pitching, but also Quinn – and those hopes were dashed.

      Yes, there are reasons for optimism, but look at last year’s top 10 (Matt’s list): 2, 3, 4 and 10 all took substantial injury related steps backwards. 11-20 also has several disappointments, most not injury related. True, you’ll always have some of that, and obviously several guys took big steps forward. But just a little better injury luck and we might be looking at a top 10 system.

      I would add that they system is still relatively bereft of prospects with star potential – lots of prospects who look like possible or likely solid major league players, but if we’re looking for the core of a contending team down the road, who do we got? IMO not much.

      Like

      1. Does a contending team need many stars? One or two stars and average or above players at every other position would be pretty competitive imo. With a payroll like the Phillies, a core of Brown, Hamels, Franco, +a couple star Free Agents should do the trick, right? I mean if every other player is of Asche/Pettibone/Biddle quality.

        Like

        1. Well …. one or two stars, even with the rest of the team decent, no. Three or four, yes. But more specifically in terms of your hypothetical, I don’t really see Brown or Franco as stars at this point. Brown still has an outside chance if he can fix his defense, and Franco a good chance IF he can stick at third and be decent defensively. Not sure either is likely.

          So that brings us to “a couple of star free agents.” And THAT’S where the dynamics of the game have changed. More and more, free agency is about filling in holes with decent players, OR massively overpaying for stars past their primes.

          So your scenario is probably a .500 team, not a contender. If you add two young stars to that (and assume that they stay away from the overprices/past prime free agents), THEN you maybe get a contender. But where are those stars coming from? Crawford, maybe. There’s a couple other high ceiling guys in the low minors. But also high risk.

          Like

          1. I think the pendulum is going to swing back on the whole “lock up players long before free agency” trend. It has all the markings of a bubble, teams are taking on a ton of long-term risk, and sooner or later some are going to get burned signing their budding young superstars to megadeals. (Can you imagine if, say, the Indians had signed Grady Sizemore to one in 2008?) Young talent can be overvalued just like veteran talent. Eventually, the market will correct and you’ll see a return of talent to the free agent market. I’m not saying it will be cheap, just that some teams will look at the Rays’ example and decide they’re better off letting their superstars walk at age 29. Meanwhile, the dearth of supply will drive up FA prices (a trend we’re already seeing) to the point that players will decide to take their chances going year to year with big arbitration paydays. I think Bryce Harper will be a big test. Boras is famous for taking his players to free agency.

            Like

            1. How fast will it change though? Fast enough to help the Phillies in, say, the 2015-2017 time frame? Maybe. Not sure I want to count on it.

              Really though the deep issue is this: wherever one apportions the blame – ownership, management, some combination thereof – do any of us trust the organization to make the most of their opportunities over the next few years? Rebuilding is going to be tough under the best of circumstances, but the team does have a financial edge over most franchises (diminished, but still there), and so one can imagine a return to contention in that time frame with smart moves and a little luck. But the former seems a lot to expect from current ownership and management, and the latter a slim reed to place our hopes one.

              Getting a bit off topic, though, so enough of this for now.

              Like

            2. More on topic, Biddle for me here though it’s close. I expect/hope that a year from now – even mid season – Crawford will be a clear number one. Just not ready to put him there based mainly on rookie league ball.

              Like

            3. The point is that a large organization is better able to handle risk than an individual, and so players are willing to give a discount for certainty, and teams are willing to accept. It’s similar to how insurance companies operate.

              The main problem is just the same as with insurance — moral hazard. If a player is locked up, he can lose incentives to perform his best. So you need some incentives in place.

              Like

            4. I still think the relative risk of overpaying Grady Sizemore at, let’s say they signed him young for $10mm a year is much less egregious on the books than paying a 41 year old Albert Pujols $30mm. There’s a relative risk in both categories (I like the insurance company analogy, very apt), but that risk is much lower for the team spending on young players than signing old, expensive Free Agents. Some young players will also go to Free Agency because of the potential to make more, but signing the extension early removes risk for them as well.

              Like

            5. For some reason I can’t seem to reply directly to Cormican and the other commenter. I realize this is off-topic but I think it’s at least arguably a prospect conversation since it concerns the valuation–perhaps overvaluation–of young talent in today’s game, which affects the FA market and everything else. We can make a guess at how much a player like the 2008 Grady Sizemore might get paid today, since he was a comparable player to Adam Jones. Jones got 7 years, $92 million, or about $13 million a year in 2012, and its fairly safe to say the market price has risen since then. Also, the contract is backloaded, so the Orioles still owe him $75 million. What happens if he blows out his knee playing basketball with his friends this offseason? I don’t buy the “it’s a risk pool” argument–that would be a crippling blow to the Orioles. If a couple of these big bets go sour, teams are going to start reassessing the situation and realize that the balance of risk is tilted in their direction: via arbitration, they can essentially buy the same players’ peak years with no long-term risk.

              Like

            6. @ACA and whoever else cares, the limited depth of the comment trees is something I am working with. The goal is to allow discussions but also not have them go so deep they are impossible to read.

              Like

            7. @Matt Winkelman: The problem becomes really extreme when I look up this site on my iPhone, endless scrolling through one-letter columns… So I totally get why you’re trying to fix it.

              Like

      2. The question i have then Larry is how many Star potential guys in the minors are there. With a close proximity (AA/AAA)

        Like

        1. Count me in the “you have to have stars to win” category and as I’ve said repeatedly, they don’t have many potential stars in the system. They have a few down low in Tocci, Green, Cozens, and Knapp plus Watson and hopefully Sandberg and Encarnacion but they’re all very far away and you have to hope they improve because the results haven’t been great for any of them other than Green’s power. Other than Franco and Crawford, I can’t think of any other 300 hitters last year and that’s not good. That’s why the #7 pick has to be a good one as well as the 2nd round pick.
          Hopefully someone will come on this year and be the surprise upside guy like Severino was this year. that’s a separate list….

          Like

          1. Is there another camp that thinks you don’t need stars to win???? I didn’t realize there were conflictiing schools of thought on that.

            Like

        2. Point being that by definition there are not a lot of them and the majority are taken high in the draft and with the new system there are less falling in the draft like a Cosart due to sign-ability. Thus for reasons we all know of …..blah blah blah forget my point and we need to move on from this.

          I agree with you Larry with Biddle here. Him and Franco still have potential left to fill and closer proximity that Crawford. Ultimately Crawford probably has the best chance of fulfilling his potential but he is still far away.

          Like

      3. I actually agree completely–if you compare the franchise of 2011 to the franchise of 2014, or the projected franchise in 2016, it’s a depressing exercise. I’m just saying that in a year-to-year comparison of the farm systems alone, this one doesn’t fare so badly. I’m not so much arguing for and upward revision of our current expectations as a downward revision of our comparative recollection of the system during the glory days–as I pointed out in my comment above, even Matt, who I respect greatly, remembered it as far better than it was. I get what you’re saying about the setbacks for Joseph, Quinn and others. But is that outside the norm of failure? I mean, take a look at BA’s 2009 Phillies prospect list: every single player on it, outside of Domonic Brown, has proven to be a disappointment:

        http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2009/267393.html

        So I guess what I’m saying is the reason you’re depressed about the system is because you’re depressed about the major league team, which is getting old, decrepit and difficult to watch. I feel the same way. Just stay away from the general discussion thread, it’s much more pleasant over here.

        Like

        1. I think your argument cuts both ways. You say we over-estimated the quality of the farm in the past and that a lot of those high on the prospect list were washouts, because of injury or their talent not developing. You say that after Brown, who has yet to fully achieve the potential seen for him, that the past strength was in the low minors. Now here we are, several years later, and apart from Franco and Biddle, the strength is again in the lower minors. Furthermore, apart from Crawford, that strength lies largely in high potential/high risk guys who haven’t hugely stood out in terms of performance, or guys like Watson and Quinn who have had severe injury issues. To me, that suggests that many are again over-valuing the system and giving way too much credit to high potential guys in the low minors who have relatively low probability of becoming even average major leaguers. Guys like Hudson, whose huge talents will not come to fruition, because they never learn to hit or to control their pitches. To me this says two things. First, our minor league instructors may not be doing an adequate job bringing out the potential of the guys we rave about. Second, we fall in love with our high potential guys and ignore that every team has them. When you look at the W-L records of the Phillies farm last season, it is not a picture which screams success. When you set aside potential and tools and look at actual performance as measured by things like OPS and WHIP, it’s not like a lot of our guys stand out. So, as you write off the failed potential of the guys on our farm a few years ago, the logical question to ask is “why is this time so different? Why does this crop of low minors guys with potential stand out more than the old crop?” Apart from Crawford, it’s not like they are super primo draft picks. Apart from Encarnacion, of whom we know next to nothing and who is 6 years away from the bigs, it is not as if these are huge international bonus babies. Larry is right. The injuries have really decimated our best talent. Top picks like Greene and now the awaiting-surgery Watson really don’t have a top prospect luster. Neither does Gueller. It is a deep collection of ‘interesting’ prospects, who may develop, but the loss of Watson, Morgan, Joseph, Quinn, Mecias is extreme. I don’t think we added sufficient talent to replace them on the prospect rolls, let alone the guys like Martin, Pettibone, Asche, and the relievers who graduated. I see Martin is on the list to vote for. Is he still rookie-eligible?

          Like

          1. The difference being is that the old crop (like most prospects do) has failed where the current crop has yet to disappoint us. I mean it is great to point out how “weak” or system is over and over everyday, but where is the fun in that. And seriously we all know how we got into this situation so it does not need to be posted in every thread several times. There should be a new weekly thread called “The Bitching Post” (trademark) where the grumps can go and repeat their gripes over and over. I am not knocking the critiqing of a prospect like Franco, just the general everything sucks why bother attitude that is pervading the site recently.

            Like

            1. Yes, I think Allentown1 is misunderstanding my point, I’m not saying the system is different now–I’m just saying it’s no so godawful much worse than it was a couple years ago, as some were arguing. I would go so far as to say that there’s more interesting material to work with on this list than there was last year or the year before. But that’s not the same thing as saying I think it’s a great system. It’s a middle-of-the-pack system, according to the professionals, and that assessment sounds about right. That’s why I fully understand the depression of the cranky posters–I am one myself sometimes. Because a middle-of-the-road system won’t cure what ails this team–Larry is right.

              Like

            2. Biancs413…ufortunately when the big league is mediocre, the attitude pervades on the web sites from the disappointed and disgusted fan.

              Like

            3. Romus that is what i am having trouble reconciling on this site. When the big club struggles we get higher quality talent which are more likely to reach their potential ala Crawford so people here should be happy. Ultimately it is really difficult to be a contender every year while having a great farm system and being a top spending team in baseball and not having down years to rebuild the system. Part of what helps the Rays succeed with this is their ability to play all move from a small market team perspective. And ACA i get your point fully. i think there are so many more players to legitimately dream on as opposed to a few years ago. and that is the point of comparing 20-30 from each year because that is where the difference is.. And i would say 10-20 has a higher level of ability now.

              Like

            4. I agree it’s not much worse than a few years ago. Some seemed to be arguing that it was better now than then. I could buy almost equal now to then. If the injured guys heal up and go back to where they were as prospects, I could buy a little better now than then. I think the big differences between my views and some of the other posters are: 1) I am, probably incorrectly, considering Martin as having graduated to bigs, 2) I think Morgan is a very serious health risk for which I am seriously deducting from his value, and that Biddle has health issues for which I am deducting from his value, 3) I likely have assigned a lower probability to some of the low minors guys developing to average major league starter quality.

              Like

        2. Oops, quick correction to my point on the 2009 list, glossed over Travis D’Arnaud, who definitely does not classify as a disappointment. He’s still got tons of unrealized potential, which to an extent is true for Brown as well. So, one solid regular, one touted rookie with an injury history, and 8 misses. Is that a typical yield for a top 10? I don’t know.

          Like

  8. Biddle here. I’ve seen him pitch; I like his stuff and his makeup.
    I’ve got Crawford next, followed by MAG or Morgan: both are injury concerns, but at least I’ve seen success out of Morgan.

    Like

  9. Question: why is everyone down on Dom Brown? Obviously, his defense is a work in progress but he’s shown that he’s an insanely hard worker and I’m sure he’ll improve more this year. He works at his craft very hard and he happens to be a really good guy. A season with 290/25/95/40 doubles (I think his homers will go down but his average and his doubles will go up) seems very reasonable to me and would be outstanding. Perhaps its a notch below all-star level but its still very good.

    Like

    1. I would be thrilled with that line. I don’t know who called him an insanely hard worker. I would like to see more Baseball smarts from him and improved D. But, that slash line would please me a great deal.

      Like

    2. I don’t think people are down on him offensively. He could very well hit your targets at the plate. The problem is he’s an awful OF. He’s played somewhere between 6,500 and 7,000 OF innings professionally so if improvement was going to happen, it should’ve come by now. I don’t think it’s laziness – it’s probably something like a depth perception issue or a lack of quick instinctive mental geometry to take better routes – but it’s a real problem and it’ll probably slice almost two wins off his value every year.

      Like

      1. -2 war on defense so you think he will regress instead of getting a little better. I personally think the opposite and could see him as a neutral defender or maybe a tick below average in left field who leads the league in outfield assists.

        Like

    3. I don’t know if I qualify as “down on” him – he’s a decent , cost controlled regular, so he has value – maybe the most value of any regular on the team if we look not just at this year but going forward.

      But why I don’t see him as a star … he just doesn’t seem to be getting better defensively, beyond his reducing his error rate a couple of years ago. He still fares badly using metrics and the eye test – well below average. Sometimes hard work isn’t enough to fix that. Related, I think some of us put more weight on outfield defense than do many people. A player with those numbers playing a corner outfield spot poorly is not a star, or even particularly close to being one. Compare him to a guy like heyHard; offensively probably fairly close, but Heyward is a plus defender and thus enormously more valuable.

      Like

      1. Again Brown is being hurt by the circumstances in Philly this past year. He is not a good defender but his hitting makes his defense tolerable. It just made it way more glaring since last year he was the 2nd best fielding outfielder (sometimes the best). If Dom Brown is your worst fielding OF and there are 2 above AVG to good OF in CF and RF his fielding problem is way less of an issue. And lets compare him to other LF because Heyward has always been a great fielder and can also fill in at CF.

        Like

      2. I totally agree that Brown’s defense is worse than average but I definitely saw some improvement last year and his arm is outstanding. I think people (including me) grade his defense on the fact that he looks like a ballplayer but then plays defense poorly. There have been plenty of terrible defensive outfielders who looked like Pat Burrell or Greg Luzinski and we didn’t expect them to be good but we expect Brown to be good because he looks like he should be good. I don’t agree that an outfielder can’t be a star with bad defense although I agree that it makes it harder. If Dom hits plus has a ton of assists I think we’d all live with him taking a few bad paths to balls (acknowledging that it ticks me off every time it happens…).
        By the way, if Heyward’s offense doesn’t improve this year, I don’t agree with you that Heyward is the better player. He was sensational his rookie year but not too much since. They always find a place for a guy that hits. You don’t hear them find a place for a guy that fields well.

        Like

        1. Jason Heyward career .352 OBP, 115 OPS+, 10.9 WAR (6.4,2.6,5.8,3.6)
          Domonic Brown career .320 OBP, 107 OPS+, 0.8 WAR (-0.4, -0.3, -1.0, 2.5)

          It really is not close at all

          Like

          1. I don’t care about career stats, they’re meaningless. What does it look like for just last year?

            Like

            2. Yeah Matt my point was there is no arguing that Heyward’s defense make him better than Brown. Just that some people make it seem like he is a bad MLB player because of it. And he still has some untapped offensive potential. Last year was his first full big league year and he exceeded any reasonable expectation. The plate discipline is there and his power finally developed. It it not out of the question for him to refine his approach more and return to a high OBP with his improved power. Sometimes we forget that this game is extremely complex when it come to approach and pitch recognition and that experience with pitchers is huge.

              Like

  10. I went with Crawford over Biddle, but it was really close. It came down to hitters bias, I guess. In my mind an everyday SS is more valuable than a #3 starter. And Pitchers have a higher burnout rate than position players.

    Like

    1. I agree that an everyday SS is more valuable than a #3 starter, and I agree that pitchers have a higher burnout rate than position players at the same level, but I don’t agree with your conclusion for the same reason in each case. Biddle is 3 years older and 3 levels closer to the show. I would agree for a pitcher and hitter at the same age and level. Crawford still too much projection to know he’ll be an everyday SS, while Biddle seems assured of a role as a fifth starter at least. Crawford has yet to play a full season of professional ball while Biddle has pitched 130+ innings 3 consecutive year, so Crawford has a lot more than Biddle to prove in terms of durability. Crawford has about minor league seasons more than Biddle to make it through, more than reversing any burnout concerns.

      Like

  12. I think you could easily make an argument for Biddle here, even though I voted for Crawford. If you flipped his season on its head, and he had had a weak first half followed by a dominant second half, he would have given Franco a serious run for #1. Now, I realize that the trend line matters, but so long as it was a combination of nagging injuries/fatigue/fixing mechanical problems and not a more serious injury that was ailing him, he’s still a very good prospect coming off a season that showed flashes of dominance.

    Like

    1. Seriously, what are MAG’s floor and ceiling.? I think his ceiling is a #3 in the rotation. His floor is his arm condition doesn’t permit him to ever pitch in the bigs, or much in the minors. He is not a sure thing anything. He is a guy who won’t even make his first attempt to throw from a mound until ST after pitching almost not at all in the last 2 years and basically half-failing his pre-signing physical. He spent FIL long tossing. Frankly, I think Crawford has a higher floor than MAG.

      Like

  14. Request to add Dylan Cozens. I think he might have enough upside and results to beat out the super young internationals and draft picks.

    Like

          1. you have to think with the way voting has gone the past 4 years that ive been here, Morgan will go 10 to 16 and Tommy Joseph is the same way. The shiny new toys in the GCL and Williamsport are sure to get in front.

            Like

  15. Way late to game but there is a big difference between definition of prospect and rookie regarding the MAG arguements.

    Like

Comments are closed.