Odds And Ends: Indians, Ryan, Red Sox

I could see Lackey staying with the Angels for less money and less years, to prove himself. Like 2 years/20 million.

Or he could go to a less accomplished team for 3 years/39 million. It seems like a lot, but the guy was initially looking at 5 years/90 million or so.

Nowhere in that Keith Law chat did he say the Red Sox had the best draft. He said he loved their draft. He made no comparisons to any other team. C'mon now, read your links before you post them.

Must be a MFY Fan, seeing as how you can't read!

you're an idiot. I posted that I was wrong. What would you like, my first born? Get a job, Sully. It's common knowledge that you are the biggest loser homer on this site. That's quite an accomplishment with all the Yankee-Sox homers you're competing against.

Thank goodness the Angels didn't resign him in the off-season. How many Angel fans were clamoring to drop 5/75 on Vlad and 5/85 on Lackey?

Right now Lackey isn't looking close to being a $13m/year pitcher. While I expect him to improve quite a bit, he has pitched himself into a shorter contract and less than $10m/year (unless he totally turns it around and is lights out).

The thing with Lackey was his consistency and durability. Between last year and this year both of his major assets have been called into question.

As for Vlad - he's looking like David Ortiz with a slightly better batting average. His power is gone, he can't field, and frankly he no longer intimidates anyone. Again, barring a major 2nd half Vlad could be looking at a 1/$5 type deal. I still think Vlad can play but he has been just awful all year long.

You actually looked like a tool for calling me out when I already called myself out. Your inability to spell makes you look like an idiot.

86 Mets - why is it stupid?

Law is an excellent evaluator of amateur talent and people want to hear his opinion.

I think "grades" are stupid, but I like hearing what the experts have to say after it's all said and done. They put 1000's of hours into this each year.

That said, I'd like to know why he felt the Red Sox had the best draft, but I am assuming it's because they drafted a number of high ceiling players who have signability issues...

After the Steinbrenner's witnessed Wang's first 5 starts this season? Yeah, I'd say 8yr/$160M sounds about right for Lackey.

Actually, 86 mets, Keith Law definitely does his due diligence in watching these kids. You have a point with most other "experts" but KLaw is an exception. He may have been wrong on the points you provided, but he's been right a few times too.

Actually, 86 mets, Keith Law definitely does his due diligence in watching these kids. You have a point with most other "experts" but KLaw is an exception. He may have been wrong on the points you provided, but he's been right a few times too.

Posted by: ilikebaseball | June 11, 2009 at 02:05 PM

I have no doubt that he watches some of these kids extensively, but baseball is a whole different animal than the NFL as far as that goes. The NFL is dealing with a few hundred picks, and if you watch it you still get players drafted every year that guys like kiper have not watched. Baseball has over a thousand kids drafted every year. It's much harder to gather info on all of them, and anyone is going to have a bias for the kids they've scouted.
The NFL has a combine, where all the athletes invited are put through the same tests. There is no such gathering for baseball. This makes guys like Law more reliant on other teams scouts for info on these players. Some teams will see different things from the same player, and some will see their "projectability" differently. Relying only on a few teams scouting reports leads to assumptions like this being made by guys like Law. I'm not saying he shouldn't have picks that he really likes, or guys that he thinks will be stars...we all should. I am saying that it's kind of stupid to say that one team has had the "best" draft based on such limited information. I also think it's stupid to criticize picks this early.

By the way, I'm not criticizing Law individually, just making the point that it's impossible for anybody to have studied all of these kids in the draft. All teams have a good chance at seeing their first round picks reach the majors, whether or not a given team has a good or bad draft is determined by the later rounds. There is just no way for any one person to have seen enough of these kids extensively to reach an informed judgement on who drafted well. They are relying far to heavily on other scouts work. The baseball draft has such a high failure rate that nobody should even attempt it.

Carini...how exactly has Law been right on two of three? Castro has OPS'd over .900 since he was signed. That's phenominal for a catcher. Holt dominated short season ball last year, has been dominant in St. Lucie, and has 1 good start in AA. Revere is OPSing .750 in A ball, while being considered one of the best defensive players in the league, and stealing 25 bases in his first 51 games. Meanwhile, two of his three best picks from last year (crow, cole) haven't begun their pro careers yet, and won't be doing so with the teams that drafted them. Praising signability guys as "good" picks should probably be done only after they actually sign.

You're doing the exact same thing the "experts" do. You're looking at Revere as a speedster without a ton of power, and saying that because of that he can't ever be a better player than Juan Pierre. Revere is probably close to Pierre defensively right now, and his arm is already superior. His OBP is .389, and he's shown good plate discipline. Those aren't strong traits of Pierre. Saying he has a "ceiling" of Juan Pierre because he can run is doing the kid a huge disservice.

Holt has put up a k/9 of 10.89 this year, and his Whip is at 1.03. He walks just over 2 per 9 innings. You're correct on Castro, his OBP is actually at .846 as a pro. Still very good for a first year pro catcher, the most difficult position to adjust too.

I'm not saying that any of these guys are Gems, but you are making my point for me. I'm saying it's too early to judge whether these guys are good or bad picks minutes after they are selected. You're telling me it's too early to make a judgement on Holt A YEAR after he was drafted. You're exactly right...these guys need to be given several years in the minors before anyone can make an informed judgement. Law is saying that the Sox had the best draft. That's based on several picks he really likes. The Red Sox have had more picks go unsigned than any other franchise the last ten years...we don't even know if they will sign yet. At least wait that long before coming to a judgement.

I'd like to thank the Yankees pitching staff for getting Papi's bat back on track.