Email a copy of 'West Notes: Dipoto, Richards, Cashner, Bush, Morse, Bradley' to a friend
Loading ...
By Jeff Todd | at
Email a copy of 'West Notes: Dipoto, Richards, Cashner, Bush, Morse, Bradley' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
slider32
Sometimes GMs get too much credit for doing something when things go well , and sometimes it’s just the opposite. The bottom line is it’s up to the players to win and be successful. When they are not the blame is on them most of the time, it’s called under achieving. In my opionion, the GM is resposible when teams are bad for a long time, they should have a 3 to 5 year window, the GM of the Padres,is in that boat. Some of the other teams that aren’t winning are still in that 3 to 5 year window. The problem in sports is there is really only one winner, I would give more credit to teams that are always in the playoffs and win their division like the Dodgers and Nats, Cards, and Yanks.. They have been winning teams for a long time.in one way or another..
chesteraarthur
Nationals? espn.com/mlb/history/teams/_/team/wsh
Jean Matrac
I agree somewhat in general, but there are far too many variables to see what you say as definitive. Sometimes it doesn’t take 3 to 5 years, Dave Stewart at AZ, e.g. But there are factors like how much money the team is willing to spend. And the fact that prospects are a shot in the dark. There’s a high component of luck there. When the Rangers traded ARod to the NYYs, they got a list of prospects to choose from. They picked Joaquin Arias, and bypassed Robinson Cano. What does that say about the projecting of prospects, when the Rangers didn’t select Cano, but also the the Yankees made him available?
jd396
Everything kind of cuts both ways…Prospects are a variable but it’s not all blind luck. Teams that sustain success for more than a year or two hood scouting to find players and good development in the minors to grow them into big leaguers.
ryanw-2
It says what I’ve always said about prospects, farm systems, and my outlook on top 100 prospects lists being BS, which is that every organization has their own opinion of prospects.
The Angels have been rated at or near the bottom of the farm system ratings yet they still managed to acquire Huston Street and Trevor Gott for a couple of youngsters that no one ever heard of.
And no one cared about Jean Segura and Randall Grichuk until the Angels traded them away and they became fixtures on their respective teams. Although Grichuk I still think gets way more attention than he should.
Patrick Corbin and Tyler Skaggs never got any love until after they were called up by the Diamondbacks and people for some reason made it a trend to second guess the Angels trading them fit Dan Haren.
Mark Trumbo was a nothing prospect. Matt Shoemaker was a career minor leaguer until 2013. Yet both were ROY runner up giving the Angels three rookies finishing second or higher in ROY voting in 3 out of 4 seasons (2011-2014).
Everyone missed Kole Calhoun.
So how bad has the Angels farm system really been? That’s the whole point I think. You never really know which top prospects are really going to pan out and which under the radar prospects are going to make everyone second guess themselves to the pint where FanGraphs writes a whole article on why Kole Calhoun was never a prospect. It’s all a crap shoot in the end.