The sky is not falling, the 2014 edition

[PrinceFielderx1]

I was correct, because those players at that time that Stache listed were on the "Brewers" 25 man roster and not prospects.

Sigh.

 

You are 100% WRONG. When everybody else is telling you that you are wrong, maybe you should consider that you do not know what you are talking about ?!

 

A player being on a Major League Team's 25 man roster does not in any way preclude them from being listed as a prospect.

 

From MLB.com's Top 100 Prospect page:

 

To be eligible for a list, a player must have rookie eligibility. To qualify for rookie status, a player must not have exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues, or accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the 25-player limit period, excluding time on the disabled list or in military service.

To summarize:

 

A player can be considered a prospect when they have rookie eligibility.

A player has rookie eligibility when they have not exceeded 130 at bats, 50 innings pitched, or 45 days on the active roster of a Major League team (or teams) during the 25-player limit period.

 

Ergo, a player can be on a Major League team's 25 man roster, and still be considered both a rookie and a prospect.

 

Capiche?

 

Did Escobar exceed the referenced 45 day limit?

 

The 40 man roster for the 2009 season began on September 1st. Alcides Escobar was on the 25 man roster, first being brought up on August 12th. From August 12th to August 31st is 20 days. He did not exceed 45 days during the 25-player limit period.

 

Answer? No.

 

What about the 130 at bat maximum. Did he exceed that?

 

Escobar had 4 at bats in 2008. He had another 125 at bats in 2009, for a total of 129 at bats.

 

Answer? No.

 

So...

 

-He hadn't exceeded the number of days (45) on the 25-player limit period. AND

-He hadn't accumulated more than 130 at bats.

 

Therefore (gasp), he was still considered a rookie prospect prior to the 2010 season!

 

Now...

 

Organizational rankings are done by Baseball America prior to the start of the season, in very late March or early April. They do not do them again until the following spring. So, when scouts discuss a team's farm system, it is based on start of the year talent. It would be impossible for scouts to adjust their farm system-talent assessment with every player trade, every promotion to the Majors, and every injury.

 

So, let's now examine your assessment that "the Brewers had a bad farm system" immediately before acquiring Shaun Marcum and Zack Greinke, shall we?

 

First of all, let's review the Milwaukee Brewer prospects that appeared in Baseball America's Top 100 for the 2010 season:

 

Alcides Escobar #12

Brett Lawrie #59

Mat Gamel #89

 

And just where did Baseball America have the Milwaukee Brewers farm system ranked out of 30 teams?

 

http://imageshack.com/a/img841/9167/g81k.png

 

Thirteenth, a year after being ranked 10th. Want to look for yourself? Here's the link:

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2010-organization-talent-rankings-9739/

 

You'd have to log in to see it, so you need to be a member.

 

If you ask the analysts we had a bad farm system with 1 good prospect in Lawrie. Yeah, they were totally shocked when we landed BOTH Marcum and Greinke. Many here were also.

I don't know what analysts you were talking to, but we had 3 excellent prospects with others that would make it into the top 100 the next season. Escobar was one of the elite prospects in baseball, and Gamel soon would be, as would Lawrie.

 

Stop this untenable argument, and just admit you are wrong. Because, well, you are. The Brewers farm system was held in high regard prior to the parent club's acquisitions of Greinke and Marcum.

 

Consider I have my own difinition of what prospect is and I believe the top 100 and top 50 lists are a waste of time and effort I can't admit that. I'm sorry. I was right back then and I"m right now.

[PrinceFielderx1]

He posted Major league players that wern't considered farm system, because they were starting for the Brewers and on the 25 man roster. He also forgot Lorenzo Cain. Escobar, Cain, Jeffress were all on the major league roster. The only prospect we gave up for Greinke was Odorizzi and I think some other a-ball or aa- pitcher. Even Gamel I believe was called up and on the major league team. You'll have to explain to me along with Stache if we had such a great farm why did we have to trade MLB players to get Greinke with only 1 good prospect?

 

This post is just full of fail.

 

First of all, I did not forget Lorenzo Cain. He was never a Top 100 Prospect, and I have not included prospects that failed to reach the Top 100. Otherwise, I would be stuck in this topic forever.

 

We traded 3 prospects that were ranked in the Top 100, or soon would be: Jeremy Jeffress (#100 prospect, 2009), Jake Odorizzi (#69 prospect, 2011), and Alcides Escobar (#12 prospect, 2010). So, again, you're wrong.

 

Again, see my last post. You seem to have this fixation that MLB players (and by that, you mean MLB players on the 25 man roster) and prospects are mutually exclusive. Until a player exceeds the threshold for rookie status, a player can still be both a Major League player on a 25 man roster, and a prospect.

 

Lorenzo Cain was the must have in the deal for Greinke.

[adambr2]

Escobar was the must have in the Greinke deal. Cain wasn't even close to him.

[PrinceFielderx1]

true, but Cain was also. There was an article on it from KC. Am I the only one who remembers this stuff? geez

[logan82]

Reminds me of a certain Tommy Boy scene.

 

Edit: Oops, meant Big Daddy.

[PrinceFielderx1]

Reminds me of a certain Tommy Boy scene.

 

Great movie!

[The stache]

 

Lorenzo Cain was the must have in the deal for Greinke.

 

The best of the Greinke trade: Escobar vs. Cain

 

http://www.royalsreview.com/2013/6/17/4437948/the-best-of-the-greinke-trade-escobar-vs-cain

 

Two and a half years ago, the Royals traded the best player they'd had in a long time, Zack Greinke, for a package of young Major Leaguers and prospects. The Royals haul of Alcides Escobar, Lorenzo Cain, Jake Odorizzi, and Jeremy Jeffress looked pretty good at the time and in many ways, it still does. At the time, most thought the centerpiece of the trade was Escobar, although more than a few argued that it was Odorizzi. Although his first two MLB seasons had been underwhelming, Escobar was a former #12 Baseball America prospect who was still young and had a good deal of upside potential. Odorizzi's prospect stock was rising, with some describing him as Greinke-like (or at least Greinke-lite) and was about to crack BA's top 100 at #69.

 

Lorenzo Cain was far from a throw-in, but he didn't have a sterling prospect pedigree, outstanding scouting reports or spectacular minor league stats. He was also a little long in the tooth, as he turned 25 just two weeks into the season. Most thought he looked like a good 4th outfielder, with the upside to be an average MLB centerfielder.

 

Cain was not only not the "must have" in the trade, or anywhere near on par with Escobar, he was considered behind both Escobar and Odorizzi as far as desirability goes. This is from a Kansas City blog. Cain was the third piece in a four player trade.

 

Once again, you are just wrong. But, as always, you will ignore everybody because you "like to be right."

[PrinceFielderx1]

 

Lorenzo Cain was the must have in the deal for Greinke.

 

The best of the Greinke trade: Escobar vs. Cain

 

http://www.royalsreview.com/2013/6/17/4437948/the-best-of-the-greinke-trade-escobar-vs-cain

 

Two and a half years ago, the Royals traded the best player they'd had in a long time, Zack Greinke, for a package of young Major Leaguers and prospects. The Royals haul of Alcides Escobar, Lorenzo Cain, Jake Odorizzi, and Jeremy Jeffress looked pretty good at the time and in many ways, it still does. At the time, most thought the centerpiece of the trade was Escobar, although more than a few argued that it was Odorizzi. Although his first two MLB seasons had been underwhelming, Escobar was a former #12 Baseball America prospect who was still young and had a good deal of upside potential. Odorizzi's prospect stock was rising, with some describing him as Greinke-like (or at least Greinke-lite) and was about to crack BA's top 100 at #69.

 

Lorenzo Cain was far from a throw-in, but he didn't have a sterling prospect pedigree, outstanding scouting reports or spectacular minor league stats. He was also a little long in the tooth, as he turned 25 just two weeks into the season. Most thought he looked like a good 4th outfielder, with the upside to be an average MLB centerfielder.

 

Cain was not only not the "must have" in the trade, or anywhere near on par with Escobar, he was considered behind both Escobar and Odorizzi as far as desirability goes. This is from a Kansas City blog. Cain was the third piece in a four player trade.

 

Once again, you are just wrong. But, as always, you will ignore everybody because you "like to be right."

 

BOOMS

 

Lorenzo Cain, Royals: After an impressive debut for the Brewers in late 2010, Cain became a key piece in the Zack Greinke trade, but Melky Cabrera’s presence and surprisingly effective season left him to languish at Triple-A for most of the 2011 season. Alas, even with Cabrera traded away, groin and hamstring woes limited Cain to just 61 games last year, most of them between July and September. Heading into his age 27 season, he’s the owner of a .281/.327/.412 big league line in 425 plate appearances, and while that doesn’t look like much, it’s good enough for a .269 True Average, which when coupled with above-average defense in centerfield, should make him a valuable player. If there’s a concern, it’s that he’ll need to improve his 2012 strikeout and walk rates (23.0 and 6.2 percent, respectively), but his upper minor league stats show that he’s capable of better.

 

http://mlb.si.com/2013/03/08/booms-and-busts-center-fielders/

And yet in the aftermath of the blockbuster deal Sunday that sent Greinke and shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt to the Milwaukee Brewers for shortstop Alcides Escobar, center fielder Lorenzo Cain, 100-mph-throwing reliever Jeremy Jeffress and right-handed pitching prospect Jake Odorizzi, it felt good and right and pretty even for both sides.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/greinke-fetches-fine-haul-trade-174900842--mlb.html

 

Again order of importance,

 

The Royals received shortstop Alcides Escobar, center fielder Lorenzo Cain and top pitching prospects Jake Odorizzi and Jeremy Jeffress.

 

http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101219&content_id=16345796&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9165333/assessing-kansas-city-haul-zack-greinke

 

The only 2 player mention in this article were Escobar and Cain. The two most important players in the trade.

 

Notice the order of importance Escobar 1st then CF Cain second. There's a reason for that.

 

Ok, you see the pattern here? It's not complicated. Case closed.

[endaround]

That is because Cain had played in the majors. Trade reports often only mention major league players even if the minor league players are more important.

 

Case Closed.

[pretendastronaut]

This thread is basically every political "debate" I've ever had on Facebook.

[monty57]

Consider I have my own difinition of what prospect is

 

You argued that everyone believed the Brewer farm system to be garbage. You were shown that not only did everyone not believe that, but actually most everyone believed they had a pretty good farm system. Your defense is what I quoted above. It's possible you are the Galileo of modern baseball, but generally speaking if your definition is different than every other person who follows baseball, then don't be surprised when people disagree with you, and eventually ignore you if factual statements are countered with "I have my own definition," and your argument shifts as mid-debate.

 

Just a little friendly advice from someone who often finds himself debating against the crowd :-)

[DuWayne Steurer]

Consider I have my own difinition of what prospect is and I believe the top 100 and top 50 lists are a waste of time and effort I can't admit that. I'm sorry. I was right back then and I"m right now.

 

 

You make up your own definition of a word, tell everyone else that their definition, based on the widely held and accepted use of the word, in the context we're all using it is wrong, and then proclaim yourself the 'winner'. I can't even begin to express how utterly ridiculous this is.

[pretendastronaut]

Alright, I think it's fair to say this thread is majorly off-topic and has been deemed "case closed" enough times to just close the thread.