Best Young Team in Baseball

[hiaspire]

It seems to me there is more reason for optimism on the field than there has been in a very long time here. Not talking about ownership or GMs or managers (where there never seems to be any positive - and justifiably so I would argue in most cases with all the losing), but what actually happens when the ball is put in play and athletes make plays. That other stuff doesn't matter as much on the field in those critical moments of actual baseball, nor in this thread as intended (though I doubt we can keep it out unfortunately but let's try).

I think the Rockies would be in the top handful of teams (if not the very top spot) in most categories for best up-and-coming young talent. Who will have the most impact rookies and young players who are still before their prime? What organizations have done the best job of developing critical pieces to their improvement puzzles and put themselves into the strongest positions down the line?

I'm not talking about the year 2020, but it doesn't have to all come together this season completely either. Who has the best young talent to make a huge difference starting this year and the next couple years beyond that as we look forward? More credit goes toward actual displays of that potential more so than just projectable promise that may or may not materialize, and I think the Rockies grade out well there by having given a lot of young players a chance to prove themselves already.

BEST YOUNG UP-AND-COMING LINEUP FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
High percentage of 20-something bats powering your lineup

BEST YOUNG 3/4/5 RUN-PRODUCING MEAT OF THE ORDER

BEST AT GETTING YOUNG RUNNERS ON BASE TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES

BEST YOUNG INFIELD OVERALL

BEST YOUNG OUTFIELD OVERALL

BEST YOUNG ROTATION DEPTH

BEST YOUNG TOP OF THE ROTATION

BEST YOUNG BULLPEN

BEST YOUNG FUNDAMENTALS

BEST YOUNG PROFESSIONALISM AND COMPETITIVE MAKEUP

I have some thoughts on that to expand upon below. Looking at some of the projected lineups for 2010 from BA there are certainly will be some good young teams out there, but the Rockies have a chance to be right there with the best of them on the field in many important categories that will decide wins and losses.

Keeping them together, of course, is where some negativity can creep in if we let it, but that's further down the road and another story for another day entirely.

[Roxpert]

Gee, it sounds like if you were the president of the ballclub, you just might want to sign the GM responsible for all this good young talent to a long-term extension. Instead, you have only whined and complained about DOD in the relatively recent past, and said you'd have fired him and Hurdle if in charge of things.

Which way is it, HiAspire? Fire both of them? Neither? Given them 5 year deals??

(Personally, I want Hurdle gone ASAP, and am indifferent and not that happy with DOD.....wouldn't miss seeing him go either. Schmidt and our Latin efforts have paid off down on the farm; DOD doesn't pick the kids, his underlings do.)

[sg8335aa]

to Roxpert....I realize that O'Dowd doesn't specifically pick the kids....however he DOES still deserve credit. And here is why:

Because he was the one who decided to hire Schmidt...etc....O'Dowd is responsible for picking the guys who pick the guys....

Just should be noted. O'Dowd doesn't deserve all of the credit.....however he DOES still deserve part of it because he's responsible for the people who do.

[Roxpert]

SG, by "derivative", DOD deserves some credit. By derivative, then, so do Keli and Charlie for keeping DOD around. The thing is, a GM has to do a lot more than just hire the right organizational executives. He also has to optimize a budget, and DOD can be criticized for that. Also, his judgment of MLB talent has been lacking at times (Relaford, Hocking, King, keeping Martin this year, etc.).

[hiaspire]

BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE - AS STATED THIS WASN'T INTENDED TO BE ABOUT THE GM OR OWNER OR ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PLAYERS ON THE FIELD.

This goes back to the equitable point, Roxpert. If you created a thread and asked that certain issues be kept out of it (as I did), if I immediately brought up those tangential issues you would have a cow. You can't be the police when it is to your benefit alone. The rules and behavior need to be consistent across the board. You can't reasonably complain about other people hijacking topics when you want but then do it yourself also.

Which way is it, HiAspire?

Although I wanted to keep things away from that topic, it is a fair question in general that I don't mind answering. But I have before also. I can repeat it for you again, so long as nobody complains. You asked for the answer. My answer doesn't change and I can't say it differently. Turning us into the D-Rays may result in a strong farm system, but it doesn't mean we should set out to destroy our team and become the D-Rays or Royals or whoever. We are better than that IMO, or at least were before the current management took over. I find more BLAME in the franchise destruction and years of mediocrity than I do PRAISE for making higher draft picks. Yes they deserve some credit, but also a ton of blame overall for the decline that paved this new road.

That's in the past, though. We've lived through the destruction unfortunately. It was a horrible time that should have resulted in the firings of everyone. But now is now. The D-Rays had a horrible recent past also. But they also have new hope because of that. Just like us. That doesn't mean either franchise did a great job to get here down the road of destruction, but it doesn't mean we can't now be hopeful for a better tomorrow either.

Can I police my own thread (as you do yours so strongly) and ask that this be about the actual issue raised about players on the field and specifically NOT about owners or GMs? Pretty please. All I'm asking for is what you do yourself so often when people go into other tangential discussions.

[Roxpert]

You didn't say in the original post that we coudn't bring up the GM who has apparently done such a wonderful job with the farm system. So I don't know what rule of your's I violated. If we have such a hopeful future, why can't we ask what you think about who should be leading the charge? THAT seems relevant to me.

[hiaspire]

No rule, just trying to get more equitable behavior and consistency that isn't just dependent upon how it benefits someone at that moment.

I can accept that it wasn't an intentional shifting of topic or blatently addressing issues that were specifically asked to try to keep out of the conversation, but would still like to get to those questions that focus ON THE FIELD and PLAYERS as intended. I'll post my further thoughts on that list tonight possibly.

As I mentioned, "Not talking about ownership or GMs or managers... I doubt we can keep it out unfortunately but let's try". Such topics are in every other thread, so was trying to make this about the players themselves and if there was some optimism there this spring and into the future.

Since this is the path chosen, let's see how we compare to others going down this same road. That's fair and a good measurement of where we are in comparison to what we want to accomplish with a strong young team.

[Heltonfan]

It seems to me there is more reason for optimism on the field than there has been in a very long time here. Not talking about ownership or GMs or managers (where there never seems to be any positive - and justifiably so I would argue in most cases with all the losing), but what actually happens when the ball is put in play and athletes make plays. That other stuff doesn't matter as much on the field in those critical moments of actual baseball, nor in this thread as intended (though I doubt we can keep it out unfortunately but let's try).

I think that's pretty clear. Let's stay on the intended topic, which is a good one.

[hiaspire]

We can't compare the Rox to big spenders, but they are recognized as having some of the best young talent in the game and excelling in that area (rightfully so). Let's put them up against some other teams on the field within that reasonable measurement of baseball building ability that is critical to our success down our chosen path.

I'll start with the OF since that was recently mentioned in an Ask BA feature a couple weeks ago. They know more than myself, but I have my own opinions there also.

BA would take the D-Rays as the best young OF with Carl Crawford, Delmon Young and B.J. Upton -- or Rocco Baldelli if he stays and Upton doesn't move to the OF as expected. Elijah Dukes would be a wild card there (stress the "wild" part) who probably will either be great or nothing at all if he flames out.

Divisional foe AZ probably has us beat also with Carlos Quentin, Chris Young, Carlos Gonzalez, and Justin Upton - as well as Gerardo Parra making a nice debut.

They also mentioned Cleveland with Grady Sizemore, Trevor Crowe, Brian Barton, as well as John Drennen, Brad Snyder and maybe Shin-Soo Choo. Blue Jays get note with Alexis Rios, Adam Lind, and a strong young 2006 draftee bat in Travis Snider along with Vernon Wells of course and Ryan Patterson. The initial questioner talked up the Mets with Lastings Milledge, Fernando Martinez and Carlos Gomez in addition to Beltran being established there.

No mention of the Rockies in their discussion. Our projected 2010 OF according to BA is Holliday, Fowler, and Stewart. That's not too bad at all (assuming a Stewart move to OF certainly helps out OF upside), especially if we still hold onto some hope for Hawpe and/or Baker to break out at some point offensively. Seth Smith, Chris Nelson (CF move?), and Matter Miller provide some depth there with Salazar, Gaetti, Czarniecki, Christensen, EY2, etc.

Decent, but probably not the same impact possibilities as many of the other teams listed. Defensively, I don't think we shape up very good other than Fowler who sounds like he'll be a strong defender. If we didn't sign him due to circumstances, we would be completely lost there down the road.

Jim Armstrong has recently been saying that he fully believes that if the team is improved this year that the owners will spend some money on a real CFer on the market next year when some good ones could be available. You would also think that finding an OFer to put up decent numbers in Coors Field (even affordably) wouldn't be too difficult to find if future holes needed filling. They also like to move guys to the OF, but that certainly doesn't help with our defense which is so important here and especially with a shift back to pitching importance.

Who else might be better than us there in the future?
TB - Crawford, Young, Upton, Dukes
AZ - Young, Quentin, Gonzalez, Upton
CLE - Sizemore, Crowe, Barton, Drennen, Snyder
TOR - Wells, Rios, Lind, Snider, Patterson

OAK - Buck, Sulentic, J.Mitchell, J.Herrera (4 of their top 6 according to BA), N.Swisher, M.Bradley, R.Robnett
SEA - Ichiro, A.Jones, W.Balentien, Ibanez, J.Reed
ATL - Francoeur, A.Jones (if stays), Salty (if moved), B.Jones, C.Jones or one of their young 3B if moved
KC - Lubanski, Dejesus, Teahen (when moved), B.Butler, Maier
MIN - Hunter (if stays), Chris Parmelee, Cuddyer, J.Benson, D.Span
PIT - Bay, Nady, McCutchen, Boone, Corley
STL - Jay, Rasmus, C.Duncan, D.Jones
WAS - Kearns, Marrero, Casto, Church, Snelling
FLA - Hermida, Willingham, Hickman
HOU - Hunter Pence, Scott, Burke, Anderson, Iorg, and Carlos Lee entrenched

The Rox are maybe late top 10 if we count Stewart moving to the OF and keeping Holliday (?) or someone else emerging to fill his offensive void, but this isn't an aread where we shine especially bright in terms of development at an area that is perhaps more important here than most other ballparks. Arguably not enough emphasis placed in this area, but perhaps not needed if they can make due otherwise.

They were fortunate to get to sign Fowler (who almost slipped through their fingers if not for a Walker deal), and I can't give them a ton of OF credit by moving guys out of position. So I'll give them a grade of C- here for now, but with room to move up if the OF shapes up as projected with personnel maneuverings.

Anybody think our OF development is stronger than that amongst other player development standards around the league? OF was a rougher start for us, but we should be better in some other areas.

[Roxpert]

I think it's irrelevant (though perhaps interesting) how our OF compares to Tampa Bay's or Toronto's. What would be more relevant is a comparison to NL foes, with particular focus on the NL West teams. Those are the teams we are directly competing against for playoff spots in the future.

Fowler is projectable. I don't think he has shown enough as a hitter to be a can't miss prospect yet.

Holliday won't be here in 2010.

Stewart may or may not hit well enough to play a corner OF spot, and we don't know how well he will defend if placed there.

Seth Smith may be the most intriguing of the bunch for helping us as early as midseason 2007 if he can back up his fine 2006 with a strong campaign in CO Springs.

The other names you mentioned are either filler or replaceable parts without much upside, except perhaps Nelson.

OF is not a strong point of our farm system. CF is hinging now on Fowler, and he's 2 or 3 years away from possibly being a good young MLB hitter.

C- seems about right. As to whether we may sign a frontline CFer this offseason as Armstrong suggests, I'll believe it when I see it.

[hiaspire]

Finding that elite young ace makes such a huge difference with pitching being so valued. How do the Rox shape up with #1 or #2 type pitchers on the near horizon? And hopefully that humidor keeps working for their sake.

Francis and Morales potentially seem to fit the bill and would give us two LHP to build the rotation around with Hirsh, Cook, and Reynolds/Jimenez. We score pretty highly both in terms of 5 man depth as well as a strong 1-2 punch possibility. The only problem in ranking the Rox amongst other teams, however, is that most teams have a pretty good 1-2 punch that would seem to be in place for 2010 if things go as expected.

These guys are probably better than us at the top of the young rotation:
MN - Santana, Liriano, Garza
DET - Bonderman, Verlander, Miller
FLA - Willis, Sanchez/Olsen/Johnson
SF - Cain, Zito, Lincecum/Sanchez
LAD - Schmidt, Billingsley, Kershaw, Elbert, Penny
BOS - Matsuzaka, Papelbon, Beckett
CLE - Sabathia, Miller/Lofgren
LAA - Weaver, Adenhart, Lacky

These other guys are similiar to us but a stronger proven #1:
HOU - Oswalt, Jennings, Patton
TOR - Halladay, Burnett, Romero
SD - Peavy, Young, Carrillo
STL - Carpenter, Wainwright/Reyes/Garcia
MIL - Sheets, Gallardo, Capuano
CHC - Zambrano, Veal/Samardzija
TB - Kazmir, Niemann/McGee
SEA - F.Hernandez (at least in terms of talent), Morrow/Butler

These guys are pretty strong:
CHW - Buehrle, Danks/Gonzalez/Broadway/Garland
OAK - Harden, Haren
AZ - Webb, Davis, Owings/Nippert
BAL - Bedard, Loewen
CIN - Bailey, Harang, Arroyo
NYY - Hughes, Wang, Sanchez/Betances/Chamberlain

NYM - Pelfrey, Humber
PHI - Hamels, Myers/Carrasco
TEX - McCarthy, Hurley/Volquez/Diamond
ATL - Davies, Harrison, tons of depth but maybe not a strong 1-2 unless Hudson gets back
PIT - Lincoln, Snell/Duke

We're certainly better than a couple of teams that really need to focus more on young arms:
KC - Hochevar, Meche, Greinke
WAS - Balester, Willems

Having Francis and Morales emerge as front-of-the-rotation pitchers to build around certainly seems like a very strong step forward for this organization and a strength that could show more muscle than we've ever had potentially, however, it doesn't look all that different from the 1-2 punch you see around baseball for the most part unless Francis truly becomes one of the best aces in the league like some other teams have to bolster the front of the rotation with a true ace.

The Rox are probably lower top 15-20 in this list, but deserve some credit for developing potential aces like they haven't before. I would have thought they deserved an A previously before looking around the league, but looking at the overall development picture I think it is more like a B- for this team at best, and that is mostly based on improvement from previous years of being at the bottom of such ace lists. Morales is just in his first season of being a top 100 type prospect with much to prove still, and Francis did it last year certainly but isn't as established and reliable as most other aces just yet.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

I think it's irrelevant (though perhaps interesting) how our OF compares to Tampa Bay's or Toronto's. What would be more relevant is a comparison to NL foes, with particular focus on the NL West teams. Those are the teams we are directly competing against for playoff spots in the future.

A fair point certainly about focusing more within the division, and that will be most important to us. But I'll restate my purpose in such comparisons.

The Rox aren't going to do it the way most fan$ would like. They are going to do it with player development and doing things the "right" way long-term. That is how they need to be JUDGED fairly in accordance with their stated intentions - not so much by money spent because that isn't our reality. That isn't the plan or the measurements they are trying to meet. This is a development comparison thread where we should be judged against those who do it best. How do we really measure up? In reality, we need our development system to live up to the hype it has received and produce young talent that is better than most other systems.

The Rox are judged critically in terms of financial commitment in every other thread on this site. Here was a place I thought they could be judged based soley on their intended plan of player development versus the existing standards in the game. If we only judge them against 4 other teams that would give us a good idea of the division in a few years (which is also a good thing to examine), but not so much a good sample of overall development standards in the industry that I wanted to compare us against to really see how we are doing so far down this path.

And it certainly is possible and a feasible way to become a strong team over an extended period of time because young talent is such an advantage in the game. Young stars are GOLD. You can't get anything better other than your hands around the World Series trophy. Those models and case histories exist. The question we need to look at IMO more so than a comparison of our spending versus other team spending is our DEVELOPMENT realities versus other development standards currently in the game.

We've just started, but I'm not so sure just yet that our system is ultimately going to live up to the high praise people heap on us. Of course, some of our stronger areas of development are still to be explored in the thread where we should receive much higher marks.

[bedir than average]

I'm curious, but why would one choose 2010 as the date to judge? The way the club-control/arbie/free agency process is set-up there will be many changes on those teams. Also there is a fairly decent chance that in three seasons (four contract years) several players drafted will be up and playing full time.

I have always been of the opinion that projecting more than three seasons out is a folly.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

I'm curious, but why would one choose 2010 as the date to judge?

I don't know if it is judging by that date, so much as it is just considering who will be at the forefront of these positions in the next few seasons. Who is going to breakout as impact players in the near future, and who is going to reach their peak to dominate the next few seasons of baseball. Not just who will be best today for this seasons only (since the focus is development and improving down the road), and not who will be best 7 years from now in the distant future that is too far to see, but who will be strong in the coming few years with talent on the brink of making an impact within the near future.

I mention the year 2010 specifically sometimes when looking at a team because it is a convenient target to look at across the sport since Baseball America puts together a list of every team's projected 2010 lineup.

Plus this is about evaluating the Rockies within their own strategic plan to be great in a few seasons from now. They don't expect to win the World Series this year. They think they can be .500 at least and compete, but they truly think they can be a special group of young players that can really do some great things down the line in the not-to-distant future. This is trying to look at what that future could look like and see if they stack up.

Certainly things will change (as they do year from year), but whether a top pitching prospect stays with his current organization or not doesn't really matter. That organization still produced a better player than us, and would have reaped the rewards of that. We need to be better than most organizations at producing players, whether or not these players mentioned move to different teams or not. We are evaluating our development abilities verus other standards in the game. Whether a future ace stays with the A's or is traded to the Yankees's, he still would represent a better product in the game than we have and would be a measuring stick for the kind of player we need to produce (no matter his uniform changes).

[bedir than average]

I see what you are saying, if in 2007 the Rockies can be +/- a game or two of .500, then target 2008 for 85ish wins, the plan would be challenge for the division in '09 and the Series in 2010? That could makes sense.

I just caution as to the idea that a 2010 projected lineup. Look back four years at their projected lineups for 2007 and look at the change from projected to reality. I'm wondering what percentage of guys are actually starting, who is still with that organization, who was moved for any value, who is even still in baseball. The further out one moves they less likely they are to be correct in the projection.