Conine is going off again tonight: 2/2 so far with a HR (#13).

Conine is pretty much only a prospect if you think he has Joey Gallo power, which as crazy as it sounds seems possible. I thought he would improve on the strikeouts this year, but few prospects with such poor strikeout rates as his make it in the bigs.

That’s right. And, weirdly, Gallo also seems to be an average (ish) defender in the OF. I’m not sure Conine can be average defensively in the OF. There’s always a chance but his window for success is extremely narrow.

Joey Gallo has a career 8.9 uzr/150 and a +11 DRS in the OF. I would say he’s probably above average, and I would not write Conine off in the OF yet.

I don't get the inclusion of Rodriguez. He has shown no power, doesn't hit for a high average, isn't a CF and isn't particularly young for the level - he'll be 19 in a couple of months. On the positive side, he'll take walks, and has speed. He's not in my top 60, let alone top 30. D'Orazio is an interesting inclusion. He's 14 months younger than Rodriguez, is a catcher, and OPS'd over .900 in the DSL before being promoted to the GCL.

They seem to like the Jays' 2019 draft, with 4 in the top 20.

There are a few guys, like Chavez Young, Samad Taylor, Zach Jackson, Winckowski, Romano, that I like better than some of BA's top 30. Anyway, always interesting to see what others think. I'm going to have to move D'Orazio higher on my list.

Conine has a good arm but runs slow, think 60/40 grades which averages fine in right field.

About 25% of Conine's hits are out of the park.
2 years ago, 44% of Gallo's hits were homers.
Down to 39% last year and down to 37% this year.

The strike out rates are similar.
Conine has more hits per PA and walks less, but Gallo might have been in a more hitter friendly environment.

The one thing against Conine is that by the time he reaches, the Jays might be in contention and it might be hard to give him the MLB ABs he will need.

Conine does have a good arm but I’m not sure that balances out the lack of range or questionable route running. Anyway, I agree the power makes Conine an interesting prospect but he wouldn’t make my top 20. The list is pretty heavily weighted to players that we don’t have a lot of pro data on yet.

The sheer amount of catching depth in the organization is very impressive. Moreno, Kirk, Adams, Clarke, and McGuire in the minors, and Jansen in the big leagues. The lower minors in general is looking very exciting. The upper minors will need to be fixed a little bit with all the promotions recently, but hopefully some trades in the next week can help with some of that.

The catching picture really changes the more danny shows hes a legit plus defender back there. Which all the numbers are saying he is. I always thought he'd be mediocre at best back there, necessitating at least an elite glove backup, and maybe an eventual move off position .

Not sure I've ever agreed with a BA list as much as this one.

For me there is only one big mistake - Maximo Castillo has to be here, and probably in the top half.

I would also say Zeuch is a bit low.

And then I have questions on a bunch of the older guys - SRF, Alford, Murphy, Smith, Zeuch....i could see all of them ranging from top 10 prospect to non prospect. If pushed I'd say Smith and Zeuch are too low and Alford and Murphy too high.

Very good list. Of course, there are differences from what I'd have but it's hard to argue with. I'd have SRF lower (I think Jays should maybe try him as a closer), I'd have McGuire and Murray off the list probably. Not sure who I'd have on instead. Clarke, Castillo, Wincowski, Taylor, and Young are all about as good as the bottom half of this list. It's a very good system still because the top-4 prospects are top-100 prospects in the league (and top-2 are probably top-25 prospects).

I now view BA’s as probably the best of the prospect lists. They were one of the most bullish on Gurriel Jr., incidentally.

This is a strong group of prospects, but BA’s list does reveal just how ineffectual the Jays’ trades for prospects have been. Perez and McGuire are well down the list, and others like Paulino, Taylor, Wall, Spanberger, Espinal, Orimoloye, Copping, Merryweather, Waguespack and Pannone are nowhere to be seen. And McKinney, Drury, Thornton and Teoscar have had very limited success in the majors.

Something to think about as the trade deadline approaches and the Jays put Stroman, Giles, and other veterans on the block.

Again, because these guys were received for players with almost no trade value. The only guy with any real trade value the Jays traded in past 2 years was Happ and even he didn't have nearly as much as people here are pretending (and it was a bad trade). Not getting top-30 prospects for Oh, Loup, Axford, Granderson, Pearce, Liriano is not a sign of an ineffectual trading, it's a sign that teams don't give up valuable prospects for minor pieces they can get anywhere. In fact, the Jays have done pretty well out of these minor trades. Wall, Taylor, Hernandez, and Espinal are all potentially interesting players. Look at it in reverse. Loup had 0.2 WAR when he was traded. Oh, 0.9, Axford 0.2. Smith 1, Liriano, 0.7, Pearce 0.3, Donaldson 0.8 (and hadn't played in months), Happ 1.9, Granderson 0.5. Which of these players should have netted a good prospect? Smith and Oh were probably most valuable after Happ but Wall, Taylor, and Pannone is a good return for those 2.

You want good prospects back by trading middle relievers or part-time players? Or look at it this way. If the Jays were in the race, what prospect would you be willing to give up for say, Matt Albers or Ryan Brasier or Miguel Castro? Would you be willing to give up John Solarte or Chavez Young? I wouldn't. There are so many mediocre relievers out there, you just go get someone else and give up a non prospect. What prospect would you be willing to give up for Matt Adams? Would you trade Riley Adams or TJ Zeuch, or Maxim Castillo? Honestly, the most I'd give up would probably be just cash considerations or something similar. These are the quality of players the Jays were trading. The Jays have done quite well in trading bit parts and getting something. (i.e. Espinal is a decent prospect. Other 1Bmen traded at same deadline got 0 back. Justin Bour was better than Pearce and traded with money for nothing. Duda had the same sort of value and was literally given away.) If you're expecting to get exciting prospects from trading these sorts of players, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Giles and Stroman both have more value than anyone they've traded so far so if they trade them, they need to get some very good prospects back.

Oh came with a second year, but he had failed his Rangers physical for a reason.
He's been bad this year and he's now scheduled for elbow surgery.

So, why make signing “value” FAs and trading them for prospects a key part of your rebuilding strategy, if your hit rate on the prospects acquired is essentially nil? I guess it increases your chances of having a cheaper ML roster, so there’s that.

If the FO had traded JD at a slightly more opportune time, they could have had a good emerging prospect in Jack Flaherty plus another prospect, so the idea that no good prospects have been available in trades is really just a convenient fiction for the FO apologist narrative.

Right, but that's not making a bad trade when it was made, it was bad process (or happenstance) that led to the point of that trade that left them with a devalued asset. That's either A) not weighing the risk of injury properly, or B) not evaluating your contention status properly. (We'll, or C, not having a crystal ball).

Nice list to stimulate discussion.

I always look forward to the comment that evaluates prospects past a number as being interchangeable.

My number is 6. Bichette, Pearson. Then Groshans, Pardhino, Kirk and G Moreno.

Manoah is #11 because he has to do something before I make him a top 10. He probably will next year.

Interchangeable probably stops at #16 or so. Then there are a few more layers.

I agree that Castillo and Winckowski belong in the top 15. Their exclusion calls the entire list into question imo. Still, better than most subjective prospect lists that are out there.

I believe the new guys are there based mostly on the pre-draft rankings.

Manoah was 12th,Williams 55th, Brown 105 and Roberson 104. Morris was 127th.
Note that they have Brown higher.

oh yeah winckowski too of course. he should be top 20.

oh wait, where the hell is Otto?

ah maybe this list ain't as good as I thought.


I think I go all young guys with my top-10 now, though i'm not sure the exact order. But man imo this is a really, really talented top-10:

POS: Bo, Moreno, Kirk, Groshans, Hiraldo, Orelvis
PIT: Pearson, Pardinho, Manoah, Kloffenstein

then the next 10 is a little trickier...

POS: Smith, Lopez, Conine, Stevenson, Young
PIT: SRF, Williams, Zeuch, Castillo, Winckowski

still a fine collection of talent right there.

and then there's a smorgasbord to fill out the rest of the top-30....

...recent draftees: Robertson, Morris, Brown

...recent IFAs: Jimenez, Barger, Rodriguez, Solarte

...and older guys who may or may not be prospects yet/anymore: Alford, Murphy, McGuire, Perez, Diaz, Murray


which, again, is a fine collection of talent not to make a top-20.

I haven't kept up with BA much recently, but they are still heavily tools-focused - the most scouting-oriented of the prospect lists perhaps?  I doubt anyone else has Dasan Brown at 18.  I think this list - with it's surprise inclusions / omissions - is simply reflecting this orientation.  

Castillo and Winck are the guys I think they missed on.  I'm intrigued to see Rodriguez on the list, he was on my radar, but certainly not that high.  With less data available on the recent draft picks / IFAs, I especially value BA's scouting approach with these players. 

Jimenez, Hiraldo and Martinez are of the same general quality, it seems to me.  Personally, I like Jimenez a little more than the other two because of the balance of skills.  And the data doesn't tell you much yet.  One (or two) of them might show us in 2020 (like Moreno and Kirk have this year) that we can treat them more seriously. 

Da Box's #10 in 2017 was Riley Adams. I really liked that. It had a V nice flavor. Very bold and quite refreshing.

I am going to incorporate some bold moves in my rankings this year.

A Kirk and G Moreno impressed me last year, yet I had Moreno #33 and Kirk #34. I want to be a bit more wild.

BA having A Rodriguez, Solarte, D'Orazio and Murray #25 -28 is bold. I like it.

UO, if I’m not mistaken, your “really, really talented” top 10 consists entirely of prospects acquired by the current FO. Let’s hope they can keep the robust talent acquisition going in the coming years.

FWIW the one scouting report I read on Jimenez (which was echoed by Atkins at the end of last year) raved about his defence.

Greenfrog - theyve been killing it on the IFA market I think, and I love all the high upside talent they've used their top draft picks on.

With the glaring, annoying exception of Warmoth, who a distressing pick on day one, and seems so out of step with all the other guys they've targeted with top picks.

So, why make signing “value” FAs and trading them for prospects a key part of your rebuilding strategy, if your hit rate on the prospects acquired is essentially nil? I guess it increases your chances of having a cheaper ML roster, so there’s that.
Ok, do we know that’s a key part of their rebuilding strategy? If that really was a key strategy, wouldn’t they spend more and get some better FAs to flip off for better prospects? It is more likely they just need luke-warm bodies to fill up the lineup, and as you correctly suggest, you might as well do it on the cheap.

It's hard to evaluate the IFAs, but the FO does appear to be killing it in this market.
Jiminez has split time at both SS and 2B, which I find a bit surprising if his D is considered rave-worthy.  Wouldn't it make sense to develop him primarily at SS?  I also find it unusual that he has zero pro SB attempts in 62 games played.  Perhaps he has an old injury that they don't want to aggravate?

Yes, I've been impressed with the drafts in general. They must have seen something in Warmoth that is not obvious to the casual observer. He has not been good. He is currently labouring with an OPS of 673 in AA, with so-so peripherals. He showed a few signs of life in A ball this year but that was with a babip of .394. He plays short stop so, y'never'know.

I don't think signing cheap FA's and then trading them is a rebuilding strategy as much as it is just plugging big league holes inexpensively in the absence of prospects. Turning those cheap vets into pieces at the deadline is just a partial benefit to that approach, but reality is cheap free agents are cheap for a reason. The Jays over the past two years have been trading players like Pearce, Granderson, Smith, Oh, Axford, etc. This year it will be Galvis, Sogard, and Hudson. You can't expect difference makers to come in those trades. Maybe depth pieces that you get lucky on and turn into something but teams can sign these guys for nothing in the off-season. They won't be trading actual assets for two months of their service.

They have certainly messed up either due to bad luck (Osuna), bad timing (Donaldson), or bad trading (Happ) with their bigger assets, but expecting top prospects for the other pieces is a little much. For Stroman and Giles, I would definitely expect at least 2 prospects the Jays get back to be somewhere in the top 10 on the list. If not, then that would be an issue.

If the Jays trade with the Phillies, one prospect who's stock is way down that I'd like the Jays to acquire is Mickey Moniak the #1 pick in 2016 - I think the Phillies were too aggressive with him and the FO may have soured on him but I think he's been solid while moving up to AA this year - I'd start him in AA again next year.

I don't know how the Phillies value Moniak, but he is interesting.  He was ice cold in April, started to hit in May, and seems to have made significant progress on his W/K in the last 2 months.  He's 21 in the Eastern League.

Warmoth could still turn into someone like Sogard.

He was pick #22.
The guy the Dodgers took with pick #23 has an OPS of 714 in A+ ball, with a bad OBP.
Boston took a pitcher, Tanner Hourk with pick #25. Still a work in progress but we could see him before long.

You can say our assets didn t have trade value but that still means we could have got some higher upside rookie ballers than the quadA guys we got instead.

Exactly. If you're going to take a shot in the dark, and you're not competing...De Paula hasn't panned out so far, but that's exactly the type of player we should be targeting in those trades.

For the Dominicans, I think it's more a matter of having deals with the right local handlers than scouting.
That's just my impression.

We signed a lot of guys from Venezuela. It's going to be interesting to see how those guys fare.

De Paula is still very young and I'm not sure what the story is about him.
Hasn't panned out doesn't exactly describe it.

You're right, it doesn't describe it, which is why I didn't say that. I added "so far", which is a pretty big qualifier that implies his performance to date has been lackluster.

Actually, I was going the other way. His performance has been awful.

ERA of 2.32 in 77 GCL innings. Can't read too much into that.
ERA of 3.07 in 41 Rookie ball innings. Striking out over 11 per 9. That's good.
ERA of 2.90 in 62 A- ERA. Strikeout rate is down to 7.7 per 9.
ERA of 1.71 in 47 innings when he repeats the level, still only 20 year old.
ERA of 1;80 in his low start in A ball last year.
ERA over 9 in 34 innings at A  ball this year. walk rate is up to 5.7 per 9 and he's getting shelled with almost 14 hits per 9 innings. They've sent him all the way back to rookie ball but he's only pitched 9 innings there.

I don't know if they asked him to make some mechanical change or if he's hurt or something.
He's been beyond bad.

Sorry to misinterpret. Yeah, I really hope he can figure it out. Only next year will tell, at this point.

"Not getting top-30 prospects for Oh, Loup, Axford, Granderson, Pearce, Liriano is not a sign of an ineffectual trading, it's a sign that teams don't give up valuable prospects for minor pieces they can get anywhere."

A top-30 organizational prospect for an MLB player seems like an incredibly low bar to me. I think it's disappointing that none of the guys returned for Oh, Smith, Loup, Axford, Pearce, Donaldson even break the top 30 list (there's still time for some of them, sure). It suggests they are targeting the wrong skills, the wrong types of players or just the wrong players full stop.

Lane Thomas is #7 on the Cardinals list (traded for international bonus slot money on July 2, 2017.) Edward Olivares is #17 on the Padres list (traded for Yangervis Solarte). They're easily both top-30 in the Jays system.

So they're trading away guys of that ilk for low-value assets. Why shouldn't we expect the same thing back?

I understand what you are saying cascando. I looked at a list (not mine) of the last 10 on our top 30. I like our #21 Y Diaz and #22 A Kirk a lot. Much higher on my list. This is not da Boxes list by the way.

I would happily move Noda (20), R McGuire (18) or Samard Taylor (19) into the bottom 10.

The next best 7-10 are probably not any better than our bottom 10.

I do like Lane Thomas and wonder if the 2B experiment hurt his development. Int'l money is good. I think Solarte gave us what we wanted (power and versatility). Maybe Oliveras was too much to give up. We will be more sure in about 4 years.

Conner Greene was the one that hurt me the most.

I should have clarified that I was using at the mlb.com lists.

I also didn't love giving up Greene, and although he hasn't panned out, that's the type of prospect I think they should be targeting for "low-value assets" like RP who are performing well at the deadline. Contending teams want bullpen depth. I wish the Jay's were more interested in leveraging that for higher-upside prospects who are further away, or players like Greene, who have at least one first-division skill, but some serious question marks. At least there is a chance of hitting on a player like that.

Yeah, teams want bullpen depth, but there's a large quantity of mediocre bullpen pieces available, so you take what you can get for the most part.

IMO, the Happ trade was botched, for the reasons outlined; should have gotten lottery tickets instead of 2 40 man roster players.

But not the others. Loup trade was a win, like Axford had almost no value. You really expected a top 30 prospect for either?

Smith was valuable and got the exact type player you mentioned in Taylor, who FG ranks 25th in our system plus Pannone. Oh was less than Smith, but an extra year of control, and got CF Wall (who has the 10th highest wRC+ in the EL this year) plus 2 others. Espinal for Pearce was fair value. And Donaldson was damaged goods - multiple teams complained we shouldn't have been allowed to trade him.

Happ depends on what teams were offering.
Cashner got moved for almost nothing and hasn't done well with Boston.
Oakland got Homer Bailey for Kevin Morrell, basically a failed prospect.

Happ was great for NYY down the line but was not good against Boston which is really why he was obtained in the first place.

hypo, I think that's a fair summation of the prospects acquired.
The error with JD at the time was trading him at all - once we missed out on dealing him at peak value, we should have given him the QO.  the whole idea that his accepting would have been a negative outcome was foolish then and looks worse now. 

Hopefully, Merryweather proves me wrong, and I do respect the FO for rolling the dice on a guy coming off a major injury. 

For Sogard and Galvis, we should get more value than Pearce, but perhaps short of what we got for Oh and Smith due to the value of relievers at the deadline.  Hudson is similar.  Smoak has no real value to me at this point unless we pay his entire salary. 

JD accepting probably wouldn't have happened, if he was healthy after 2 injury marred years. He had soured on the org. But his health was not assured. This year so far has been best case scenario for JD. What happened with Tulo this year was also a possibility as worst case. That's the main reason why a 1 year deal was the best he could get.

If he would have accepted however, it would have caused other issues. When Vlad was promoted, would the Jays move an already sour JD off his position? It is not a stretch to think there would have been some purple butt type controversy.

Or just put Vlad as a 1B/DH and give him little to no incentive to keep his weight in check.

Not foolish whatsoever.

I have no clue if the Lance Thomas to 2B hurt his overall development but I do know it was a crazy idea. It was painful to watch in Vancouver.

Lane Thomas may have a comparison to L Gurriel. His performance improved when put in the OF. Just grasping at straws. I don't really know.

Like I mentioned I did not like to see Conner Greene go. He is starting for KC's AA team and has not improved much since 2017 NH.

He could figure it out one day. He is 24 all this season. So at 27 YO he may be dominating. Failed starter.

Danny Barnes did well with lesser stuff. 2 kids in J Shafer and J Romano are getting their test this year in the pen. There are others. Tice.

Hypo, it's entirely possible JD doesn't accept a QO, but then we likely get the comp pick, which is likely worth more than Merryweather.  If he does accept, we have an elite trade chip.  Sure, it's a gamble, but JD's been a lot healthier over his career than Tulo, he's younger, he's been elite as recently as 2017 and was still worth 1.3 fWAR in half of his injured season last year. 

I don't buy that Vlad has no incentive to keep his weight in check if he and JD split time between DH and 3rd - the kid is an elite athlete with the best resources available to him.  JD would want to rebuild his value so time at DH would be fine, and it's not up to him anyway - he's a short-term asset in this scenario, and it was he who accepted the QO. 

Craig Edwards wrote "For the Braves–as well as many other teams that didn’t sign Donaldson–this deal is pretty close to a no-brainer" - that's at $23 million, although with no comp pick.  I forget which Fangraphs writer had JD's deal as one of the best of the offseason. 

If you don't like the term 'foolish', perhaps 'needlessly conservative' works better?

I think the Jays made the right move in moving Donaldson. He had a falling out with the FO due to the method of rehabbing. In addition, he would have been extremely sour in the clubhouse of a rebuilding team. He was not well liked by other players and the FO did not want his attitude affecting the younger players. He simply did not fit the situation they were trying to create. I am in tune with what Hyperbole said in his earlier post.

I've never heard that Donaldson was not well-liked by other players although it could be true. It does hurt that the Jays had to trade him in the end for what may be nothing, but what is done is done.