“In a few years, we’ll know whether or not they were right.”

I don’t see how.

It’s possible that whatever he suffered in Texas has taken some of it away for good.

This is really what I worry about.

[2] I worry about it as well, but it’s possible, at least based on the small sample size that the playoffs offered, that he could still become a dominant closer with his current stuff. Alternatively, even with his present velocity, he may be able to use his stuff more effectively so that he can compensate for the reduced velocity.

I don’t see how.

If Chamberlain develops into a solid 200 inning starter after his poor health record in college and the tendinitis that shut him down in 2008 I think that’s evidence.  If your point is that we won’t know if he wouldn’t have developed similarly with a more aggressive development plan, I guess I can’t argue it. 

I don’t fault the Yankees for exercising caution, especially since it didn’t hurt them in 2009.

I’m fine with what they did, esp. since they know so much more.

Serious question, semi-OT:

Why is Austin Jackson such a prime prospect?  There must be reasons for the Jackson love, but it’s obviously not justified by the numbers yet, right?  If we took them right into the majors with no transition, they still wouldn’t be thrilling.  I understand his “toolsinessitudinousness,” but to treat him as a gold-chip kind of prospect, you have to assume that he’ll hit not only as well, but better in the majors than he has thus far in the minors.  A good deal better, if he’s to be more than a fringe-level major leaguer.

Obviously, many think that this is going to happen.  Can somebody explain why?

Judging by the numbers, it’s not clear why we should worry too much about including him in a trade - e.g., for Halladay.  I know NYA has too few high-level position-player prospects, but what I don’t quite understand why Jackson is so obviously counts as one of those at all.

0.760 OPS with good CF defense and baserunning at age 22 in AAA.  He ought to be at least an average major league CF if he continues to develop well.  That’s a valuable player, esp. when free.  The Yankees could trade Melky tomorrow for a dozen bats and go with Gardner until Jackson forces him out - and have a better starting lineup.

Thanks, Rilke.  I’m thinking about that… an average ML center-fielder has some value, surely, obviously - but surely not a whole hell of a lot of value, no?  Not in the ballpark of Hughes prior to his rookie season, or Montero even now, I’d think.  Good to have, but, I’d think, nothing to treasure.
Am I wrong?

Hmm, Montero is one of the top prospects in all of baseball, Hughes was.  A guy who puts up a 3 WAR/year for $400k/year is worth about $15 million/year all in.  A 40 HR/year high-OPS DH/catcher or a top starter is worth > 3 WAR.  I guess an average CF is a few WAR, which you get for free for years if you can slot in a youngster who’ll probably only improve.  AJax might be worth $30 million net over four years to some team not requiring an all-star CF.

Jackson’s ‘09 was relatively uninspiring, but he had a very good ‘07, which was plainly obvious and the beauty of ‘08 is hidden by the fact that he was playing in one of the toughest parks in one of the toughest leagues in all of organized baseball.

But I see Fabian is logged in, he can give you a much better answer.

And I’m not sure what the context of your question is, but I think Jackson is the type of prospect that you should be flexible about dealing. When the Granderson rumors started I stated that I would try to build a deal around him given that Granderson IS what you hope Jackson becomes.

Yay Yankees!

I guess near term, until AJax demonstrates his fast track HoF arc, he’s a nice piece, as a plus defender and a plus righty platoon. His upside, per historical stat seems around mid range offense. Whether why he’s a hard piece to pry away from Cash, he’s really really close to MLB level, and he’s cheap. So I think something really good has to comeback, like Fab said Granderson, to make it worthwhile.

Thanks, all - that all makes more sense.

How much value does Granderson lose if he plays LF instead of CF, or does he offset any loss if he becomes a better defender there?

It is pretty much offset.  He should lose some value from seeing fewer chances though.

What might we project for Scutaro if he’s in Boston next year, as now seems likely, given SG’s conclusion that break-out seasons do indicate some level of improved performance?

Happy T Day y’all.

We’ll, “likely” may be too strong a word.

And, yes - Happy Thxgvg to All!

well
jeez

Scutaro’s baseline CAIRO as a Red Sock is around .259/.337/.369. Over a full season that’s around 1.5 wins above replacement. I still haven’t done any defensive projections so I’m not sure how that changes things, but I’d say he’s probably an average overall SS in 2010.  That’s an upgrade for Boston.  Seems like if they can get him for something like 2 years and $12 million he’d be worth it.

Toronto should offer Scutaro arbitration.

Thanks, SG.  And I guess there’s no question about whether that includes the results of your study of break-out years, because those results wouldn’t require any new calculations, but rather simply counter any suggestion that we should give an especially low weight to what appear to be fluke years, right?

It seems like there is a constant list of Yankees prospects that us fans say “these guys are great they should be untouchable blah blah blah” when discussing trades for elite Major League talent.

Then 3 or 4 years later the prosect is ian kennedy, phil hughes, melky cabrera, joba, etc and it’s silly.

Is the next “untouchable” Austin Jackson? or are we waiting on montero?

almost all prospects no matter how good end up sucking. I think we should reign in the “untouchable” talk in the next season.

When was Melky untouchable?  Since when are Joba and Hughes not very valuable?

Yeah, that sounds like an “all prospects are fungible” argument.

not all prospects are fungible but virtually all are and the ones that aren’t easily replaceable cannot be predicted most of the time. It becomes a gamble then hanging onto prospects and it’s only human nature to want to hold onto the prospects more than they should be (and thus gamble more).

Melky was never, ever “untouchable” and neither was Ian Kennedy.

Hughes and Joba were (not really, since there isn’t really such a thing).  And they are *this close* to proving why.

Austin Jackson is in no way “untouchable” and I don’t recall seeing anyone claim he was.  He had a so-so season in AAA at age 22 (300ish, no power, way too many Ks).  That doesn’t say “top shelf prospect.”  Montero utterly mashed in AA and is younger.  They both play premium positions (though Jackson apparently plays his well, whereas Montero is working on “acceptable”). 

The key here is that neutral prospect watchers ranked guys like Hughes, Joba and now Montero very highly (whereas, for instance, there were some who didn’t think Ian Kennedy had enough “stuff” to thrive in the majors).  Those same neutral folks see Austin Jackson as a good prospect, nothing more.

I personally don’t think he’ll amount to anything much.  His k-rate combined with very little power says bad things to me.  But I don’t know shit.