Marco Luciano, second baseman?! Despite much ink having been spilled about where Luciano might play if not at shortstop, I don’t recall 2B being mentioned as a top-3 alternative in the There R Giants community or beyond. I know it’s hardly been a week since the move and things may well change — but why do you feel the Giants picked 2B (instead of 3B, corner outfield, etc.)? How much of that choice do you suspect is based on the front office thinking 2B may be the best fit for Luciano’s skills vs. the best fit to make him a big league starter ASAP (prioritizing the big club’s needs)? Is your sense that the brass has decided/ conceded he’s not an MLB-caliber SS?
I think because Evan Gates, Hunter Dula, and Tyler Myrick are all RH RP who joined the org in 2021, they get mixed up a bit in my head. I see they’re all at Sacramento now (though Myrick might be a proximity-based promotion). Could you help me differentiate them and assess which might have the best chance of helping the big club (with the caveat that there are a lot of pitchers on the 40-man right now)?
I'm sure you are aware of the fascinating 5 part series in The Athletic "Missing Bats: Strikeouts broke baseball." What are your observations? Not necessarily just regarding the Giants, but do you think they've gotten it right?
Thanks for your analysis last week of the Giants' evolving plan for Reggie Crawford. Here’s another starter or reliever query. If a team drafts a pitcher in the first round and that player ultimately develops into an MLB reliever, would the team view that as a success? If a team could predict the future and knew a draft prospect would become a big league reliever but never a starter, would they likely pick a position player instead? These are simplistic questions for a complex thing. But I’m curious about this as we’re watching the development of Crawford and Will Bednar unfold. Lastly, do you know of any articles/studies that list the WAR hope/projection for draft slots or something similar?
I admit this is a crazy thought and I have no data to back this up... maybe the reason that the Giants are promoting young prospects to upper minors quickly (as opposed to requiring them to first dominate a level) is because the one dimension they want to optimize for is the prospects' learning and growth, and they think that the prospects can learn and grow better in higher levels (over the long haul).
Let's say Eldridge has to season in the minors for n years anyway, might as well have him spend more of that time in levels where he can see quality pitches (assumes this best helps him learn). To make up some numbers, let's say instead of a year of A/A+, a year of AA, and a year of AAA, instead he might do a year of A/A+/AA, and then 2 years of AAA so that he will have seen 2 years of AAA pitching by the time he reaches major. I imagine in this scenario, the prospects will get promoted once they are good for the current level (as long as the next one is expected to be challenging and not overwhelming). And of course they won't get promoted to the majors (or get added to the 40-man) unless they are deemed useful to the big league.
And this strategy doesn't have to be applied in contrary to their hitting philosophy, e.g. swing decision, etc. For example, the Giants might only require the prospects to achieve a level of swing decision that is decent enough for their current level. That is, swing decision is still important, but the Giants will let them learn that in upper levels.
Now, even if this is indeed the Giants' thinking, doing this would cause issues with the AAA roster, so I'd imagine they would apply this strategy only on guys they are really high on. And I'd think they have to be super confident that getting promoted too early would not hurt the prospects' development long-term (which I imagine would get a lot of pushback).
I guess my question is, from 1 to "they should try Reggie Crawford as a hitter again", how crazy does this sound?
Meckler was prompted to Giants 40-man with a .400 BA with RC = 10 games. Giants were in the WC race and offense was struggling. Say this scenario plays out again in August or September, should the Giants do it again?
Feels like the middle infield may need to be addressed soon, is there any new internal options that could shine late season? If Christian Koss is the best defensive SS in the org as you have said it seems like he could be a better option than wisely given how he has hit in the minors
Hi Roger - so much player movement this week it's hard to keep track! Appreciate how much you share on development and timing on club decisions for moving up (or down) and I'm trying to consolidate it all. How much do those decision differ (or not) depending on level/age/etc? Would the team ever push a promotion given that a player might be Rule 5 eligible in the next year? Are there proprietary metrics that the club uses for their decisions? Need of the club at the next level? What else might I be missing? - lol
Marco Luciano, second baseman?! Despite much ink having been spilled about where Luciano might play if not at shortstop, I don’t recall 2B being mentioned as a top-3 alternative in the There R Giants community or beyond. I know it’s hardly been a week since the move and things may well change — but why do you feel the Giants picked 2B (instead of 3B, corner outfield, etc.)? How much of that choice do you suspect is based on the front office thinking 2B may be the best fit for Luciano’s skills vs. the best fit to make him a big league starter ASAP (prioritizing the big club’s needs)? Is your sense that the brass has decided/ conceded he’s not an MLB-caliber SS?
The Giants are going to need 40-man room. Do you think it is safe for them to move Meckler and McDonald off the list?
I think because Evan Gates, Hunter Dula, and Tyler Myrick are all RH RP who joined the org in 2021, they get mixed up a bit in my head. I see they’re all at Sacramento now (though Myrick might be a proximity-based promotion). Could you help me differentiate them and assess which might have the best chance of helping the big club (with the caveat that there are a lot of pitchers on the 40-man right now)?
I'm sure you are aware of the fascinating 5 part series in The Athletic "Missing Bats: Strikeouts broke baseball." What are your observations? Not necessarily just regarding the Giants, but do you think they've gotten it right?
Thanks for your analysis last week of the Giants' evolving plan for Reggie Crawford. Here’s another starter or reliever query. If a team drafts a pitcher in the first round and that player ultimately develops into an MLB reliever, would the team view that as a success? If a team could predict the future and knew a draft prospect would become a big league reliever but never a starter, would they likely pick a position player instead? These are simplistic questions for a complex thing. But I’m curious about this as we’re watching the development of Crawford and Will Bednar unfold. Lastly, do you know of any articles/studies that list the WAR hope/projection for draft slots or something similar?
I admit this is a crazy thought and I have no data to back this up... maybe the reason that the Giants are promoting young prospects to upper minors quickly (as opposed to requiring them to first dominate a level) is because the one dimension they want to optimize for is the prospects' learning and growth, and they think that the prospects can learn and grow better in higher levels (over the long haul).
Let's say Eldridge has to season in the minors for n years anyway, might as well have him spend more of that time in levels where he can see quality pitches (assumes this best helps him learn). To make up some numbers, let's say instead of a year of A/A+, a year of AA, and a year of AAA, instead he might do a year of A/A+/AA, and then 2 years of AAA so that he will have seen 2 years of AAA pitching by the time he reaches major. I imagine in this scenario, the prospects will get promoted once they are good for the current level (as long as the next one is expected to be challenging and not overwhelming). And of course they won't get promoted to the majors (or get added to the 40-man) unless they are deemed useful to the big league.
And this strategy doesn't have to be applied in contrary to their hitting philosophy, e.g. swing decision, etc. For example, the Giants might only require the prospects to achieve a level of swing decision that is decent enough for their current level. That is, swing decision is still important, but the Giants will let them learn that in upper levels.
Now, even if this is indeed the Giants' thinking, doing this would cause issues with the AAA roster, so I'd imagine they would apply this strategy only on guys they are really high on. And I'd think they have to be super confident that getting promoted too early would not hurt the prospects' development long-term (which I imagine would get a lot of pushback).
I guess my question is, from 1 to "they should try Reggie Crawford as a hitter again", how crazy does this sound?
Meckler was prompted to Giants 40-man with a .400 BA with RC = 10 games. Giants were in the WC race and offense was struggling. Say this scenario plays out again in August or September, should the Giants do it again?
Feels like the middle infield may need to be addressed soon, is there any new internal options that could shine late season? If Christian Koss is the best defensive SS in the org as you have said it seems like he could be a better option than wisely given how he has hit in the minors
Hi Roger - so much player movement this week it's hard to keep track! Appreciate how much you share on development and timing on club decisions for moving up (or down) and I'm trying to consolidate it all. How much do those decision differ (or not) depending on level/age/etc? Would the team ever push a promotion given that a player might be Rule 5 eligible in the next year? Are there proprietary metrics that the club uses for their decisions? Need of the club at the next level? What else might I be missing? - lol