Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Jesus Montero


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
357 replies to this topic

#51 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 11:31 AM

QUOTE (Zen @ Feb 28 2010, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree with all of this in terms of what they'd like to do, especially the point about not starting his clock. My questions were admittedly hypothetical and about what would have to happen to see Montero with the big club. Is he automatically called up if Posada goes down? etc.


I guess the main point I'm trying to make here is that since 1985, there have been six seasons in which a 20 year old has qualified for the batting title. A-Rod put up a 160 OPS +, Griffey put up a 135, and two others were between 101 and 105. That's two guys in the last twenty five years who have been league average contributors, one very good hitter (strictly speaking in that season,) and one superstar.

Even should Posada or Johnson go down, it is a tremendous leap of faith to think that Montero would be ready to step in at that point, and even contribute league-average production in their place. Indeed, given an extremely young player getting his first taste of the Majors, it is even possible that Cervelli might be a superior offensive producer at that moment.

Montero has put himself in the conversation by being tremendously advanced for his age. I hope come May, he's at .350 with 10 homers, and gives Cashman no choice. But the odds are against that.

Montero is an excellent prospect, and probably the best young hitter in the minors right now. But for him to come up and even carry his weight next year he'd have to be one of the best prospects ever.

#52 Zen

  • 515 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 12:28 PM

QUOTE (Meff Nelton @ Feb 28 2010, 11:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I guess the main point I'm trying to make here is that since 1985, there have been six seasons in which a 20 year old has qualified for the batting title. A-Rod put up a 160 OPS +, Griffey put up a 135, and two others were between 101 and 105. That's two guys in the last twenty five years who have been league average contributors, one very good hitter (strictly speaking in that season,) and one superstar.

Even should Posada or Johnson go down, it is a tremendous leap of faith to think that Montero would be ready to step in at that point, and even contribute league-average production in their place. Indeed, given an extremely young player getting his first taste of the Majors, it is even possible that Cervelli might be a superior offensive producer at that moment.

Montero has put himself in the conversation by being tremendously advanced for his age. I hope come May, he's at .350 with 10 homers, and gives Cashman no choice. But the odds are against that.

Montero is an excellent prospect, and probably the best young hitter in the minors right now. But for him to come up and even carry his weight next year he'd have to be one of the best prospects ever.

Hmm. I don't think the odds are quite as long as you're suggesting. If - as you said - he's tremendously advanced and "in the conversation at age 20," then he's already narrowed the odds. We shouldn't be comparing him to the rest of the 20-year-olds who didn't make it that far, that fast. We should be comparing him to the A-Rods and Griffeys and Cabreras.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that he's the next A-Rod or anything, but in terms of comparisons, I don't think you just look at his age and figure he's a long shot.

Now, if we were talking about random prospect X and betting on whether they'd make it to the bigs by age 20, then, yes, it's valid to point out how few 20-year-olds have made it since 1985.

#53 fren123

  • 48 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 12:32 PM

QUOTE
I'm a little late to the party on this one, but Justin Inaz at THT took an in-depth look at the run environments of the 21 different minor leagues. The Yankees' six stateside affiliates play among the ten pitcher friendliest leagues in the minors, including the top three. Since 2007, batters in the Florida State League have hit .256-.324-.374, which means Jesus Montero's .356-.406-.583 batting line at the level last year equals a 142 OPS+. That's impressive for anyone, let alone a teenager.


-RAB

Someone else mentioned that it should be a 182 OPS+ using BR's OPS+ formula.

Edited by fren123, 28 February 2010 - 12:33 PM.


#54 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 01:07 PM

QUOTE (Zen @ Feb 28 2010, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hmm. I don't think the odds are quite as long as you're suggesting. If - as you said - he's tremendously advanced and "in the conversation at age 20," then he's already narrowed the odds. We shouldn't be comparing him to the rest of the 20-year-olds who didn't make it that far, that fast. We should be comparing him to the A-Rods and Griffeys and Cabreras.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that he's the next A-Rod or anything, but in terms of comparisons, I don't think you just look at his age and figure he's a long shot.

Now, if we were talking about random prospect X and betting on whether they'd make it to the bigs by age 20, then, yes, it's valid to point out how few 20-year-olds have made it since 1985.


A few points:

Griffey and A-Rod had seen time in the Majors before their age-20 seasons (Griffey 506 PAs at 19, A-Rod 208 between 18/19), so even if you want to make a talent-based comparison (which I absolutely would not) there is a distinction in experience which I'm sure played no small part in helping them perform as well as they did at 20.

Miguel Cabrera only proves my point. 106 OPS+ at 20, essentially league-average performance, probably the upside of what Montero would do for the Yankees in '10, and not of much value to a team that will have a higher team OPS+ than that.

When I called him tremendously advanced, I did so on account of his not being in Rookie Ball, which a lot of his peers will be. It doesn't mean I expect him to out-perform Bonds, or Pujols, or a multitude of other all-time greats at a comparable age. He's in the conversation because he has made it a possibility that he can stick with the Yankees this year, which is in no way a likelihood.

I don't want to get redundant, or hijack this thread, so I'll just leave it at this: I want to be wrong, but the odds are still against this kid ever making an All-Star team, much less being an impact player for the best team in the toughest division in baseball this year. Prospects fail all the time. That doesn't mean there's no reason to be excited.

#55 Zen

  • 515 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:03 PM

QUOTE (Meff Nelton @ Feb 28 2010, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A few points:

Griffey and A-Rod had seen time in the Majors before their age-20 seasons (Griffey 506 PAs at 19, A-Rod 208 between 18/19), so even if you want to make a talent-based comparison (which I absolutely would not) there is a distinction in experience which I'm sure played no small part in helping them perform as well as they did at 20.

Miguel Cabrera only proves my point. 106 OPS+ at 20, essentially league-average performance, probably the upside of what Montero would do for the Yankees in '10, and not of much value to a team that will have a higher team OPS+ than that.

I wasn't asking if Montero deserved a spot over any of the starting nine, and I was not suggesting that Montero is a good bet to perform similarly to A-Rod or Griffey (in fact, I believe I explicitly mentioned that). I was just saying that it's incorrect to point out how few 20 year olds perform adequately in the bigs at that age as evidence with regard to Montero, specifically.

Because he's already advanced so far so fast, he's already a better bet than the other 20-year-olds. The proper comparison would be to a group of players who also advanced as quickly. From a comparable talent/experience pool, it doesn't seem like as much of a crap shoot as you're making it out to be. Prospects who are able to fly through the system that quickly have more talent (and are thus more likely to perform well in the bigs) than your typical 20-year-old prospect. I assume you aren't questioning that.

The other thing is, if Posada or Johnson goes down, league average offense is probably the best the Yanks could hope to get from any of their replacement options. My question is would the Yankees think that Montero was the best choice to provide that league average offense? If he's killing it in AAA, and Nick Johnson is struggling for whatever reason, are the Yankees likely to think that Montero is the best replacement? How big would that gap in performance have to be?

QUOTE
When I called him tremendously advanced, I did so on account of his not being in Rookie Ball, which a lot of his peers will be. It doesn't mean I expect him to out-perform Bonds, or Pujols, or a multitude of other all-time greats at a comparable age. He's in the conversation because he has made it a possibility that he can stick with the Yankees this year, which is in no way a likelihood.

Well, no shit. I certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise.

QUOTE
I don't want to get redundant, or hijack this thread, so I'll just leave it at this: I want to be wrong, but the odds are still against this kid ever making an All-Star team, much less being an impact player for the best team in the toughest division in baseball this year. Prospects fail all the time. That doesn't mean there's no reason to be excited.

Enough with the straw men, dude. You've been arguing against positions I don't hold.

#56 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:18 PM

First of all, Zen, stop with the attitude, there's no need for it.

QUOTE (Zen @ Feb 28 2010, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because he's already advanced so far so fast, he's already a better bet than the other 20-year-olds. The proper comparison would be to a group of players who also advanced as quickly. From a comparable talent/experience pool, it doesn't seem like as much of a crap shoot as you're making it out to be. Prospects who are able to fly through the system that quickly have more talent (and are thus more likely to perform well in the bigs) than your typical 20-year-old prospect. I assume you aren't questioning that.


Maybe it's just semantics, but it seems to me that's exactly what he's doing. He's telling you how many 20 year olds have been above average hitters in the majors in the last 25 years. You can say that the probability is larger for Montero to succeed than most 20 year olds because of what he's already done (which seems pretty obvious, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion), but the bottom line is that only a few people in the last 25 years have done it, no matter how large or small you want to make the control group.


#57 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:53 PM

Sorry if you took offense to what I wrote, but I think you're not picking up on the point I'm trying to make here: by Montero breaking into the bigs, and being league-average, he would be out-performing Bonds, Pujols, etc. Sure, he's hit great, and opened the possibility that he could be a decent hitter this year, but it is still just that, a vague possibility. Here's a list of 20 YO who even in 250 PAs have been league-average. A total of eight. Do you want to risk the 2010 season on Montero being one of the 10 best players his age of the last quarter century (even when the prize is most likely a league-average ballplayer?)

In your post, you stated that you didn't want to lay him out as the next A-Rod, yet simultaneously state that "we should be comparing him to the A-Rods and Griffeys and Cabreras." I find that confusing. Also, shouldn't we also be comparing him to the Aramis Ramirezes, and Ivan Rodriguezes who were severely costly to their teams when they brought them up too soon? What about the Chad Hermansens amongst eons others who never did anything?

Second, him being in the Yankees' system complicates matters more significantly. By bringing him up to replace either an injured or struggling player, you are complicating his defensive development, and risking the strong likelihood that he can't cut it which opens up the possibility that he compromises title aspirations. In this case, you've done both yourself and the prospect harm. And the Yankees always have the resources to find a replacement well above league average, even if it isn't within their system.

I don't think I've said once that he can't be a decent, or even great hitter in the Majors this year. But that list of guys who did it is chock full of guys who have played on a lot of All-Star teams, and quite a few who are even going to the Hall of Fame. Freaks. By stating that you think such a performance is likely, you are putting him up there with the Alomars, the Sheffields, etc. It is an argument by implication, and not a straw man. I'm just saying that the more likely alternative is the guys at 20 who spent a full year in Triple-A before putting it together, or even the guys who never did. It's a much bigger list.

EDIT: For some reason, the hyperlink encoder isn't working for me. Here's the list I pulled up at Baseball Reference: http://tiny.cc/0aGGz

Edited by Meff Nelton, 28 February 2010 - 02:59 PM.


#58 Zen

  • 515 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE (jon abbey @ Feb 28 2010, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
First of all, Zen, stop with the attitude, there's no need for it.

Not trying to give anyone attitude. Not seriously, anyway. I would appreciate, however, if Meff would at least respond to points I have actually made, instead of ones that... well I don't know... one he would like me to have made or something. It makes conversation difficult.

QUOTE
Maybe it's just semantics, but it seems to me that's exactly what he's doing. He's telling you how many 20 year olds have been above average hitters in the majors in the last 25 years. You can say that the probability is larger for Montero to succeed than most 20 year olds because of what he's already done (which seems pretty obvious, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion), but the bottom line is that only a few people in the last 25 years have done it, no matter how large or small you want to make the control group.

Well, right, but that kind of misses the point of how you rate a player's chances to perform sufficiently at the big league level. What are the chances that you pull an ace out of a full deck of cards? 1 in 13, right? What if you remove everything but Jacks or higher? Your odds are one in five now. (As you said, it seems pretty obvious.)

Yes, few 20-year-olds have had success in the majors. The issue is that we're not (or at least I wasn't) talking about success in the majors at age 20. I was talking about an appearance in the majors at age 20. And I even agreed that it wasn't likely for Montero to show up and succeed... the confusion here seems to be over what I said regarding the fact that it's just not as unlikely as Meff's comparison makes it out to be. He's talking like it's still 1:13 to pull an ace out of the deck.

QUOTE (Meff Nelton @ Feb 28 2010, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sorry if you took offense to what I wrote, but I think you're not picking up on the point I'm trying to make here: by Montero breaking into the bigs, and being league-average, he would be out-performing Bonds, Pujols, etc. Sure, he's hit great, and opened the possibility that he could be a decent hitter this year, but it is still just that, a vague possibility. Here's a list of 20 YO who even in 250 PAs have been league-average. A total of eight. Do you want to risk the 2010 season on Montero being one of the 10 best players his age of the last quarter century (even when the prize is most likely a league-average ballplayer?)

Of course not, and I never said I did. This seems to be the misunderstanding here. For some reason, you think I'm saying that Montero should be called up early, or that he will be called up early and he will be an All-Star out of the gate. I have said none of these things.

My curiosity is at what point would the Yanks consider that the best move? If Montero's mashing, and Posada goes down, I think they'd have to call him up, no? The likelihood of his performing shitty/average/above average at this level notwithstanding, would they not consider Montero the best move? Again, we're talking about hypothetical situations here, so some things are already taken as given. If Montero is mashing. If Posada gets hurt. If Nick Johnson gets hurt or seriously underperforms.

QUOTE
In your post, you stated that you didn't want to lay him out as the next A-Rod, yet simultaneously state that "we should be comparing him to the A-Rods and Griffeys and Cabreras." I find that confusing. Also, shouldn't we also be comparing him to the Aramis Ramirezes, and Ivan Rodriguezes who were severely costly to their teams when they brought them up too soon? What about the Chad Hermansens amongst eons others who never did anything?

As I tried to explain above, I think you're missing the point of what I said and taking my statement of comparison beyond its intended meaning. The point was not to project his big-league career. The point was to project their ability to actually be a player who amasses enough PAs to qualify for the batting title (your initial benchmark, chosen for whatever reason). You said, "I guess the main point I'm trying to make here is that since 1985, there have been six seasons in which a 20 year old has qualified for the batting title." Using all 20-year-olds to judge Montero's chances is incorrect. The proper comparison at this point would be to all the other players who have advanced so quickly. The A-Rods, Griffeys, and Cabreras. That's a much smaller pool of players to draw from, and I'd imagine the players in that pool have a better chance of sticking in the bigs than the pool that includes any/all 20-year olds.

QUOTE
I don't think I've said once that he can't be a decent, or even great hitter in the Majors this year. But that list of guys who did it is chock full of guys who have played on a lot of All-Star teams, and quite a few who are even going to the Hall of Fame. Freaks. By stating that you think such a performance is likely, you are putting him up there with the Alomars, the Sheffields, etc. It is an argument by implication, and not a straw man. I'm just saying that the more likely alternative is the guys at 20 who spent a full year in Triple-A before putting it together, or even the guys who never did. It's a much bigger list.

Right, but the only problem is that I never stated that it was likely. I only stated that it is not as unlikely as you are making it sound. Sounds trivial, but I think it's kind of the crux of the misunderstanding here.

#59 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:37 PM

I think your error is using the list as a point of comparison before he's even taken a single AAA at-bat. There are plenty of guys who have moved through systems as fast and as promising as Montero, like Hermansen, Andy Mate, etc., and never done anything of note. Confirmation bias would have us omit those who were failed prospects on Montero's level (which dwarfs the number of successful ones, or at least ones who had early success) because they just aren't that memorable. Right now, those are the guys you should be using as a point of comparison, along with the best young players in the history of the game. Has Montero put himself within range of guys on that list? Sure, but I think you trivialize the next step, which is bigger than any other in the development cycle. I would make it a parallel to thinking a guy who just hit his 500 home run has put himself within range of hitting 600. Have you put yourself in an elite group? Sure. Do you need to be in that very elite group before thinking realistically about the next step? Absolutely. Is it a daunting step that most won't complete to actually reach that level? Yes.

Invariably, the hypothetical you propose here is absolutely dependent on the level at which Montero can produce upon reaching the majors. Sticking in the Majors at 20 has a very high correlation both to current performance and future superstardom. There is almost nobody who stuck there, and didn't sustain performance worthy of it. Trying to separate the two is dealing in some pretty wild hypotheticals that seems kinda pointless. Particularly when the team in question is trying to win a championship.

Also, I think this is actually pertinent to your questions, and I don't really understand why you chose to ignore it in your response:
QUOTE
Second, him being in the Yankees' system complicates matters more significantly. By bringing him up to replace either an injured or struggling player, you are complicating his defensive development, and risking the strong likelihood that he can't cut it which opens up the possibility that he compromises title aspirations. In this case, you've done both yourself and the prospect harm. And the Yankees always have the resources to find a replacement well above league average, even if it isn't within their system.


I'm gonna let this one go now, and just take it as an inability for us to communicate properly, with no blame for either party.

#60 Zen

  • 515 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 06:07 PM

QUOTE (Meff Nelton @ Feb 28 2010, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think your error is using the list as a point of comparison before he's even taken a single AAA at-bat. There are plenty of guys who have moved through systems as fast and as promising as Montero, like Hermansen, Andy Mate, etc., and never done anything of note. Confirmation bias would have us omit those who were failed prospects on Montero's level (which dwarfs the number of successful ones, or at least ones who had early success) because they just aren't that memorable. Right now, those are the guys you should be using as a point of comparison, along with the best young players in the history of the game.

Yes, and I'm not saying you don't use those players as a point of comparison, as well.

I have to admit, this is rather frustrating, because you continue to argue against points I have not made.

Please remember... I am not saying that he is a lock to stick in the bigs and become a star, or even that he's going to be an average player (this year or any other). I was making two points:

1. I'm not sure that - should something happen - they'd have any other choices better than Montero. Maybe they will. Maybe not. Depends on how well he hits at AAA. But I think there's at least a decent chance that Montero would be the Yanks' best win now option should Posada get hurt in June, or should Johnson go down, etc., even if he is NOT a league average player. Do you disagree with this?

2. I contended that your comparison (that there have only been six players age 20 since '85 to amass enough ABs to qualify for the batting title) made the odds seem longer than they really are for Montero to appear with the big league club. This is not to say the odds are short. Or that the odds are in his favor. My contention was merely that you were making it sound like a lottery ticket, when truthfully, the odds are better than that because - however many 20-year-olds might have moved as quickly and failed - there are scores and scores more who have not moved as quickly. That makes for a much smaller pool of talent.

Please don't read anything into what I've been saying beyond those two points, because when you have done so, you've been incorrect about my assertions.

QUOTE
Also, I think this is actually pertinent to your questions, and I don't really understand why you chose to ignore it in your response:
QUOTE
Second, him being in the Yankees' system complicates matters more significantly. By bringing him up to replace either an injured or struggling player, you are complicating his defensive development, and risking the strong likelihood that he can't cut it which opens up the possibility that he compromises title aspirations. In this case, you've done both yourself and the prospect harm. And the Yankees always have the resources to find a replacement well above league average, even if it isn't within their system.

Well, it's a little tautological in the assumption of the premise being debated, don't you think? You're already assuming he's not their best replacement option. If the Yanks are a win now team, and if Montero is their best replacement option, then not using him because they don't want to hamper his development goes against their chances of winning, regardless of his absolute level of his performance. If they go to make a trade for a better than league-average replacement, fine, but that takes time, too. And prospects. Do you think it's more likely that they trade prospects to get a better than league average catcher for a half-season? (How much would that cost?) Or that they give Montero a shot (assuming he's performing well enough in AAA)?

#61 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 06:15 PM

Yeah, I think you guys are arguing two different things: Zen is talking about the likelihood of Montero coming up and Meff is talking about the chances of him succeeding if that happens.

As I said above, I think if Posada goes down, there's a good chance Montero comes up. If Cervelli goes down, Mike Rivera could be the choice (then you still have one offensive and one defensive catcher).

And if Nick Johnson goes down (heh, "if"), I seriously think that they'd try to cover the spot with Thames and Juan Miranda before going to Montero. Miranda is 27 years old and in the last year of his 4 year deal, I think if a chance comes up to give him a shot and it's not too much of a stretch, they'll try to give him one.

#62 LondonSox


  • Robert the Deuce


  • 5,145 posts

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:10 AM

I don't get why you guys want to put so much pressure on a kid (assuming he is 20 of course)
The yanks have a great lineup what's the hurry.
Plus what if he struggles, you gonna be dissapointed in that? Look Lars Anderson was not Montero good in 2008 but he was a huge prospect that Sox fans felt could ahve made the team in some way in 2009. He struggld the more he struggled the more he may have felt the pressure and it ended up being a lost season.
There was no need for pressure, the Sox had no reason to rush him.

when you are developing real elite talent they'll determine their pace, if he's killing everything he'll be up, if he's not then so be it.
Plus if you end up trading him there'll be tears before bedtime, so everyone should jsut stop.

The list of good players at his age is close to zero and how many of them have reportedly had no clear position yet? How many of them played for the biggest budget team, world series champs who are set at every position for opening day?
If Posada gets injured sure why not? Otherwise. Chill.

#63 Zen

  • 515 posts

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:34 AM

QUOTE (LondonSox @ Mar 2 2010, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't get why you guys want to put so much pressure on a kid (assuming he is 20 of course)
The yanks have a great lineup what's the hurry.
Plus what if he struggles, you gonna be dissapointed in that? Look Lars Anderson was not Montero good in 2008 but he was a huge prospect that Sox fans felt could ahve made the team in some way in 2009. He struggld the more he struggled the more he may have felt the pressure and it ended up being a lost season.
There was no need for pressure, the Sox had no reason to rush him.

when you are developing real elite talent they'll determine their pace, if he's killing everything he'll be up, if he's not then so be it.
Plus if you end up trading him there'll be tears before bedtime, so everyone should jsut stop.

The list of good players at his age is close to zero and how many of them have reportedly had no clear position yet? How many of them played for the biggest budget team, world series champs who are set at every position for opening day?
If Posada gets injured sure why not? Otherwise. Chill.

No one here wants to put pressure on him. No one has said they think it's the right move for the team to call him up.

Would I like to see Montero play? Of course. Do I want the team to rush him? No way. Am I (selfishly) curious if there's a chance we'll see him with the big club this year? Yes. Would I be disappointed if he struggles? Of course not.

Besides, it's an internet forum about baseball. We're not in charge of baseball operations. Using your logic, what's the point in discussing anything? Should we all just sit back and let the season play out, since that's what's going to happen anyway?

#64 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 02 March 2010 - 02:48 PM

Some odd jumps in logic, but an interesting piece on Fangraphs today on Montero:

http://www.fangraphs...vorite-position

A lot of that piece can be summed up by saying "catchers are much more valuable than DHs", which we all knew already, but still worth a read.

#65 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:27 PM

QUOTE (jon abbey @ Mar 2 2010, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Some odd jumps in logic, but an interesting piece on Fangraphs today on Montero:

http://www.fangraphs...vorite-position

A lot of that piece can be summed up by saying "catchers are much more valuable than DHs", which we all knew already, but still worth a read.


I think the more interesting argument made in that article is that if he can't catch and is blocked from a position by Teixeira (whose name I still have to look up to spell correctly,) then he is a lot more valuable as a trading piece than as a DH specifically for the Yankees, presuming they receive proper value in return.

Now, we're on the frontier of Unknowable Land here, and the assumption the writer makes is that he'll be on a Konerko/Butler tier, and not a Frank Thomas one (which is absolutely rational,) but I wouldn't make any such decisions without more information (which could also hurt his value in the end.)

I think the right thing to do is give him however much rope he needs in the minors to succeed or fail as a catcher. Even if he never hits the upper-upper best hitter in baseball ceiling, just being a Konerko bat with a below average glove behind the plate would make him a monster. Anything more than that, and he would put himself closer and closer to a 'best player in the game argument.'

But I guess everything will figure itself out in the end, anyways.

#66 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:46 PM

QUOTE (Meff Nelton @ Mar 2 2010, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think the more interesting argument made in that article is that if he can't catch and is blocked from a position by Teixeira (whose name I still have to look up to spell correctly,) then he is a lot more valuable as a trading piece than as a DH specifically for the Yankees, presuming they receive proper value in return.


Heh, I argued exactly that here a few months ago during the Halladay discussions (although possibly a moot point because I think Toronto really wanted to trade him out of the league and certainly out of the division).


#67 Phranchise

  • 210 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE
Doug (NYC)


Best hitter comp. for Montero: Big Hurt, Cabrera, or other (who?)
Jim Callis
(2:44 PM)


Miguel Cabrera.


Not bad.

Edited by Phranchise, 03 March 2010 - 03:45 PM.


#68 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 04:46 PM

I think it's specifically the Cabrera comps that have NY fans thinking about Montero helping the team this year, because we can't help but think about how Cabrera contributed to Florida winning it all in 2003.

#69 Zen

  • 515 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 10:39 PM

Well the Hardball Times certainly seems rather high on him.

Link

#70 Wingack


  • Yankee Mod


  • 10,978 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 10:49 PM

QUOTE (Zen @ Mar 4 2010, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well the Hardball Times certainly seems rather high on him.

Link


Holy crap. At age 25 a .347, 44 HRs and 130 RBIs line is Pujolsian.

#71 Zen

  • 515 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 11:17 PM

I know it's easy to overvalue prospects and all, but what kind of haul would the Yanks be able to get for Montero, assuming they figure they won't be able to find a place for him? How often does a prospect with that kind of ceiling get traded, especially when he's that close to the bigs? (Please don't use Andy Marte as an comparable example.)

I guess what I'm saying is, even though there's probably not a spot for Montero in the near term if he doesn't stick at catcher, it's gotta be pretty hard to justify trading someone like that.


QUOTE (Wingack @ Mar 4 2010, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Holy crap. At age 25 a .347, 44 HRs and 130 RBIs line is Pujolsian.

And they have that as his fourth season in a row with an OPS over 1.000. banana.gif

Edited by Zen, 04 March 2010 - 11:19 PM.


#72 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 11:40 PM

QUOTE (Zen @ Mar 4 2010, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I know it's easy to overvalue prospects and all, but what kind of haul would the Yanks be able to get for Montero, assuming they figure they won't be able to find a place for him? How often does a prospect with that kind of ceiling get traded, especially when he's that close to the bigs? (Please don't use Andy Marte as an comparable example.)

I guess what I'm saying is, even though there's probably not a spot for Montero in the near term if he doesn't stick at catcher, it's gotta be pretty hard to justify trading someone like that.


I don't think it would be a problem(or a good problem to have). They can always trade someone to make room if they REALLY have to(and pay like half their contract, but whatever). That said, if you can put up over 1000 OPS....you can be a really bad catcher. And he can always stand in left field.

#73 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:15 AM

QUOTE (Wingack @ Mar 4 2010, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Holy crap. At age 25 a .347, 44 HRs and 130 RBIs line is Pujolsian.


I don't know much about their projections, but seeing Kelvin DeLeon's made me think they're optimistic to the point of absurdity (or I'm really happy as a Yankee fan):

http://hardballtimes...rs/deleon002kel

#74 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:37 AM

QUOTE (jon abbey @ Mar 5 2010, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't know much about their projections, but seeing Kelvin DeLeon's made me think they're optimistic to the point of absurdity (or I'm really happy as a Yankee fan):

http://hardballtimes...rs/deleon002kel


I'm glad they didn't try to project A-Rod after 1996. It probably would have created a black hole, or unmade existence.

#75 Wingack


  • Yankee Mod


  • 10,978 posts

Posted 06 March 2010 - 03:16 AM

Interview with Montero by Francessa

http://www.wfan.com/...audioId=4448519

His English is much better than I thought for a young guy.

#76 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 14,188 posts

Posted 06 March 2010 - 06:44 AM

QUOTE (jon abbey @ Mar 5 2010, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't know much about their projections, but seeing Kelvin DeLeon's made me think they're optimistic to the point of absurdity (or I'm really happy as a Yankee fan):

http://hardballtimes...rs/deleon002kel


He's going to walk just 28 times, yet put up an OPS over 1.000? Sure...

That forecast is a bit off.

Edited by mt8thsw9th, 06 March 2010 - 06:44 AM.


#77 fren123

  • 48 posts

Posted 12 March 2010 - 06:48 PM

This is my first look at him behind the plate and honestly he doesn't look all that bad. He obviously has room for improvement, but you got the sense that he was pretty much immobile back there.

#78 Discofever

  • 144 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 07:26 PM

From what I've read, he was always good at blocking pitches and he has a good arm. The only problem, and it's a big problem, is that his pop time is extremely slow.

I'm confident that he'll be a good enough catcher to stay at the position.



#79 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 09:19 AM

Kevin Goldstein (ESPN Insider/BP) has him up to second ranked prospect in the entire minors now, behind only Strasburg and ahead of Mike Stanton, Pedro Alvarez, Desmond Jennings, etc. He writes today:

"While New York City got awfully excited about a good-not-great prospect coming to town in Ike Davis on Monday, one is left to wonder what it will be like later in the year when the Yankees call up one of the best prospects in the game. Surely, the surrounding factors won't be the same, as Mets fans are desperate for a light of hope in a miserable lineup, and hoping Davis will be the answer, while it's impossible to see Montero coming up with the same expectations attached to his arrival. At 20 years old, he's one of the youngest everyday players at the upper levels, but as he's also the top hitting prospect in the minors, it just doesn't matter, as he's batting .300 while showing off the power for the first time on Monday afternoon against former big leaguer R.A. Dickey. Get the hype train revved up again."

#80 futureman

  • 85 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:02 PM

.295/.367/.500 is a nice start for a 20 year old in AAA.

#81 RollingWave

  • 131 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 02:09 AM

defense still icky though. still, bat wise he's doing well, 2 strait game with HR.

#82 CaptainLaddie


  • dj paul pfieffer


  • 23,272 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 02:37 AM

They HEAVILY revised that Montero forecast, FWIW.

#83 futureman

  • 85 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 06:03 PM

QUOTE (RollingWave @ Apr 21 2010, 03:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
defense still icky though. still, bat wise he's doing well, 2 strait game with HR.


There are plenty of major league catchers that are marginal defensively. Look at Posada and V-Mart or look to the past at Piazza. You don't have to be Pudge behind the plate in order to be a really valuable catcher. Besides, Montero's biggest issue seems to be blocking pitches so maybe he DHs on AJ day.

#84 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 07:29 PM

I thought his biggest issue was stolen bases?

#85 RollingWave

  • 131 posts

Posted 22 April 2010 - 03:29 AM

he did well enough in Trenton in the limited sample size, so who knows. been pretty terrible so far though.

the thing is, Posada was actually quiet solid in his younger days. you can't say hey look this 20 year old guy isn't worse than that 38 year old guy!. V Mart's a legit comparason here I guess and Piazza... well if he hit like Piazza then maybe we have something... but if Piazza played his career in the AL he probably seen more days at DH than C.



#86 futureman

  • 85 posts

Posted 22 April 2010 - 01:09 PM

QUOTE (RollingWave @ Apr 22 2010, 04:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
he did well enough in Trenton in the limited sample size, so who knows. been pretty terrible so far though.

the thing is, Posada was actually quiet solid in his younger days. you can't say hey look this 20 year old guy isn't worse than that 38 year old guy!. V Mart's a legit comparason here I guess and Piazza... well if he hit like Piazza then maybe we have something... but if Piazza played his career in the AL he probably seen more days at DH than C.


Well yeah Posada was a solid guy in his youth but the fact remains that he is still valuable now even as a marginal defensive catcher and Montero would be replacing a 39 year old Posada not a 26 year old Posada.

Then, let's say you have Montero DH'ing, is Romine's defense that much better that it would make up for the inferior offense? Is a 38 year old A-Rod still in the field? Montero really needs to at least last through Teix's contract at C.

Edited by futureman, 22 April 2010 - 01:15 PM.


#87 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:38 PM

A little update for the kid here.

Montero has now definitely ceded the title of 'Best Hitting Prospect in Baseball' to Mike Stanton, who looks like a sure-fire franchise player at this point. Doesn't mean much for Montero, but I did enjoy being able to make that statement. Oh well.

In terms of his actual performance, he's at .244/.306/.378 in 90 ABs. A hair disappointing, but he is a 20 year-old who started the year at Triple-A, and very far ahead of the game at this point. If I recall properly, he did struggle a bit after his mid-season call-up to Trenton last year, so a huge streak is possible, but at this point, a mid-2011 ETA is the most likely course for his permanent arrival at the Stadium, though there is a very good chance he'll see some time in September. I believe in Jesus.

Edited by Meff Nelton, 09 May 2010 - 02:49 PM.


#88 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:41 PM

I think he ends up traded for a stud at a different position, and NY goes with Cervelli and Romine once Posada is done. Obviously a lot can change, but that's what I think as of now.

#89 fren123

  • 48 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:46 PM

Yea, there's about a zero percent chance of that happening.

Cash loves his prospects until they do some stupid shit that pisses off the org. (Tabata ditching his teammates/Vizcaino's questionable work ethic)

#90 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:50 PM

QUOTE (fren123 @ May 9 2010, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yea, there's about a zero percent chance of that happening.


If Cervelli and Romine are both decidedly better defensively and adequate offensively, I can see a strong argument for moving Montero for a young stud SP or OF. They have a ton of catching prospects in the pipeline, only two can be on the ML roster at once, possibly three if you're covering the DH spot with them also. If you think Romine is more likely to be moved, or Cervelli, that might be true, but I don't think they'd bring the impact player in return that Montero possibly could.

#91 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:59 PM

QUOTE (jon abbey @ May 9 2010, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If Cervelli and Romine are both decidedly better defensively and adequate offensively, I can see a strong argument for moving Montero for a young stud SP or OF. They have a ton of catching prospects in the pipeline, only two can be on the ML roster at once, possibly three if you're covering the DH spot with them also. If you think Romine is more likely to be moved, or Cervelli, that might be true, but I don't think they'd bring the impact player in return that Montero possibly could.


If, and it's a big IF Romine's early season performance is indicative of an ability to be an above average offensive player in the bigs (not just above average offensive catcher,) then I'm on board IF Montero is bringing back somebody like (just an example) an Andrew McCutchen. A certifiable young star, preferably in the outfield.

Cervelli has never shown an ISO or OBP capable of sustaining anything like league-average production, even in the minors. I doubt he finishes the year batting over .300, much less .400, which is fine for the role we have him in now.

Edited by Meff Nelton, 09 May 2010 - 03:00 PM.


#92 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:05 PM

QUOTE (Meff Nelton @ May 9 2010, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
then I'm on board IF Montero is bringing back somebody like (just an example) an Andrew McCutchen. A certifiable young star, preferably in the outfield.


Yeah, I was thinking Zack Greinke, who's only controlled by KC through 2012 right now and is about to get expensive ($13.5M in each of 2011 and 2012). Cashman has room to be creative if all three of these guys stay on track, that'll all I'm saying.


#93 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE (jon abbey @ May 9 2010, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, I was thinking Zack Greinke, who's only controlled by KC through 2012 right now and is about to get expensive ($13.5M in each of 2011 and 2012). Cashman has room to be creative if all three of these guys stay on track, that'll all I'm saying.


I would trade Montero for Greinke yesterday, but a few issues arise with that. Greinke (or a comparable starter) would definitely cost Montero-plus, and Romine as of now is our only other big chip in the system (if Romine even is a big chip...) Second, he (or another similar player) would already be in the teens millions-wise, and would be under control for a year-plus, tops (in Greinke's case, unless it's this year, which I doubt is happening,) and have a hell of a price tag after that (like a Sabathia price tag.)

We also have a dearth of young, cheap and controllable position players on the team right now. Beyond the budgetary issues involved, when the 'kid' on your team is 27, and going into a season making $12 million, it's a problem that needs addressing. We're going to need a couple really good young hitters to balance out the older, insanely expensive ones who are going to cease carrying their weight real soon.

ETA: I recognize this is just a thought exercise, just going for a couple of rounds here.

Edited by Meff Nelton, 09 May 2010 - 03:22 PM.


#94 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,774 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE (fren123 @ May 9 2010, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yea, there's about a zero percent chance of that happening.

Cash loves his prospects until they do some stupid shit that pisses off the org. (Tabata ditching his teammates/Vizcaino's questionable work ethic)


And Austin Jackson pooped in his morning coffee?

What Jon Abbey said is a realistic option. Top Prospects are viewed differently by top tier organizations that can afford to spend a buck. I'm not saying anything earth shattering here, if a Greinke or Cain can be had, Montero is on the next thing smoking outta Scranton.

#95 BrooklynJM

  • 200 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE (rembrat @ May 9 2010, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And Austin Jackson pooped in his morning coffee?

What Jon Abbey said is a realistic option. Top Prospects are viewed differently by top tier organizations that can afford to spend a buck. I'm not saying anything earth shattering here, if a Greinke or Cain can be had, Montero is on the next thing smoking outta Scranton.


I agree that Montero could definitely be dealt for the right guy, but the problem is that I can't see any national league team ever parting with a prized player like Cain or McCutchen for a guy who might not be able to play enough defense to stay at C (SF also has Buster Posey locked and loaded in the near future behind the plate). I haven't heard any reports of Montero attempting to play 1B (which obviously wouldn't make sense for the NYY with Teixeira) but unless an NL team was confident that he could play a position on defense just a little bit, he might not be enough to bring back the kind of player we're talking about here.

Again, I know this is all hypothetical, but unless he shows he can play some defense his trade value is quite diminished to half the potential teams out there.

Edited by BrooklynJM, 09 May 2010 - 03:53 PM.


#96 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:55 PM

QUOTE (Meff Nelton @ May 9 2010, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would trade Montero for Greinke yesterday, but a few issues arise with that. Greinke (or a comparable starter) would definitely cost Montero-plus, and Romine as of now is our only other big chip in the system (if Romine even is a big chip...) Second, he (or another similar player) would already be in the teens millions-wise, and would be under control for a year-plus, tops (in Greinke's case, unless it's this year, which I doubt is happening,) and have a hell of a price tag after that (like a Sabathia price tag.)

We also have a dearth of young, cheap and controllable position players on the team right now. Beyond the budgetary issues involved, when the 'kid' on your team is 27, and going into a season making $12 million, it's a problem that needs addressing. We're going to need a couple really good young hitters to balance out the older, insanely expensive ones who are going to cease carrying their weight real soon.


Sure, I agree with all that. On the other hand, right now they have three SPs for 2011 (not counting Pettitte), and Greinke would obviously be a huge addition there. Also, CC can potentially opt out after 2011, and while that looks less likely now than it did when he signed, it still has to be kept in mind. The point is that if Romine and Cervelli are legit, they'll still have cheap catchers, worse offensively but better defensively.

I was thinking something like Montero, Vazquez, Ramiro Pena and Zach McAllister plus cash to cover Javy's salary for Greinke, and I was thinking a midseason deal this year more than the offseason. I have no idea if KC would consider that or not, but something in that general ballpark might make sense both ways.


#97 ronald47

  • 240 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 04:20 PM

I'd do Montero for Greinke yesterday as was said. The ONLY part of that deal I'd have any hesitancy about is whether Greinke's psychological problems (which are real and documented unlike the bull Vazquez gets tagged with) crop up again, especially in a market like New York. Aside from that however, Montero is not good enough that you don't make that deal.

Bonus points for the fact that KC might just be stupid enough to do it!

...

Yes, I realize this is just a thought exercise but it's fun to talk about.

#98 ngruz25


  • Bibby


  • 9,718 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 04:24 PM

So, any word on why Montero was removed from the game the other day and hasn't played in the two games since? I've read he either came up lame on a ground ball or didn't run it out and was benched.

#99 Meff Nelton

  • 1,088 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 04:36 PM

QUOTE (ngruz25 @ May 9 2010, 05:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, any word on why Montero was removed from the game the other day and hasn't played in the two games since? I've read he either came up lame on a ground ball or didn't run it out and was benched.


News on that front is inconclusive.

#100 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,488 posts

Posted 10 May 2010 - 02:39 PM

He was benched:

"In other Triple-A news, uber-prospect Jesus Montero was benched over the weekend because he didnít run out a ground ball. He was taken out of Fridayís game because of the lack of hustle, then he was kept out of the lineup Saturday and Sunday.

Vice president of baseball operations Mark Newman confirmed the reason for the benching and said Montero will return to the lineup tonight."

http://yankees.lhblo...rom-scrantonwb/