Manramsclan said:
Hey mauf, I haven't heard anything like this. Granted, I've been reading fap pieces in the Globe and elsewhere. Is this just a TINSTAAPP related comment? He's a first round pick, seems to me that he would at least become a useful bullpen arm. Just interested to hear your thought process.
I don't have data, but I assume a lot of first-round picks who succeed in A-ball never make an impact in The Show, and I assume that's more true for pitchers than for position players. The odds of Owens amounting to nothing are a lot greater than the odds of JBJ amounting to nothing, and are probably quite a bit greater than the odds of, say, Cecchini amounting to nothing. But as a 6-6 lefty with pedigree who has already missed a ton of bats in the low minors and had a bit of success in AA just after his 21st birthday, Owens has an outside chance of developing into one of the game's best players; no one thinks JBJ, or really even Cecchini, has that kind of upside.
Law is putting considerable weight on that outside chance in rating Owens ahead of JBJ and Cecchini, and giving relatively little weight to the chance that each of them will amount to nothing. That's consistent with the way Law says he's evaluating prospects -- I suspect the FO would be more reluctant to part with Owens than any other prospect besides X, precisely because of the non-zero chance that Owens will develop into a star like Clayton Kershaw or David Price. Trading away a prospect who becomes a star like that is bad for one's career and legacy, and teams are consequently more reluctant to take that risk than a purely mathematical risk/reward calculus would suggest they ought to be. But as a fan who is more focused on who is likely to contribute more WAR to the big club during his years of club control, with some discount rate to reflect the fact that a win this year is worth more than a win in five years (who knows, I might be dead then), I would rate JBJ considerably higher, and Owens considerably lower.