USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not pretty)

by scotterduder on Oct 15, 2007 12:20 AM PDT Comment 35 comments

So there's some good news and some bad news from USS Mariner's organizational rankings of all 30 MLB teams.

Bad news: The Giants ranked a straight "F"

Good news: They are the highest ranked of the 4 "F" teams!

Okay, so that's not good news at all. Here's a quote from the author (in the comments) about why the Giants are so low:

"Brian Sabean is like a less talented Pat Gillick. He only really knows how to do one thing - acquire major league veterans at high prices, attempting to win every year while burning the franchise to the ground in the process. Only, he's not good at it, so his teams don't win and they have just ashes remaining."

I guess I'm not the biggest Sabean critic, but reading something like that from a knowledgeable and probably objective source is disheartening. Is it fair to rate the Giants an "F"? Drafting Cain and lucking in Lincecum has to count for something, right?

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

Oakland a B+?

I thought their farm system ended with Daric Barton. And their team is full of injury prone kids.

Brian Anderson: I can has spot in Fresno 'pen?

by Anticon23 on Oct 15, 2007 12:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

I think a lot of the ranking is the philosophy of the organization. So for Oakland, they don't overpay for veterans, make good trades, look for the moneyball/high OBP/fat guys, etc. But yeah, I wouldn't exactly call their farm system stocked.

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on Oct 15, 2007 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

Oakland is looking for some "fat guys"?!? Sign me up. I can hack at some slop.

Screw the Giants, but not Omar. I'm getting drunk and watching some footy.

by PacBellBoozer on Oct 15, 2007 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

the rankings are supposed based on an org as a whole. Not just the farm.

Not that I agree with his rankings. IMO, he's showing his biases with the Angels ranking of C+.

by rfloh on Oct 15, 2007 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

horrible article by that M's fan, he doesnt have confidence in the young core of frandsen/ortmeier/davis/schietholtz/lewis who's style of play are perfect for that park

Beane doesnt seem to be too worried. he'll restock that farm system probably with another trade of a blanton or street

Blez: Besides guys like Braden, Meyer and Daric Barton, who are some prospects in the system that you think are really close to contributing to the big club? In other words, names we should keep a close eye on. I don't suppose the system could give another Buck soon?

Beane: That's the other thing too. I'll answer that question in a minute, but one of the things about the injuries is that it's put so much stress on our system. A reporter recently said, "Your farm system seems thin." You've got to understand that a guy like Braden would've probably been in Double-A this year. A guy like Travis Buck probably would've spent the year in Triple-A. Daric (Barton) is one we've kept down there all year because he's very young. Danny Putnam was up here even though he was supposed to spend the entire year in Double-A. As a result he ends up spending a lot of time here and a lot of time in Triple-A. It stresses the whole organization. But, getting to your question, and I always answer this a similar way because you hate to single guys out because you're going to leave some guys out or you're going to create the perception that you like some guys better than others. I think what I'll do is jump a little bit. Barton and Meyer are close. (Gregorio) Petit, a shortstop we pushed to Triple-A, has made great strides. Dropping down, I always resist saying this, but we've had guys from this year's draft that we're very excited about. (James) Simmons has done very well in Double-A. Corey Brown and guys like that. Two pitchers in Kane County who are very young and very talented. Probably as any good two young pitchers we've had in a long time. 19-year-old kids (Henry Alberto) Rodriguez and (Trevor) Cahill. Rodriguez had a little bit of a finger problem and missed a start or two. But Cahill, for a 19 year old, just keeps getting better and better to the point where he's one of the best pitching prospects in the midwest league. With guys knocking on the door, you're probably going to forget somebody. You look at our team and Swisher is just in his third year in the major leagues. Travis Buck is just a rookie. You've got Daric Barton who we expect to see here very soon. Gaudin has been here for a couple of years already but he's only 24 years old. You open up a Baseball America and go through some of the best prospects, some of them might be 24 years old and in Double-A. Huston Street is in his third year. It's a very, very young team still. We've got the benefit of some time with those guys too. To answer your question, we do need to get some guys to the upper level, but I think they're going to be there soon enough.

Blez: What about Michael Madsen?

Beane: Yeah, he was in the futures game. (Andrew) Bailey, the kid in Stockton is progressing nicely. Jared Lansford missed most of the year with a pectoral muscle problem, but he should pitch in instructional league and should be fine.

by rayver723 on Oct 15, 2007 2:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

Er, I don't think I would really be calling that article awful because he doesn't have confidence in those players to be the core of a good team. I think you'd have a hard time finding people here who believe Frandsen, Ortmeier, Davis, Schierholtz and Lewis are a satisfactory core for the Giants.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 15, 2007 2:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

Anybody who cites park effects as the main reason for being optimistic about any prospect immediately loses my confidence.

Park effects are crap. Get over it, people. Talent is a good reason to be excited about a prospect. End. Of. Story.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 15, 2007 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

I'd love to hear the reasoning that puts the Pirates ahead of the Giants (or anyone besides Baltimore, really) on that list.

Rajai Davis: fast.

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Oct 15, 2007 2:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

I think F is a bit dramatic, but C or D is maybe more like it.

The Giants can draft and develop pitching. The GM has to go I agree, but with pitching at the premium it is, their success in that realm alone warrants at least a D+ or C-

Liriano
Nathan
Cain
Accardo
Lincecum

are all-star caliber pitchers developed by the Giants. It's not a stretch to say all 5 of those guys could be all-stars next season (BJ Ryan comeback could cripple that). Although I guess trading away 3 of those 5 could be reason for the F. Still, D+ at least I'd say

There's also the second tier

Lowry
Linebrink
Ortiz
Bonser
Correia

And then promising young arms

Wilson
Bumgarner
Alderson (really excited about this guy as either SP or RP)
Sanchez
Sadler
Sosa

Either way, if Sabean could just have an offensive outlook that wasn't so speed dependent I really wouldn't feel bad about our future. Who knows, this offseason will prove a lot about him.

If he can put together an offense that is just close to average within the next few years we will be a contending team.

Truthfully, I don't think it's that tall a task, but with Sabes at the helm it only seems that way.

Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Oct 15, 2007 3:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

This is true, but part of being a good organization also includes either keeping the star quality pitchers and/or getting real value back for them. And the fact that we didn't get much in return for Liriano, Nathan, Bonser and Accardo doesn't reflect well on the organization. Remember, this is a rating for the entirety of the organization, not just minor league development.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 15, 2007 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner

Three of those four pitchers you mentioned went in the same horrible deal, so I hardly think you can make a sweeping indictment of the Giants' organization based on that. The Accardo deal really wasn't that bad. Jeremy Accardo is better than Vinnie Chulk, but not by the leaps and bounds that would qualify it as an all time bad trade. And they did pick up a guy who was hitting .300 in the deal as well. Only fans with crystal balls could have predicted that Shea Hillenbrand would have provided zero help in the Giants' quest to make the playoffs that year. Someone has to explain to me why I should care about what some blogger at USS Mariner thinks about all 30 teams and their ratings. I have a friend who thinks the Giants will be amazing next year with all this speed they will be bringing up. I think he's nuts, but why is his opinion any less valued than this guy at USS Mariner?? I am sure my friend knows more about the Giants' minor leaguers than this guy does.

Joe Simpson:"I was told by a player that the hardest throwers he saw all year were Ubaldo Jimenez and RANDY MESSENGER"

by rxmeister on Oct 15, 2007 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner

He may or may not be right... I was just pointing out that showing that half of the great pitchers we've developed aren't with the team anymore and didn't really bring anything back of consequence isn't really a point in Sabean's favor, when looking at the overall organization and not just player development.

As for the Accardo trade, I thought it was crap at the time and I think it's crap now and I'll think it was crap twenty years from now. Maybe I couldn't have predicted that Hillensuck would have been so utterly worthless, but I certainly could have predicted that Accardo would be a much more useful player for the future than Hillenbrand would have been for '06 alone. Accardo had an ugly ERA but great stuff and peripherals. Hillenbrand was a below-average hitter for a 1b/DH even before he fell off a cliff. It was a bad trade.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 15, 2007 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even with the shiny 300 average

Hillenbrand was below average for a 1b / dh with little defensive value: 301-342-480, in 2006 before the trade. In 2005, 291-343-449. In 2004, 345-464-444. And so on.

Back when he could play 3rd, that's good. For a 1b / dh, even in his prime, Hillenbrand struck out too much, didn't walk enough and didn't hit for enough power.

by rfloh on Oct 15, 2007 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner

If you read USSM for a while, it becomes clear that Cameron is both very smart and pretty well connected in the industry. He's worth paying attention to.

That said, his criteria with this list is pretty squishy: "Essentially, this is my opinion of which organizations have laid the strongest foundation between their ownership, baseball operations department, and coaching staffs to insert a winning DNA into their baseball teams." It would be tough to keep such a list from degenerating into "Do these teams do things the way I would do them?"

Which is not to say that the Giants organization is not a mess.

by Evan on Oct 15, 2007 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, Dave Cameron is smart

but if you look at the list, and read his explanations, this is basically a SABR sexy list.

by rfloh on Oct 15, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Call it what you want, but...

The Indians and Red Sox are in the ALCS, the Rockies are in the World Series, the Yankees won 94 games and the Phillies made the playoffs due in large part because they drew a lot of walks and hit for power. All ranked in the top 10 in OBP and top 15 in SLG this year.

by JSully on Oct 16, 2007 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

The team picked Lincecum, but can we really say they "developed" him? After all, he only pitched a handful of minor league games before rocketing to the big team. During his "development", minor league coaches were told to not screw with his mechanics.

Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 15, 2007 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

Realistically, the Giants got him because the Mariners didn't want to go over slot to sign him. They took Brandon Morrow instead. Come to think of it, this might be part of the reason Dave Cameron hates the Giants so much; you'd be pretty bummed too if your team drafted Morrow over Lincecum because of a million bucks or so.

by JSully on Oct 16, 2007 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

... except that Cameron completely supported that decision. He still seems pretty skeptical about Lincecum.

by Evan on Oct 16, 2007 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

really? I remember going over to USS Mariner at the beginning of the year and reading some whining from the people there that they didn't take Lincecum.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 17, 2007 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Organizational Rankings

Pretty strange to say that a franchise that's never won more than 70 games at the ML level is the third best-run org in baseball.

I dont care if TB is fantastic at developing young talent -- they can't field a winning team...not even close. I do agree, however, that the Giants deserve a low grade...D probably rather than F.

Saw an interesting blog a while back that talked about how franchises are either dumb or smart and rich or poor.

Franchises like the Royals would qualify as poor/dumb

Angels rich/smart

Athletics poor/smart

and so on...

Giants, sadly, get smacked with the rich/dumb tag.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 15, 2007 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Organizational Rankings

+1 regarding the Drays.

I do think they have a bright future, and are really turning it around, but you cannot say that the team with the worst record deserves an A.

Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Oct 15, 2007 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Organizational Rankings

They play in a really tough division and I honestly think they can be competitive next year in one of the toughest divisions in baseball.

They have very solid lineup that can swing the bat and their pitching is really underrated.

I have no problems with the D-Rays getting an A grade.

Imagine if the Giants had to play in the AL East?

by xanthan on Oct 15, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Organizational Rankings

The Giants in the AL East would be horrible...and likewise for the D-Rays in the NL West. I think NL West pitching would give the young and inexperienced Rays' hitters fits.

Since it doesn't look like Selig is planning on a division realignment, Tampa Bay is going to have to figure out a way to win in the AL East. That's something they haven't been able to do since their inception, so in my mind they aren't an "A" franchise...if you want to base it all on prospects, I'd say this: It would be pretty hard to NOT have a strong group of prospects if you get the 1st overall pick each year.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 15, 2007 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Organizational Rankings

I think you might be over-stressing the D-Rays youth. Good hitters will hit not matter where they play. The AL East pitching isn't anything to laugh at either. You've got guys like Halladay, Burnett, Bedard, Guthrie, Beckett, Dice-K, Schilling, Wang, and Pettite, who are all very strong pitchers.

I don't like penalizing teams for being bad in previous years and getting high draft picks. The D-Rays did what they were supposed to do, draft smart and make good choices, which they have. They've also had a shift in organizational philosophy, moving away from signing overpriced FA's (Greg Vaugh anyone?) and concentrating on building their team up internally.

I think they are a "A" franchise right now because they've gone from a terrible team to one that's going to be ready to compete in a ultra-tough division by 2008 and beyond.

by xanthan on Oct 15, 2007 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Organizational Rankings

I don't mean to come-off as though I'm penalizing the Rays. I'm just not ready to heap praises on them for having lots of prospects when they draft so high each year, and epecially when they continue to lose nearly 100 games.

Sadly, we have not had the same fortune as Tampa Bay when it comes to drafting and developing. That may be due to scouting, coaching, injuries, or just plain bad luck. I tend to think that we just flat-out suck at evaluating talent compared to a lot of teams.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 15, 2007 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

I think the big reason why we're ranked so low is that even though we have talent in the minors it's most likely that Sabes is going to trade them off for low talent veterans. If he were to come out and say that 2008 is a rebuilding year focused on seeing what the young players can do then I bet we'd rocket all the way up to a C.

As it stands now, F seems a bit harsh. I'd give the Giants a D-. But in the end that's just splitting hairs.

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Oct 15, 2007 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

Why would you think Sabean is going to trade his young pitchers for bad veterans?? Everything that has come out of his mouth in the past year says the opposite. And I would doubt that this Mariner guy is expecting Sabean to do that when he makes his predictions. I can understand the disgust with Sabean over the last three seasons, but the guy originally took over a last place team and made them a contender for quite some time. Some of you guys act like he's a Mongloid. You don't go from a former executive of the year to an asshole.

Joe Simpson:"I was told by a player that the hardest throwers he saw all year were Ubaldo Jimenez and RANDY MESSENGER"

by rxmeister on Oct 15, 2007 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

Nobody is calling him an asshole. We're calling him an idiot and currently incapable of performing his job. Big difference!

Screw the Giants, but not Omar. I'm getting drunk and watching some footy.

by PacBellBoozer on Oct 15, 2007 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

I don't think that Sabes is going to do this. Every indication seems to be that he wants to focus on putting a young team together. And so far his trades this year have been great.

But until I hear him publicly renounce the idea of trading kids for vets I will fear that he is going to resort to his old ways.

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Oct 15, 2007 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

Sabean could really stand to take a page from Kevin Towers' book. By realizing that Pac Bell Park's natural run-suppressing characteristics provide you with a strategic advantage when putting together a pitching staff, he could focus on groundball pitchers that don't give up many HR's. Since these are relatively cheap to come by, you take this savings and commit it to improving your offense as the starting rotation is currently in good shape.

by JSully on Oct 16, 2007 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

But do fly balls in the yard usually have a lower BABIP than ground balls in play (like I imagine they would)? And if so, since AT&T keeps a higher percentage of fly balls in the yard, doesn't it intuitively make more sense to actually focus on fly ball pitchers (a la Cain)?

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 16, 2007 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

That's the way I'd go. AT&T is nowhere near as extreme a park as Petco. AT&T keeps home runs down, but it actually increases the number of hits allowed (especially doubles and triples -- mostly due to that big gap in right-center, I would imagine). So a strikeout/flyball pitcher is going to be more successful here than in, say, Arizona, while a groundball pitcher should do as well in either park.

by Evan on Oct 16, 2007 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings

I think what he is going to do is assemble a team with a decent defense (inc. pitching) and historically terrible offense.

The team will probably win somewhere between 60-80 games depending on how the bullpen gels and other randomness like record in 1-run games, or if all the Giants homers (all 100 of them) are solo or 3-run jobbies.

If 2008 is on the high end of that (~.500), he will probably declare victory and sign some (probably overpriced, low obp, high-veteran-savvy) guys for 2009+, and we will struggle along for the rest of his contract in 3rd-4th place, hoping to get lucky and sniff a wild card (hellooooo Diamondbacks).

I can only hope if he puts out a team that goes 62-100 with a top 5 team ERA, he gets fired.

by zenbitz on Oct 15, 2007 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USS Mariner Organizational Rankings (Not prett

We're ranked too low, as the author is just taking the fashionable, myopic view & ignoring half of the game. However, we are correctly ranked low, due the fact that our organisation as a whole hasn't peformed well in recent years.

The stranger rankings have to be the Pirates(what have they done to rank so high) and the Devil Rays ranking is bizarre! They've obviously got some good, young talent there (obviously helped by the fact they get great draft position every year) but how can you say their organisation is the third best in baseball when they're consistantly one of the worst teams in baseball every year!

by GiantFan on Oct 15, 2007 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs