Minor League Games - Tuesday, August 7, 2018

[Austinfan]

I don't care where he ranks, it has no value.
I care about whether he's making progress, whether his struggles were due to his circumstances or a lack of talent/projection.
That is, when he bulked up did he lose bat speed, become ordinary or is it just an adjustment phase for a young player.

Sunk costs are just that, once you draft/sign a player what matters is what they do, not who they're supposed to be. Draft position and bonus money are "signals," not determinants, that is, they identify players who fans may want to watch because years ago they were thought to have high potential - but Sixto was a $10 bonus baby, so was Altuve - who cares once they start producing.

If Hall can't handle a breaking ball, he's just a 1B version of Cozens, if he figures it out he may be a LH version of Rhys. You'll know when you know, and there will always be surprises, Listi and Meneses may be just that, while Martin was one of many disappointments.

When I rank Philly prospects, it's primary to identify who I want to keep an eye on, I've noticed too many come out of nowhere, and too many top ten players go belly up, to think there's tremendous predictive power.

[andyb]

I don't care where he ranks, it has no value.

Then don't complain about other people's rankings.

[julio]

What troubles me a bit in all this discussion is the implication that Moniak, as a player, is somehow a disappointment - that he's not performing as he "should be" performing.

I can understand it if one argues that a 1:1 should be developing more rapidly - and that Moniak's actual development suggests he wasn't a true 1:1, or that the Phillies erred in drafting him 1:1. I cannot understand being disappointed in Moniak; he didn't make the draft pick. Austinfan is correct, IMHO, to characterize the pick, at this point, as a sunk cost; what matters now is what Moniak can become - not what somebody else chosen at that point "might have been."

It comes down to "whose fault is it?" when a draftee doesn't perform the way some scouts thought he would. Is it the player's fault, for not "doing enough" (whatever that might mean)? Is it the scout's fault, for poor prospect evaluation? Is there an element of chance (luck), that we probably don't want to acknowledge?

At this point, when I see somebody lamenting that Moniak (or anybody) is a "disappointment," because they're not performing the way they "should be," based on draft position or whatever, my reaction is pretty much, "Get over it. The only relevant question is whether the player has value, whether the player can contribute."

Bobby Abreu. Yes, he didn't run into walls. He didn't make acrobatic dives for balls he probably couldn't reach anyway. He was what he was.... and what he was, was arguably the best right fielder in the history of the franchise - if only fans could see beyond their "expectations."

That doesn't mean one shouldn't question the club's draft strategy, if they consistently "miss" on high picks...but I would caution about drawing a trend line through one or two data points.

[Austinfan]

There's been an overreaction to Moniak based on a few outliers, prospects drafted high who took a fast track to the majors, but those players, who were stars by 19-22, are rare, even among top draft picks.

Let's put it this way, if Moniak hits like Rhys, would you be willing to wait until he's 24?
Now at some point he becomes a bust, I'd say when he's had over 2000 minor league PA and is still showing no signs of hitting like a ML starting OF. Say if he's hitting .260 in Reading at age 22.
But right now he just turned 20 and has only 1000 PA, it's just too early in his career to know how he's going to turn out, or even made an educated guess.

Maybe he never takes a step up, maybe he learns how to use his new body to generate power and becomes a plus defensive OF who hits 30 HRs.

Stay tuned.

[allentown]

A 1.1 who doesn't clearly shine is a disappointment. That's not saying it's his fault. As you say, he is what he is and as long as he is working hard and doing his best it can't be his fault. But of course he is a disappointment, because he was a 1.1 pick, with certain seemingly fairly broadly accepted scouting assessment of his hit tool as definitely plus and his level of development for a H.S. draftee as advanced. He's not a bust and he may have sustainably stepped performance up a notch, making it too early to ask whose fault was it: poor scouting, an over-eagerness to save a ton of $ on slot, poor development and not understanding who he is as a player.

I don't think there's been an over-reaction to how Moniak's career has played out up to about a month ago. We didn't expect him to be showing significant power, that was never advertised as part of his game. In fact, reading of the Phillies efforts to bulk him up, I wondered why they would change the guy they drafted for a reason: hit tool. It's the devaluation of his hit tool in current scouting reports, compared to pre-draft reports which is of most concern. I think Moniak has progressed through the system at a normal rate, but that the hitting success at Lakewood and CLW have been deficient. A sub-.300 OBP for a guy whose value is expected to be in his hit tool simply is not satisfactory. And late bloomer really isn't an excuse. Moniak wasn't regarded as a raw signee, he was regarded as a polished H.S. bat and defensive player.

Btw, I see no comparison to some fans' negative reaction to Bobby Abreu. Abreu was an outstanding player for the Phillies: the prototypical #3 hitter, with high obp, power, and speed. He was among the top hitters in the history of the Phillies, holding the Phillies career OBP record. Yes, some fans didn't like him for not running into walls and trying to make diving catches on balls he couldn't reach and turn them into doubles had he tried to make the catch. At best, these were unknowledgable fans nit-picking a very minor part of Abreu's game, a part of the game the Phillies have all but written off this season. At worst, it was nothing but racism, railing on something a Hispanic player did, while ignoring the same defensive failings in Burrell, just as they had in Luzinski -- not exactly I ggnore, we all knew they weren't great LFs, but it never led to all the nastiness it did with Abreu and the worst part was that the Phillies own announcers were among the cheerleaders for the nastiness.

[zambonir]

Also, we're Phillies phans. It wasn't this front office but there is a brutal recent draft history, and the 1-1 is a big reward for enduring futility. They haven't had this pick but twice in baseball history, and not since 1997. Looking over the list of 1-1s there are plenty of letdowns, and much more definitively than is applicable to a 20 year-old (hint, we ended up with two of them on our team). But it's fair to want him to come out like gangbusters, and to take the likes of Gillick and Klentak at their word on how good he was. Just like it's also fair to want our very best minor leaguers to have a shot at ROTY consideration (which, at least Hoskins would have) and be disappointed if they're slower to develop.

The impatience (and it is impatience) is also about the present. The overall outfield depth picture, and the ability to make trades over the next couple of seasons, hinges on Moniak and Haseley. For better or worse, if Moniak was on fire, Machado might be on the team right now (if it's true that Haseley might have moved the needle).

[andyb]

There is no "blame the player" attitude around here that I can see. On the other hand it is totally appropriate to point out that the Phillies misread Moniak's tools and drafted a player who pretty clearly should not have been a high number one pick. At the top of the draft you are drafting on some combination of tools, performance, and projection. Moniak never had great tools other than a supposedly great hit tool - which is important. That tool has turned out to be less good than anticipated. Performance has been lagging though improving in the last month or two. And in turns of projection he clearly is not showing much power and even speed at this point (very disappointing SB totals for a supposedly fast kid). So what does he project to if he succeeds? Maybe a .300 hitter who draws 30-40 walks a year with 10-15 HR power and modest speed. That is not a good projection and that is the "best" projection. .280 hitter with 10 HR and 10 SB who is a tweener between a true CF and a corner OF is a more likely projection.

None of this is Moniak's fault. It is the Phillies fault for misreading this kid's tools. When you draft 1-1 you want tools or performance (more from college players) or projection. Among those categories Moniak stood out for his hit tool supposedly. That turned out to be a mistake. So blame the Phillies. We should have picked Senzel (and then this year would have picked somebody other than Bohm most likely). The track record of high number ones so far is not that great. This current team is still the product of Amaro's draft picks, international signings, and trades. For all the love of the new analytics regime, it might still be true that the Amaro regime at the end was actually better at evaluating, drafting and signing players, especially when they figured out that they should put more resources to that end. Amaro was bad at resource allocation, but not awful at evaluating talent.

So blame the Phillies for a below average 1-1 pick. Hope they learn their lesson and don't make the same mistakes like overemphasizing a HS kid's hit tool in importance in the future.

[Squire]

I don't really get the Abreu comparison at all. Abreu was a case of the fanbase judging him on something OTHER than his actual (excellent) production. Moniak criticisms are based on his actual lack of production. I don't know how to distinguish between criticizing the Phillies braintrust from the player himself. But I'm not going to call Moniak's numbers good when they are not. And so while I'm pretty sure his oblivious to philliesphans.com I hope he can appreciate that. He did after all cash the 6 million check and make a friend get a tattoo of him because he was the #1 overall pick.

[bkeich]

Honestly, I think it is better to forget where a player was drafted. Those expectations will always be too high for a #1 pick unless he is a sure fired, cant miss hall of famer.

It seems that Moniak is struggling (or at least was), but he is also young even for his level. With minimal power now and probably in the future his ceiling just isnt that high, he is an OF, they should be able to generate at least a 0.475 Slugging Percentage and he probably is not going to do that. Even with a .350 OBP (optimistic?) he really can only be an above average major leaguer without some power.

[julio]

He did after all cash the 6 million check and make a friend get a tattoo of him because he was the #1 overall pick.

IMHO, this is where you went off the rails - this is where you chose to imply that Moniak is underperforming what you think you had a right to expect - on the basis of him, rather than the basis of the Phils' decision to draft him 1:1. This was, IMHO, a cheap shot.

I'm with bkeich (and austinfan) on this one. Moniak's draft position is a sunk cost. It's no longer relevant to his development or his future. It's one thing to discuss his performance (and Randolph's, and Haseley's) in a discussion of the Phillies' drafting strategies and success. It's something else entirely to throw out his draft position when discussing his current performance.

[baseballoldie]

Have any of those that want to judge MM purely based on his stats ever even seen him play? Have you seen the way he swings the bat, the way he runs down fly balls or runs the bases? MM’s real only flaw thus far is that he thinks he can hit every pitch and chases pitches he shouldn’t be swinging at which is a sign of a young player. He is developing and when he gets the experience he needs, he will have a quantum leap in his production and his batting stats. If you actually watch him play the game, you would see that he is a player. If you only follow him through his stats, you have no idea what kind of a player he is or can be.

[allentown]

I won't criticize for over-emphasis of the hit tool. I think it is the most important tool for a position player. I will level the same criticism as I did of the LGJ pick years: our scouts badly over-estimated a tool -- VERY BADLY. Moniak isn't LGJ, for one thing, LGJ cashed the check and then ate himself into oblivion, while Moniak appears to be dedicated to putting in the necessary work to succeed. I'm not sure how much to blame the scouting side for taking Moniak so high -- from everything I read at the time, it was Gillick who absolutely fell in love with Moniak and drove the process leading up to his selection.

[andyb]

Moniak's draft position is a sunk cost. It's no longer relevant to his development or his future

That is completely true. But is it wrong to evaluate the quality of the draft pick to get to this point? Seems we can do both. I think it is completely relevant that the Phillies misread his hit tool. And they may have done it with Randolph as well. That type of question will also apply a bit in how we rate the Bohm pick, because his mix of good power and below average defense only justifies the high pick with a better than average hit tool. MLB.com rates it as a 55. If he becomes more of a .250 hitter it would again mean they overrated a hit tool.

[andyb]

If they keep missing on the hit tool then it might be time to step back and wonder if they over-emphasize it. It is important but really hard to scout for since the level of competition is typically pretty bad (even for someone like Moniak who played on top summer league teams).

I also think LGJ is a bad example to keep bringing up. Yes it is completely true we over-emphasized the power tool over everything else. But he also was the 39th pick in the draft so at that point teams often pick one tool they love and there may not be too many good hit tools around at that point. There may be kids with a 40-45 hit tool that get better with instruction, but that is actually a pretty hard thing to draft for. More likely you pick a Scott Rolen or Jimmy Rollins with some athletic tools but questions on how the bat plays out. LGJ did not really have those other athletic tools you look for so there are multiple reasons he was a bad pick.

[allentown]

Honestly, I think it is better to forget where a player was drafted. Those expectations will always be too high for a #1 pick unless he is a sure fired, cant miss hall of famer.

It seems that Moniak is struggling (or at least was), but he is also young even for his level. With minimal power now and probably in the future his ceiling just isnt that high, he is an OF, they should be able to generate at least a 0.475 Slugging Percentage and he probably is not going to do that. Even with a .350 OBP (optimistic?) he really can only be an above average major leaguer without some power.

Well, I go back to my original statement which garnered so much criticism: Moniak's recent offensive burst resurrected his prospect status. Now combine that with you statement that it is better to forget where a player is drafted. If Moniak had been an 11th round H.S. flier pick, rather than the 1.1, then I submit that as of 1 July 2018, none of us would have ranked him as other than a lower-level or even a fringe prospect -- likely somewhere between 25-35 on our farm, and lacking any plus offensive tools and with poor stats. All of us had considered to rank him higher than that precisely because he was the 1.1 pick.

[nycphils]

So far, he’s had a good month. SSS. Call me when he’s got 300 ABs of this kind of performance and I’ll agree he’s a top prospect again.

[allentown]

I'd happily spend the 39th pick on a guy who actually had a power tool. LGJ didn't have a power tool. He was a kid who could put on an impressive BP. For an example of a guy who actually had a for real power tool, but may well not make it because he lacked any other tools, look at Cozens, or Sandberg or Pujols. Cozens and Pujols have a chance to make it to the Phillies MLB OF, Sandberg no longer does, but they all displayed a power tool when hitting against pitchers, who were actually trying to get them out.

I would not advise giving up on the hit tool. I would suggest that we stop drafting H.S. position players in the early rounds. We just seem unable to evaluate them and the guys we pick in later rounds are as good as the guys we pick first round or 1.1.

Perhaps, on the other hand, letting the actual scouts do their job is the simple solution. Perhaps the diminished influence of 'super scout' Gillick will have a very salutary effect as would all of the front office guys just stepping way back and leaving amateur player evaluation to the scouts.

[allentown]

I'm not counting him as a top prospect yet. If I were to put my list together now, he's vying for #10, rather than being in the high20s as he would have been on 1 July.

[teabag259]

What realistic performance over the rest of the year elevates Moniak to top end prospect again?

[Austinfan]

Well, I tend to put less weight on draft position and LA bonuses than some here.
I've downrated Moniak and Randolph on production, but not too far b/c they've been promoted above their age group.
That gives them more leeway, so I had Randolph 10th based on a second half .806 OPS at Clearwater at age 20.
Same way if Moniak puts up a second half OPS > .800 at age 20 he'll stay a top prospect.
But Randolph, though he's young for Reading, has to finish strong to stay in the top 20.

When a player first enters the system I'll rank them on on draft position/bonus b/c it's the only available information. As more data becomes available, that initial ranking is less important. It's "what have you done for me lately." Age matters with respect to progress, a young player can progress slower, but he still has to progress.

My attitude toward Moniak is wait and see, I think his initial scouting reports are of limited value b/c his body and game have changed so much, now it's a matter, like Crawford, whether he develops from here - but I started discounting Crawford because he was taking too long to develop.