Nationals Arm Race

"… the reason you win or lose is darn near always the same – pitching.” — Earl Weaver

Farm System Rankings; a comparison and contrast


We’re basically at the end of “Prospect Season” now … and the last of the major pundits ( has published its org rankings.  We talked about the Nats system top X in a previous post, now here’s a more macro view on how our system looks in general.

Short answer: “Not Good, Bob!”

(TV reference, anyone?)

Anyway.  Here’s links to the major pundits and their system rankings:

I havn’t seen anything from Fangraphs (i’m not sure they do entire system rankings), Baseball Prospectus now has their entire site behind a paywall, ESPN is in a transition year after Law left, and John Sickels at the Athletic  (who has done rank ings in the past) seems to have re-focused his attentions for now, so we’re down to these four major pundits.

I’ve seen a couple other rankings (one from Bleacher Report, another from that are mostly driven by the rankings of the top prospects in each system, which is a somewhat limited way to view an entire system comprised of hundreds of prospects.  If a system has (say) three top 100 players that are sure fire MLBers then absolutely nothing else in the time line … how strong is that “system” in general?  I’d rather have a ton of percolating talent than having a top heavy system.   This generally describes why there’s sometimes wild differences in the way systems are ranked, especially in the Law rankings (b/c he’s heavy on ceiling and is the anti-famous

Nats observations: Both MLB and Law have the Nats at #29.  MLB says that “trades and free agent signings” have led the system to be depleted.  Law says the team “worked the heck out of the system” in trades to acquire players.  Neither mention the poor drafting at the top levels over the past seasons (as I laid out in a previous post).  MILB and BA are a bit more friendly, perhaps because they still think rather highly of some of our more “famous” prospects (Romero, Mendoza, Antuna etc).


Overall system ranking observatiosn:

  • Everyone has Tampa #1.  Pretty scary given that they won 96 games in a very difficult division last year.
  • There’s generally a consensus on the rest of the top 5 farms: San Diego (who was #1 last year by most rankers), LA Dodgers, Atlanta are mostly considered for top 5 by the pundits.
  • There’s a  huge disconnect between Law and the rest of the industry on some of the systems: he has Detroit far lower than others, while he has the Yankees and St. Louis generally far higher than others.
  • but at the bottom end of the rankings, also some consistency: Milwaukee is dead-last on every list.  Washington, Colorado, Houston, Cincinnati and Boston also generally at the bottom.

Its ok to be at the Bottom of these rankings if you’ve used your system to get to a WS title.  Washington, Houston, Boston are definitely in this category.  Cincinnati has really shredded their depth lately to stock up and make a run, so their low ranking is understandable.  Colorado’s location here is a bit more of an indictment of their approach lately.

Its incredible that the two wealthiest teams (Yankees and Dodgers) continue to not only win 100+ games but maintain among the strongest farm systems.  How does this happen?  They both should have the least amount of assets to leverage in the draft and the IFA market (by virtue of having the smallest bonus pools for being among the best teams), yet they both continue to churn out prospect after prospect.  They’re both clearing doing something right.

Lastly its notable that a couple of the serial “tankers” of late (Baltimore, Miami, and Seattle in particular) have made huge strides in their system rankings over the past couple of years.  They’re on the Houston and Chicago Cubs plan of bottoming out to build back up.  We’ll  have to wait and see how it goes in the next few  years.

Written by Todd Boss

March 10th, 2020 at 12:25 pm

27 Responses to 'Farm System Rankings; a comparison and contrast'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Farm System Rankings; a comparison and contrast'.

  1. It’s worth mentioning again that Law said the position players are ahead of the pitchers in the Nats system. Can you say clueless?

    Mark L

    10 Mar 20 at 12:45 pm

  2. Law’s approach just doesn’t gibe well with what’s been happening with Nats prospects. He’s down on Garcia (no tools), down on Romero (for the obvious reasons), down on Lara (too young), down on Kieboom (can he stay on the field?), and down on a lot of mid-system arms for ceiling versus floor conversations (Irvin, Schaller, Braymer, etc etc).

    Todd Boss

    10 Mar 20 at 2:04 pm

  3. The rankings are just not important. What is important is where the Nationals are deficient and how will they overcome said deficiencies.

    Ghost over at TalkNats said the Nationals plan a big international signing class in 2020. I don’t know anything more than the Nationals being linked to some highly regarded SS/infielder type. But that will not have relevant, meaningful impact until a few years from now at the earliest.

    Otherwise, the drafts have improved a bit, a bit, though the team is drafting lower still. An extra draft choice this year, and early, will help with the overall pool.

    Perhaps the Nationals can also move some ripened talent for lower minors prospects. Though Lara and KJ Harrison are still around but have not yet moved the needle, those kinds of trades sometimes bear a Tatis Jr.


    10 Mar 20 at 2:53 pm

  4. Rankings not important? Disagree. You can see clear as day the dearth of rising impact talent here, thanks to trades of top prospects and failures in the draft, and its going to have a down stream impact on this team in the future. You can’t just buy every player you need; unless there’s a rising pipeline of players this team will eventually sink into the 2nd division.

    Todd Boss

    10 Mar 20 at 3:01 pm

  5. It occurs to me that people like “PieroB” routinely get laughed at for their exuberance, yet Law gets respectful eyebrow raising when he discounts Garcia. Garcia at 19 looks like a young man on the rise. Law’s observations remind one of Mark Twain, who said, “it is better to be silent and thought of as a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”


    10 Mar 20 at 3:03 pm

  6. Law has been questioned about his take on Garcia over and over. He has explained himself over and over. Here’s some samples:
    Spencer: What is your biggest concern with Luis Garcia (WAS)? What does he need to do to get back into your top 100?
    Keith Law: He was never on my top 100. What exactly is the plus tool there? What does he do well, other than being young for his level?
    Keith Law: Someone asked a year ago if I forgot Luis Garcia (Washington). That person is nowhere to be found after Garcia posted a .280 OBP in AA. So weird, I was sure I’d get an apology.

    His AFL scouting summary:

    Washington shortstop Luis Garcia and Mets shortstop Andres Gimenez are both somewhat famous prospects who went to Double-A this year and flopped; Gimenez hit .250/.309/.387 for Binghamton at age 20, while Garcia, still just 19, hit .257/.280/.337 for Harrisburg. I saw more of Garcia, who made consistently weak contact, mostly on the ground, all week, and runs below-average every time out; Gimenez also didn’t made good contact in front of me and even struggled a little in the field, which was not something I expected from him. Both are young enough to improve, especially Garcia, but I’d like to see better approaches at the plate since neither has much in the way of raw tools.
    Devin: Have the Nats pushed Luis Garcia too aggressively? Only 19 put struggling at AA 258/285/309 at AA
    Keith Law: They have pushed him aggressively, but I also don’t find any support for him from scouts.
    Scherzer’s Blue Eye: I’m always curious about discrepancies in rankings (i.e Garcia). You–and people you talk to–have him down. But evaluators at BA, for example, have him in the 2nd half of the Top-100. What do they see you don’t, or vice versa?
    Keith Law: No idea. You’d have to ask them. I’ve seen Garcia and talked to many scouts about him. He’s a nice player, but not a top 100 guy. He’s just young.

    Brian: I’m wondering if you read any of the reporting (especially Matt Gelb’s piece in the Athletic) on why the Phillies are so aggressive pushing kids to Lakewood after you questioned the move. I’d be curious as to your thoughts on their rationale.
    Keith Law: I’ll have to check that out, but the proof is in the pudding: I don’t see any players who’ve benefited from that aggressive promotion philosophy in their system. Their Luis Garcia, who does have tools, looks woefully overmatched, and should have been sent down to Williamsport (which he skipped) a month ago. I have seen him three times already and just feel bad for the kid.

    so, he’s explained his process, talked with multiple scouts, seen the player multiple times, and arrived at his conclusion. Works for me. He recognizes why his numbers were poor in 2019, but correlates it with observations and multiple professional opinions. Who among us is qualified to tell him he’s wrong, that the sum of their information and experience is better?

    Todd Boss

    10 Mar 20 at 3:13 pm

  7. Todd – The Nationals won 2019 because they managed what they had. They did not have the TOP farm system or even near it, for some years already.

    Turner, Eaton, Gomes, Hudson, Doolittle, Rainey, Kendrick, Cabrera, and Ross were trade or waiver pickups. Suzuki, Sanchez, Adams, and Dozier were lower budget signings.

    Soto and Robles are from the same pipeline that continues unabated, if not expanded.

    The draft, from over a decade ago, has yielded very little that has broken through. Yet here we are, post Bryce Harper (draft), a generational player, with a WS championship after losing him for nothing.

    My point is that there are several tracks that teams can take to be competitive. Even low budget teams illustrate that. Having a “great” farm system helps. But not having a full cupboard of depth can be compensated by shrewd signings under the current baseball economics, to avoid decline into second division. The Nationals played that with Thames and Castro.


    10 Mar 20 at 3:19 pm

  8. On Garcia – OK, we’ll see if he is being pushed too aggressively. He certainly looked great in the field, and looks good this spring against older competition.

    I would hardly call a player who kept battling until he ended the year strong in AA, and then in the AFL, as “flopped.”


    10 Mar 20 at 3:22 pm

  9. Meanwhile the entire Nat’s team looks to be taking Spring Training as seriously as Ryan Zimmerman does. Are they all just tracking pitches with the bat on their shoulders like Werth used to do?

    Not a panic and I’m still in World Series hangover happiness, but this has to be the most boring Spring training ever. Nobody is hitting the ball except Soto and Kendrick.


    11 Mar 20 at 9:15 am

  10. I don’t disagree with Law at all about Garcia. If you look at his numbers, there’s nothing there. They’re Difo-like numbers. All he has is projection because of youth . . . albeit projection without a particularly good eye, as his walk numbers are very low. His K rate has remained steady at around 15%, which is encouraging. But he’s shown no power yet. He’s still young enough that he could pan out, but the low estimates by scouts of his “tools” are not encouraging.

    All of this gets back to my question from the last post: why in the heck aren’t folks ranking Rutledge at least ahead of Garcia, if not over both him and Kieboom? Rutledge has tools and projection off the charts . . . if he can repeat his delivery . . . and not get hurt.

    As we’ve discussed in other years, system rankings are kind of nuts and often apples to oranges, but unless a whole crop of young arms suddenly surges for the Nats, a very low ranking for them right now isn’t wrong. It’s also worrisome. There’s not much in the pipeline, particularly for position players, nor is there much of quality left to trade to fill holes during a stretch drive.

    As Todd has detailed in a recent post, the Nats’ drafting has been terrible overall for the last decade or so. Strasburg (’09) is the last starter draftee to stick in the rotation, unless Voth joins him this year. Rendon (’11) is the last position-playing draftee starter, unless and until Kieboom can stick. They will have no draftees in the bullpen unless Barrett makes it (which is seeming unlikely). Thank goodness the Latin scouts found Soto, Robles, and Suero.

    There continues to be hand-wringing about the loss of Giolito and Luzardo, but not by me. That flag will fly forever, and Eaton and Doo helped get us there. Let’s instead look at some outright misses that would have improved the future. How much better would the Nats’ system look if they had taken Nate Pearson over Romero, Seth Beer over Denaburg, and (a few years earlier) Matt Chapman over Fedde? Their reluctance to devote higher picks to position players drives me crazy every year. Even when they have, it’s often been for lower-ceiling guys like Stevenson, Renda, Cole Freeman, etc., or falling/flawed college stars like Mendoza, Banks, and Wiseman.

    The Braves built their system by tanking, but the Dodgers haven’t tanked and still have stayed near the top, even while continuing to trade star prospects for guys like, oh, Machado and Betts. Must be nice.

    What I fear is that the Nats are falling deeper and deeper into the unsustainable model exemplified by the Red Sox, who got a title but have slipped since, can’t retain high-cost FAs, and have little in the system. It is interesting how much the Trashstros have drained their once-enviable system, primarily to add guys like Verlander, Cole, and Greinke. (I should point out that they might not have had enough prospect capital to get Greinke if the Nats had drafted Seth Beer!)


    11 Mar 20 at 6:51 pm

  11. A delay of the start of the regular season, which is beginning to seem inevitable, might benefit the Nats more than any other team. They’re one of the oldest teams in baseball and played a month more baseball in 2019 than most other squads. Scherzer and Harris are dealing with some minor strains. As Marty noted, only Soto (who says he is just trying to make the team) and Old Man Howie showed up with their bats in gear. A May start to the season might be just what the doctor ordered.


    12 Mar 20 at 9:29 am

  12. No argument on the concept that “theres many ways to a title.” In fact i used to do analysis of playoff teams to show that teams got there in many ways. And I completely recognize what the Nats have done; traded from prospect depth to get the pieces they needed….

    … but its not a sustainable model. Unless the team is willing to blow out payroll (which they don’t seem to be willing to do) they can’t keep buying FAs to paper over lack of farm depth. Unless the team stops whiffing on its top 2-3 draft picks each year (which they’ve now done for nearly a decade), they’re eventually going to run out of farm system magic to help make the team payroll balanced and productive.

    And where we’re going to end up is basically the worst possible spot: a #$200M payroll with no chance of improvement b/c they’re all 8-figure guys in their mid 30s, with no farm system depth and a team in the 2nd division. That’s a recipe for complete disaster, a decade-long rebuilding project. You can see teams that are there right now: would you want to be The San Francisco Giants right now? Boston? I mean, Boston just traded basically the 2nd best player in the game for salary relief despite being a billion dollar a year franchise; completely despicable.

    You don’t think the Nats are on their way there? Yes flags fly forever and last year was amazing. hard to see a pathway forward.

    Todd Boss

    14 Mar 20 at 10:41 am

  13. Todd, I think they have a couple of shots at contention left. But then, yeah, it’s going to be ugly for a few years.

    I think I’m OK with it — the last 10 years have (on net) been pretty great. Yes, they found some agonizing ways to lose at the worst moments and there were some infuriating roster construction decisions which definitely bit them. So while you could write an alternate history where the last 10 years were greater, I still think it’s been a pretty good ride and I’m still hopeful for the next couple of seasons (if they play this season at all, that is).

    And then when things go back down, probably we’ve enjoyed the team through worse (assuming, that is, that they manage to get the name spelled right on all the jerseys this time).


    14 Mar 20 at 3:11 pm

  14. I certainly fear that the Nats are moving into to unsustainable-model territory. They REALLY need Kieboom to pan out as a quality player, and to have Ross/Voth/Fedde/Rutledge/whoever fill slot #5 this year and #4 as well in 2021 after Sanchez’s contract is done. Maybe Rainey/Cronin/Finnegan can step up over the next couple of years as Doo/Harris/Hudson grind to the end of their contracts.

    Among position players, though? Other than Kieboom, there’s not much hope, although they do still have Soto and Robles on pre-arb deals. There’s no Eaton replacement in sight, though, and really no one for 1B unless they’ve pulled a rabbit out of a hat with Mendoza. Maybe Garcia can make it at 2B in a couple of years, but maybe not.

    The lack of field prospects is a self-inflicted wound. Since Rendon (2011), the only starter-quality player they’ve invested a 1st or 2d round pick on has been Kieboom. Stevenson has pretty much reached the ceiling of his expected potential, which is MLB bench at best. Blake Perkins in the same 2015 draft was a joke of a reach. Neuse has made the majors, barely, but I don’t think they’re missing out on a regular with him. Anyway, my point is that if you don’t invest high picks on position players, then you end up without position players, meaning you either have to spend to sign vets, or trade some serious capital to get someone like Eaton. It’s not often you can just steal a Trea Turner or a Wilson Ramos.


    14 Mar 20 at 7:47 pm

  15. Strickland released, for only 1/6th of his salary. It’s the right move, but disappointing. If he could have made it back to pre-injury form, he could have been a huge piece of the ‘pen, but he never did.

    Lots of question marks with the ‘pen as we enter the pause, . . . but what else is new?


    14 Mar 20 at 7:51 pm

  16. Yes i’m happy they won the WS. But we all know winning the WS is often more about luck than it is about being the best. Proof? Dating to the 1994 season (divisional play) just 6 World Series winners were also the team with the best record in the regular season. Bostno 2018, Chicago 2016, Boston in 2013, Yankees in 2009, Boston in 2007 and the Yankees in 1998. Thats it. Twice Washington has had the best regular season record (2012, 2014) and failed to even win a series.

    So as a result, what I want is for an organization not to waste opportunities (ahem, 2013 and 2018), and to consistently make the playoffs to put themselves in a position to catch a wave of luck. I do NOT want to be Kansas City (two playoff appearances in 40 years). Why can’t our team be the Dodgers? 7 straight playoff appearances AND one of hte best farm systems in the majors. Why can’t we be the Yankees? PLayoffs 4 of last 5 seasons and perhaps the 2nd or 3rd best farm system. It isn’t all about money anymore; thanks to bonus pools and limits, everyone plays on an even playing field in terms of acquiring amateur talent.

    That’s what i want.

    Todd Boss

    15 Mar 20 at 10:32 am

  17. Count me in the corner of the very optimistic.

    The Nationals have an influx of lower level Latino signees, particularly heavy in 2017 and 2018, that converge with better drafts. Those players are still no higher than Hagerstown, but by the end of this year there will be breakthroughs to AA. So I do think there is farm talent, not yet ripened, that can augment the roster by 2022.

    With that noted, I’m not ready to write off Max in 2022, and with Stras and Corbin in the fold and expected to be continuing great contributors, there is enough starting pitching talent rising from which to draw two high caliber starters on controllable salaries.

    As for the bullpen, most teams expect turnover in bullpen over a period of years. Seldom does one expect to get many years of top flight performance from more than one reliever. As far as I am concerned, the nationals farm system is well-stocked with relief prospects, so much so that other teams have been poaching “leftovers” for years that are either poorly evaluated or need more time to hit their stride. It’s hard to know when someone is like HRod who will never make it, vs. Felipe Rivero, Blake Treinen, Trevor Gott, Austin Adamses who will, and the team also threw in the towel on other pitchers like Petit, Rich Hill, Xavier Cedeno, and Jerry Blevins who have nevertheless demonstrated enduring value to competing clubs. Fortunately, we have a World Series championship and in my opinion, qite a number of AA-AAA talent now supplemented by able pickups off the discard pile (Abad, Freeman, Quack).

    As for position players, this is a vulnerable area for which the nationals have, right now, a two year window. At least there are prospects, though none luminous, but I have a good feeling about Reetz and the organization is obviously fond of Tres Barrera, young Israel Pineda, and the heretofore unknown Gerardi Diaz. So there are folks who have two years to break through.

    Elsewhere, Mendoza, within two years, will either establish his bonafides or will not. But first basemen are affordable and accessible on the free agent market and that will not sink the franchise.

    Outside of Garcia and Kieboom, the middle infield is thin. But Trea Turner is young and if the Nationals learn from the Rendon experience, maybe they can employ the strategies that other teams have succeeded with in locking up players who are stars that want to stay with their teams for their whole careers.

    Third base is a problem that needs to improve, and we’ll just have to wait on it.

    As for the outfield, the Nationals have at least several more years of Soto-Robles. That eaves two years for an outfielder to get helium to take over for Eaton — assuming the option is not available to keep Eaton in DC, and why not.

    Within two years, there will be players at the Hagerstown level or below in need positions who break out. There are the bodies with the skill sets.

    Nobody foresaw the Soto rise. But then, there was at least a chance of Harper remaining here, too. Perhaps Harper always thought he would, until he didn’t — putting media and Svrluga muckracking Lerner hatred aside for the moment. Nobody saw Robles as being a big deal until he was a GCL level talent, and even then, he was only a prospect.

    So I do not share this pessimism at all. I wish Rizzo drafted position players better, I wish the Nationals signed Rendon and in retrospect, would rather have Harper here than Adam Eaton. I wish Rizzo didn’t make the aggressive deadline deals he made with the degree of aggressiveness (although one finally netted a difference maker, Daniel Hudson, for a spare minor league part).

    But Rizzo really knows what he is doing when it comes to working with what he has, using a prospective vision, acting aggressively to construct a roster, and fix team needs. I can’t see a Rizzo team being an also ran. To me, Cashman is the best GM, but Rizzo does enough to justify my piece of mind.

    The one thing I agree with Todd on is that more spending on the minors, and specifically expanding investment in international teams, scouting, and overall minor league player development, would bring the team in line with the Yankees and Dodgers. maybe this is already happening, but it would be great for the short and long term. Those two teams always have the depth to get whatever they want.

    It would be nice.


    16 Mar 20 at 2:48 pm

  18. With full awareness that the Nationals likely NEEDED to be rid of Harper to win a WS, and that Eaton was a catalytic key contributor.


    16 Mar 20 at 2:49 pm

  19. I think it would be more instructive to drill down on the San Francisco Giants. They have been one of the most successful teams of the millenium, and now are scavengers. They did a lot of right. What specifically did they do wrong?


    16 Mar 20 at 2:52 pm

  20. This team will never be the Royals. And as for the Red Sox, no, this team will never be the Red Sox either. Us Expos fans remember Dave Dombrowski, the good and the bad.


    16 Mar 20 at 2:54 pm

  21. I’m with you fore, about the future. I don’t quite understand all this ‘dark cloud’ mentality.

    Were going to have at least 2 breakout pitchers in Harrisburg this year. Don’t ask me which ones but there are ay least 5 to choose from.

    Mark L

    16 Mar 20 at 3:04 pm

  22. Giants comment: They won the WS in 2014. Since then, they’ve made the playoffs just one time, lost 98 games two years ago and have been mired in the 75-80 win range since.

    Since the 2014 title, here is the Giant’s opening day payroll rank league wide (from 2015 to 2019): 6th, 6th, 11th, 2nd and 5th. They had the 2nd highest payroll in the league in 2018 and finished 73-89.

    Meanwhile, here’s where BA has ranked their farm system ahead of each of the last 6 seasons (2015-2020): 26th, 19th, 24th, 26th, 28th ahead of 2019 and just recently 14th.

    Things are looking a bit better for SF, but they had an awful combination of high payroll, crummy on the field performance and near-bottom farm systems for the last few years.

    THIS is where I don’t want to be. And the Nats have some real jeopardy of getting there and fast. They’re old, they’re expensive, they have little rising top-end depth … but they are poised to win.

    Todd Boss

    16 Mar 20 at 3:26 pm

  23. Todd – that does not help answer the question of why did the Giants fall when they were good for so long? I’m wondering what their “system ranking” was prior to their glory years?

    Injuries can happen and truly affected some of those Giants teams. So did trades they made/did not, free agents they signed/did not, bad contracts? But which ones?

    The Red Sox, of course, leveraged themselves with big contracts. But Dombrowski also went out and aggressively got Sale and Price.

    I think this requires closer study, because I think the “rankings” are a gross measure. There are numerous other variables involved, and managers and team chemistry matter, too. Going back to Bryce, the nationals system was always heralded while he was a prospect, but what did they win when he got to the lineup?

    Rizzo has evolved from the guy who brought in rafael Soriano and Papelbon. But he has the bold vision of the Trea Turner deal and how he made it, offset with the impetuousness of Derek Norris for Pedro Avila and Shawn Kelley getting bounced. He cntinues to evolve, but his assembly of the team truly reflected a wise philosophy that I think drew from the value of Ben Zobrist as a championship catalyst.

    The bottom line is that I think the nationals have a better system than their “ranking,” and Rizzo and co. are addressing that problem. he is not at all coasting on his laurels – the speed with which he acted on January 2 reflected a man to sets the tone. That’s good for the Nationals and good for their future.


    17 Mar 20 at 12:47 am

  24. one last comment here. Forensicane; you say you think the system is better than their ranking.

    Here’s how all the major provessional scouting pundits h ave ranked the system ahead of the 2020 season:
    – (Jim Callis, Johnathan Mayo): 29th
    – MILB (Sam Dykstra0: 26th
    – Keith Law (the Athletic): 29th
    – Baseball America: 24th
    – Bleacher Report (Joel Reuter): 30th.

    Fangraphs havn’t published their rankings yet but they had the system 28th last year pre-2019 draft. Lastly Kiley McDaniel just moved to ESPN and is in the midst of doing rankings, so ther’es one more seasoned professional out there.

    So, at some point you have to ask. If all these leading pundits, whose job it is to see players for themselves, talk to other scouts, talk to scouting directors, etc etc all across the board are panning our system, why is it your opinoin that they’re all wrong?

    Todd Boss

    17 Mar 20 at 10:42 am

  25. correction: I said the rankings themselves are a false and non-specific metric that is altogether overrated — though perhaps not meaningless.


    17 Mar 20 at 11:51 am

  26. It’s like checking the ERA of a person who pitches only garbage time with no men on base and comparing it to ERA of a person who comes in in pressure situations, with men on base or early innings. It’s a real statistic but his has little ecological validity to what it’s trying to peg — the real quality of a relief pitcher relative to others. And so, the “rankings” are rankings, but whether they peg to the likely prospective success of the franchise.


    17 Mar 20 at 11:55 am

  27. So whether it is 24th or 30th, my point is:

    Who cares? Rizzo has a plan, it’s executed with the prospect of years to come, and he has shown the flexibility to lead and act when the unforseen happens (injury, underperformance).


    17 Mar 20 at 11:56 am

Leave a Reply