Are minor leaguers hanging onto a roster spot too long?

[Izz]

What are your AI eval settings? If they're heavily stats-weighted i can see why these guys are getting chopped.

[jpeters1734]

Default

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Here's two players that were released after imposing age and roster limits

I see a guy with a lot of upside but hasn't hit a lick at any level. The pitcher looks the same, a load of talent but pretty short on results.

I'd sign them to minor league deals and see if they don't pan out better with my coaches.

[Matt Arnold]

If you're already 23 and you can't hit A-ball, I don't have a problem with releasing them.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

If you're already 23 and you can't hit A-ball, I don't have a problem with releasing them.

Yep. He had one season above .200 and that was in Rookie ball and it was only .232. It also tells me someone has him vastly overrated. The pitcher is regressing if you look at his ERA+. He's not even keeping up with the league average.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

I see a guy with a lot of upside but hasn't hit a lick at any level. The pitcher looks the same, a load of talent but pretty short on results.

I'd sign them to minor league deals and see if they don't pan out better with my coaches.

i do wish you'd stop ignoring the fact that one was drafted 7th overall two seasons ago and the other was a top 35 overall prospect the year he was drafted. It's ok to say you're wrong.

In real life, A gm would be fired for releasing two players like that, regardless of their average stats. Can you imagine the reaction if Bubba Starling got released before last season? The fact is, it's just not realistic no matter how many times you attempt to play it off.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

i do wish you'd stop ignoring the fact that one was drafted 7th overall two seasons ago and the other was a top 35 overall prospect the year he was drafted. It's ok to say you're wrong.

So how many years is the team supposed to give the guy when they very well could have a better performing player to take his place? He was hitting .133 when he was released. Never mind me being wrong, looks like the team was wrong for picking him and the other guy that high because they aren't cutting it on the field. And never mind where he was rated when he was drafted, lord knows I've had guys go from the Top 100 into the toilet because they never develop any further.

In real life, A gm would be fired for releasing two players like that, regardless of their average stats. Can you imagine the reaction if Bubba Starling got released before last season? The fact is, it's just not realistic no matter how many times you attempt to play it off.

In real life the GM would fired for hanging on to non productive minor leaguers who are showing no signs of improvement and are, if anything, getting worse relative to their peers, and blocking the progress of other players lower in the chain. There's always another draft, there's always another guy in the pipeline. If you're a minor league player and you're not improving and producing, they find someone else.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

If you're a minor league player and you're not improving and producing, they find someone else.

That reads suspiciously like it was written by someone with minor league experience. It's correct; if you're not showing constant improvement in the minors then they have a place for you. It's called history.

[injury log]

One of these guys was ranked the no. 35 prospect in all of baseball in April, and then was released in June, two months later. No one dispassionately viewing the facts here could consider that realistic or acceptable. Either the guy should never have been released, or the prospect list generation is really bad, but there's definitely a problem somewhere.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

That reads suspiciously like it was written by someone with minor league experience.

I'm a guy who played with and against guys who did.

It's correct; if you're not showing constant improvement in the minors then they have a place for you. It's called history.

Or the league I played in

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by injury log

One of these guys was ranked the no. 35 prospect in all of baseball in April, and then was released in June, two months later.

After hitting .133 and showing no signs at all of improvement.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

After hitting .133 and showing no signs at all of improvement.

If you think this is realistic, then find one example from real life of a guy released midseason the same year he ranked in BA's top 100 prospect list.

If you think the pitcher's release is realistic, the pitcher who had been drafted 7th overall three years previous, find one real life top ten overall draft pick who was released as quickly who hadn't suffered catastrophic injury.

Top prospects aren't released because they bat .133 in 60 at bats. This just never happens. Top ten overall draft picks aren't released within three years of being drafted. This also never happens.

If you think I'm wrong about this, look up any of these types of players in real life. If you can't find any who were released (and you can't, I checked myself to be sure), then you can't say these releases are realistic if they never happen in reality.

[Matt Arnold]

I do agree that they would usually find another organization to potentially trade the player to before releasing then.

For Barnhart, I would treat that more as a flaw in the top-100 ranking than a flaw in releasing him. Someone like that should not have ended up as a top-100 prospect, never mind getting up to #35.

As for the pitcher, usually guys still move up the ranks, but you do occasionally get guys who are released not too long after draft. Deck Mcguire was picked #11 by the Jays in 2010, and he was DFA-ed in July 2014 (and dealt for "cash considerations" ie cut). Hayden Simpson was a #16 pick in 2010, and by 2013 he was playing in independant ball. So not quite the same as your guy, but not too far off from your situation.

[Lukas Berger]

Just off the top of my head, not exactly the same situation but guys like Earl Cunningham and Paul Coleman were released irl at 23 and 22 respectively after being top 10 picks 3-4 years earlier and in Cunningham's case, having ranked as a top 100 prospect less than two years before he was released.

Larry Greene was released at 21, three years after being taken in the first round.

Ty Griffin is another similar example.

As for pitchers, there are dozens of examples of guys being dumped within a year or three of being top picks. Matt Wheatland f.e. Mark Phillips' last year of organized ball was the same year he was ranked as a top 100 prospect.

So the actual circs in OOTP might be a little bit off, but they certainly aren't super far-fetched either. I'm sure if you looked you could find even more extreme examples since as I mentioned, these were some that occurred to me from memory, without my even doing any research.

So it's inaccurate to insist that former high picks never get released within a few years in real life, because they do.

Now I'm just trying to add some facts and context to the discussion. I'm not trying to take a stand on whether there's an issue in game or not, there may well be, but I don't think the two examples shown prove anything one way or another.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by injury log

Top prospects aren't released because they bat .133 in 60 at bats. This just never happens.

They do if they hit .167 the year before his third season already in Rookie ball and has had one season in his professional career over .200.

As I said, he's 23 and can't come close to hitting his weight in A ball. How many years is the team supposed to give this guy? If there's someone else behind him in the chain showing more improvement and better results on the field, the team giving up on him and cutting him is a perfectly realistic outcome.

[injury log]

As a rule of thumb, teams keep top 10 overall picks for at least four years, or to age 25. There are no exceptions I can find from the past fifteen years.

Deck Mcguire: Jays traded him four years after drafting him, and at age 25

Hayden Simpson: was not a top 10 pick, and no one thought he was better than a 3rd round pick but the Cubs

Earl Cunningham: spent four years in the Cubs org

Paul Coleman: played in five seasons in the minors, then blew out his arm when they converted him to pitcher

Ty Griffin: was not released, he was traded

Larry Greene: was picked 39th overall, not in the top 10

Matt Wheatland: had three shoulder surgeries

Mark Phillips: was also traded, spent three years pitching in the minors, was still in XST in 2004 in his fourth year with a biceps injury, which was the reason he couldn't pitch properly any more

So I stand by what I said. No real life top 10 pick is released as quickly as the guy posted in this thread, absent catastrophic injury. And seriously, I don't care if it looks like he might not be developing, no minor league system in the universe should have sixty pitchers more deserving of a roster spot than that guy. Honestly, would anyone here release an 80 Potential player at age 23? We're not talking about someone who played three years and saw his velo drop to 85 mph and is now a 1-star prospect. The guy is a 5-star prospect at age 23. No one would ever release a player like that.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

They do if they hit .167 the year before his third season already in Rookie ball and has had one season in his professional career over .200.

Provide just one real world example and I will believe you. If you can't do that, please stop insisting you're right when you have no evidence whatsoever.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by injury log

As a rule of thumb, teams keep top 10 overall picks for at least four years, or to age 25. There are no exceptions I can find from the past fifteen years...

As I said, the circs aren't exactly the same, but they also aren't far off.

Why was Coleman getting converted to pitcher? Because that was the only alternative to releasing him. He failed as a batter, the team was done with him as a batter.

You're also greatly differentiating between a top 10 pick and a top 30ish pick like Greene, when I'm not sure exactly where a guy who's not performing was picked 3-4 years ago would actually matter to a team irl.

You may be right overall, I'm open to that possibility, but I think if so you're only right technically and by virtue of setting very strict parameters. f.e. only top 10 guys, whether guys were technically released by their original team or traded and then quickly released by their new team.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by injury log

Provide just one real world example and I will believe you. If you can't do that, please stop insisting you're right when you have no evidence whatsoever.

Can you provide a real world example of a player who performed equally badly, at a similar age, and over a comparable amount of time who was kept on by their team? If not, you're basically in the exact same boat as Dave, arguing equally theoretically.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Can you provide a real world example of a player who performed equally badly, at a similar age, and over a comparable amount of time who was kept on by their team? If not, you're basically in the exact same boat as Dave, arguing equally theoretically.

Donavan Tate.