Klawchat 9/13/18.

My Prospect of the Year column is up for Insiders/ESPN+ subscribers, while my review of the board game Disney’s Villainous is up over at Paste.

Keith Law: I’ve got no time for private consultations. Klawchat.

PhillyJake: Vlad Guerrero, Jr. as your minor league player of the year? Why, he didn’t even warrant a September call up! <>
Keith Law: Exactly. Meanwhile the Blue Jays’ VP is subtweeting me and making up alternative facts about other sites’ rankings to distract everyone from the manipulation of Vlad’s service time. Baseball fever, baby!

Pete Alonso: Obviously I wasn’t going to unseat Vlad, but no mention of me at all in your writeup? First the Wilpons give me the shaft, now you! Explain yourself.
Keith Law: A .355 OBP and not low strikeout rate in an extreme hitters’ park doesn’t get you on the list.

Rowland’s Office: Wouldn’t the Braves be better off deploying Touki as a multi-inning weapon out of the ‘pen than as a 6th starter, his current role? Going forward, does he profile better as starter or reliever? Same Q on Bryse Wilson. Really hoping they dont opt to spend big on Kimbrel instead.
Keith Law: Both absolutely profile as starters. Three-pitch guys with command and good deliveries.

Dan: You have an NL ROY ballet. Soto or Acuna. Go.
Keith Law: I don’t have an NL ROY ballot (or ballet), and won’t give an answer to that until we’re right near the end of the season.

Dave: Are you ok with Lewis and Kirilloff missing the AFL?
Keith Law: They didn’t miss it – they weren’t chosen, probably because both played full seasons already.

Nick L: Crack Shack was…..just ok. Am I crazy?
Keith Law: I’ve never had a meal there (at the original) that was less than outstanding.

Jay: Upside for Anderson Tejeda?
Keith Law: He could be a star if everything clicks – certainly has the tools for it, but isn’t close to that yet.

addoeh: Great job yesterday with Skating Away On The Thin Ice of a New Day! Do you take requests? Maybe Pink Floyd’s Wish You Were Here?
Keith Law: Thanks! I don’t know if I’ll play again on Periscope but if I do I’ll keep that in mind (certainly one of the first songs I learned on guitar back in the late 80s).

Nick L: Willson Contreras is not slugging at all. Think this is a permanent issue?
Keith Law: I do not.

Bill G: Hi Keith. Thanks for answering my question a couple weeks ago regarding divisional structure when MLB expands to 32 teams. A follow up question – would you prefer radical geographical alignment or a more traditional approach, maintaining historical AL/NL structures? Thanks!
Keith Law: No interest in geographical realignment. This isn’t the NBA.

Eric: What did you think of J.P. Martinez’s campaign with Spokane?
Keith Law: For a 22-year-old, it was not impressive at all. You have to hope this is just rust from not playing for a little while after he defected.

Barbeach: Hope you had a great summer. Are either Bird or Voit the long term answer at 1B for the Yankees? Or should their off season plans include finding the answer?
Keith Law: Neither is the answer there.

Aaron C.: We know Oreos are your “guilty pleasure” food, but in your younger, pre-SABR days, who was your guilty pleasure as a ballplayer? Mine will always be Deion Sanders – a mediocre player who was a joy to watch (for me).
Keith Law: I loved guys who could run. Didn’t matter if they were good. Gary Pettis. Hell, Gary Redus. And the guys who could run and were good, like Rickey, Raines, or healthy Eric Davis – those were my favorites.

Aaron C.: Am I mistaken or is this traditionally the time of year when you write your annual “who I got wrong” column? Not trolling at all, but it one of my faves. (I swear I’m not trolling.)
Keith Law: I think that’s on the calendar for next Thursday.

Mark: At what point does Sandy Leon’s total black hole in the Red Sox lineup, outweigh the love he gets from the pitching staff ?
Keith Law: I feel like he’s a modern example of Nichols’ Law of Catcher Defense: If a catcher can’t hit, people will just assume his defense is tremendous.

Odubel: Can Kopech still be a #1/#2? I thought he looked really great up here, his fastball had a great spin rate. What a shame.
Keith Law: If he comes back 100%, sure.

Jeff: Hi Keith – I saw that you recognized Mike King as a runner up for your prospect of the year but note that he is “probably not a starter in the long run.” He just turned 23, and has made significant improvements in the last year. What would you need to see from him next year to suggest that he could be a 4 or 5 starter?
Keith Law: Given the delivery, I don’t see it at all. His age and those ‘improvements’ (I’m not sure what those would be) are not factors.

Bmosc: Our President is a pathological liar, a narcissist, and more than likely a sociopath. How are so many people ok with that?!
Keith Law: Because he’ll lower their taxes and pack the courts with theocrats.

Jeff: Should the Yankees sign Manny Machado or stick with Didi at SS and Andujar at 3B?
Keith Law: Machado is clearly an upgrade. The question I would have is whether he’s a $30 million upgrade, and I don’t think that he clearly is.

Bob : Do you believe Neidert will be one of the starting pitchers for Miami in 2019?
Keith Law: Yes. Also, so will you.

Wally: Resending: if you are Nats GM and this offseason you can either (1) re-sign Harper or (2) extend Rendon, sign Grandal and sign morton, which would you do?
Keith Law: The latter is the better use of their funds, since they have Robles to fill the vacant OF spot (although I’m not a big Grandal fan).

Jo-Nathan: Should Cleveland think about selling high on Triston McKenzie? He had forearm soreness to start the year then pitched 90 innings and was shut down due to fatigue. If he can’t gain weight (listed at 165 lbs at 6’5) I cant see how he can ever hold up over a full season in the majors.
Keith Law: I don’t know that his weight is necessarily the issue – and isn’t this is first bout of any arm trouble? I could be wrong on the latter but I don’t remember him getting hurt before.

Hank: In light of Alex Bregman’s breakout and his taking the job of Astros’ key offensive piece, do you see this season as an outlier or predictive of his future value? Long term is he a better bet than Correa?
Keith Law: I think he’s entirely for real – although his power spike, like so many, is probably more a function of the baseball than swing changes or strength.

Darin: Why do you disagree with my scouting of minor league stats for my favorite prospect?
Keith Law: Because I hate your favorite team.

Garrett: Did you think Trevor Story would be this good? Also is this his career year or can we expect this from him going forward?
Keith Law: I think this is a career year, and I don’t think he’s close to the same player if he’s not a Rockie. His career K% is *down* to 30.5%, and that’s without facing better breaking stuff or even more movement on fastballs while he’s home.

SeanE: If you are the Pirates what do you do at 2b and SS next year. Can’t see Mercer or Harrison coming back. Do you go with the Seinfeld boys Kramer and Newman. Do you give Frazier a shot at 2b?
Keith Law: I’d go with the Seinfeld tandem.

Doc: Keith, any thoughts on the shake-up in Phils’ minor league department? Jordan out, several hitting coaches fired.
Keith Law: Jordan left – he wasn’t fired.

Nick: When can we expect your early 2019 draft rankings? Who are looking like the top talents?
Keith Law: Probably not until the spring because the summer stuff was so unimpressive, especially on the college side.

Andrew: Is this PR death total comment the worst of all bad DJT comments? Sheesh.
Keith Law: “Very fine people” will be impossible to top, but yes, it’s terrible, and already there are toadies lapping it up on social media.

Jay: He won’t win it, but should Brad Keller be getting some consideration for RoY?
Keith Law: No.

Jordan: Do you see Justin Dunn as a guy who can be a 2-3 starter at the big league level?
Keith Law: I do.

Sandy Kazmir: What broad sweeping changes will we see enacted if the Rays win 90+ games and fail to make the postseason? Same question, but switch Rays to Yankees?
Keith Law: None … and none. GMAFB.

thatssotaguchi: Do you enjoy My Fair Lady or are you Satan?
Keith Law: I love old school musicals, and I’ll watch anything with Audrey Hepburn in it.

Ghost of Guy Fieri: Looking for a good knife sharpener that won’t break the bank, any suggestions?
Keith Law: I recommended one in my gift guide for cooks last November.

17 year old, Wander Franco: How soon until I’m the number one prospect in baseball?
Keith Law: You might be a few graduations away from that.

Gus Johnson: Does JP Crawford need to get away from the Phillies to fulfill his potential?
Keith Law: That is possible, although I couldn’t say for sure.

Craig: Is Mark Shapiro the first executive to (essentially) publicly call you “fake news”?
Keith Law: No, but it never ceases to amaze me when executives do that. I don’t think it works out well for them in the end.

Robbie: Is David Fletcher of the angels a starting 2B? Seems more like a bench guy with the lack of power.
Keith Law: Bench guy due to (wait for it) the lack of power.

SeanE: Are you sold on Musgrove as a starting pitcher? Has had a pretty solid year. What is his ceiling?
Keith Law: Fifth starter, sure. More, I wouldn’t expect.

Marty: Are we allowed to talk to you at the AFL?
Keith Law: Is … is there something I don’t know about? Like a force field around me or something? Yes, of course you can. I’ll nearly always be at each game a little early anyway, which is the best time to catch me.

Chris: Dodgers still win the West?
Keith Law: With the Rockies up 2 and only ~15 games left, you would have to bet on them over any other single team.

Adam: You mentioned Paddack has nothing more to gain from the minors in your newest post. What ceiling do you think he has? #2 starter? Ace if he develops his curve?
Keith Law: #2 starter, but I don’t think he’s developing that curve. That’s very rarely a pitch that gets better with development.

leprekhan: With the extra pick from not signing Carter Stewart, the Braves are at least in a position to make some noise in the 2019 draft. Overall, how deep does the 2019 draft class look and do you think the Braves could get a comparable talent with their compensation pick?
Keith Law: Worse, and no. I had Stewart #2 in the class. This class is worse and the odds are they won’t get the #2 talent picking 9th.

TC: Rosario’s raised his slash line from .230/.274/.346 to .253/.294/.386 since your snark comment to me on Aug. 9. Looks like he’s on the upswing! Thanks for still believing in him!
Keith Law: Players don’t develop on our timetables. Sometimes patience is rewarded. Sometimes patience just ends up looking like obstinacy.

Jd: Love your work. How’s the migraine today? Should the Sox have called up feltman? Will their bullpen and their inability to throw strikes haunt them in the playoffs?
Keith Law: Better today, thank you. Three hour nap yesterday + two Aleve + extra caffeine did it. I think you draft a guy like Feltman high because you intend to call him up, even if it’s just to start in mop-up work.

Michael: Is Daz Cameron a future everyday OF?
Keith Law: For sure.

Danny: Piggybacking on your article, are Deivi or King realistic rotation candidates next year or is the answer these guys are not really starters but they could be reliever options next year?
Keith Law: Deivi is a starter but has one career AA start. Next year is probably optimistic. King is very unlikely to be a starter.

Steve: Keith great chats. Numerous anonymous scouts have comped Jared Kelenic to a young Mike Trout. Your thoughts?
Keith Law: I love Kelenic but at his age Trout was in AA and about 280 days from his major league debut.

Dan: Dylan Cease no mention today, is his fastball overpowering and still lacking secondaries. I’m happy he made it all year.
Keith Law: Today’s column was the best performing prospects, not the best prospects. Two different things.

Shiraz: Hey Keith, would you hold Blake Snell’s innings against him if you were voting for Cy Young? Is 180 IP the new 200?
Keith Law: I wouldn’t vote for Snell over Sale, certainly. The lower IP total matters in that it’s less production – the more you pitch, as long as you’re above replacement-level, the more value you deliver to your team. Snell doesn’t top Sale in either variation of WAR, and I think it’s fair to assume at least some of his low BABIP is good defense/luck.

Doc: Who will get a larger free agent contract, Harper or Machado?
Keith Law: Machado is my guess.

William: Who do you believe is the leader in the NL MVP race?
Keith Law: A pitcher. Nobody wants to hear that, though.

Louis: What’s wrong, if anything, with Adam Duvall?
Keith Law: He was never really good.

Jesse: Will you be able to any book events at changing hands during AFL?
Keith Law: I didn’t ask because the book will be a year and a half old at that point, but if you have a copy at a game I will gladly sign it for you.

Joe: You’re in charge of the Giants. What’s your offseason look like?
Keith Law: That depends on ownership, but I think this is a rebuild situation, and that includes exploring the market for Bumgarner.

Guest: Have you played or seen the board game
Sol: Last Days of a Star? I played it for the first time last night and I’m intrigued by the mechanics, theme, and what seems like high replayability.
Keith Law: I have not. It appears to be out of print at the moment.

Preston : Cubs have right to be upset about 30 days in a row of scheduled games, right? That said, Brewers are better, healthier team.
Keith Law: Cubs have that right, yes. I do not agree the Brewers are a better team.

Will B.: A lot of talk this summer about Jered Kelenic’s successful first pro season. However did you get a chance to see fellow classmate Alek Thomas start as well? Looking like in 10years he might be the best OF from that class…
Keith Law: I was very high on Thomas out of the draft, and said the Dbacks got a first-round talent, but I think you’re reading way too much into short-season stats with that statement.

Matt: Your colleague Michael Wilbon said it would be “Garbage” if Jacob DeGrom won the Cy Young. I think he should be MVP. What do you think?
Keith Law: I think you’re much more on the ball than my colleague, who apparently hasn’t read Smart Baseball.

Rod: Any chance that MacKenzie Gore debuts next season?
Keith Law: I can’t see a scenario where that happens.

John: Do you have a solution for service time manipulation? I see why teams do it what is the best way to fix it.
Keith Law: I’ve suggested a one-year right of first refusal option for players who reach free agency with 6.000 (six years, zero days) of service, to try to encourage teams to call up the Vlad Jr’s and the Bryants for Opening Day, at least. I have seen suggestions of age-based free agency as well, although I think that would primarily help college draftees, not the 19-year-old wunderkinds like Vlad Jr is now or Wander Franco will be in two years.

Bob: Keith – you mention guys that could run – Willie McGee. I am not sure I saw anybody faster on a triple the part from 1st to 3rd. As for the Padres – is Mejia’s bat good for a catcher or all positions – meaning he can find a new spot if Hedges sticks at C and his bat still has value say in OF?
Keith Law: Hedges is just not a good enough hitter to push Mejia off to another position.

Jason : With talk of his possible retirement, is Joe Mayer a HOF player? Is he if he stayed at catcher?
Keith Law: If he retires now, he’s going to be a borderline case who struggles on the ballot because his traditional numbers don’t add up and because he doesn’t ‘feel’ like a HoFer, while folks like me or Jay Jaffe may end up banging the drum for him when he pulls in 21% of the vote in year one.

Jeremy: Following up on Nick L’s question. It’s looking likely that only 1 Cub is going finish the year with 30HRs. Less than you would have predicted right? What do you think is causing the power outage?
Keith Law: Less than I would have predicted, not sure it’s anything other than randomness.

Sam: As an A’s fan, I desperately want to expect Ramon Laureano to keep being this good. I think you pegged him as more of a 4th outfielder when he was traded. Is that still your read?
Keith Law: I really liked him out of AFL 2016, then the Astros changed his swing and he stunk. Fourth OF was a bit of a solomonic answer – I thought he had good tools, but when a guy doesn’t hit for a full year in the high minors, it’s hard to talk about him as a regular. I’d still say fourth OF, but at least now we can have a discussion of whether he’s more, given his tools and now some performance.

Jay: Been playing Small World with my kids. What a fantastic game. Do you recommend any of the expansions?
Keith Law: Yes – we use two, one of which is called (I think) the Ladies of Small World and has some clever new races that really alter the way you play.

Erick Fedde: Am I at least a # 4 starter going forward?
Keith Law: I could buy a #4. I wouldn’t bet on more; still pretty homer-prone, secondary stuff has never been good enough for me to call him league-average.

Andy : With the way the Braves have been aggressive with promotions, do you think there is a chance Pache makes the majors at some point next year? He seemed to make significant improvements in his offense.
Keith Law: That I could see, although if Inciarte is still around there may not be a logical place for him.

Michael: Hi Keith, of the Tigers top pitching prospects (Mize, Manning, Burrows, Perez, Faedo), which, if any, do you see destined for the bullpen?
Keith Law: Faedo and Perez have the highest relief risk of the group. Mize has the least.

Del: Best pumpkin related food or drink?
Keith Law: Pumpkin pie. Obviously.

Andy: Bobby Dalbec possible 50 FV? Or too much chase and swing and miss?
Keith Law: That’s an average regular. I can’t see that with a K rate above 1/3 given his age.

thatssotaguchi: Do you think illegalizing birth control would be enough to get the silent majority to get off their asses and vote in an election? I used to think so but now I’m not sure.
Keith Law: I would hope so, but apparently there are a lot of people in this country who want women they don’t even know to have zero right to control their own reproduction.

Marple: Do you think Griffin Canning can be a part of the Angels rotation next year and what is his long term upside?
Keith Law: I could see that if he’s healthy. Mid-rotation starter?

Tom: When does Yusniel Diaz make it to the majors, and whats his upside looking like?
Keith Law: Thought he might get called up this month. Everyday RF.

Jesse B: Can Myles Straw be an everyday CF who bats .250 with 60sbs?
Keith Law: So little power I don’t see an everyday player.

Michael: Is Alex Faedo’s drop in velocity this season something to worry about?
Keith Law: He wasn’t throwing as hard as reported as a college junior. I think this is just what he is.

TP: Which Padres arms currently in the minors will be in their rotation in 2019?
Keith Law: I assume Nix, Paddack, and Logan Allen are in the 2019 rotation for most/all of the year. Morejon should get there later in the year, as should Baez.

Oren: Jameson Taillon seems like he took a strong step forward this year. Is there anymore ceiling for him or is this right around where you expect him?
Keith Law: This is pretty close. He’s really come a long way given all of the health issues he’s faced. Great guy to root for.

Bob: The John Henry owned Boston Globe wrote an article about how deep the Sox are in the lower levels of the minors. PR move or legit?
Keith Law: I don’t agree with that. I think their system is better than generally claimed (it’s not a bottom 3 or bottom 5 system), but they have had a lot of significant prospects get hurt. Still keeping my eye on Scherff as a breakout candidate.

Andrew: Love the chats (and the periscope yesterday), thanks for doing these. Is Johan Camargo a 3+ WAR/yr. player going forward? If no, why not?
Keith Law: I’d take the under on that too. Add him to the list of guys who had no power until he got to hit with the MLB baseball.

Juan: With hindsight was the Quintana trade a smart one for the Cubs or did they get fleeced?
Keith Law: Smart one. They knew what they were paying, but Q was, at the time, one of the top 5 pitchers in the AL.

Gary : Time to really start talking about Jeff McNeil? Do small sample sizes (3/4 of a season) matter less when you’re talking about guys who made major swing changes/adjustments?
Keith Law: He hasn’t played 3/4 of a season. He’s played about five weeks.

ScottyD in Downingtown: Kiriloff starts 2019 at AA? Would a mid-2020 ETA in Minnesota be accurate?
Keith Law: That’s probably right – although really, he might be ready next September, and we’re all arguing about service time manipulation again.

JP: Thoughts on sites nuking their comment sections (ESPN, RAB). I know they are mostly cesspools, but there are some communties that develop.
Keith Law: Moderation is probably impossible. If you’re not willing to block or ban people fairly quickly, the least common denominator will generally win out.

Ryan: Keith – you were notably not on the Moncada hype train before his debut. At this stage, how much more can he realistically become? Thank you
Keith Law: I said on Periscope yesterday that I think he’ll have above-average years and below-average years, rather than settling in at one level of production.

Adam: I don’t understand the use of the opener. Why not pitch a starter twice through the order then go to the bullpen. What does getting the first three outs with a bullpen arm really add?
Keith Law: Because those first three outs tend to be three of the best hitters in the opponent’s lineup.

Devon: Keith, do you see Eloy as the top offensive prospect in the game now?
Keith Law: No, that would be Vlad.

Oscar: What’s a good boardgame for a large group of people (4-8) that’s relatively easy to pick up?
Keith Law: Citadels, Sushi Go, maybe 7 Wonders. If you want something more party game-ish, One Night Ultimate Werewolf or its offshoot Werewords.

Anthony: Any of Detroit’s pitching prospects beyond Mize you’re confident can start?
Keith Law: Burrows can start but may not have huge upside. Manning can start, with work to do on command and secondaries, but he’s around the plate again and still 91-95.

Franknbeans: Luis Patino sure looked good this year. Do you still have him far down the list in San Diego?
Keith Law: He’s exciting but young and kind of small to start. I don’t know where he is offhand on their list but I wouldn’t put him over Tatis, Gore, Mejia, Paddack, Morejon, Baez.

David: Hi KLaw! Would love to buy you a beer (or just say “hi”) at AFL. When do you plan on heading out there?
Keith Law: Looking at week 2. They’re only playing 4 days of games in week one, which means I get just 8 games rather than 10, because of that stupid (and when I say stupid, I mean STUPID) “hitting challenge” that nobody likes.

JG: Did you have a problem with the Donaldson deal?
Keith Law: Yeah, my problem is that the Jays didn’t get enough back.

Anthony: What do you make of Pivetta? His stuff and strikeouts look really good, but maybe he’s got terrible in-zone command?
Keith Law: LHB kill him, because he has no CH or split to get them out.

BK: I’m struggling with WAR. I get that its a stat that is generally good at approximating but it seems like it’s the answer now to certain questions. where I struggle is defense, I can’t understand for example how Cain is worth nearly 2x Arenado or 3x Baez.
Keith Law: I’m not seeing where Cain’s WAR is twice Arenado’s, or even just his defense is.

Jeff: Has your opinion about Reynaldo Lopez changed this year? Fairly small sample, but he’s looked really good lately.
Keith Law: 4.85 FIP this year sounds about right.

Big Tawn: Does Byron Buxton need a change of scenery for his bat to pan out? Can he realistically be a 50 hitter with 50 power?
Keith Law: I think he can be that guy, but I don’t know if he needs a change of scenery, or just, you know, major league at bats.

Kyle: Which is more likely? Keuchel resigned or Josh James being a fixture in the rotation?
Keith Law: Keuchel re-signing seems more likely. James has a tremendous arm, earned a mention in my piece today, but there’s reliever risk there due to the delivery.

Patrick: Any thoughts on the Lorenzo Cain (non)MVP candidacy?
Keith Law: I must have missed something on Brewers Twitter because I thought Cain was clearly a candidate.

Brent : Not to be that guy, but in your post today you mention Cease as playing for ATL and not CWS.
Keith Law: Probably an editor’s mistake. I just send in the file, man. I don’t post it.

Matt: Are Mauer and McCutchen and David Wright HOF players to you? I heard Buster talk about them on the podcast. Just curious.
Keith Law: Mauer will be close. The others I think are on the outside.

JR: Next time someone argues that holding a top prospect down is smart because you will get an extra year of control in 2025, you should suggest they go look at the opening day roster for their favorite team from seven years ago. At best, they might have 5-6 guys still on the current roster. Between injuries, trades, lack of development, regression, getting better players in your system, etc. rosters just turn over so play to develop top talent and win now and instead of 7 years from now. Also, I would argue calling a top prospect up in Sep and letting them get their feet wet is a better intro to the Show then pushing them back a couple weeks in April because they “aren’t ready” They would be ready if you called them up last Sep.
Keith Law: I think a big problem with the “we have to get that extra year of control!” mentality is that fans don’t adequately discount future production. You know where your team is right now, but you have absolutely no idea where your team will be in seven years. We can talk about windows of contention, but we don’t know how long any one window will last. It’s a delusion to think that we know right now where the team will be 7 or even 5 years down the road, and whether the added cost to retain the player will make sense for the club or not. Meanwhile, that prospect might be worth an extra win or more next year, when maybe you’re contending and could use the boost.

Adam: #PadresTwitter is currently ranking Paddack and Patiño ahead of Mackenzie Gore on their team’s prospect lists. Is there a legitimate argument to be made that this is the case or is this just putting too much emphasis on results?
Keith Law: Way too much emphasis on results.

Bill: JaCoby Jones is a lousy hitter but an excellent fielder. If you are the Tigers, can you look the other way on his bat given the number of runs he’s reportedly saves with his glove?
Keith Law: I think he’s just a bench piece, and not even a great one at that.

Rod: Is it possible the Braves win the World Series?
Keith Law: Sure. Any team that makes the playoffs can win, regardless of whether they’re the best playoff team or the worst.

Dr. Bob: Now that your guitar secret is out, can we add guitars to food, politics, games, and music to the chat? I’ve always thought that Skating Away could be done by fingerpicking, but that was never Ian Anderson’s style.
Keith Law: I almost never play anything by fingerpicking. It’s just never been as comfortable for me. I only do it if the song can’t be played any other way.

Jim: I know you were high on Logan Warmoth during the draft. What kind of upside do you think he has?
Keith Law: I was, and then he slugged .317 in high-A this year. Welp.

Matt: Thoughts on Ross Adolph, outfielder in the Mets system? Named Brooklyn’s MVP, any chance he could carve out a role in the big leagues?
Keith Law: He’s 21 and had a .348 OBP in short-season. Way too old for the level.

Robert: How difficult has it been to assess Luis Robert given his lack of playing time and injuries? I keep hearing that it is difficult to evaluate power when a player has had hand/wrist injuries. Is there anything you could see that would suggest the power would come once he is fully healed?
Keith Law: He might be the AFL guy I most want to see, because I keep missing him and he just hasn’t played that much, period.

Migraine Sufferer: As a fellow migrainee, what would you do if you were allergic to NSAIDs?
Keith Law: Try the so-called ‘daith’ piercing.

Jay: Kowar, Lynch, Del Rosario all have been pitching really well for Lexington. Any of those guys potential top 100 at some point?
Keith Law: Feels like Lynch might have pitched himself into that range, although, again, I don’t keep a constantly updated 100 list, so this is an educated guess on how they’ll line up.

Larry: Other than Mize do you think anyone from the 2018 draft will make your top 100 list?
Keith Law: Typically 12-15 June draftees make my January top 100.

silvpak: mondesi’s pop has been something of a surprise, yet his strike zone judgment is….lacking. thoughts on continued development in 2019?
Keith Law: I’d project a sub-.300 OBP next year.

Chris: Because we all know there are some crazy sports parents out there: has the parent of a prospect ever reached out to you after a negative report?
Keith Law: Yes. I do not engage.

Louis: Thoughts on CJ Abrams and Corbin Carroll? Two of the top prep guys for next year?
Keith Law: Yes to both.

Christopher: My 10-year-old son loves baseball but struggles at playing it because he gets paralyzed with anxiety. Among other things, he is terrified at getting hit, stemming from an incident about 2 years ago. As a dad (and coach), I struggle between encouraging and being honest and telling him only he can work through it. I’m very sensitive to this being a larger issue. This can’t be unique though, can it?
Keith Law: That sounds like something that requires therapy. He could easily be traumatized by whatever happened two years ago, and that won’t just go away with time.

Joey: After his NWL season, has your opinion changed on Joey Bart’s hit tool? Or does he still project as a below-average MLB hitter?
Keith Law: He was way too old for the NWL.

Pat D: Isn’t it great that we’re going to have a Supreme Court justice who has committed perjury?
Keith Law: This is America. Get your money.
Keith Law: That’s all for this week – thank you all, as always, for all of your questions. I’ll be back next week after the ‘players i was wrong about’ column runs for another chat. Enjoy your weekends!

Comments

  1. Re: Manny not being a $30 million upgrade over Miggy or Didi, that’s true in and of itself, but he’s a $30MM upgrade over Greg Bird (with Andujar moving to first), or the Yanks have the flexibility to peruse trades of Torres or Andujar for a better pitcher than what they could get in FA.

  2. Just to expand on Adam’s question regarding the “opener”, teams score more runs in the 1st inning than any other inning (https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/7/3/2255959/all-innings-are-not-created-equal-how-run-scoring-varies-by-inning). As Keith said, they’re stacking the lineup with their best hitters at the top because, duh. If baseball weren’t so beholden to tradition, this strategy would probably have seemed obvious 60 years ago.

  3. To our fellow migraine sufferer who can’t take Aleve and the like: A shot of espresso or two to the brain usually works wonders. If you can afford to, maybe gift yourself an espresso machine over the holidays. Be well.

    • I envy those of you who can relieve your migraines with chemicals. 1200 mg of ibuprofen doesn’t even take the edge off for me, even when consumed with much coffee. Only sleep can reset me.

    • Sumatriptan (100 mg) usually provides at least some relief.

    • I also find a cold compress or icepack on my forehead or even slightly over my eyes can help.

  4. Asking in good faith (pardon the pun): do you mind giving a specific example of a theocrat Trump has nominated to the federal bench?

    • Amy Coney Barrett.

    • I should have asked for a few examples because Keith said “pack the courts.”

      Amy Coney Barrett could be close. But really the only thing I can find to rise to the level of “theocrat” would be the first bullet on this page (https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/afj-barrett-would-put-personal-views-ahead-of-law-should-not-serve-on-federal-bench) from the Alliance for Justice, a very liberal group. For what it’s worth, she has stated that faith does not affect her legal decisions.

      I grant she’s borderline (I wouldn’t call her a theocrat), but I think, respectfully, it’s exaggerated (and probably incorrect) to say Trump is packing the courts with them.

    • Virtually every judge he’s nominated is against abortion rights, which almost always stems from one’s religion. That might not fit the most stringent definition of “theocrat,” but I still think it’s a fair use of the term.

    • Brett Kavanaugh supported the group Priests for Life in a question about the birth control mandate in the ACA, using that (obviously religious, anti-abortion) group’s phrase that birth control drugs are “abortion-inducing,” which they are not – and he supports the so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which is theocracy in motion.

    • A Salty Scientist

      This outright lies describing birth control pills and especially the “morning after pill” as abortifacients is infuriating. They suppress ovulation, but there is zero evidence that they affect implantation.

    • Mike, Or it could be that those judges do not believe abortion rights are protected by the Constitution. I think it’s very unfair (and completely lacking in evidence) to assume a judge’s religious beliefs dictate his or her judicial philosophy. You’re basing that assumption on nothing.

      Keith, he doesn’t support the RFRA; he believes it’s constitutional (and had to follow SCOTUS precedent that says it’s constitutional). That’s a *big* difference. You’re confusing the role of a judge with that of a legislator. Judges don’t make policy.

      Also, unless I’m missing something (which is possible), Kavanaugh’s dissent never uses the phrase “abortion-inducing.” https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/425C0AE29F10AFD785257E4B00767BF5/%24file/13-5368.pdf
      And the Kamala Harris clip has been debunked by both Polifact and the Washington Post.

      A theocrat would put his religious beliefs over the law. We have no evidence Kavanaugh does that.

    • If you’re going to insult my intelligence by explaining the difference between the judiciary and the legislature, I think I’m done here. You see what you want to see, obviously.

    • I didn’t intend to be insulting at all and I’m sorry. I think language matters and to say Kavanaugh supports the RFRA is really misleading. A lot of people in this country don’t know the role of the judiciary or want judges to be policymakers.

      I sincerely was trying to argue in good faith. I didn’t mean to insult you, but then you intentionally insulted me with the “see what you want to see” comment. I don’t understand that.

    • “he doesn’t support the RFRA; he believes it’s constitutional”

      “I think it’s very unfair (and completely lacking in evidence) to assume a judge’s religious beliefs dictate his or her judicial philosophy”

      “A theocrat would put his religious beliefs over the law. We have no evidence Kavanaugh does that.”

      Judges are politicians just like any legislator or governor. They execute the duties of their office according to their beliefs and wishes, whether those be religious or otherwise. Furthermore, “the law” is not some sacrosanct set of principles but rather an amalgamation of rules that those in power have enacted over time. Any belief that the current crop of far-right politicians is acting in the interest of some sort of higher civic ideals is naïve Sorkin-esque poppycock.

    • “Judges are politicians just like any legislator or governor. They execute the duties of their office according to their beliefs and wishes, whether those be religious or otherwise.”

      I don’t believe that. Maybe I’m naive. It wouldn’t be the first time. I think most federal judges (there are exceptions) are principled judicially and are of high character. I don’t have a lot of respect for the other two branches.

      “Furthermore, “the law” is not some sacrosanct set of principles but rather an amalgamation of rules that those in power have enacted over time.”

      This point is very true. Which is why I support abortion rights, but don’t think the Constitution does. You (unknowingly?) presented a very strong defense of originalism and textualism (the philosophies Kavanaugh adheres to).

  5. A Salty Scientist

    but I think, respectfully, it’s exaggerated (and probably incorrect) to say Trump is packing the courts with them.

    This is akin to the argument about de jure vs. de facto segregation. If Trump’s appointees all share similar religious conviction and reach the same conclusions on whether to uphold laws supporting restricted access to abortion and discrimination based upon sexual orientation, what’s the difference if they can rationalize based on “originalism.” Especially when some of these stances are hard to reconcile in light of the Founder’s other writings on religious freedom and universal human rights.

    • Republicans target orignialists because they like the results. But you can’t impugn the integrity of the judges themselves. You have no idea if religious conviction or originalism (a legitimate judicial philosophy and probably the only one the Founders would recognize) drives their decisions.

      Arguing that the Constitution doesn’t protect abortion and gay marriage is hard to reconcile with the beliefs of the Founders (who started meetings with Christian prayers, said nothing about either topic above, and allowed human beings to own other human beings)? I don’t think that’s right…

      I appreciate the response.

    • A Salty Scientist

      Considering that until the middle of the 19th century abortion was legal in the colonies and US up until “the quickening,” I think you are mistaken about the Founders. Of course this is in my mind is one of originalisms major flaws–trying to extract intent from people long dead whose issues were different from our own. Not to mention the fact that while our Founders were liberal for their time, much of the enshrined racism and sexism in the Constitution is appalling to most people today. In terms of impugning the integrity of the judges, I will at least point out their inconsistency when they write an opinion that sides with their religious conviction at the expense of originalism (as Justice Scalia had done on numerous occasions).

    • I researched a little bit and discovered that the Founders said a lot more about abortion than I realized. I learned something. But I think we can agree that the Constitution didn’t originally protect abortion. The Framers (intentionally or not) left that very difficult debate to the legislative process.

      As for your second point, there are ways to fix the enshrined racism and sexism you speak of (and we have amended the Constitution many times to do just that). Why is that a valid criticism of originalism when it’s the job of legislatures and the people to pass laws and amendments? I agree that a drawback to originalism is that it can be hard sometimes determining the meaning of words and intent. But I think that it’s still a better method of interpretation than having judges merely do what they think is right. The latter’s an oligarchy, not a democracy. And the Founders didn’t risk their lives to be ruled by oligarchs.

      I’d be interested in which decisions you’re referencing re Scalia.

    • A Salty Scientist

      One decision by Scalia that is illustrative is the McCreary County vs. ACLU Kentucky that banned a 10 Commandments courthouse display. Scalia’s dissent includes On the one hand, the interest of that minority in not feeling “excluded”; but on the other, the interest of the overwhelming majority of religious believers in being able to give God thanks and supplication as a people, and with respect to our national endeavors. Our national tradition has resolved that conflict in favor of the majority. I find O’Connor’s concurrence more compelling and grounded in original intent It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.

      Which brings up an important point about the drafting of the Bill of Rights. They were absolutely drafted to protect minority rights against possible “tyranny of the majority.” That principle is far more grounded in the founding political philosophy of the US than “majority rule.” The reason that I believe in a “living constitution” is that originalism constrains us from actually implementing the principles of freedom and justice that the Constitution was founded on. The lofty ideals from the Declaration of Independence about universal human rights, equality, and liberty, were drafted by flawed men that could not properly implement those ideals at the time. At its extreme, an originalist would have to rule against the majorities for Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia because the adoption of the 14th Amendment did not end the practices of segregation and anti-miscegenation. When you are a straight white male, it’s easy to say that women, African Americans, and LBTGQ persons should wait until laws are passed to validate their god-given human rights. A majority of Americans were in favor of interracial marriage for the first time in 1997. If that’s oligarchy, I’ll take it over the majority voting on whether to recognize the universal rights of the minority.

    • A Salty Scientist

      Also, intentionally snarking (and rhetorical), but what is the Electoral College if is not oligarchical?

    • I don’t agree that McCreary County says anything about Scalia other than that he was an originalist. The Founders were clearly okay with public acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God. There’s ample evidence of that. Also O’Connor was not an originalist.

      The Bill of Rights does protect minority rights. But it does so only under specific circumstances. It protects freedom of speech and criminal defendants from excessive bail, for example. Do those amendments say anything specifically about African Americans or women or LGBTQ people? Anything about private discrimination?

      I like what Mike said above: “’the law’ is not some sacrosanct set of principles but rather an amalgamation of rules that those in power have enacted over time.” Minorities only have rights that the majority (“those in power”) granted them. And in this country (whether right or wrong), the Framers gave that power to the people through their elected representatives. An oligarchy of a select group of progressive-minded people would probably be a wonderful form of government. But it’s not the system we have. Direct your anger towards James Madison and Alexander Hamilton for that, not Brett Kavanaugh.

      “At its extreme, an originalist would have to rule against the majorities for Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia because the adoption of the 14th Amendment did not end the practices of segregation and anti-miscegenation.”
      This is wrong. Most originalists, including Scalia, Bork, and Thomas, defend (or defended…) Brown and Loving. There are many law review articles and opinions explaining why. Just because laws existed after the ratification of an amendment doesn’t mean they were constitutional. John Adams signed the Sedition Act, which was obviously in violation of the First Amendment.

      I’ll conclude with saying this: we have the potential for everything you’ve described. That’s part of the genius of the Constitution. Liberty and freedom and universal rights are achievable. But there’s no guarantee we’ll get there. I mean this with the utmost respect: most of what you’ve said is idealistic gobbledygook for a fourth grade social studies classroom. It sounds good to say the Constitution protects all that is well and good, but it’s a lie. Lofty ideals are not law. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not law. Vague “god-given human rights” are not laws. That’s why it’s important to vote. It’s important to have public debates. It’s important to support candidates you believe in.

      Thanks for always being kind and knowledgeable on here. I enjoy debating with you.

    • A Salty Scientist

      With all due respect, the founding political philosophy of this country was based on Lockean ideals that are probably not taught in 4th grade. If you are going to call someone out on spouting “idealistic gobbledygook,” it would behoove you to be introspective here as well (e.g. your ideas on the high integrity and apoliticality of judges). If you enjoy debating me, please refrain from being condescending. I’m out.

    • I didn’t mean it to be condescending, which is why I complimented you at the end. That compliment remains.

      I explained why I felt that way. Locke’s ideals are not laws either.

      I’m out altogether. I’ve never felt like my sometimes dissenting voice has been welcome here. That could be my fault. I don’t know. I’ll reflect on that. It seems like it’s okay to be sarcastic and direct as long as you have the “correct” viewpoint.

    • A Salty Scientist

      Michael, I don’t think that dissenting views are unwelcome here, but you do sometimes come across to me at least as being condescending. I think that snark and sarcasm can be okay, though we should strive to be respectful. I could do better myself. You are generally respectful, but you may sometimes (inadvertently, I hope) insult others’ intelligence. In this thread, you implied that Keith does not understand the difference between the legislative and judicial branches, that I do not know that O’Connor is not an originalist (I never said that she was, only that I found her opinion in that case to fit that mold more), and that my arguments befit a 4th-grade classroom. I think a little self-tone-policing would go a long way in this comments section. I have done worse in the past on this blog, and will try to be better myself.