hmoss859 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2025 22:25 pm
Keith Law can be petty and vicious in his analysis of certain players.
If he were that good of a talent evaluator, he would be a high-ranking MLB front office guy.
He is not.
Dude always seems bitter in any write up I see.
Does anybody track Keith Law’s success as a prospect prognosticator? I doubt he has an impressive record.
He's highly respected among his peers and has been paid to do this for a long time. He actually scouts players whereas a lot of prospect guys crowdsource and scout slash lines.
I question why you doubt his record.
Being valued as a talent evaluator does not mean he's a good evaluator of talent. Look who's president. Look at our own team president.
I don't see any evidence that Law is good at anything except self promotion. He does, at least take strong opinions which is good, but whether his opinions are worth anything to anyone but himself is debatable.
Cool.
It has never been lost on me that you forever debated Yadier Molina's worth and value.
I think Keith does tremendous work in the field. You don't need to feel the same.
Your last statement is... not debatable. His opinions quite obviously have worth.
Just because you get paid to do something does not mean you are good at it. Law gets a return on his efforts-- his opinions have value to him personally -- but there's no evidence that his opinions provide value to anyone else.
You're either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourself. I'm not sure which one it is, but it seems you're lying to yourself.
Law knows a bit about baseball. But he's basically an opinion guy, like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless but with a bit more tack and a background that provides a hint of legitimacy.
Hard disagree.
Law is paid because he voices opinions pretty well, and dresses his words up some understanding of statistics. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that Law is any better at evaluating talent than you are.
Like I said before... cool.
You don't like Keith Law. I get it. I am not going to make any effort to change your mind... it's made up anyway.
I’m not sure you can say with certainty that any of the prospects coming from the Mets and Boston will be worth a darn 3-4 years into the future. But they could. They all could develop into superstars. Or not. I’m pleased the trades were made. But was I expecting to get Juan Soto and Aaron Judge in return? No. I was expecting to get 2-3 prospects for Helsley and 1-2 for Matz. And that’s exactly what they got: 3 for Helsley and 1 for Matz. I expect one to two more trades that will bring back 1-3 more prospects. At the end of the trade deadline, the Cardinals’ minor league system will be strengthened. Some youngsters will now get chances to show what they can do on the major league level. And, maybe most importantly, there will be openings on the 40-man roster so that we won’t lose valuable assets in the Rule 5 draft. Taken as a whole, this is a good day.
An Old Friend wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 09:28 am
I like Keith. He's one of the primary reasons I initially subscribed to the Athletic. I think he personally scouts more players than a lot of his peers, and he's candid & transparent in his summaries. He also goes back and publishes pieces on guys he really missed on or was wrong about. I don't know any other prospect guys that do that - he shows actual accountability which is sorely lacking in journalism overall.
So when I'm reading up on prospects, he's the first one I look at.
Fair enough and good on him for holding himself accountable to some extent. I just wouldn’t take what any of these guys say as gospel.
No one does that. Hyperbole does nothing to support debate. Now, there are a lot of people on social media who do no research for themselves that decide who they completely trust and let those people guide their opinions. Many of the people they are listening to are nothing more than bloggers / hobbyists. But they like the optimism.
The people paid to do it serve to inform and guide, that's all.
The two pitchers seem to be performing well to me. Not sure why everybody thinks they’re garbage. Both have reasonable eras with over 10 SO9. Dohm needs to lower his whip. Elissalts whip is excellent and he has a 12.7 SO9 at high A. They seem intriguing to me.
Yes, they got intriguing arms.
Personally I wanted more from the headliner of the deal but that's JMO.
hmoss859 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2025 22:25 pm
Keith Law can be petty and vicious in his analysis of certain players.
If he were that good of a talent evaluator, he would be a high-ranking MLB front office guy.
He is not.
Dude always seems bitter in any write up I see.
Does anybody track Keith Law’s success as a prospect prognosticator? I doubt he has an impressive record.
He's highly respected among his peers and has been paid to do this for a long time. He actually scouts players whereas a lot of prospect guys crowdsource and scout slash lines.
I question why you doubt his record.
Being valued as a talent evaluator does not mean he's a good evaluator of talent. Look who's president. Look at our own team president.
I don't see any evidence that Law is good at anything except self promotion. He does, at least take strong opinions which is good, but whether his opinions are worth anything to anyone but himself is debatable.
Cool.
It has never been lost on me that you forever debated Yadier Molina's worth and value.
I think Keith does tremendous work in the field. You don't need to feel the same.
Your last statement is... not debatable. His opinions quite obviously have worth.
Just because you get paid to do something does not mean you are good at it. Law gets a return on his efforts-- his opinions have value to him personally -- but there's no evidence that his opinions provide value to anyone else.
You're either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourself. I'm not sure which one it is, but it seems you're lying to yourself.
Law knows a bit about baseball. But he's basically an opinion guy, like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless but with a bit more tack and a background that provides a hint of legitimacy.
Hard disagree.
Law is paid because he voices opinions pretty well, and dresses his words up some understanding of statistics. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that Law is any better at evaluating talent than you are.
Like I said before... cool.
You don't like Keith Law. I get it. I am not going to make any effort to change your mind... it's made up anyway.
It you have evidence that suggests Law is better at talent evaluation than any of the rest of us, present it. I'm always eager to learn. Otherwise, there's no reason to think that Law is anything but another voice with a bigger platform, and that proves only that's he's pretty good at self promotion.
hmoss859 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2025 22:25 pm
Keith Law can be petty and vicious in his analysis of certain players.
If he were that good of a talent evaluator, he would be a high-ranking MLB front office guy.
He is not.
Dude always seems bitter in any write up I see.
Does anybody track Keith Law’s success as a prospect prognosticator? I doubt he has an impressive record.
He's highly respected among his peers and has been paid to do this for a long time. He actually scouts players whereas a lot of prospect guys crowdsource and scout slash lines.
I question why you doubt his record.
Being valued as a talent evaluator does not mean he's a good evaluator of talent. Look who's president. Look at our own team president.
I don't see any evidence that Law is good at anything except self promotion. He does, at least take strong opinions which is good, but whether his opinions are worth anything to anyone but himself is debatable.
Cool.
It has never been lost on me that you forever debated Yadier Molina's worth and value.
I think Keith does tremendous work in the field. You don't need to feel the same.
Your last statement is... not debatable. His opinions quite obviously have worth.
Just because you get paid to do something does not mean you are good at it. Law gets a return on his efforts-- his opinions have value to him personally -- but there's no evidence that his opinions provide value to anyone else.
You're either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourself. I'm not sure which one it is, but it seems you're lying to yourself.
Law knows a bit about baseball. But he's basically an opinion guy, like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless but with a bit more tack and a background that provides a hint of legitimacy.
Hard disagree.
Law is paid because he voices opinions pretty well, and dresses his words up some understanding of statistics. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that Law is any better at evaluating talent than you are.
Like I said before... cool.
You don't like Keith Law. I get it. I am not going to make any effort to change your mind... it's made up anyway.
It you have evidence that suggests Law is better at talent evaluation than any of the rest of us, present it. I'm always eager to learn. Otherwise, I suspect that he's just another voice with a bigger platform, and that proves only that's he's pretty good at self promotion.
Done with this sidebar conversation.
Your points and asks are trivial and stupid. You dishonestly claim that there's no value in his work.
Your ask for evidence is one that you know cannot be provided... by anyone. So you're coupling a disingenuous ask with your dishonesty.
Cite whatever sources you value. Or don't. I consider myself well read on these topics, so you can stop insulting that at any time.
hmoss859 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2025 22:25 pm
Keith Law can be petty and vicious in his analysis of certain players.
If he were that good of a talent evaluator, he would be a high-ranking MLB front office guy.
He is not.
Dude always seems bitter in any write up I see.
Does anybody track Keith Law’s success as a prospect prognosticator? I doubt he has an impressive record.
He's highly respected among his peers and has been paid to do this for a long time. He actually scouts players whereas a lot of prospect guys crowdsource and scout slash lines.
I question why you doubt his record.
Being valued as a talent evaluator does not mean he's a good evaluator of talent. Look who's president. Look at our own team president.
I don't see any evidence that Law is good at anything except self promotion. He does, at least take strong opinions which is good, but whether his opinions are worth anything to anyone but himself is debatable.
Cool.
It has never been lost on me that you forever debated Yadier Molina's worth and value.
I think Keith does tremendous work in the field. You don't need to feel the same.
Your last statement is... not debatable. His opinions quite obviously have worth.
Just because you get paid to do something does not mean you are good at it. Law gets a return on his efforts-- his opinions have value to him personally -- but there's no evidence that his opinions provide value to anyone else.
You're either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourself. I'm not sure which one it is, but it seems you're lying to yourself.
Law knows a bit about baseball. But he's basically an opinion guy, like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless but with a bit more tack and a background that provides a hint of legitimacy.
Hard disagree.
Law is paid because he voices opinions pretty well, and dresses his words up some understanding of statistics. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that Law is any better at evaluating talent than you are.
Like I said before... cool.
You don't like Keith Law. I get it. I am not going to make any effort to change your mind... it's made up anyway.
It you have evidence that suggests Law is better at talent evaluation than any of the rest of us, present it. I'm always eager to learn. Otherwise, I suspect that he's just another voice with a bigger platform, and that proves only that's he's pretty good at self promotion.
Done with this sidebar conversation.
Your points and asks are trivial and stupid. You dishonestly claim that there's no value in his work.
Your ask for evidence is one that you know cannot be provided... by anyone. So you're coupling a disingenuous ask with your dishonesty.
Cite whatever sources you value. Or don't. I consider myself well read on these topics, so you can stop insulting that at any time.
AOF, do you think Everyone here is stupid and can’t seem to understand anything or just most of us??
Given that why don’t you answer direct questions?? Perhaps you’re the one with learning disability
Please I’d like your take on Nootbaar….ThankYou!
rockondlouie wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 08:47 am
I have no clue on any of these Mets prospects Mo acquired, nor do expect anything to come from them.
It's C. Bloom's deal w/Boston and Blaze Jordan that intrigues me.
Your prejudice continues to flare. Now you will assign one deal to your villain Mo because you "nor do expect anything to come from them"; and the other deal a couple hours later assigned to Bloom because "Blaze Jordan that intrigues me". You have spent months complaining about current management and pining for Bloom. This lack of objectivity is really hilarious. None of us "know" how these deals will turn out.
Ah, poor little davdaddy got his Mo loving feelings hurt again.
No dumb a z z like anyone w/half a brain it's pretty easy to reason Bloom makes the deal w/the Sox since he knows the system and especially this kid,
Moron
It is well known that Bloom will have significant input on these issues. Mo is still the POBO and will be right there on all trades. For you to pretend otherwise is silly. For your information, and future reference; I am neither a hater nor a lover of any of these folks. Your immature response above says a lot. I repeat, none of us can be sure how these trades will turn out. Continue with the immature comments if you so desire.
hmoss859 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2025 22:25 pm
Keith Law can be petty and vicious in his analysis of certain players.
If he were that good of a talent evaluator, he would be a high-ranking MLB front office guy.
He is not.
Dude always seems bitter in any write up I see.
Does anybody track Keith Law’s success as a prospect prognosticator? I doubt he has an impressive record.
He's highly respected among his peers and has been paid to do this for a long time. He actually scouts players whereas a lot of prospect guys crowdsource and scout slash lines.
I question why you doubt his record.
Being valued as a talent evaluator does not mean he's a good evaluator of talent. Look who's president. Look at our own team president.
I don't see any evidence that Law is good at anything except self promotion. He does, at least take strong opinions which is good, but whether his opinions are worth anything to anyone but himself is debatable.
Cool.
It has never been lost on me that you forever debated Yadier Molina's worth and value.
I think Keith does tremendous work in the field. You don't need to feel the same.
Your last statement is... not debatable. His opinions quite obviously have worth.
Just because you get paid to do something does not mean you are good at it. Law gets a return on his efforts-- his opinions have value to him personally -- but there's no evidence that his opinions provide value to anyone else.
You're either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourself. I'm not sure which one it is, but it seems you're lying to yourself.
Law knows a bit about baseball. But he's basically an opinion guy, like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless but with a bit more tack and a background that provides a hint of legitimacy.
Hard disagree.
Law is paid because he voices opinions pretty well, and dresses his words up some understanding of statistics. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that Law is any better at evaluating talent than you are.
Like I said before... cool.
You don't like Keith Law. I get it. I am not going to make any effort to change your mind... it's made up anyway.
It you have evidence that suggests Law is better at talent evaluation than any of the rest of us, present it. I'm always eager to learn. Otherwise, I suspect that he's just another voice with a bigger platform, and that proves only that's he's pretty good at self promotion.
Done with this sidebar conversation.
Your points and asks are trivial and stupid. You dishonestly claim that there's no value in his work.
Your ask for evidence is one that you know cannot be provided... by anyone. So you're coupling a disingenuous ask with your dishonesty.
Cite whatever sources you value. Or don't. I consider myself well read on these topics, so you can stop insulting that at any time.
You 're the one making unsubstantiated claims. You're asking people to accept that Law has some special skill which you cannot present any evidence to support.
It's ironic that you claim my comments are stupid while insisting that your view must be accepted even while acknowledging that you can not support your position in any constructive way. This idea is a pretty good definition of stupid.
hmoss859 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2025 22:25 pm
Keith Law can be petty and vicious in his analysis of certain players.
If he were that good of a talent evaluator, he would be a high-ranking MLB front office guy.
He is not.
Dude always seems bitter in any write up I see.
Does anybody track Keith Law’s success as a prospect prognosticator? I doubt he has an impressive record.
He's highly respected among his peers and has been paid to do this for a long time. He actually scouts players whereas a lot of prospect guys crowdsource and scout slash lines.
I question why you doubt his record.
Being valued as a talent evaluator does not mean he's a good evaluator of talent. Look who's president. Look at our own team president.
I don't see any evidence that Law is good at anything except self promotion. He does, at least take strong opinions which is good, but whether his opinions are worth anything to anyone but himself is debatable.
Cool.
It has never been lost on me that you forever debated Yadier Molina's worth and value.
I think Keith does tremendous work in the field. You don't need to feel the same.
Your last statement is... not debatable. His opinions quite obviously have worth.
Just because you get paid to do something does not mean you are good at it. Law gets a return on his efforts-- his opinions have value to him personally -- but there's no evidence that his opinions provide value to anyone else.
You're either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourself. I'm not sure which one it is, but it seems you're lying to yourself.
Law knows a bit about baseball. But he's basically an opinion guy, like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless but with a bit more tack and a background that provides a hint of legitimacy.
Hard disagree.
Law is paid because he voices opinions pretty well, and dresses his words up some understanding of statistics. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that Law is any better at evaluating talent than you are.
Like I said before... cool.
You don't like Keith Law. I get it. I am not going to make any effort to change your mind... it's made up anyway.
It you have evidence that suggests Law is better at talent evaluation than any of the rest of us, present it. I'm always eager to learn. Otherwise, I suspect that he's just another voice with a bigger platform, and that proves only that's he's pretty good at self promotion.
Done with this sidebar conversation.
Your points and asks are trivial and stupid. You dishonestly claim that there's no value in his work.
Your ask for evidence is one that you know cannot be provided... by anyone. So you're coupling a disingenuous ask with your dishonesty.
Cite whatever sources you value. Or don't. I consider myself well read on these topics, so you can stop insulting that at any time.
You 're the one making unsubstantiated claims. You're asking people to accept that Law has some special skill which you cannot present any evidence to support.
It's ironic that you claim my comments are stupid while insisting that your view must be accepted even while acknowledging that you can not support your position in any constructive way. This idea is a pretty good definition of stupid.
Cheers
Evidence?
An $8.5B company PAYS Keith Law to do this work, and people PAY for the content he provides.
You cannot claim that there isn’t value. It’s dishonest, incredibly stupid, or both.
Now I’m leaning towards both based on your discourse.
I think if he Keith law would have really said great trade the same people who are trashing him would be posting his link and saying praises about it but since he trashed it law is an idiot who’s opinion is meaningless. Jbrach when they mistakenly posted law called the trade a heist for the cardinals used it to try to trash fans who didn’t like it but i guarantee now that the truth is out he’s done a .180 on laws opinions worth
hmoss859 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2025 22:25 pm
Keith Law can be petty and vicious in his analysis of certain players.
If he were that good of a talent evaluator, he would be a high-ranking MLB front office guy.
He is not.
Dude always seems bitter in any write up I see.
Does anybody track Keith Law’s success as a prospect prognosticator? I doubt he has an impressive record.
He's highly respected among his peers and has been paid to do this for a long time. He actually scouts players whereas a lot of prospect guys crowdsource and scout slash lines.
I question why you doubt his record.
Being valued as a talent evaluator does not mean he's a good evaluator of talent. Look who's president. Look at our own team president.
I don't see any evidence that Law is good at anything except self promotion. He does, at least take strong opinions which is good, but whether his opinions are worth anything to anyone but himself is debatable.
Cool.
It has never been lost on me that you forever debated Yadier Molina's worth and value.
I think Keith does tremendous work in the field. You don't need to feel the same.
Your last statement is... not debatable. His opinions quite obviously have worth.
Just because you get paid to do something does not mean you are good at it. Law gets a return on his efforts-- his opinions have value to him personally -- but there's no evidence that his opinions provide value to anyone else.
You're either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourself. I'm not sure which one it is, but it seems you're lying to yourself.
Law knows a bit about baseball. But he's basically an opinion guy, like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless but with a bit more tack and a background that provides a hint of legitimacy.
Hard disagree.
Law is paid because he voices opinions pretty well, and dresses his words up some understanding of statistics. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that Law is any better at evaluating talent than you are.
Like I said before... cool.
You don't like Keith Law. I get it. I am not going to make any effort to change your mind... it's made up anyway.
It you have evidence that suggests Law is better at talent evaluation than any of the rest of us, present it. I'm always eager to learn. Otherwise, I suspect that he's just another voice with a bigger platform, and that proves only that's he's pretty good at self promotion.
Done with this sidebar conversation.
Your points and asks are trivial and stupid. You dishonestly claim that there's no value in his work.
Your ask for evidence is one that you know cannot be provided... by anyone. So you're coupling a disingenuous ask with your dishonesty.
Cite whatever sources you value. Or don't. I consider myself well read on these topics, so you can stop insulting that at any time.
You 're the one making unsubstantiated claims. You're asking people to accept that Law has some special skill which you cannot present any evidence to support.
It's ironic that you claim my comments are stupid while insisting that your view must be accepted even while acknowledging that you can not support your position in any constructive way. This idea is a pretty good definition of stupid.
Cheers
Evidence?
An $8.5B company PAYS Keith Law to do this work, and people PAY for the content he provides.
You cannot claim that there isn’t value. It’s dishonest, incredibly stupid, or both.
Now I’m leaning towards both based on your discourse.
You're confusing marketability with value. Just because simple-minded people are willing to pay thousands for an ugly Versace hand bag doesn't mean the bag is exceptionally useful or attractive. It just means some people are foolish.
Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 11:58 am
Just because simple-minded people are willing to pay thousands for an ugly Versace hand bag doesn't mean the bag is exceptionally useful or attractive. It just means some people are foolish.
davdaddy wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 10:59 amIt is well known that Bloom will have significant input on these issues. Mo is still the POBO and will be right there on all trades. For you to pretend otherwise is silly. For your information, and future reference; I am neither a hater nor a lover of any of these folks. Your immature response above says a lot. I repeat, none of us can be sure how these trades will turn out. Continue with the immature comments if you so desire.
Yea, it’s a team effort. To try and say that this was solely a Mo or Bloom move, I think, is a big mistake. I don’t think it works like that. There was an article on MLB Trade Rumors the other day from a guy who worked in a front office describing what it is like during the deadline. It is not just something that pops up in the last few days. You’ve got scouts and player development people working with the higher up people and lots of people have input into things.
Now, I do think that these moves have Bloom’s fingerprints on them. And what I mean by that is that he assembled his scouting and development team last offseason and we saw a bit of what players they might be after looked like in this years draft. And at least the pitchers kind of fit that mold. Not to mention that Bloom drafted Jordan, but then again, the Cardinals were also very interested in him during that draft.
But yea, I don’t think you can simply say, “Mo did this” or “Bloom did that.” It just doesn’t make any sense.
Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 11:58 am
Just because simple-minded people are willing to pay thousands for an ugly Versace hand bag doesn't mean the bag is exceptionally useful or attractive. It just means some people are foolish.
I'll accept this as your concession speech.
Please delude yourself as you see fit. Trying to get you recognize a turd burger when you see one is more trouble than it's worth.
Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 11:58 am
Just because simple-minded people are willing to pay thousands for an ugly Versace hand bag doesn't mean the bag is exceptionally useful or attractive. It just means some people are foolish.
I'll accept this as your concession speech.
Please delude yourself as you see fit. Trying to get you recognize a turd burger when you see one is more trouble than it's worth.
Keep digging if you wish. It's weird, but your prerogative.
But again, I do appreciate you effectively conceding with your silly analogy to a designer item that people purchase for any myriad of reasons.
You're basically saying that people who pay for journalism, of any type, are foolish, because none of it has any value... according to you and only you, of course. Do you, buddy
Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 11:58 am
Just because simple-minded people are willing to pay thousands for an ugly Versace hand bag doesn't mean the bag is exceptionally useful or attractive. It just means some people are foolish.
I'll accept this as your concession speech.
Please delude yourself as you see fit. Trying to get you recognize a turd burger when you see one is more trouble than it's worth.
Keep digging if you wish. It's weird, but your prerogative.
But again, I do appreciate you effectively conceding with your silly analogy to a designer item that people purchase for any myriad of reasons.
You're basically saying that people who pay for journalism, of any type, are foolish, because none of it has any value... according to you and only you, of course. Do you, buddy