Hello everyone,

I would say the Indians are in the Top 10, just outside Top 5, say 6-8, in that range.

They have very good depth, especially pitching,

RHP Andrew Brown
RHP Fausto Carmona
RHP Dan Denham
LHP Jeremy Sowers
RHP J.D. Martin (if he can stay healthy - was very good in 1st go-around at AA, but was only healthy for half the season)
RHP Jake Dittler (was protected on the 40-man roster - I do have concerns about him)
RHP Edward Mujica (40-man roster)
LHP Rafael Perez (40-man roster)
RHP Jose Diaz (40-man roster - was claimed off wavers from TB.)

And that didn't include every prospect from AA or any prospects from below AA...

The offensive prospects' depth is improving as well:

OF Brad Snyder
OF Ben Francisco
OF Franklin Gutierrez  
3B Pat Osborn
3B Kevin Kouzmanoff
1B Michael Aubrey (if he stays healthy - he was protected on the 40-man roster, so that may be a positive sign, hopefully.)
1B/C Ryan Garko
1B Ryan Mulhern
1B Stephen Head
OF/2B Trevor Crowe

Outside of Crowe (Low A,) Kouzmanoff (High A,) and Head (High A,) those were the offensive prospects at AAA and AA, with a few more at AA I didn't mention, such as 2B Eider Torres, SS Ivan Ochoa, 1B/INF Shaun Larkin, and OF Jonathan Van Every.

There may not be many "flashy" or blue-chip prospects at this point, outside of RHP Adam Miller, possibly OF Brad Snyder, and maybe LHP Jeremy Sowers (not in terms of overpowering stuff, but in terms of his makeup and control,) but there's always the possibility that a few others could turn into blue-chippers.  Plus, not all helpful and useful prospects are blue-chippers either.

Therefore, I'm not sure it would qualify as Top 5 or be quite equal to the Twins, but I think it's close; that's why I think the Indians are 6-8, which isn't bad considering that they have graduated many of their top and upper-level prospects over the last three years (Sizemore, Peralta, Martinez, Crisp, Cabrera.)

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great Sunday!

Hello mrkupe,

Who would be your Top 10 then?

Here's an even better question.  The Twins are rated as being one of the better farm systems in baseball, yet their system doesn't look much different than the Indians.  Outside of Francisco Liriano, who has had his own arm troubles in the past and is older than Miller by 3-4 years, and maybe Travis Bowyer, who himself is what, 23-24, and is a bullpen reliever (reminds me of Fernando Cabrera or Andrew Brown, who I believe is 22-23,) as being "definite" major league regulars, how can the Twins rank in the Top 5, and the Indians don't rank in the Top 10?  None of the other Twins prospects I have heard about are "definite" major league regulars either.

Or do you believe the Twins' system doesn't belong in the Top 5 or 10?  Who else beside Liriano and maybe Bowyer do you see as being "definite" major league regulars from the Twins' system?  If you don't think the Twins belong in the Top 5 or 10, where would you rank them?  Would you rank them ahead of the Indians or not?

Honestly, how many farm systems can you say have even 2-3 "virtually guaranteed" Major League regulars in their systems?  

Outside of these farm systems:

Angels - Wood, Kendrick, perhaps Morales, although there are mixed reports on how good he will become, and even Wood has question marks about his K rate, similar to Brad Snyder in that regard, and Snyder has already had a significant taste of AA, whereas Wood has not.

Dodgers - Billingsley, but even he isn't guaranteed - his health could always be a factor especially since he is a pitching prospect, and at times, he has not dominated in AA.  Guzman is a question mark - his attitude, his position could be changed.

Braves - Marte, who needs more time to adjust to the Majors; James, who still needs to prove that he can pitch in the Majors and is probably not an ace, much like Sowers.

Devil Rays - Young, a potentially great player, but still has some trouble with the strike zone and there are some questions about his attitude, and Upton, questions on his defense - will he be a SS or not?  That sounds a little similar to Garko in terms of not having a definite position as of yet.

No other system comes to mind of having 2-3 "virtually guaranteed" major league regulars in their farm systems.

Really, can you say that any farm system has guaranteed major league regulars in their system?  I don't think you can, not even with the most highly-touted prospects.  If that was the case, then guys like Ruben Rivera, Drew Henson, Alex Escobar, Brandon Phillips, and other similarly highly-touted prospects should all be contributing for their respective ballclubs right now.  I don't think you can say that any system has "definite" major league regulars in its system.  

Maybe one or two organizations you could say  have one or two probable Major League regulars (like the ones I mentioned above,) but no system has "definite" major league regulars until they are up in the Majors and performing to their capabilities.  

And like I asked before, can you give me ten systems that can top Cleveland's depth and potentially good prospects?  Quite frankly, I can't, and that's not being biased either.  Five organizations, I could do, but not ten.

If you (or anyone) wish(es) to try, please feel free to, but I will critically and unbiasedly analyze it to see if I agree with you.  However, I personally cannot think of ten organizations that have better farm systems than the Indians.

No offense, but in my opinion, I think your analysis of a farm system is a little harsh.  Granted, top-end talent is always nice (a.k.a. blue-chippers,) but how many blue-chippers are actually apparent in a farm system when they first enter a system?  Many blue-chippers emerge after a year or a few years in a farm system  Depth gives you more of a chance to find blue-chippers or very good prospects - after all, not all prospects can be blue-chippers, yet that doesn't mean they can't be above-average Major Leaguers.  

Take the Indians, for example.  How many proclaimed that Travis Hafner was going to be the player he is today?  I don't recall Hafner being considered a blue-chip prospect in the Rangers system when he was working his way through their system.  It was always Blalock and Teixiera getting the headlines, but never Hafner.

Granted, Peralta and Sizemore have only had one full season in the Majors, but right now, they look to be above-average.  Peralta never got many accolades while working his way through the system, while Phillips did.  We know which player is the better one (the non-blue chip prospect over the blue-chip prospect.)  Sizemore, while highly touted when he was drafted, only batted .258 with High A Brevard County when he was traded to the Indians - many considered him to be the throw-in.  Yet, right now, he is considered above-average.  Therefore, another non-blue-chip prospect becoming above-average.

Dallas MacPherson, one of the Angels' most highly-touted prospects, has a major problem with strikeouts.  Right now, he is not handling the Majors, yet I believe most experts said or incurred that he was a blue-chip prospect.

Remember too, Brad Snyder has only been in the system for 2-2.5 years - despite his being 23-years old, it's not like he can't improve.  The University he went to, Ball State, I don't believe is a major baseball-producing university.  Therefore, it is understandable and even expected for him to take more time to work out the "kinks" in his game than a college product from Florida, Texas, or California.  You need to take into account their history as well, not just their age.

Look at the Angels' Kendry Morales.  Isn't he 22-24 years old, yet he's only at AA as well.  Yet, he's highly touted because he came from Cuba and was signed at a high price.  Yet, there are questions about how good he'll really be.

I've already mentioned guys like Henson, Rivera, Escobar, and Phillips being considered as blue-chip prospects, yet none of them have developed to the point of them being major league regulars.  That means that "blue-chip prospects" don't always turn out - therefore, to gauge a farm system only on how many "blue-chip prospects" they have isn't the best way, in my opinion, to gauge a farm system.  A Top 10 farm system must also have depth at all or most levels to really be considered a Top 10 farm system.  

My main point is that while top-end talent is important, it's not always apparent and rarely obtainable to get prospects that scream "potential major league regular," especially right off the bat.

That's why I believe Cleveland's farm system is Top 10 - around 6-8, because their depth allows them to find more blue-chippers, or at least guys who are above-average.

Plus, no offense, but I'll take a solid farm system with guys who are above-average and maybe one to two great players than a farm system with two potential "superstars," like Kansas City may have with Alex Gordon and Billy Butler, a few other "average to above-average" prospects and virtually no other prospects (sorry, KC fans - you might have a few other notable prospects, but you don't have the depth of the Indians' system.)  

Plus, I believe most experts would agree that a farm system with more depth and one to two potentially great players will be higher-ranked than a farm system that has two potential superstars, a few other lesser-regarded prospects, and nothing else.

No, you did not "burst my bubble," but sorry if I "burst your argument." :-)

Take care and have a good day!

Hello yeoldejaco and mrkupe,

I appreciate your honest opinions, but respectfully disagree.  By the way, yeoldejaco, for some reason, I thought that Liriano was closer to 23-24 years old, probably because I heard about him a few years ago when he was traded from SF - I didn't realize he was that young.  Therefore, that makes me an uninformed Indians' fan about Liriano - my apologies for the error; but that DOES NOT make me a biased Indians fan.  As I hinted, Miller and Liriano are similar in stuff and in terms of injury history, with Liriano being more experienced because he has already handled AAA; Miller is only about to begin AA.

I also appreciate your honesty in admitting you didn't read my entire post. :-)

mrkupe - First, respectfully, let's scratch the Royals off that list - it's doubtful any expert will agree with you that the Royals will make a Top 10 list - Alex Gordon is not going to put them in the Top 10, no matter how great a prospect he is.  Gordon and Butler are not going to put them in the Top 10, and if you want to include Huber (who I guess is still considered a rookie,) he seems similar to Garko to me (both former catchers, both with potentially above-average bats - Huber looks like it will take him time to adjust to the Majors as well - he did not impress during his September call-up last year, as he looked overmatched.)  yeoldejaco also agrees with me on this one.

Personally, I think you guys are putting too much stock into so-called "elite" prospects.  That's why I would not put Boston ahead of the Indians - granted, they have improved greatly from a few years ago and are clearly ahead of the Yankees, but they still don't have the depth that the Indians and several other Major League teams have.  If these "elite" prospects don't pan out, and as I mentioned in my last post, a lot of them don't, then what does Boston have to fall back on?  A bunch of minor-league veterans who are non-prospects or "organization" players?  No, that's not a Top 10 farm system in my opinion.

The ideal farm system needs to have talent AND depth - that's why I can agree with the Angels, Dodgers, and even the Twins being ahead of the Indians, along with possibly the Brewers, the Devil Rays, and the Diamondbacks (though I still think the Indians could be ahead of the Devil Rays and Diamondbacks - mostly due to better depth than the D'Rays and because many of the D'Backs prospects faltered this past season.)

TB - elite prospects - yes.  Depth - decent, but not at the level of the Indians, in my opinion - borderline Top 10 (8-10,) definitely Top 15.  If you put extra value on elite prospects, then you could make a case for them being in the Top 10, but I think their depth isn't as strong as the Indians.

By the way, the prospects I mentioned above are NOT the only ones worth mentioning in the Indians' farm system - if I had mentioned everyone, you probably wouldn't have read any of my post. :-)  

I didn't even mention Brian Slocum, a AA reliever who did well in the AFL.  Granted, the AFL is not everything, but when you can post an under 4.00 ERA there after starting off with an ERA around 8 or 9, and the way the offense was going in Arizona, it's certainly worth noting.

And there are more at the lower levels as well.

Continuing on with the teams you mentioned,

Diamondbacks - similar to the D'Rays - good, elite prospects, but I don't think their depth is quite the level of the Indians - they are borderline Top 10 (9-11,) Top 15 for sure.  Plus, some of their prospects faltered this past season (D'Antona, Murphy, Santos, etc.)  If you give "elite" prospects extra credit, then yes, you could certainly make a convincing case for Top 10.

Twins - like I said before - similar to the Indians - the Twins may be just ahead of the Indians (3-6.)  Honestly, I am not as familiar with all the pitching names you mentioned, in terms of profiles, but the ones you did mention, I haven't heard where they were all outstanding or all had "plus" stuff.  No offense, but Jesse Crain was also touted to be very good, and while he had a lot of wins out of the bullpen, his K/BB ratio left much to be desired (29/25 I believe in about 60 or 70 IP - not sure about the innings pitched, but I know the K/BB ratio was quite concerning.)

If you don't mind, compare them to this list:

Jason Davis (AAA - granted, he's been in the Majors, but you included Liriano and Baker, who were also in the Majors) RHP
Fausto Carmona (AAA) RHP
Fernando Cabrera (AAA - granted, he's been in the Majors, but you included Liriano and Baker, who were also in the Majors) RHP
Andrew Brown (AAA) RHP
Brian Tallet (AAA) LHP
Billy Traber (AAA) LHP
Jason Stanford (AAA) LHP
Jose Diaz (AAA) RHP
Dan Denham (AAA) RHP
Travis Foley (AA) RHP
J.D. Martin (AA) RHP
Jeremy Sowers (AA, with one AAA start) LHP
Rafael Perez (AA) LHP
Edward Mujica (AA) RHP
Brian Slocum (AA) RHP
Jake Dittler (AA) RHP
Ronald "Bear" Bay (AA) RHP
Thomas Mastny (AA) RHP

There may be a few more I'm forgetting, and that's only through AA.  There are several more at High A and Low A, including LHP Tony Sipp (High A,) Jesus Soto (High A,) Nick Pesco (High A,) and of course, Adam Miller (High A.)

Granted, they aren't all projected to be "aces" or dominant relievers, but I doubt that every name you mentioned is projected to be a #1 or #2, either.  (I'm not sure any farm system has that many #1 or #2-type pitchers in their farm system - the Angels and Dodgers don't even have that, and I believe most would agree that their farm systems rank above the Twins in talent and depth.)  I believe the above shows that the Indians have just as much "depth" as the Twins do in terms of pitching depth; we can debate what each pitcher can throw, how hard, etc. all day, but I think the "depth" of the two organizations is virtually identical or comparable.

Offensively, I think the Indians have more depth.  No offense, but until Kubel can come back and prove that he can hit Major League pitching (he hasn't yet - he was only up for a month or so,) in my mind, he is not a blue-chip prospect.  

Offense:

C/1B Ryan Garko (AAA)
OF Franklin Gutierrez (AAA)
INF Brandon Phillips (AAA - granted, I doubt he will develop, but some still consider him to be a prospect, so I included him; feel free to ignore him if you wish.)
1B Ryan Mulhern (AA)
OF Brad Snyder (AA)
3B Pat Osborn (AA)
OF Ben Francisco (AA)
OF Jonathan Van Every (AA)
SS Ivan Ochoa (AA)
2B Eider Torres (AA)
1B Michael Aubrey (AA - he needs to stay healthy - this might be Jason Kubel's closest relation in the Indians' system in terms of being injured and having a "blue-chip" type ceiling.)
1B Shaun Larkin (projected as a good utility guy who can play multiple positions around the infield, and maybe the outfield also.)
C Javier Herrera (not for his offense, but for his good defense - profiles as a good back-up catcher, which will be needed to keep Martinez's bat fresh.)

I could go on to High A and Low A with guys like 1B Stephen Head, OF/2B Trevor Crowe, and 3B Kevin Kouzmanoff, but I'll stop there.

Point is, I think the Indians and Twins are very similar in terms of their farm system and rank far ahead of the White Sox, Tigers, and Royals in the Central Division in depth for sure, and arguably in talent for both as well.

Brings me to my next point mrkupe, the Mets ahead of the Indians?  Sorry, I don't agree with that (and I don't think yeoldejaco does either if I read his post correctly.)

Again, you put a lot of "stock" into Milledge (who is a good player and probably would be our top position-player prospect over Snyder by a decent margin,) but Pelfrey is not signed yet.  Presuming he signs, how close is he to being major-league ready?  From what I've heard, he's not Mark Prior, Huston Street, or even J. Brent Cox close to being ready for the Majors.  I would say it will probably take him two years or so, at least, before he is ready for the Majors.  Therefore, I don't consider him a "blue-chip" prospect yet until we see what he does in the Minors.

Alex Gordon is similar, although his AFL performance showed some semblance of what he can do (more info. than we have on Pelfrey.)

In my opinion, you can't just go on "hype" to determine if a prospect is really "blue-chip" or not - you need to see them in action first before you can really gauge whether the prospect is really a "blue-chipper" or not.

Again, ranking the Mets ahead of the Indians because of two to three "blue-chip" prospects and little depth behind it, is not correct, in my opinion.  A perfect farm system has elite talent and depth.  The Indians may not have as much elite talent as some organizations, but it has as much depth as about 25-27 of the other organizations (only the Angels, Dodgers, and Twins can definitely match or exceed the Indians in talent and depth, with possibly the Brewers, Devil Rays, and Diamondbacks maybe being right behind or right ahead of the Indians in terms of talent and depth.  They're all very close in my opinion. The Mets, Red Sox, and Royals, in my opinion, don't have what the Indians have in terms of depth.  Talent, perhaps, but not close to the depth of the Indians.)

The Rangers are another team that is behind the Indians in my opinion - while Danks, Diamond, and Volquez are intriguing and highly-regarded, none have mastered AA yet.  There are doubts whether Diamond is even a front-of-the-rotation starter (more of a #3 or #4 by most expert accounts,) while Danks and Volquez need more time to be anywhere from #1-#3 type starters (Volquez a #1 or #2, Danks a #2 or #3.)  They are "potentially" blue-chippers, but are far from certainties.  

No offense, but I haven't heard much about Arias - I don't think he is at the level of the DVD, or even Kinsler, who took a step back this year and had expectations lowered.  

I don't think they have the offensive depth they once did and pitching depth has been a weak spot for them for the last 5-10 years - no, they do not rank ahead of the Indians, in my opinion.

Regarding Seattle, even if you include Felix Hernandez as a prospect, that doesn't mean that Seattle is a Top 10 Farm System.  Outside of Hernandez and Jeff Clement, who else is really in that farm system?

Several of their top prospects from a few years ago have faltered, such as Shin Soo Choo and Bobby Madritsich (not sure about the spelling,) while others like Jose Lopez and Justin Leone are still figuring things out and don't look like "blue-chippers" at this point.  Chris Snelling is injured too often, while Ryan Anderson was "knocked out" because of injuries.

Like I said before, just because a farm system has one or two "elite" prospects, does not make a farm system Top 10.  Why do you think most experts, John Sickels included, say such things as,

"Their Top 2 or 3 Prospects can match up with anyone else's, but the system quickly bottoms out (or thins out) after that."  Virtually every time, they do not rank them in the Top 10 or even in the Top 15.

Personally, I think you give too much weight to one or two prospects who COULD be a difference-maker at the Major League Level, while not looking enough at the depth of the other players in the system.  Not every Major League player who has gone on to have good careers were blue-chippers" or "elite" prospects - that's why the scouting departments carefully examine every possible player in every possible location across the country (and even the world) to see if there is a hidden gem or two hidden in some small school that is not well-known and doesn't get the attention that other prospects in more well-known areas receive.

Like I said before, if the one or two "elite" prospects falter, which is quite possible, what does the system have to fall back on?  Not much, if anything.  That is not a Top 10 system in my opinion.

A perfect farm system is one that has elite talent AND depth.  Is that system the Indians?  No.  (I believe the Angels and/or Dodgers probably hold that title.)  Do I believe the Indians are one of the Top Ten farm systems in baseball - yes.  More depth and prospects emerging into above-average players make this ranking reasonable.  A higher ranking than the Red Sox, Rangers, Mets, and Royals, in my opinion.)

Just my 10 cents! :-)

I do respect your opinions, but I also respectfully disagree with them. :-)

Take care and have a good day!

Hello yeoldejaco and mrkupe,

I can see your argument and agree with your points.  I can see the Indians anywhere from 6-11, maybe down to 13 at most.  But they are still in the Top 15 - I think that is fair.

mrkupe - I'm not saying that Gordon and Pelfrey aren't going to be good major league players; however, I think it's a little early to automatically label them as "blue-chippers."  Others like Phillips, Escobar, Henson, and Rivera all had great tools also and a lot of hype, but they all fell short of their "blue-chip" status.  

Let's call Gordon and Pelfrey "potential" blue-chippers, if you will. :-)  I'd like to see how quickly they adjust to minor league baseball and put up some good to great performances before I start labelling them "blue-chip" prospects.

Regarding my Top 10 - I have an idea where to place the Indians, and I know my Top 2 to 3, with about three other organizations in the Top 10, but let me get back to you on where exactly to place all ten teams.  I am a tad busy at the moment with some other matters, so it may not be up for a few days.  But, I'll try to have it up by Thanksgiving.  So, stay tuned. :-)

npurcell - Good question.  I'll label some organizations who I think have good pitching depth, in alphabetical order:

Angels (offhand, I'm not sure they have quite the pitching depth of the three below, plus the Twins; I can only think of Weaver, Saunders, Torres (although he's really fallen from his lofty prospect status,) and Adenhart off the top of my head.  If someone has more info. to prove they should be listed, please fill in.  Thanks!)
Braves
Dodgers
Indians
Marlins (I'm not sure about their depth compared to the three above and the Twins.)
Red Sox (not sure they have the depth either, but they have Sanchez, Papelbon, Lester, Delcarmen, Alvarez, etc.)
Twins

I had considered placing the Cubs, the Rockies, and the Blue Jays on that list because I think they have a decent number of pitching prospects, but I can't think of all of them, so I'm not sure about their depth compared to the ones I mentioned above.

Please feel free to add to this list and state why you want to add them to this list.  Thanks. :-)

Regarding who has #1s & #2s vs. those who don't, I'm not really sure.  I think the Red Sox may have three potential frontline starters in Sanchez, Lester, and Papelbon.  The Angels have Adenhart, who could be a #1 or #2 (too early to say.)  The Twins have Liriano who is either a #1 or #2.  The Indians have Miller who is a possible #1 or at worst, a #2, while Sowers has a possible chance at being a #2.  I think Rafael Perez could have a shot at being a #2 or #3 if he can harness a third pitch.  The Dodgers have Billingsley who is a possible #1, or at worst, #2.  

I guess from the above, I would think the Red Sox, but that is just a "quick guess" - I would have to think about it some more to see if I could up with another organization who has more #1s and #2s.  

Thanks for the great feedback and questions. :-)

Take care and have a great day!

 

Hello everyone,

jpahk - First, when I said "The Indians have Miller who is a possible #1 or at worst, a #2," it was implied that if he is healthy.  I think that applies for every pitching prospect, no matter if he has "ace" potential or if he is a #5 starter, or even a bullpen guy.  Sorry - that was under the assumption that he is healthy.  Obviously, if he's not healthy, then obviously, he won't be a #5 or a mop-up man.  But, you could say that about any pitcher, with or without any injury history because injuries are unpredictable and can happen in the "blink of an eye."

Also, I agree that having a few "blue-chip" prospects is good, but you're making it sound like that if prospects aren't "blue-chip," they aren't worth anything or can't help the ballclub.  In other words, there are either "blue-chippers" or organization players - nothing inbetween.  There are prospects that aren't "blue-chippers" that are still above-average prospects who will have good careers.  Consider these guys to be the good Major League players that might make an All-Star team or two, but won't be perennial All-Stars or make the Hall of Fame.  You're saying that having a farm system with several guys like these is not worth having?

Granted, I'd like to have more elite prospects in the Indians' system too, but "depth" is still something you want to have in the farm system.  I'm not talking about "depth" as being organization players; I'm talking about "depth" being above-average prospects.  Perhaps I confused you on what I mean by "depth.:  Sorry about that.

It's important to have a farm system that has elite prospects and has depth because, if those elite prospects don't turn out or don't perform as well as expected (several of them don't,) then you have other good options to fall back on.  They may not be quite as good as the elite prospects, but they're not much of a "drop-off" either.  That's what I mean by "depth," which I believe the Indians have.  

rockies73 - You make very good points! :-)

Regarding #1, I agree, although, to play Devil's Advocate, say James Loney does win the 1B job in Spring Training, but then slumps as the season goes on.  It would help if you had another good prospect at 1B to replace Loney.  Or, say, another 1B prospect comes along that's better than Loney (in my opinion, Loney hasn't been as good as many experts think he is or will be, so it's possible someone could overtake him someday.)  It would certainly help if you had another 1B prospect who could take over for Loney.

However, for the most part, I agree that having pitching and outfield depth is more important than having them at 1B, etc.  Like in the Indians' case, since they have Garko, Mulhern, Aubrey (if he is healthy,) and Head, that's four first basemen for one position.   However, Garko will probably DH, as well as play 1B, and maybe a few games at C.  Mulhern is playing the OF in the Dominican Winter League, so I think he could become an OF.  Aubrey, at one time, was said to have been able to play the OF, but with the neck and back problems, I don't know if that is still an option or not.  Head seems to be strictly a 1B, as far as I know.

That's one way you can work out depth at 1B - move them to other positions, if possible.  

2. I definitely agree.  There's no way I could make a competent Top 10 List in 15 minutes - it would probably take that long to do a Top 5 List.  I like the "talking out my behind" line. :-)
3. Your question is a very good one.  That's what I was hinting at in some of my previous posts.  If you have a "stud" pitcher at A, that's no guarantee he will be a "stud" at the Majors or even the High Minors (Baltimore Prospect John Maine is one example that comes to mind - did great in High A and even had some success at AA.  But, when he got to AAA, he got hit hard, and has been hit just as hard, if not harder, in the Majors.)  

If you have "an above average" pitcher in AAA, he may not be a "stud," but he can still be an above-average player for your organizaton and provide "depth" for your organization because no system is going to have every worthwhile prospect be a "blue-chipper."  That's why it is important to have elite prospects and above-average prospects in your system - that's the definition of a perfect farm system - having some "studs," but also many above-average prospects as well.

I also agree that Boston's farm system is middle of the pack - has some potentially "elite" prospects (although if that trade with Florida goes through, they won't have as many - Sanchez and Ramirez will both be gone, plus one other prospect that could be "above-average,") but their "depth" isn't as good as several other teams (and even thinner if that trade with Florida goes through.)  That's why I can't advocate them being in the Top 10.  Top 15 or around there, yes.  

Top 15 or so is nothing to "sneeze at."  Realize that Boston was probably between 25-30 just a few years ago, so, Boston is moving in the right direction and is light-years ahead of the Yankees' farm system (sorry Yankee fans :-), but Boston is not in the Top 10 farm systems in my opinion at this time.

Just my 2 cents! :-)

Take care and have a great day.

Hello everyone,

Before posting my Top 10, here is riktermiller's
Top 10 (I hope you don't mind riktermiller :-):

"Top systems in no particular order"

"Angels
Dodgers
D-backs
Braves
D-Rays
Brewers
Indians
Twins
A's
Chi Sox

I think Boston is probably close to systems like the Rockies, Marlins, Rangers, and Mariners.  Not top ten material.  They have some depth and some quality talent but not much of either."

That sounds very similar to what I said!
Thanks for backing me up riktermiller! :-)

Regarding my Top 10, I wasn't sure about the order - however, the first eight teams riktermiller listed were definitely in my Top 10 - something like this:

1. Angels
   
2. Braves
   
3. Dodgers
   
4. Twins
   
5. D'Rays
   
6. Indians
   
7. Brewers
   
8. D'Backs

Now, the last two spots, I'm not really sure.  To me, it seems like a toss-up between the two riktermiller mentioned, the A's and the White Sox, and teams like the Marlins (especially after the proposed Beckett trade,) and the Rockies.

After the proposed Beckett trade, presuming it goes through, I would have to include the Marlins at #9 because they added some of the Red Sox's premium prospects to their system, which wasn't bad to begin with, while at #10, I think I would put the Rockies over the A's and White Sox, only because the Rockies have some pitching that is projected to be front-of-the-rotation starters, like Ubaldo Jimenez and another pitcher who I can't think of right now, along with Ian Stewart (presuming he's fully healthy,) Ryan Shealy, possibly Chris Nelson if he rebounds.  They have several potential above-average to potential "blue-chip" prospects, which seems to be just a bit more than the White Sox and A's in my opinion.

The A's and White Sox would be just outside my Top 10 - the A's have Barton, Putnam, Suzuki, and Powell, but I think their offensive prospects dwindle down after that.  Their pitching doesn't seem to be that strong anymore, especially at the Upper Minors - I know Jairo Garcia is still there, and Dan Meyer, presuming he comes back, but outside of the few high school draftees from the 2005 class, their system seems to be thinner on pitching than it had been in recent years.

The White Sox would probably rank higher than the A's, now that I think about it - the White Sox probably have more pitching depth than the A's, although the A's might have a few more front-line starters, whereas I think most of the White Sox starters, outside of maybe Gonzalez and perhaps one or two others, appear to be more of the middle to the end-of-the-rotation starters.  

However, Chicago's pitching depth in the Low Minors would give them the edge in my mind over the A's.  Offensively, Chicago is decent, although I'm not sure how great Brian Anderson will be - above-average, perhaps, but not a superstar - perhaps better than Rowand by a small margin from what I have seen so far.  Sweeney, I'm not sure about him either - I think he will need more time and his ceiling is questionable in my opinion too (questionable in the sense that I don't know if he will be a big difference-maker or more of a solid contributor.)  Chris Young has a high ceiling but still needs to control the strike zone.  Jerry Owens looks like a good pick-up for Alex Escobar. Those are arguably their four biggest offensive prospects - some potentially above-average prospects, with maybe Young and possibly Sweeney being "blue-chip," but the lack of depth makes me think it's not quite Top 10.

However, arguably the last four, the Marlins, the Rockies, the A's, and the White Sox are debatable about which two make the Top 10.  However, in my opinion, there should be little or no question about the Top 8 - I think they are all worthy based on their "blue-chippers," "depth," and/or both.  Some have both elements, some have a good number of "blue-chippers" and a decent number of above-average prospects, others only have one or two "blue-chippers" and several above-average prospects.

Therefore, my Final Top 12:

1. Angels
   
2. Braves
   
3. Dodgers
   
4. Twins
   
5. D'Rays
   
6. Indians
   
7. Brewers
   
8. D'Backs
   
9. Marlins
   
10. Rockies
    
11. White Sox
    
12. A's

I'm not a baseball expert by profession, but I'd like to think it's a fair analysis.  Any thoughts and comments?  I'd greatly appreciate them.  Thanks! :-)

Take care and have a great Thanksgiving - if you celebrate it!

Hello limozeen,

Yes, I think we're pretty much on the same page, with a slightly different order - I think the order is debatable from #2-#9.  I had originally pegged the Dodgers at #2, but the wealth and depth of Braves pitching prospects, plus the combination of Andy? (I'm forgetting his first name - too much stuff on the mind at the moment, LOL!) Marte in their system just pushed them over the Dodgers for me - they have Billingsley, Broxton, and the LHP (can't think of his name either,) the one who had elbow trouble and had another pain in his arm in the AFL, but I'm not totally sold on Guzman, as I've heard conflicting reports on him.  Russ Martin isn't bad, but I just think the Braves' overall system ranks just ahead of the Dodgers, despite their high ceiling prospects.

However, like I said, I had considered them #2 as well and I think it's debatable from #2-#9 (#1 might even be debatable.)

The only one I would question is the Red Sox at #10, especially after the proposed Beckett trade.  Before that trade, I had considered the Red Sox for #10, but I think I would have put them #11 or #12 (instead of the White Sox and A's,) but after this trade, I would have them down around #15.  Still a decent system compared to about half of baseball, but now a couple of their "top" prospects are gone, which also affects the depth, and I would drop them to around #15 or so.  Just my personal opinion.

Overall, though, I can't complain about Top 10 at all and I'm happy to see that you also think the Indians' farm system is still Top 10. :-)  I'm going to have to mention to mrkupe that I'm not the only one who thinks that the Indians' farm system is still a Top 10 system, in a good- natured way of course. :-)

Take care and have a good holiday if you celebrate it! :-)