BA Pacific Coast League Top 20 prospects

Joel Guzman...

at 20? Bad Season, Bad Attitude, or both? Top Dodger prospect who got traded to the D'Rays... What happened?

by louief1 on Oct 12, 2006 2:24 PM EDT reply actions

Still hasn't made that big jump forward that a lot of people were hoping he would make. He has huge power potential but was very disappointing in that department this year, especially considering league/park context. Plate discipline seems to have improved a little but it didn't translate into better production as many were hoping for. Finally, I think a lot of people have concerns about just how much he cares about getting better - whether those concerns are justified or not is hard to say without knowing the guy.

I think he's too talented not to enjoy a MLB career of respectable length, but he's looking more and more like "decent regular at premium offense positions" rather than "All Star slugger", and considering how loaded the PCL was I can understand the ranking.

by mrkupe on Oct 12, 2006 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Guzman

Guzman has made that big jump forward ... back in 2004, his breakout campaign in which he slugged .500 between high-A and double-A as a 19 year old. The reason Guzman's stock has fallen is because he moved from SS to LF. If he hit exactly the same as he did in 06, but played a credible SS, he would probably be in the top-10, perhaps top-5, of this list. But as a LF, his bat is farther from being adaquate. He could probably hit something like .260/.320/.425 next year, as a shortstop that would be fine, as a corner outfielder, or even a 3B, it means you need more time in AAA.

by sanchez101 on Oct 12, 2006 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions

few thoughts

It is a talented league first off. I disagree with Bills ahead of Hirsh though. I also wonder where they would put Sampson after his second solid pitching season(but his first breakout)? And, if Luke Scott was rookie-eligable where do you slot him in there, top 3-5?

"You hear a lot of things... because there are a lot of people talking." (Shamus original)

by Shamus on Oct 12, 2006 2:25 PM EDT reply actions

comical

Astros fan? LOL why ask, I already know.

Luke Scott in the top 5? Get real... he wouldn't crack the top 10 with talents like Kemp, Young, Hirsh, and LaRoche on the 5-10 line.

This is about who is the best prospect coupled with performance, not solely performance.

As for Billingsley vs Hirsh... I think it's unanimous that Billingsley has better stuff and has been ahead for his age against advanced competition. I'm not a huge Billingsley fan myself and feel he was overrated going into 2006, but he's a better pitching prospect than Hirsh.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Oct 12, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

not that comical

I've never had a firm understanding of what a "prospect" is. Using potential/ceiling as the sole criteria to evaluate AAA players is absurd, imo. These players have more established lines and their future is far more certain than guys in the low minors. Their potential is diminishing while their performance seems to be the actual story. In my mind, I'm putting myself in a GM's shoes and imagining who I would pick to build a team for the next five years. Ceiling is a factor, but probability of a payoff (can he do it vs. might he one day do it) is much more important.

So, Hirsh over Billingsley? It's pretty debatable. I'd agree Billingsley has a higher ceiling. He also has a higher likelihood of never gaining the command to reach that ceiling. So, the description of "comical" is a bit much.

As for Sampson, and disregarding the fact that some will never see someone of his age as a "prospect," I would easily take him over either Volquez or Danks if I was looking to build a team for the next five years. It's not even close.

by jbm on Oct 12, 2006 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Hirsh > Billingsley ? : funny as hell

Billinglsey isn't graded higher than Hirsh simply because of potential/ceiling. He has more than twice as many innings at the majors, with a considerably better ERA, while also being 3 years younger. Billingsley may have a higher ceiling, but he is also the better pitcher right now. And there is no way to underestimate the importance of 3 years of development time. At age 21, Billingsley was a significant contributor on a playoff team, at age 21 Hirsh was in low-A.

by sanchez101 on Oct 12, 2006 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

We'll see

Billingsley did have more success in his debut than Hirsh, much more than I would have predicted, but his high walk and hit rates would make me worry if I were the Dodger GM. Those rates will easily support a 5+ ERA.

I'm not sold on Hirsh, but he has shown decent command in his career, and I don't expect that to be an issue with him. He has some adjustments to make for sure. Billingsley really hasn't shown much towards acquiring command. He should have shown some strides in this important area, yet he hasn't, and it is far from certain in my mind that he will. So the age issue is not that persuasive to me. You assume that with age, Billingsly will gain command; I think that by now, he ought to have some. Giving up 4+ walks per nine is a stressful way to earn a living in the majors.

by jbm on Oct 12, 2006 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Ya

no way Hirsh > Bills...

by yoda1 on Oct 13, 2006 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

first off

Sampsons like 26 and Scotts 28...and do you REALLY think either of these guys (esp Sampson) should go ahead of anyone on this list? if so who?

cos thats laughable

by nms on Oct 12, 2006 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

1

I would like to know where BA would rank Sampson. I wonder if he was right off the cut at 20 or if he is 30+. I think the absence of Scott on any prospect list referring to the 06 season would be very foolish. I will skip the Howard-Scott parallels that are obvious.

As far as your rankings or anyone elses(including BA) I really don't care. I am sure there are many people that would expect Scott to have a better career than many of the guys on that list. Or he will bust, like several others likely will. If you think it is not possible that is very laughable.

"You hear a lot of things... because there are a lot of people talking." (Shamus original)

by Shamus on Oct 12, 2006 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

lmao

The only comparable between Luke Scott and Ryan Howard is being in AAA above the age of 25.

Luke Scott mustered up a 966 OPS and 941 OPS in the hitter friendly PCL at age 27 and 28.

Ryan Howard had a 1157 OPS in the IL in a pitcher's park (0.75 HR park factor) at the age of 25.

Luke Scott, 30 HR in 532 AB split between AAA/MLB at age 28.

Ryan Howard, 38 HR in 522 AB split between AAA/MLB at age 25.

Lastly, Luke Scott... 6'0" 210lbs. Ryan Howard.... 6'4" 250lbs.

There is no comparison.

Maybe compare Luke Scott and Ryan Shealy.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Oct 12, 2006 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions

hirsch and reyes over hill?

please...was anyone else watching hill dominate the major leagues the last 6 weeks of the year??

ohh, not to mention the domination of AAA for the last 2 years??

while hill got off to a rough start there is a reason that the cubs are hesistant to include him in a package for arod.

by bjwranger1 on Oct 12, 2006 2:46 PM EDT reply actions

well

considering the criteria for this list is how they looked in IN THE PCL and IN 2006 ONLY I'd say that no, his ml performance and past AAA performance didn't count.

by nms on Oct 12, 2006 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

partially true

But a 1.80 ERA, .179 BAA, and 6.5/1 K/BB ratio says enough for THIS year in the PCL.

Rich Hill in the PCL is what Santana is to the AL.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Oct 12, 2006 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

BUT...

Hill is older than these guys and repeating AAA...

by cooper7d7 on Oct 12, 2006 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Cripes ...

Still no Jeff Baker. That guy isn't going to get any respect until he wins a triple crown.

by StickRat on Oct 12, 2006 3:41 PM EDT reply actions

i dunno

an 877 OPS for a 3b/1b/lf repeating AAA and hitting in Colorado isnt really that impressive

by nms on Oct 12, 2006 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Baker

He played just about every game in right field this year, and it was his first full year at AAA. Still a valid point about his OPS.

by StickRat on Oct 13, 2006 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Barton

Bummed he did not have enough AB's to qualify as i was interested to see how far he had fallen as a prospect.

by novaoakland on Oct 12, 2006 4:46 PM EDT reply actions

Response

In my eyes, I don't think he'd drop off much from what one thought of him previously . . .the BA is most likely the result of relatively small sample size, and the plate discipline continues to be outstanding, especially for a player of his age against this level of competition. Still waiting for the power to show but he's been promoted aggressively and sometimes it does take time for a player to make the appropriate adjustments and to learn to drive the ball against advanced pitchers.

However, I do believe he had enough ABs to qualify. He had 147 ABs, Montero made the list with only 134. Sounds like BA has really cooled on him, but I wouldn't worry too much . . .yet.

by mrkupe on Oct 12, 2006 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions

if he is not top 20 in Pacific Coast

then he is not a top 100 prosepct anymore and that is shocking.

by novaoakland on Oct 12, 2006 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions

re

he probably didn't qualify for the list, so i wouldn't say he isn't in the top 100 anymore yet

by fewgoodcards on Oct 12, 2006 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions

He meet plate appearance requirement

Ie 1 PA / Game that team played.

Question is if he spent 1/3 of year in AAA which I guess is questionable.

by novaoakland on Oct 12, 2006 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions

kemp

i feel bad for kemp.

he only hits 368/428/560 in AAA as a 21yr old CFer with a 14:3 SB:CS ratio and he only gets the #5 spot on the list?

geeez, tough crowd.

by npurcell on Oct 12, 2006 4:53 PM EDT reply actions

oops

#6 spot i mean. even tougher crowd.

by npurcell on Oct 12, 2006 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Response

So true. I prefer him to Kendrick, and I think I may very well prefer him to Billingsley as well. The other guys look good as gold to me though, and just reinforce how talented this league was this year.

by mrkupe on Oct 12, 2006 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions

curious

why Kemp>Kendrick

by nms on Oct 12, 2006 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Kemp

Im somewhat suprised how low BA has ranked Kemp in both the PCL and Southern Leauge lists. I would've though he's the best among all the Dodger prospects, yet BA ranked him below LaRoche, twice, and Elbert and Billinglsey. Is there some issue with him that isn't comming up in the numbers? Holes in his swing? Bad attitude? Defense? Did BA give any clues in the chat?

by sanchez101 on Oct 12, 2006 5:42 PM EDT reply actions

Jones and Young

I don't see how they had Chris Young listed above Adam Jones.

Young's stats are a bit better, but the difference isn't that big.

But Jones is two years younger, and put up those numbers in one of the toughest pitchers parks in the PCL. If Jones played half his games in Tucson instead of Tacoma, he would have very similar stats. Jones was better in away games (.290/.338/.519) than Young was (.243/.346/.485). Young benefitted from his home park, while Jones was in a pitchers environment.

Add in the age difference and Jones is clearly the better prospect. Jones played the entire season in the PCL, and didn't turn 21 until August. The M's pushed him aggressively despite the fact that he switched from SS to CF this year.

Jones is better, and it isn't particularly close.

by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Oct 12, 2006 6:14 PM EDT reply actions

True

I think it's the lingering effect of Jones rather slow start to his pro career. You had the fact that almost every scout thought it was a huge mistake to draft him as a position player instead of a pitcher, and then he wasn't all that great in the MWL. Oh, and he was totally inadequate at SS.
But yes, at this point, judging him as a CF, and taking into account the hitting environment, he's a better prospect than Young.

by marc w @ Minor League Ball on Oct 12, 2006 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Not only that.....

.....but the fact that the managers of the PCL voted Jones the best defensive OF (over Young, Kemp and others) speaks volumes...considering it's his first full season as a CF.

by dkny22 on Oct 12, 2006 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Underrated

I agree with both of your points. It probably does have something to do with older information and evaluations.

I think that Jones is among the most underrated prospects in the upper levels of the minors.

Interestingly, people said the same thing about Young a year or two ago.

by Jerry @ Minor League Ball on Oct 12, 2006 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions

No doubt about it...

last year Jones had a greeeeeeeat year for a 19 year old. Completely unnoticed, and back then I knew less about the minors than I knew now so I just assumed scouts had bad stuff to say about him.

But then I read on, and he seemed like a lesser version of BJ Upton. He was young as hell, put up great numbers, and had exciting tools.

He still doesn't get much credit, but he's going to be a good one. His only flaw is that is paitence dropped a little this season but his K rate rose. Still I like him alot for the future.

by SenorGato88 on Oct 13, 2006 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

the position switch

hurt a bit. And I still don't think people realized how much power he could have...
He's never going to draw a whole lot of walks, but his K:BB ratio improved as the season went on. He simply wasn't ready for AAA in April/May, which makes what he did later all the more exciting. He didn't need a year or a half year to acclimate himself - just 40 games or so.

by marc w @ Minor League Ball on Oct 13, 2006 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions

don't sell young short.

i like jones. but i'm an inveterate chris young advocate, so i'll make the case for him for the sake of argument.

(a) i think it's a little simplistic to just base everything off of BA/OBP/SLG. there's a lot more to it than that.

(b) i'm not sure how much young benefited from park. i haven't seen any numbers but offense seemed oddly down in tucson this year (drew, quentin also had relatively quiet years there). in 05 young played in birmingham, an extreme pitchers park from what i remember, and put up better numbers (total and rate), despite skipping up to AA from low-A that year.

(c) young has been improving with time. he was a low draft pick, a skinny kid, but as he grows into himself he seems to have very good skills and a capacity to learn and develop as a player.

(d) he had a broken wrist in the spring and that cut into his early production. sometimes it seems like hitters with wrist injuries never get right the entire rest of that season. of course, depends on the player, and depends on the injury.

jones is an excellent prospect, but people been comping young to eric davis. don't write him off too easy. age isn't everything, and park effects especially aren't everything. i'd personally still take young right now, and i think it's simply indefensible to say it's jones and "not close".

by wily mo on Oct 13, 2006 4:33 AM EDT up reply actions

No disrespect to Young

Clearly, Young's a great prospect, and we're not trying to say he's crap - I think BA's ranking is probably about right.
But park effects do matter. I mean, look at the numbers Jerry quoted above- he was a so-so hitter outside of tucson, whereas Jones was a very good hitter outside of Tacoma. Their park adjusted numbers at minor league splits are quite close (Jones with the edge in ave., Young with the edge in power), which means that age probably has to be the tie-breaker.
That's how I'd see it, though of course I'm a big Jones fan, so...

Oh, and you're right about Tucson this year. It was still a hitters park in terms of runs, hits and 2b, but it had a notable HR suppressing effect this year. It used to be about even. Still, every park in the PCL looks like a bandbox in comparison to Tacoma.

by marc w @ Minor League Ball on Oct 13, 2006 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

re: duncan

i see that chris duncan didn't make the list or even get mentioned in the article as one of the guys that contributed in the major leagues. i asked some questions about him in the chat, but got nothing. he didn't have that great of a season in AAA, but it is hard to imagine him not being one of the 20 best that played in this league this year.

comparing duncan and ryan howard rookie years

age
duncan 25 (during the season)
howard 25 (turned 26 after season)

at bats
duncan 280
howard 312

batting average/obp/slg
duncan .293/.363/.589
howard .288/.356/.567

homeruns
duncan 22
howard 22

and for the guy who was talking about size howard is 6'4" 250 and duncan is 6'5" 210. as you can see duncan actually had a slightly better rookie season than howard, but he won't recieve one vote for rookie of the year and where howard was ranked 4th in the IL last year duncan couldn't get a sniff in the PCL this year. i think duncan is a much better comp to howard than luke scott, but i doubt either will ever put up a year like howard did this year.

by fewgoodcards on Oct 12, 2006 6:18 PM EDT reply actions

ROY voting

Rookie of the Year Voting is a lot more hotly contested this year than last year.

by BobbyMac on Oct 12, 2006 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Loney!

Okay, when's the last time a guy hit .380 at AAA, played defense that was considered great by most who saw him, wasn't old for his league, is considered to have a "sweet swing" by every scout who's seen him, and contributed 43 XBH in 366 BA for a .546 SLG... and ended up 12th on a league prospect list?! Tough year to get noticed in the PCL!

by BobbyMac on Oct 12, 2006 7:02 PM EDT reply actions

re

his defense didn't look that great during the playoffs

by fewgoodcards on Oct 12, 2006 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions

what did he do?

mis-play one ball?

yes, his defense is good.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 12, 2006 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions

re

i wasn't even talking about the one mis-play. i was talking about some of the balls that got hit by him in game 3. sure they were hit hard and he probably couldn't have gotten to them, but he didn't even react to them. i was listening to the radio later in the game and soup campbell said it looked like loney couldn't see the ball and had very slow reactions.

by fewgoodcards on Oct 12, 2006 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions

everybody

that has ever seen Loney play has said that he would win a gold glove if given the chance.

by PatrickTheDodgersFan on Oct 12, 2006 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions

re

the same has been said about adrian gonzalez. who do you think is better defensively, b/c the cardinals have played the padres 7 times in the last 2 weeks and from what i have seen gonzalez is very smooth.

by fewgoodcards on Oct 12, 2006 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions

You

are literally the first person I have ever heard claim that Loney is challenged defensively. I watched most of his games in the majors, and he seemed more smooth, experienced, and had more range than Nomar, who was concidered by most to be at least a decent firstbaseman.

Im not sure how people can watch (or listen!?) to one game, and start making assumptions based on that one sample. The first time I saw Pujols at the plate, he struckout with runners on 2nd and 3rd ... should I have assumed from that that Pujols is a crappy hitter who can't produce in the clutch?

by sanchez101 on Oct 13, 2006 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions

re

i'm not saying that i think he is bad defensively. he looks much more athletic than most first baseman and is probably right up there with derrick lee as an athlete. all i was saying is he didn't look that great in that one game and i heard one of the radio announcers mention that he was struggling. will he be a very good first baseman? probably. will he win a gold glove? right now i would have to say no, at least not for a while. lee is very good and should probably win the gold glove every year and pujols is getting a lot better and with his bat will probably win a couple. plus i mentioned that i have seen adrian gonzalea quite a bit and he looks very good defensively at first where i haven't seen loney much since the dodgers decided someone hitting .370 in AAA was more valuable for the team than replacing nomar's .230 or whatever he hit in the 2nd half.

by fewgoodcards on Oct 13, 2006 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions

do you think Jason WIndsor was considered??

he probably has a limited upside and doesnt profile more than a mid rotaiton SP at best, but he did well and won the majority of his starts. since BA is all aobut projection and upside, i'm not surprised he didnt make the list

by rayver723 on Oct 12, 2006 11:42 PM EDT reply actions

Should he have been YES? Was he

No chance!!!
YOu nailed it on the head BA loves projection and porjecting a gutsy pitcher with limited "stuff" is tough.

by novaoakland on Oct 12, 2006 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions

"gutsy pitchers"

... are tough to project because there are dozens of them in each league of the minors. How many actually make it? Windsor is nice pitcher, I watched him when he was in college and he's the type of guy you want pitching big games.

That said, the PCL was probably the most stacked league in the minors ... a B-grade prospect like Windsor, who "only" projects as a back-end starter isn't going to crack a list where the 18th, 19th, and 20th best prospects are top 100 guys like Iannetta, Volquez, and Guzman.

by sanchez101 on Oct 13, 2006 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions