San Francisco Giants Top 20 Prospects

by John Sickels on Feb 10, 2006 1:38 PM EST in News Comment 19 comments

Matt Cain

SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS TOP 20 PROSPECTS

Matt Cain, RHP, Grade A-
Marcus Sanders, 2B, Grade B+
Merkin Valdez, RHP, B+
Eddy Martinez-Esteve, "OF," B+
Travis Ishikawa, 1B, B
Nate Schierholtz, OF, B
Jonathan Sanchez, LHP, B
Kevin Frandsen, 3B, B
Dan Griffin, RHP, B-
Pablo Sandoval, 3B, B-
Shairon Martis, RHP, B-
Freddy Lewis, OF, C+
Waldis Joaquin, RHP, C+
Ben Copeland, OF, C+
Jeremy Accardo, RHP, C+
Jon Coutlangus, LHP, C+
Dan Ortmeier, OF, C+
Brian Horwitz, OF, C+
Brian Wilson, RHP, C+
Ben Nieto, LHP, C+

I have to say that this list surprises me. . .it's a lot better than I thought. Either the Giants have a better farm system than they are given credit for, or I gave out too many Grade C+ ratings and some of those guys should be just plain C.

I do think that things have improved in this system. Cain is obviously a stud, and Sanders looks like an excellent prospect to me. I'm worried about Valdez's durability, but if his arm holds up he should be a good pitcher. EME has a Grade A bat but problems with defense push him down to B+.

Ishikawa and Schierholtz face Double-A this year....my guess is that one breaks through and one falls apart, which is which I'm not sure. Watch for Shairon Martis and Waldis Joaquin, short-season sleepers with good arms.

Craig Whitaker has a Grade C rating and is #21 on this list, but he has a higher ceiling than guys like Wilson or Nieto and could rank ahead of them depending on how you want to weight current performance vs. long-term potential. This is probably an indicator that I overrated Wilson and Nieto, and possibly Accardo, Coutlangus, and Horwitz, too. I must have been in a good mood when I wrote up the Giants grades, but there are too many to change so I will have to stick with what I wrote and hope it doesn't look too stupid 6 months from now.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wilson

John - Have you seen him in person? I have heard widely varying reports on his velocity.

Also, as a sidenote, he was tried some as a started in the AFL. I wouldn't be shocked if he was in the Fresno or Norwich rotation.

by irwin on Feb 10, 2006 1:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

wilson

I saw him on tV once but it was before he had TJ surgery. I also have different reports about his velocity.

by John Sickels on Feb 10, 2006 1:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

thanks

I tend to believe the mid-90's reports, mostly because it makes a bit of sense with a move to the pen and his dramatically improved numbers. Also, I am a fan.

by irwin on Feb 10, 2006 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Foppert rule.

After Foppert I don't like to trust reports of prospect's fastballs until I see them in person. Jesse's went from an unhittable 97 mph in reports to a top of 92-93 mph with 90 more the norm when he hit spring training. Good, but nothing to get excited about.

by Sayhey on Feb 11, 2006 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As far as the grading

I think you may have been a little generous with the C+'s, in that some of them are low-upside guys. But I would have had Wilson a B- at least. Overall, I would probably end up with the same GPA as you, but with a few differences after the first four.

Something not ofter noted, is that EME missed the CAL playoffs with a bad foot. I haven't heard anything else about it, but it may have affected his conditioning and speed during the year if it was lingering.

by irwin on Feb 10, 2006 2:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Also

Compared to the other pitchers you have rated an A-, I think Cain is ahead of those guys based on age, strikeout rate in the PCL, and success in the majors.

by irwin on Feb 10, 2006 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am slightly...

suprised at how low Accardo is rated, given his stuff and his success, albeit extremely limited in teh big leagues.

by kenshin1 on Feb 10, 2006 2:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Grades

I don't think you have too many C+'s. In fact, you may not have enough. I would give Whitaker one based on upside. The Giants have a system that is remarkable for a surprisingly large number of players who have big league potential, but they all have "warts" that prevent them from being elite prospect, but you could keep going with the C+ and C prospects way down the list, maybe even into the 40's with the C grades.

I would bump Eddy Martinez-Esteve down to a B, his fielding is that bad. I agree with your forecast for Schierholtz and Ishikawa. I would bet on Schierholtz to succeed and Ishikawa to collapse. I know that goes against the plate discipline theory, but I think Schierholtz is just a better hitter and more likely to handle the better pitching he will encounter in the Eastern League.

I would say something similar about Martis and Joaquin. One of them will be very high on the list by next year and the other will be struggling. I just don't know which one. I would say that Martis is more likely to have a smooth progression, but Joaquin a higher upside.

All in all, I think it's a very good list with very fair and reasonable grades. Yes, I think the Giants system has been underrated due to a surprisingly large number of B/C prospects.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 10, 2006 2:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Grades

All in all, I think it's a very good list with very fair and reasonable grades. Yes, I think the Giants system has been underrated due to a surprisingly large number of B/C prospects.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 10, 2006 2:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Horwitz

This is the highest I've seen Horwitz rated by anybody. Considering his dearth of power, does this imply he's actually got batting-champ potential at every level? Otherwise, why place him in the top 20 and not Clay Timpner?

by multiphasic on Feb 10, 2006 5:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

horwitz

Horwitz is one of the guys who should probably be a Grade C rather than C+. Timpner is a C.

by John Sickels on Feb 10, 2006 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Too much Depth?

The depth at the B- to C area is going to kill the Giants at some point, especially as they become Rule 5 eligible. The Giants already lost Burres as a part of the 40 man roster squeeze...he may not be a major prospect, but there's some value in a lefty like him that could at least be a southpawed reliever.

Next year, among the players that might need to be protected are Marcus Sanders, Craig Whitaker, Eddy Martinez-Esteve, John Bowker, Clay Timpner, Garret Broshuis, Kevin Frandsen, Geno Espinelli Brian Horwitz and Jonathan Sanchez. And that doesn't include players that were eligible to be taken this year like Pat Misch, Billy Sadler, Michael Mooney and Joe Bateman.

The Giants will have a lot of roster spots open with free agency next year, but will it be enough for major league acquisitions and protecting prospects? Is Whitaker, who very well might still be mired in A-Ball without a defined role on a pitching staff, worth a 40 man spot? And they can't really trade many of these guys, because they're borderline enough to not be able to get value back. SF could potentially begin losing prospects in the Rule 5 draft next year.

Anyways, I think this list was fairly ranked. I was surprised at Coutlangus and Horwitz being so high (I like Horwitz a lot, but Coutlangus wasn't very impressive to me). And I was surprised at Wilson being so low, since he's got classic closer stuff. His velocity dropped late in the season at Fresno, but the guys at Norwich loved what he was bringing there. And it's nice to see Fish in another Top 10 list. He deserves it, even if his ceiling isn't All-Star or MVP type stuff.

by BruteSentiment on Feb 10, 2006 8:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rule 5

I agree that Rule 5 is going to be a problem.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 10, 2006 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Van Damme and Van Damme in...

Is Pedro Sandoval related to Pablo Sandoval?

'Cos I've heard Pablo's pretty good, also plays third base, and probably also ranks in the top 10 of Giants prospects...

by multiphasic on Feb 10, 2006 10:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

pablo, pedro...let's call the whole thing off

aside from the first name issue, i'm intrigued by pablo -- as I undertand it he's got the infamous "upside," but probably more question marks, as well -- in re weight and position.

pedro's a whole other issue, of course....

by scooter on Feb 11, 2006 9:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

pablo

I have him as Pablo in the book. I will fix the list.

by John Sickels on Feb 11, 2006 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

hm

I think several grades are at least one-third too high, and not just the C+s. Valdez in particular has simply never impressed me, though he'll probably be a useful middle reliever someday. EME from what I hear has Jack Cust disease. Yeah, one or another of these guys could really break out, and as a Giants fan I hope they do, but aside from Cain and Sanders I don't think any given name is a great bet. Then again, I guess that's what B- and lower is for.

by wcw on Feb 11, 2006 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

EME

I think EME is going to be a B+ value to the organization whether they keep him or trade him. His bat will play in the majors and that will make him a value as long as they don't do anything stupid with him (like sour on him and just toss him into a trade -- hello Mr. Liriano).

by Roger on Feb 13, 2006 9:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs