Some Grade Changes
Some NEW grade changes.
Matt Garza, from Grade A- to Grade A
Anthony Swarzak, from Grade B+ to Grade B
Chuck Lofgren, from Grade A- to Grade B+
Tim Lincecum, from Grade A to Grade A- (because of college pitch counts, not his size, which doesn't matter to me)
Jose Tabata, from Grade A- to Grade B+
Fernando Martinez, from Grade A- to Grade B+
Travis Snider, from Grade A- to Grade B+
Van Pope, from Grade C to Grade C+
Yusmeiro Petit, C+
Andrew Sonnanstine from Grade C+ to Grade B-
Kevin Kouzmanoff stays at B due to age and injury history.
0 recs |
77
comments
Comments
Tabata/Martinez
by nyr2k2 on Jan 3, 2007 11:45 AM EST 0 recs
Felix
by joltin joe dimaggio on
Jan 3, 2007 11:59 AM EST
up
0 recs
Felix
by bl on
Jan 3, 2007 1:51 PM EST
up
0 recs
No Chris Young love?
by The Colonel on Jan 3, 2007 11:54 AM EST 0 recs
Young
by flyby4553 on
Jan 3, 2007 12:12 PM EST
up
0 recs
Ditto
by CubsFan on
Jan 3, 2007 12:19 PM EST
up
0 recs
Young
by gatling on
Jan 3, 2007 12:32 PM EST
up
0 recs
young
by wily mo on
Jan 3, 2007 12:33 PM EST
up
0 recs
grade changes
by John Sickels on
Jan 3, 2007 1:56 PM EST
up
0 recs
grades
by JackMaha on
Jan 3, 2007 10:32 PM EST
up
0 recs
travis snider
by rangersfan24 on Jan 3, 2007 11:57 AM EST 0 recs
If that's the case
by The Rocc on
Jan 3, 2007 12:08 PM EST
up
0 recs
does he have the potential of snider?
by rangersfan24 on
Jan 3, 2007 12:17 PM EST
up
0 recs
He's got the pedigree
Here's his stats:
http://thebaseballcube.com/players/H/Tyree-Hayes.shtml
by The Rocc on
Jan 3, 2007 12:29 PM EST
up
0 recs
well
by rangersfan24 on
Jan 3, 2007 12:35 PM EST
up
0 recs
subject
by Josh on
Jan 3, 2007 2:15 PM EST
up
0 recs
Huh?
by gatling on
Jan 3, 2007 12:29 PM EST
up
0 recs
But But But...
by The Rocc on
Jan 3, 2007 12:32 PM EST
up
0 recs
i didnt say
by rangersfan24 on
Jan 3, 2007 12:41 PM EST
up
0 recs
Man...
by gatling on
Jan 3, 2007 12:49 PM EST
up
0 recs
what?!
by rangersfan24 on
Jan 3, 2007 1:14 PM EST
up
0 recs
apparently
by rangersfan24 on
Jan 3, 2007 4:56 PM EST
up
0 recs
and ya
by rangersfan24 on
Jan 3, 2007 12:43 PM EST
up
0 recs
Ok
by gatling on
Jan 3, 2007 12:54 PM EST
up
0 recs
may have missed it somewhere...
by JackMaha on Jan 3, 2007 11:57 AM EST 0 recs
Yeah
by The Congo Hammer on
Jan 3, 2007 1:02 PM EST
up
0 recs
Kershaw
by flyby4553 on Jan 3, 2007 12:11 PM EST 0 recs
well i think people are very excited about kershaw
I guess the question is.. does the grade represent how close they are to the majors.. how well they performed... how good they could possibly become... is there any standard to it... In johns book i believe he defines the grades as the type of player he can becomee (A's being all star calibre.. something like that)... if thats the case.. then it shouldnt matter how far they are away if the grade represents their potential... I guess the thing about the grades is they seem to mean different things for different people... e.g. sloweys grades represents his success last year, not his potential as most people dont see him being a dominant starter in the bigs... where kershaws grade represents his success and his potential to dominate at upper levels and the bigs....
Or maybe im just not clear on what a grade actually stands for?
by jbluestone on
Jan 3, 2007 2:39 PM EST
up
0 recs
my understanding
that's how i see it, anyway.
so for a guy to get an A coming out of rookie ball, to my mind, he'd have to be an obviously special player, a once-every-five-or-ten-years griffey/a-rod type.
if it was a measure of pure ceiling there would be more A guys in the low minors than in the high minors, by a lot. and that wouldn't be right. although a list like that would be useful information, in combination with the usual kind of list.
by wily mo on
Jan 3, 2007 2:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
true
by flyby4553 on
Jan 4, 2007 3:04 PM EST
up
0 recs
Sonnanstine
by gatling on Jan 3, 2007 12:25 PM EST 0 recs
At worst
by Brickhaus on
Jan 3, 2007 1:28 PM EST
up
0 recs
Unless
I, myself, would have Hayes and Cobb in the rankings over Butler myself. However, that's just my opinion.
I don't think that Sonny will ever get the respect that he deserves as a minor leaguer, but he's one year from reaching the ultimiate goal as a minor leaguer and I know for a fact that he uses the pessimism towards him as a fuel to make himself better.
by The Rocc on
Jan 3, 2007 1:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
Josh Fields
by CubsFan on Jan 3, 2007 12:29 PM EST 0 recs
For the most part
Fields, on the other hand, I've yet to hear much about his defensive skills(which may not be a good thing).
Wood has the 40 HR season, Maybin has superstar potential written all over him, Longoria flew through the minors at an unheard of rate and Gonzalez has been one of the top minor league overall hitting prospects for a couple of years.
Josh Fields doesn't really have the track record, as of yet, to deserve that grade.
by The Rocc on
Jan 3, 2007 1:52 PM EST
up
0 recs
Yusmeiro??
by awstruck on Jan 3, 2007 1:27 PM EST 0 recs
Petit
by The Colonel on
Jan 3, 2007 2:01 PM EST
up
0 recs
Petit and hurley
Also i dont think eric hurley deserves a grade a-. When i see a- i think front line pitcher and i see hurley more as a #2 or #3 type pitcher
by FishHead on Jan 3, 2007 1:37 PM EST 0 recs
Blake Hawksworth
He has overcome his injury problems(which weren't that big of a problem when you realize it was just 1 arm injury).
He was topping out at 95 MPH and sitting low 90s. He has the best change up in the system. He has developed his curveball.
Hawksworth has the potential to be the #2 behind Carpenter.
by UncleBuck44 on Jan 3, 2007 1:48 PM EST 0 recs
Lincecum/Garza
As I said in the original SF Giants thread:
"First off, Garza started 2006 in High-A which is the same level that Lincecum dominated in 2006. He was in the pitcher friendly FSL and posted a 1.42 ERA with a 5.48 H/9, 2.23 BB/9, and 10.76 K/9 in 44.1 innings.
Let's examine Lincecum last year in High-A in a hitter's league (it's the park factors just as much as the talent, so don't give me the BS that some guys were promoted to AA). Including the postseason, Lincecum posted a 1.81 ERA with a 4.67 H/9, 3.37 BB/9, and 15.05 K/9 in 34.2 innings.
Besides the walk rate, which was respectable, Lincecum dominated High-A and put up a far superior K/9 while allowing a hit less per 9 than Garza."
Stick to your instinct John... don't let the voices in the crowd sway you away from Lincecum based on unfounded prejudice of size.
by youALREADYknow on Jan 3, 2007 3:01 PM EST 0 recs
That's swell
If Lincecum continues to pitch lights out at AA and AAA like Garza did, then sure, he'd be the better prospect.
But that's like saying that because Verlander had a better rookie season than Jake Peavy did, he should be considered the better pitcher.
Garza, like Peavy is more proven and therefore should be rated higher.
by Galt on
Jan 3, 2007 5:38 PM EST
up
0 recs
Spoken like an actuary
Take it from someone who has seen both pitch, the level by which Lincecum overpowers hitters far surpasses Garza (not just in "the numbers", but how he makes the hitter look).
by fartballs on
Jan 3, 2007 6:08 PM EST
up
0 recs
Well
by yoda1 on
Jan 3, 2007 7:12 PM EST
up
0 recs
Garza had been.....
I cant argue with Johns ranking of them.
Garza has already excelled at high levels and had outstanding stuff. I watched him face the Tigers at one point and although his line for the game ended up poorly, he really looked like a frontline starter at times. He has good control, electric stuff and has excelled at high levels - an A prospect to me.
Lincecum I love. His stuff is amazing and that K rate, even as a college pitcher in A ball, is outstanding. He has great stuff and a deceptive/unique delivery. He looked great in the low minors, but still has to show something against better competition. His walk rate was also a bit concerning. He also was worked hard in college as John and many others have pointed out, and as such he has a bit higher risk of injury (Garza has no history of being overworked or arm trouble that I know of). With the problems I have to say he sounds like an A- to me. Lincecum certainly has a bit more upside, but is much riskier.
Personally, Im a whore for upside and so I would rank Lincecum a bit higher I feel, but its close and I can see it being the other way.
Just me rambling and my thoughts
Take care
by grozzy on
Jan 3, 2007 8:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
Dukes
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 3, 2007 5:19 PM EST 0 recs
subject
by Josh on
Jan 3, 2007 5:36 PM EST
up
0 recs
I'd argue the A
But he averages only about 15 homers a year, and in the last three years, he's dramatically reducd his stolen bases, while only being successful about 2/3 of the time.
He's only hit over .300 once in his ML career, and he barely has an .800 OPS over 1,500 AB.
I understand that he's been a little young (though no more than a year or two) for his level, but his numbers really haven't been all that great.
If he ends up a .280/.350/.500 guy who hits and steals about 15-20 a year, is that really an A prospect?
I don't understand the fawning over Dukes, especially given the fact that he's a complete jackass.
by Galt on
Jan 3, 2007 5:47 PM EST
up
0 recs
well...
So he wouldn't be a superstar, but he'd certainly be among the best in the game at his position (especially when considering defense) if he was able to stay on the field for 150+ games.
by FI on
Jan 3, 2007 6:00 PM EST
up
0 recs
Just a few things...
I'd say you can't look at his overall career and judge him properly. You have to look at his trends.
He's been cutting down his K rate the past three years. His walk rate was the best in his career last year. His XBH rate also has been trending up. So statisically, you'll be decieved into thinking he's a lesser player by factoring in his first couple of years equally to his last couple.
Then tools-wise, from everything I've read, he's as good as anyone in the minors.
But, some people will like him and others won't. I think his statistical trends and tools show that he could be considered an A prospect.
by beastball on
Jan 3, 2007 6:14 PM EST
up
0 recs
Heh...
I think the Bay comp is pretty fair given his minor league record. His year in AAA at 24 is what really revealed his potential, but before that, at least at first glance, his numbers were Dukes like.
by beastball on
Jan 4, 2007 12:13 PM EST
up
0 recs
the best thing about him
his homer totals are unimpressive, but his AB totals have always been fairly low for some strange reason.
another thing to keep in mind is the park in durham is a fake fenway with a giant green monster in left field; dukes is a righty line drive hitter who's said to hit laser shots off that thing on a fairly regular basis. his XBH% was 36% last year, better than delmon's over 2 years in that park (31%). of course delmon has had his own mysterious power problems.
i don't think he'll be much of a basestealer, but i'm almost positive he'll have more than 15-20 homer power. i see him as more of a .290/.380/.550.
i'm looking at the list of outfielders from last year, looking for the closest comp to what i think he'll be like, and i'm not finding anybody like what i have in mind. the closest match in OBP and SLG is vlad, but he's not vlad, he doesn't hit for that kind of average and vlad only walks because people bounce pitches in terror. sizemore's ratios are all close but he's nothing like sizemore either. jason bay? i don't know. but at any rate i think he has the talent to get a house in that statistical neighborhood.
by wily mo on
Jan 3, 2007 6:17 PM EST
up
0 recs
AB Totals
You mean reasons like he has been suspended from the team?
by drwmsu1 on
Jan 3, 2007 8:43 PM EST
up
0 recs
*bonk*
by CrimsonLiederhosen on
Jan 3, 2007 8:51 PM EST
up
0 recs
no, no
by wily mo on
Jan 3, 2007 8:57 PM EST
up
0 recs
Fine
John's grades as I understand them are a combination of talent and liklihood of reaching their ceiling. John stated that he believes him to be a Grade A talent. Dukes' behavior has not slowed down his development (he repeated half a season of High A but his High A stats from the season before probably warranted that) or stood between him and his ceiling, teams will give him playing time. If he were in A ball that'd be one thing, but he's not. he deserves an A. A- at worst.
Plus, if Josh and I agree, it must be so.
by CrimsonLiederhosen on
Jan 3, 2007 6:27 PM EST
up
0 recs
Wow...
Bumping down Martinez makes Pelfrey the only A- or higher prospect in the NL East...
by MetfanBren on Jan 3, 2007 8:37 PM EST 0 recs
Angel Villalona
What do we think of this guy?
Anyone else on here care to express any knowledge / opinion on him?
Thanks.
by rico51 on Jan 3, 2007 10:51 PM EST 0 recs
there was a diary on him
by jbluestone on
Jan 3, 2007 11:14 PM EST
up
0 recs
Omar Poveda
by thedirkatron on Jan 3, 2007 11:10 PM EST 0 recs
Missing grades?
by hungry hipo on Jan 4, 2007 10:25 AM EST 0 recs
If I may add one to the list...
by cooper7d7 on
Jan 5, 2007 10:26 AM EST
up
0 recs
Snider
by eeleye on Jan 4, 2007 12:08 PM EST 0 recs
tresilicoosmak
by NYCRoyal on Jan 4, 2007 1:17 PM EST 0 recs
Angel Salome
by battlekow on Jan 4, 2007 5:05 PM EST 0 recs
Love all the changes...
...or my comments.
I think if you list all the A- guys now its a much tighter group, makes a lot more sense. Big picture all these moves make sense and make everything fit better. Snider, Lofgren, Martinez, and Tabata all fit MUCH better... or at least where I thought they were going to be originally. I like it a lot.
by alskor on Jan 5, 2007 4:51 AM EST 0 recs
salty
this is a question for after john is prepared to talk about baseball again.
by wily mo on Jan 5, 2007 6:32 PM EST 0 recs
Garza
Garza did get rocked in his MLB debut and for people screaming sample size the same can be said for each of his stops this year. He only faced a few teams twice and I don't think he faced a single team three times all year.
I do like him but why is he different from what everyone said about Baker last year? Garza is solid but definitely not a can't miss IMO.
What am I missing?
by pedrophile on Jan 6, 2007 11:31 PM EST 0 recs
well
In AAA his numbers were fantastic but the k/9 did suffer considerably.
Of course with all his numbers there is the sample size issue. This is nothing to hold against Garza - it's just the uncertainty factor I'm talking about.
Honestly - the numbers I'm more impressed with him is both the hits per nine and even more the HR rate which really puts him in a much better position than Baker ever was.
by pedrophile on
Jan 7, 2007 8:48 AM EST
up
0 recs
Yes
Just a year removed from college, Garza has posted a combined sub-2.00 ERA while advancing three levels (with dominant K/9, BB/9, H/9, HR/9, and four MLB-ready pitches) and contributed at the MLB level. Has a pitching prospect ever done that? I don't know, but if so, I bet whoever it was turned out OK.
Let's not forget that Garza made significant gains on his fastball velocity and proved that he can throw his slider and curveball as MLB out pitches. Yes, he had trouble adjusting to MLB batters. So does nearly every young pitcher.
There is nothing not production, not indicator stats, not stuff, not stamina, not makeup, not injury history, not pedigree, that could possibly knock Garza from a straight-A prospect in my mind.
by limozeen on
Jan 7, 2007 6:39 PM EST
up
0 recs
yeah
I can understand why people will rank him an A prospect. I just think straight A ranking should be for players with no questions. And until I see Garza without the sample size issue I wouldn't rank him that high. I think an A- would be more appropriate.
by pedrophile on
Jan 7, 2007 11:46 PM EST
up
0 recs
Petit
by jaguar2490 on Jan 9, 2007 11:00 AM EST 0 recs




