Top systems
by Robinson Checo on Jul 14, 2007 10:17 PM EDT
59 comments
Since it has been mid-season everyone is re-evaluating prospects and determining the new top 40 lists and what not, but since the draft is over, and we have mid-season numbers, I am wondering if teams' have risen or fallen or stayed static.
I still think Tampa has the best system, but I think Masterson, Buchholz, Lowrie, and Kalish have boosted the Boston system overall. I also think with the development of so many pitchers, the Yankees have taken a big leap.
KC, because of Butler's promotion and Hochevar's struggles, have fallen, as has Milwaukee with Braun and Gallardo up.
Anyone else see organizations climbing or falling overall with the draft and half a season in?
0 recs |
59 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I love the Braves lower level talent
Kala
Cambell
Schaefer
Andrus are all at MB
Below them are
Fontaine
Cody Johnoson
Heyward
Feliz
Coe
Richmond
Rasmus
Evarts
Locke
I left off some other guys. Brandon Jones, Matt Harrison, Brent Lillibridge are all close to the bigs. None of those guys are high ceiling talents. Braves have quite a bit of those guys in the lower levels. Left off some other promising bats from this year's draft.
by bravitos5122 on Jul 14, 2007 10:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Braves fan here
'Course, this is partially a product of agressivly promoting guys like Salty and Escobar. It's unfortunate to penalize a system for having guys end up on the ML roster.
I'd probably put them in the 10-15 range at this point.
by mraver on Jul 14, 2007 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tigers
However, they don't have very much after that. Jair Jurrjens, Dallas Trahern, Jeff Larish, and Mike Hollimon will all likely contribute in some capacity on the MLB level, but they certainly aren't of the caliber of the above 3 players (or 4). Their AAA, AA, and high A teams are pretty void of legit prospects. The low-A team has some serious talent, but they are too far off, including Gorkys, to tell how good they will be.
The draft this year boasts some pretty awesome arms in Porcello, Casey Crosby, and Luke Putkonen but their signings are big ifs. Furbush and Miguelez are already signed and are pretty hard throwing lefties. Needless to say, the Tigers seem to have restocked their power throwers, but again, these guys are all pretty far away.
by CW on Jul 14, 2007 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great call
by Robinson Checo on Jul 14, 2007 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion...
by hallofamer2000 on Jul 14, 2007 10:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Tribe has the deepest system
Cleveland's for the number of midlevel and above prospects at every level. Proof is how much contribution the Tribe has gotten from Buffalo while several organizations like the Yankees and White Sox flamed out when the high priced talent gets injured of fails to perform. You only have to look at the minor league standings and the number of successful callups to see which organization has real depth.
by sdtribefan on Jul 14, 2007 11:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If you are looking at standings
We have tons of high end talent. We also have tons of upside talent.
The Tribe doesn't even have the best farm in the state of Ohio let alone in baseball.
by Rupe34 on Jul 14, 2007 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dont think that means much.
by benzalman on Jul 15, 2007 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cincy organization has a few good players but
they really don't have any depth and you have to take some remedial math or cut down on the hallucinogens if you think the Reds records in the minors are better than the Indians. Even when they stack their two A franchises instead of three like most organizations, they can't compete. Their two rookie teams are bad jokes. BTW, how much help has the farm system been this year? Lots of ten game winners?
by sdtribefan on Jul 15, 2007 5:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Response
Prospects are good for two things. The first is that they will eventually make it to the major leagues and have a role on the team. The second is that they will be traded off for players who are in the major leagues and will have a role on the team.
I'm not saying that I don't respect depth. You just have to know how to use it. I don't think the Indians are very good at that at all.
I wouldn't knock the Yankees or the White Sox too much. The Yankees have made it to the playoffs umpteen years in the row. The White Sox may be sucking now but they DID win a World Series, with a middle of the road payroll at that. Hard to argue with the results for either team.
by mrkupe on Jul 15, 2007 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few thoughts!
I understand your point, but a few thoughts to consider:
The Indians have to keep the Minor Leagues stacked as much as they can; unlike teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and even White Sox, they can't go out and make big splashes in the FA market. The Twins have a similar strategy for building quality depth through their farm system, and they've lost guys like Alexander Smit, Adam Johnson, J.D. Durbin, Michael Restovich, Casey Blake, etc. for little to nothing, so it seems the Indians aren't the only ones who "don't know how to use their depth." They still have guys like Garrett Jones, Denard Span, and Matthew LeCroy at AAA Rochester. Plus, teams like the Marlins and Padres have lost valuable guys like Johan Santana and Joakim Soria in the Rule 5 Draft, with virtually nothing in return (outside of $50,000 in cash.) So, the Indians aren't the only ones who lose players, get nothing in return for their Minor League players, or allow players to remain in their farm system for several years.
And for "not knowing how to use depth," Shapiro has gotten Barfield, Lee, Sizemore, and Marte using that depth - Kouzmanoff, Drew, Bard, Riske, and Crisp were all sent off for those players above for the last 5-6 years, so it's not like the Indians haven't made moves using that depth. Other trades include getting Gutierrez and Brown for Milton Bradley when Bradley wore out his welcome in Cleveland. The Indians also acquired Asdrubal Cabrera and Shin-Soo Choo for Eduardo Perez, while getting Shawn Nottingham for Ben Broussard, when the Indians realized they had no chance to compete in 2006 - if the Indians were as bad as "depth management" as you claim, they would have held onto those two and just gotten whatever draft picks they were worth. They didn't do what Washington did when they had a chance to trade Alfonso Soriano when most knew he wouldn't return there, and they allowed him to sign as a FA to the Cubs for 2 draft picks. In my mind, that's more of an idea of "bad depth management" in my opinion than what you're suggesting.
Just because they haven't made as many trades as say, White Sox GM Kenny Williams, has made, doesn't mean they don't know how to use the depth they have.
Look at how the Indians' Minor League depth has assisted them in keeping pace with the Tigers in 2007:
- Gutierrez (in the Indians' system since 2004) and Francisco (drafted in 5th-Rd. 2002) have helped to make up for Nixon's and Dellucci's subpar offensive performances, while helping to make up for Hafner's struggles.
- Garko (drafted in 3rd-Rd 2003,) who was in AAA for a few seasons, has been one of the better, more consistent bats in the Indians' offense, and has played a very solid 1B, a position he had to work at for a few years in the Minors, especially at AAA.
- Carmona (first Minor League season in 2001) has formed a nice #1-#2 tandem with Sabathia, while helping to fill the void left by the injuries to Lee and Westbrook, as well as their average performances since they returned.
- Perez (first Minor League season in 2003) has become the 7th-inning reliever/setup guy for Borowski, as well as filling in nicely for Fultz as the only LH reliever in the Indians' bullpen.
- Mastny (first year in the Indians' system in 2005 at age 24) has also become one of the better relievers in the Indians' bullpen, helping to make up for the poor performances of Fernando Cabrera, Jason Davis, and Roberto Hernandez.
While the White Sox had a very solid team and won a WS in 2005, a lot of things broke right for them, like the Twins faltering that year, the Yankees losing to the Angels, and the fact that the White Sox rotation went on an unprecedented hot streak during the postseason. I'm not sure you'd be praising the White Sox management as much if they hadn't won that WS in 2005 because their 2007 ML team is barely ahead of the Royals, their farm system is in no position to help them overcome their weaknesses for 2007, possibly into the coming seasons as well, and while their gambles paid off in 2005, it's weakened them considerably for 2007, and possibly for the rest of this decade. Just because things turned out right for them (including an unprecedented hot streak by their starting staff in the postseason) in 2005, doesn't mean that their roster management is better than the Indians, now that they might not challenge for a playoff spot for the next few years, maybe even into the next decade, due to the fact that most of their players are over 30, some even over 35, and their farm system is not in a position to make up for possible declines in their production for a few years, at least.
As for the Yankees, we all know that they can "eat" mistakes and not be affected by them like the Indians, Twins, or A's would, so praising their management and implying that they're better than the Indians' management isn't exactly accurate in my opinion - they play on two different playing fields - it's easier to operate a ballclub with a $200 million payroll and virtually unlimited resources than with a $60 million payroll and limited resources (a new regional Sports Network and revenue sharing being the only additional revenue they can use, and it's not going to be worth a $140 million payhike to match the Yankees.) Heck, in fact, the Yankees probably wouldn't have been able to make the trades for Randy Johnson and Bobby Abreu if they had to use prospects to get them - they had the money to alleviate the financial burdens of the D'Backs and Phillies in relations to Johnson's and Abreu's contracts, respectively. Not every team can acquire such rich contracts like the Yankees, so I'm not sure I'd call that great "depth management" as you're implying - they had very few to no prospects for several years; only their large payrolls and financial resources allowed them to improve their ML teams, not their Minor League roster management.
All the more reason why the Indians can't trade away their depth as readily as say the Yankees or Red Sox can; the Indians make a mistake, and it could hurt them for several seasons down the line, whereas with the Yankees and Red Sox, they make a mistake, and they still can probably contend that same season due to their virtually unlimited resources. The White Sox have done that, and now they're in a weakened state for the next few years - it was fortunate for them they did win that WS in 2005; they gambled and it paid off, but do that too often, and you could go through 8-10 year playoff droughts like the Pirates and Royals are going through now and like the Tigers did back in the mid-90s to mid-2000s (like the Juan Gonzalez trade.) The Indians do a solid job with their depth, considering the circumstances, that allow them to compete year-in and year-out with minimal rebuilding periods, unlike teams like the Brewers, Tigers, Royals, and Pirates have gone through, and you don't have chances to win WS if you're always rebuilding, which is what happens if you trade away too much depth and it backfires on you, which likely happens more often than not.
And, based on their track record over the past 15 years, making the playoffs 6 times, the WS twice, and narrowly missing the playoffs in 2000 and 2005 (by one game each,) the Indians' roster management can't be as poor as you're suggesting either.
As for the Indians and Reds' systems, I don't think there's any question the Indians have more depth, and quality depth at that. Beyond Bailey, Votto, and Bruce, from my limited perspective, there isn't much else that I've seen or heard about from their farm system for Reds' fans to get excited about. As for 2006 and 2007 draftees, the Indians probably have as many potential guys from those drafts as the Reds got from theirs, so the Reds still would rank behind the Indians since I'm pretty sure the Reds can't match the Indians' depth and quality of depth at AAA, AA, High-A, and probably low-A as well (McBride, Rivero, Weglarz, Mills, Pena, Cumberbatch, Rondon, Gomez, Wagner.)
Just my 2 cents - no offense to anyone. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Jul 15, 2007 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
sizemore and lee came over in the bartolo colon trade with the expos. that wasn't about using their minor-league depth at all. tim drew was part of the deal, but seriously, do you think it is honest to say they got sizemore and lee for drew?
of course, at the time, sizemore and lee were regarded as the 2nd- and 3rd-best prospects the tribe got in that deal. the centerpiece was brandon phillips, who eventually left the organization for nothing and has found success elsewhere. maybe this is the kind of thing mrkupe was referring to.
by jpahk on Jul 16, 2007 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeff Stevens is turning out to be more than
Hello jpahk,
I understand your point, but realize that Stevens is turning out to be more than just a "no-name."
See his season stats here. From what I've heard, he throws 95 MPH and seems to have at least one decent breaking pitch as well (I'm not sure if it's a slider or a changeup.)
I'll have another reply or two regarding the mrkupe's argument in a moment - stay tuned!
by indiansfan on Jul 16, 2007 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because the White Sox won a WS in 2005
Hello again jpahk,
Granted, the Indians could have probably gotten more than Stevens for Phillips if they had cut ties with him sooner, and at times, the Indians do hold onto their prospects for too long, but they're hardly the only organization that does that - look at the examples I posted above; for all the great talent that the Twins have accumulated, did they get great value for every prospect who has left their organization? No. Another example I thought of was Padres and Athletics farmhand 1B Graham Koonce - he put up respectable to great numbers for several seasons, yet the Padres lost him to the A's in the Rule 5 Draft, getting $50,000 for him, while the A's lost him to the Pirates via FA, getting nothing. These types of losses where you lose players for nothing doesn't just occur with the Indians; it occurs with every team, so implying that the Indians are somehow worse at roster management because their farm system has been deeper in most years over San Diego and Oakland's seems like a weak argument to me.
Also, mrkupe's main argument about the White Sox managing their roster better than the Indians is mostly based on the fact that their moves paid off in a WS Championship in 2005, and while that team was a very solid team, there were several things that broke right for them that year, including an unprecedented hot streak by their starters in that postseason, one that probably wouldn't have been duplicated by the same starters in another season. They had some things break for them that the mid-90s and early-2000s Indians teams that were just as good as that White Sox team didn't have break for them. Same thing with the early and mid-2000s Twins teams, or the 2006 Tigers team. Just because they won a WS doesn't mean that the White Sox are better at roster management than the Indians, Twins, or Tigers.
Proof of that is what happened to the White Sox in 2006 - they had essentially the same team, outside of Thome for Rowand and Vazquez added for Hernandez, both considered upgrades when those moves were made - that led to a 90-win season, but just like the 2000 Indians, it wasn't good enough to reach the postseason, showing that that 2005 WS White Sox team had a bit of luck on their side - it wasn't all due to roster management.
In addition, that same roster management has led to a weakened White Sox farm system, at a time when the White Sox could use a new influx of talent because their ML team is mostly over 30, even 35 in some cases. That's why it might take them a few years to get back on their feet and challenge for the AL Central; they're barely ahead of the Royals right now, and arguably, the Royals have more in their farm system than the White Sox do in theirs.
Essentially, I'm not sure mrkupe would be praising the White Sox's roster management if it hadn't led to a WS win in 2005, and while their roster management might have helped them win that WS, it was hardly the only reason. That same roster management has led to their current weakened state now and arguably part of the reason why they're just ahead of the Royals in the AL Central, and likely, won't reach or even challenge for the playoffs in 2007, so implying that the White Sox's roster management is better than the Indians just because a good team that had some breaks and bounces go their way in 2005, leading to a WS Championship, also seems like a weak argument to me.
One more post to come regarding the Yankees and the Colon/Drew trade. Stay tuned!
by indiansfan on Jul 16, 2007 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees' success was mostly due to their
Hello again jpahk,
As for the Yankees, it was more due to their huge payroll that has led to them reaching the playoffs each season, not so much their roster management. The Braves, in my opinion, would be a better example of their roster management leading them to the postseason, especially in that 2005 season when it looked like their streak would finally end, but inserting young guys like Jeff Francoeur and Kelly Johnson actually saved their season and continued their playoff appearance streak. The Braves have promoted guys from within almost every year. Outside of one season (2005) when the Yankees inserted Cano and Wang into their roster, I don't think the Yankees could compare to the Braves in terms of Minor League roster management and having it help them reach the postseason. It was mostly due to their free-spending ways that have led to the Yankees reaching the postseason every year, not their Minor League roster management.
Regarding Drew, granted, he wasn't the main piece in that deal, but it seems the Expos wanted him or that deal wouldn't have been made, so still, does that not show the Indians were willing to use some of that depth to make themselves better, something that mrkupe was saying/implying that the Indians aren't very good at? Yet that trade has been a central piece in why the Indians were able to get back into contention within a 5-year time span, a much quicker time span than the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, and Tigers were able to go through, and in the Royals and Pirates' cases, they're still trying to get back to contention, whereas the Tigers just did it back in 2006 and the Brewers are doing it in 2007, after experiencing 10-15 years of rebuilding. How then can mrkupe say that the Indians have bad roster management? Because they don't get value for every player from their system? No system can get value for every player - it's unrealistic - you're going to lose some players for nothing; it's just a part of the game.
As you can see, this happens with all organizations, not just the Indians. From what I have seen and can recall, the Twins have probably lost as many players from their deep system as the Indians have over the last several years - are they "poor" at roster management as well? Heck, they allowed 3B Casey Blake to leave for nothing, and he's turned into a solid player for the Indians, and 3B has been a sore spot for the Twins, especially in terms of offensive production, for several years. Does that constitute poor roster management as well?
The Indians aren't the only organization with a deep system and poor roster management - the fact is, you can't get value for every player you have - it's impossible. You'll lose some players for nothing - that's just how the game of baseball works. You just try to minimize the losses and keep them to players that you feel you can afford to lose. As good as Phillips has been for Cincinnati, did anyone really think he would develop like he has if the Indians had kept him, or after he was released? I don't think so - there were many solid reasons why the Indians traded him; just because he's developed into the player most thought he would be in another organization doesn't mean the Indians made a mistake in trading him. And like I said, Stevens could become a very solid receiver, so it's not like they got "nothing" for him.
Therefore, I don't think the Indians exhibit as poor of roster management as mrkupe is suggesting; sure, the Indians lost some players that perhaps they could have traded for something, but many organizations have had that happen, including the examples noted above. And as I mentioned before, being that the Indians have made the postseason 6 times in the last 13 seasons, winning 6 AL Central titles, 2 AL pennants, making two WS, missing the postseason by one game in two other seasons, and only experiencing a rebuilding for essentially 3 seasons (2002-2004,) this shows that the Indians must have some skills at roster management, since there are few teams, especially with the Indians' limited payroll and financial resources, that could match that track record.
Just my 2 cents - no offense. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Jul 16, 2007 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
umm
Cleveland's for the number of midlevel and above prospects at every level. Proof is how much contribution the Tribe has gotten from Buffalo while several organizations like the Yankees and White Sox flamed out when the high priced talent gets injured of fails to perform. You only have to look at the minor league standings and the number of successful callups to see which organization has real depth."
The Yankees and White Sox have had far more injuries than the Indians, ruining some of that depth. And it isn't wise to insult the same organizations that have been very well run and have a history of making it to the playoffs within the last few years.
by cmaff05 on Jul 15, 2007 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your last sentence applies to the Yankees
Also, the Indians have also had some of their Minor League depth affected by injuries:
RHP Adam Miller - out for a month with a finger injury.
RHP Brian Slocum - out with an elbow injury (I think, or maybe it's the shoulder.)
LHP Tony Sipp - out for the season and part of 2008 with TJ Surgery.
LHP David Huff - out with elbow soreness; might need TJ Surgery.
RHP J.D. Martin - out again with elbow soreness - don't know if another TJ Surgery is needed or not.
OF Shin-Soo Choo - out with an arthritic elbow.
There's probably some at the lower levels I'm not even aware of, but the Indians' Minor League depth has also been tested. With that said, I still think the Indians have more depth than the Yankees and the White Sox. The Yankees may have a few more blue-chippers (though the gap might be closing a bit with guys like Cabrera, Mills, Goedert, Rondon, and Gomez emerging in the Indians' system,) but their depth still isn't at the Indians' level. I don't think the White Sox have any more blue-chippers than the Indians, and certainly, not the depth the Indians have, injuries or not.
Just my 2 cents - no offense. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Jul 15, 2007 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats why i said
by bravitos5122 on Jul 14, 2007 11:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers
by doug frobel on Jul 15, 2007 12:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
this thread
blah
by hotshotschamp on Jul 15, 2007 5:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tampa = #1
Brignac, Longoria, Davis, McGee, Niemann, Desmond Jennings, Jeremy Hellickson, Joel Guzman....
#2 Red Sox:
Buchholz, Ellsbury, Michael Bowden, Jed Lowrie, Lars Anderson, Brandon Moss, George Kotteras, Dan Bard
by acerimusdux on Jul 15, 2007 10:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
George Kottaras?
by doug frobel on Jul 15, 2007 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
boston
by hallofamer2000 on Jul 15, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think they're #2.
12.2 IP, 3 hits, 3 BBs, 16 Ks, 0 runs allowed.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point....
The Reds have the top tier, even with Bailey in th bigs, they still have Bruce, Votto, Cueto as their 1-3, but it falls off after that. Cleveland has some decent depth, but Adam Miller, Chuck Lofgren, Asdrubal Cabrera really didn't do it for me as a top tier.
The Yankees are a good candidate, with Tabata and Joba in the top tier, and some good depth as well.
Maybe Arizona or LAA are good candidates, or possibly the Rockies.
by acerimusdux on Jul 15, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tampa
by JT12340 on Jul 15, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
I also left off Wade Townsend, whose stock is obviously down, but it's not impossible he could still make a recovery.
by acerimusdux on Jul 15, 2007 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Price isn't signed yet,
by JT12340 on Jul 18, 2007 6:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lester?
by pedrophile on Jul 15, 2007 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it has to be said
at this point, really i'd only take tampa over seattle for impact talent (longoria, brignac, davis, mcgee, niemann, soon to be price).
by jpahk on Jul 15, 2007 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm usually a M's defender...
I like that Balentien's made this his breakout season (mostly because he's out of options!), I'd argue that Saunders is breaking out too, and that Triunfel has been just about everything we thought he would be, but a lot of the high potential talent that we expected to be seeing make an impact in Wisconsin this year ended up bombing, and one of the few that didn't got sent to High Desert, as a nineteen-year-old starting pitcher, and has gotten kicked around quite a bit.
As far as young talent, MLB and MiLB, yeah, the M's are up there, but we didn't see any of their top hitters from last year's short-season squads breaking out this year (many took a step back), Tony Butler's had arm problems, there are no real impact SPs (which we desperately need) anywhere close to contributing, and top two picks aside, I don't know that I was that impressed with our latest draft.
There's a lot of talent there in the low minors that could put it together, but I'm not banking on guys that haven't proven themselves yet.
by JY on Jul 15, 2007 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NY's pitching depth
In Scranton, Ohlendorf and Clippard profile as back of the rotation guys at this point. Brett Gardner has been on fire since his returning. Humberto Sanchez and J.B. Cox are out for the season.
Trenton has OF Colin Curtis and 1B Juan Miranda, both of whom have parlayed hot streaks at Tampa into promotions. The real appeal of the roster is the pitching, with Joba profiling as an ace, and Kennedy/Horne/Marquez all legit mid-rotation guys.
Tampa is where most of NY's future hitters are. Tabata, Austin Jackson, Francisco Cervelli, Reegie Corona have all had success to varying degrees. George Kontos would be promoted to AA in any other organization, while Chrisian Garcia has been on the DL. Kevin Whelan has a top FB but was dropped down to Tampa because of his walks. Mark Melancon has spent the entire year on the DL.
SI has Betances, McAllister, and a bunch of college players. Some toolsy guys to watch in the GCL are 2B Prilys Cuello and OF Zoilo Almonte (C Jesus Montero has been hurt), and pitcher Jairo Heredia. DSL guys that have been hyped are SS Jose Pirela and CF Carlos Urena.
Overall, the system has had a very good year with the pitching breakouts in AA. That more than makes up for Eric Duncan's regression and all the pitching injuries. It's kind of difficult to evaluate a system with one clear strength, and all the depth means that some players (Kennedy, Horne, Kontos, Gardner, Miranda, Jackson) get lost in the shuffle a bit.
by FrazierFan on Jul 15, 2007 11:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but...
And Gardner just wants to be Jason Tyner when he grows up.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kennedy>Clippard
He throws a few MPH harder than Clippard (sits 91-92, can hit 94), he has better command, relies less on deception (which works against minor league hitters, but less so in the bigs), and his secondary offerings are a little better.
To dismiss Kennedy as merely Clippard 2.0 does a disservice to him, although I think Clippard can be better than he has been in the majors (he's only 22 after all).
by lemonjello on Jul 15, 2007 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
T-Clip
by hallofamer2000 on Jul 15, 2007 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sick of hearing this about Ian
Gardner is at best Ellsbury (i.e. Brett Butler), at worse Michael Bourn, his PECOTA comp.
How can you just ignore Austin Jackson and Horne? Both would be top 5 prospects for the Red Sox.
You're an obvious Boston homer. Masterson isn't even on the level of a Marquez yet, Bowden is Clippard reincarnated, a guy like Bard isn't even worth mentioning, and some of your high-ceiling guys like Anderson are years away.
I think the Boston system is top 10, but they really can't compare depth wise. I count about 15 guys worth mentioning in that system, and NY has twice as many.
by FrazierFan on Jul 15, 2007 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Homerism.
Everyone (and I must sadly include myself in this) knows more about their own teams' system than others'. It's easy to know 30 guys in your system and talk up even the low-level guys as being better than they are, wishcasting them to be top 15 guys in other systems. Boston has plenty of guys I could talk about that are never likely to even reach AA, but have nice ceilings. But EVERY team has lots of those guys. (Okay, not every team. But still.) Marquez and Gardner and Jackson are nice prospects to have, but none of them are likely to make an impact on the ML level. And most of the pitching depth the Yankees have is either injured, injury-prone, or has a very low ceiling.
In conclusion, I'm not sure about MY opinions, since, frankly, I know that I'm a homer. But I think if you ask a fan of another team, they would agree that a) Gardner has no chance of ever being Ellsbury, he's a 4th OF, though one who can run like crazy, and b) Jackson and Horne are not top 5 prospects for the Sox.
Oh, also, I agree that Bard looks worthless right now. Place doesn't look so hot either, though at least he's got the full complement of tools (unlike Bard), and he's got time to make good (unlike Bard). Even at the time of the draft, I really wanted the Sox to take Chamberlain or Brett Anderson with one of those two picks if they were available. They were, and they didn't. At least Masterson and Anderson were around. They can't all be the Sox '05 draft.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction.
More importantly, I believe I came across as saying the Yankees system isn't that great, and that's not true at all. I think it's a top ten system, possibly top five. And I agree with most Yankee fans that Horne is underrated.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In concern with Jackson
If so, I have to disagree with ya. Jackson has alot of tools to be a very good player at the MLB level and to say he's a low ceiling guy is not true. Jackson has always had great tools and it took a while to put it together and hopefully the hot streak he's in is not just a hot streak.
Jackson has a pretty high ceiling and he's just 20 years old. Jackson has game trust me.
by NYYLover1000 on Jul 15, 2007 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell the guy has better raw tools than Jacoby
by NYYLover1000 on Jul 15, 2007 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson a low ceiling guy?
Marquez is putting it together this year, much more so than Masterson until his promotion to Portland (comparing them because they're both sinker guys).
I'm still not understanding why you think Bowden has a #2-#3 ceiling, yet don't think Kennedy will amount to anything. Kennedy is a lot better right now, Bowden has the age advantage. They're about at the same level, but Horne's stuff puts him above both of them.
The definition of a fourth-OF is to be not fast enough for CF while not having enough power for the corners. Gardner is fast enough for CF. His minor league numbers are very similar to Ellsbury's. Ellsbury is held in higher regard because his physical gifts are slightly better and due to the fact that he has been hyped more at every level. If you look at them right now, there's very little to distinguish them.
by FrazierFan on Jul 15, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry!
However, comparing Bowden to Kennedy (or Marquez, as someone else did) is rather foolish. Bowden has much better stuff, which anyone not a Yankee fan will tell you. Kennedy's a definite prospect because of his command and feel for pitching and above-average stuff, but he doesn't have a very high ceiling. They are two entirely different kinds of pitchers. Marquez is at least comparable in terms of stuff, though his stuff is reportedly down the last year or so. His production, like Bowden, has not been all that impressive, though Bowden had an excellent year last year and was dominating a very tough hitter's league before entirely losing his command in AA, which is more than you can say of Marquez.
Yankee fans keep pointing to Gardner's numbers and saying they're comparable with Ellsbury and all that separates the two is hype, but that's simply ignoring the scouting reports. Gardner has absolutely no power, and when he reaches the majors his walk rate will go waaay down, as ML pitchers will not be afraid to challenge a guy who's not going to hit more than a single. Maybe he'll bulk up, but the point is that Ellsbury has some power (not much more than gap, but still), and he has the body type where he has a chance to hit double digit homers someday.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
every scouting report on Bowden
Marquez isn't comparable to Bowden. Not only is he an extreme GB pitcher, but the results are actually there, as he is having a breakthrough season in AA this year.
by FrazierFan on Jul 15, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marquez and Bowden
As to Bowden, I don't know what to think. I thought he had more velocity than that, but the more I think about it, I may be going by the scouting report from the '06 BA book, and from memory for all that. His production is down, and the sink he was supposed to have on his fastball certainly isn't showing up in groundballs. I'd love to see a full scouting report on him now (and will check this year's books when I get back from vacation), and I'll wait to see if he adjusts to AA.
Either way, I don't think you'll find very many non-Yankee fans who would take Marquez over him.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
jackson
by wir963 on Jul 15, 2007 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is?
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry...
Their top 4, Bucholz, Ellsbury, Bowden, and L. Anderson, all ranked in the top 40 at projectprospect. They were all top 75, along with Lowrie, at rotoworld, and TPA had Bowden at #63, leaving off Anderson and Lowrie. If you think Bowden is overrated, you may be underestimating his curve ball. He's got better stuff and a bit higher ceiling than Kennedy.
Number 6 for the Red Sox is probably Brandon Moss, with a .918 OPS in AAA.
As for Jackson, his "breakout" has occured in all of 20 games, about 3 weeks of play. Most of this season he was putting up a .710 OPS in the SAL. I doubt he's better than Reid Engel, who is three months younger, has better numbers in the SAL, and better projection.
Really not being a fan of either team, I don't always know the names off the top of my head of the guys who make up the "depth" in the system. But I do know that both the Yankees and Red Sox have pretty good depth right now. Maybe the Yankees system is better, but if I knew the Sox sytem better, or looked it up, I could have mentioned guys like Justin Masterson, Aaron Bates, Jason Place, Reid Engel, Kason Gabbard, David Pauley, Josh Reddick, Nick Hagadone, Kris Johnson, and Chih-Hsien Chiang.
by acerimusdux on Jul 15, 2007 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's tough to evaluate
To break down the Yankee system, they have 2 top 25 prospects in Tabata and Chamberlain, a top 50-60 guy in Kennedy, 2 guys that could conservatively fall anywhere between 70 and 90 in Horne and Betances, plus some guys like Austin Jackson and McAllister that could also sneak into the top 100 with their current performance. That doesn't even include top 5 prospect Hughes (who has not officially graduated), former top 100 prospect Clippard, and the numerous guys who have been injured, including former top 100 prospect Humberto Sanchez.
I think this system stacks up well against any, and to me only Tampa has a greater combination of depth and impact players at the top.
by lemonjello on Jul 15, 2007 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Response
I really like Horne but Betances is a total crapshoot at this point, even with his upside.
I think the biggest caveat with the system is that it's very heavily slanted towards pitching prospects. It could end up yielding a huge bounty . . .but more likely, it ends up producing a pretty decent starter or two and a few decent bullpen arms. And I say this with Chamberlain, Kennedy, and Horne all sitting well inside my top 65 or so.
by mrkupe on Jul 15, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trying not to be too much of a homer, but...
I also like CIN, ARI, DET, CLE, and NYA.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 11:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
er..isn't that a contradiction
it's such a cliche that you can't rush a prospect, but Seattle is showing that perhaps it's not such a bad idea. in any case, it's certainly contradictory to bash them for rushing prospects at the same time that you rank them #2 overall, on the basis of many of those same damanged/rushed prospects. one way or the other....
by scooter on Jul 15, 2007 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seattle.
I said that they're #2 on talent alone, and I'd probably rank them there because that's what rankings are: sheer talent, not the history of an organization in developing its prospects.
None of their current prospects are rushed too too much (except Triunfel), but that's because of a selection bias. They traded the guys that had lost value from poor performances from being rushed (Cabrera and Choo). They also rushed Morrow so much that he's not really considered a prospect anymore.
That's only their most recent guys. Ask anyone that's not a Seattle fan; the Ms have a history of rushing their prospects. Do some of them survive being rushed? Yes. Does that mean it's a good idea? No. Most teams have a higher success rate with their prospects than do the Mariners. Many, many Mariners prospects perform very poorly because they are at a level that's one or two levels higher than where their development dictates.
Again, though, you can't knock the Pirates talent because all their pitchers get injured. If a Pittsburgh pitcher isn't injured right now, you can't assume he will be, and you have to rank them (and the Mariners) on talent alone, not organizational issues.
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Top 10...
1. Tampa Bay
(Really, really huge gap)
(I mean this gap is freaking ridiculous...they are loaded)
- NYY (Hughes still counts)
- Seattle
- Arizona
- Boston
- Los Angeles
- Cleveland
- Cincinnati
- NYM
- Colorado
- Minnesota
- Atlanta (Saltalamacchia still counts)
- Anaheim
- Milwaukee...
by uga007 on Jul 15, 2007 5:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but...
by abbreviatedman on Jul 15, 2007 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question about Cincinnati's farm system!
I've noticed many are considering Cincinnati's farm system to be one of the better systems - as I mentioned in my post above, I don't think they have the depth Cleveland has.
With that said, I'm wondering about the rankings - is the high-ranking due to the fact they have high-ceiling prospects like Bailey, Votto, and Bruce in their system, or is there more in their system that I seem to be overlooking? I'm just curious if I'm underranking them a bit - I still don't think they match Cleveland's depth, but I'm curious to know why many rank them so highly - is it mostly because of the quality of the three prospects I mentioned, or do they have more in the system that I am overlooking?
I'd appreciate any insight into this - thanks! :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Jul 15, 2007 8:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Reds' Depth
Richie Gardner - nice little comeback from injury
Milton Loo - before he vanished
Chris Valaika - 2006 pick with a nice debut season
Paul Janish - has more power than he has shown so far
Travis Wood - smallish starter with lots of potential
Drew Stubbs - oodles of tools but too many Ks
Dougdirt will let me know if I missed anyone. Granted the Indians have better depth, but Cincy's top 4 is arguably better than any other teams' top quartet. Mahalo
Matt
by WayneCampbell05 on Jul 15, 2007 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missed a few
-Phil Dumatrait SP
AA Chatt.
-Tyler Pellend SP
-Sam LeCure SP
A Sarasota
-Craig Tatum C
-Michael Griffin 3B
-Ramon Ramirez SP
-Thomas Pauley RP
A Dayton
-Juan Francisco 3B
-Justin Turner 2B
-Chris Heisey OF
-Sean Watson SP
-Rafael Gonzalez SP
-Travis Webb SP
There are a lot of pitchers with more K's than IP as well as some good relievers within. This year the Reds pitching has been very good and guys like Thomas Pauley are finally pitching again and and have a lot of upside. This is the 1st year in a long time some of the high end prospects thatwere thoughtbusts have actually come back and performed.
by Havok1517 on Jul 16, 2007 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info. - greatly appreciated! :-)
by indiansfan on Jul 16, 2007 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
Thanks for the info. - I was aware of Gardner, Wood, and Stubbs, and have heard quite a bit about Cueto lately (should have included him with Bailey, Votto, and Bruce,) but wasn't aware of Janish, and have only heard vaguely of Loo and Valaika.
When you say Top 4, I presume you mean Cueto and the other three I mentioned - Bailey, Votto, and Bruce? Yes, that's a pretty nice quartet.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Jul 16, 2007 12:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
