SF Giants Top 20

by jt_7241 on Jan 13, 2008 9:04 PM EST

When is it coming out.

I can't wait to see how young guys like Fairley, Burriss, Williams all rank.

Poll

Who is the best propect in the system after Villalona?

Madison Bumgarner

56 votes

Tim Alderson

77 votes

Nate Schierholtz

31 votes

Henry Sosa

12 votes

Nick Noonan

17 votes

Wendell Fairley

14 votes

Emmanuel Burriss

4 votes

Jackson Williams

3 votes

214 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

ya

i really wanna see wendell fairley's grade

Oakland A's 4 Life

by manny59 on Jan 13, 2008 9:35 PM EST reply actions

Oh Yeah

Villalona and Fairley will become a tremendous 3,4 combo, hopefully.
We haven't had position player prospects in so long, or at least good ones.

J.T.

by jt_7241 on Jan 13, 2008 9:46 PM EST reply actions

I'd give him a B+ right now but that may be deemed excessive. The more I read about him, the more I like. Not much to go on as far as pro experience, but he could be looking at 3 above average pitches (FB, CB, CH) with excellent command.

by rdf8585 on Jan 13, 2008 11:08 PM EST reply actions

Response

You don't suppose the Giants had a good reason for drafting Bumgarner 12 spots higher than Alderson? I'm very happy with Alderson, but I think some people are ranking him ahead of Bumgarner based on 5 innings or professional experience.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:06 AM EST up reply actions

Best guesses

They thought somebody liked Bumgarner enough to take him between their first and second picks
They thought that Alderson was not being targeted by the teams between their first and second picks
Some combination of both 1 and 2

In other words, the reason might've had totally nothing to do with liking one player over the other. It might've just been the way that they had to do things in order to ensure they got both the guys they wanted.

You'd have to be legitimately nuts to think 5 innings of pro experience matters anything. But that being said, there are reasons why somebody would've liked Alderson before the draft and why somebody would not have liked Bumgarner. YMMV as always.

by mrkupe on Jan 14, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions

Let's See

#1 and #2 would both lead you to believe most teams liked Bumgarner better than Alderson. I've seen a rumor that the Dodgers were after Bumgarner and the Giants drafted him, in part, to thwart the Dodgers plans. Seems like Logan White's opinion carries a lot of weight in some circles too, don't you think?

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:46 AM EST up reply actions

yes

if logan white wanted to draft him, he must be better. the nail in the coffin would be if billy beane was trying to trade for him!

by jpahk on Jan 14, 2008 9:37 AM EST up reply actions

Yes

I figure, if both Dick Tidrow and Logan White like Bumgarner, he must be a shoe in for the HOF! LOL!

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 10:28 AM EST up reply actions

BTW

I agree that nobody in their right mind would think 5 innings of professional experience matter, but that's exactly what I think some people are doing, either consciously or subconsciously.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:53 AM EST up reply actions

BA

Baseball America has Alderson over Bum. I don't think it has anything to do with 5 IP for anyone, sound mind or not.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Jan 14, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

BA

That very same publication ranked Bumgarner(14) higher than Alderson(33) going into the draft. What do you suppose has changed since then? That's right! Alderson pitched those 5 spectacular innings!

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

I have a hard time

believing 5 IP is the smallest reason, let alone the sole factor here. I'm sure we'll see some other similar changes / leap-frogging between the draft list and when the top 100 list comes out involving guys that haven't played yet. It happens every year. Also keep in mind the BA top 10's are from a single person, where the draft rankings were an aggregate list.

Scouts from other teams talk to each other and I find it very plausible Bum may have been picked higher than Aldy due to strategic reasons.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Jan 14, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions

Bumgarner vs Alderson

I love Tim Alderson, but I think Madison may be getting a "bum" rap because he signed late and didn't pitch in any games. The BA top 10 reports seemed like Alderson is more advanced and may move up faster. From everything I've read, "Bum" has been making good progress with his breaking ball, and you've gotta love his ceiling.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions

Bum

I think both are awesome prospects, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to turn this into a Bumgarner sucks arguement by any means. Just that I don't think it's that big of a deal that Alderson is getting more love here and that it can be attributed to 5 IP. Somebody here ranked him pretty high on their top 50 - something crazy like #6. I think between that and BA ranking him ahead of Bum, he caught a lot of peoples attention (maybe a little SNTS?), they researched him and ended up liking him a little better as a lot of the stuff I've seen says he's a little more projectable and safer than Bum.

To me, flip coin. The Giants have two great pitching prospects that could both be in a lot of top 10's this time next year.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Jan 14, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

MadBum

So we agree that Madison is not a bum?

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions

Big Bottom

"Talk about bum cakes, my girl's got 'em!"

-David St. Hubbins

"Well I believe in the soul..."

by D O on Jan 14, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions

Response

You think everybody took a "closer look" at Alderson because of casejud?

where's Micah Owings when you need him

by mrkupe on Jan 14, 2008 5:40 PM EST up reply actions

Open mouth

have words inserted. I didn't say "everybody", but at the same time, I'm willing to bet he was under a lot of radars until casejud and/or BA rated him that high. Certainly far enough off enough radars to make a difference in this poll.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Jan 14, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions

Response

So you're now saying that Baseball America (who is biased very heavily towards scouting as they freely admit) are the ones who care so much about 5 innings?

My guess is that the answer as to why BA has changed their collective opinion has more to do with updated scouting information rather than any sort of statistical data.

I personally love Alderson and am iffy on Bumgarner. I felt that way before the draft, and really nothing will change until we start seeing scouting feedback (especially important at low levels) and some statistical data from full season ball next year.

Then again, it's entirely possible that Bumgarner isn't even in full season ball next year.

by mrkupe on Jan 14, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

Eh...

"My guess is that the answer as to why BA has changed their collective opinion..."

BA putting him at #2 on the team-by-team top 10's is not a collective opinion, it was the opinion of Andy Baggarly, who compiled that list. We won't know the collective opinion from BA until the top 100 comes out.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Jan 14, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions

I Do

I most certainly factor in those five innings when I rank Timmy Two over Mad Bum (even though it is hard not to rank a guy who so easily qualifies for the Mad Bum nickname over even "Big V," Angel Villalona).

It's only five innings, of course, and only in rookie ball, at that. But Timmy Two showed outstanding dominance, control and difficulty to hit. We received at least some confirmation of why many scouts felt he would be the first high school player to reach the majors (much as Kevin Correia was said to have a chance to become the first player from the 2002 draft to make the majors and indeed did so, debuting in the majors just over a year later on July 10, 2003).

I certainly think it is reasonable to feel that Mad Bum has the higher ceiling of the two. But Timmy Two briefly showed some real promise, while Mad Bum has yet to pitch an inning in organized ball.

I wouldn't quibble with those who rank Mad Bum over Timmy Two, but my personal ranking is just the opposite. And it amazes me how often people think that things that go against their point of view (such as feeling that five innings don't mean anything) are stupid.

There is usually more than one side to a story. Those who truly see the multiple sides usually don't put down one of those sides as being crazy. They merely acknowledge the position, disagree with it for reasons that they clearly state, and move on.

by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

schierholtz is #2

he can be an everyday major league player as soon as right now. these HS arms are nice and all, but it's not like schierholtz is totally bereft of upside himself--he could hit 300/330/500 a couple times, and that's pretty nice.

it's a little like when nobody except PECOTA thought shane victorino was a prospect a year ago. schierholtz is obviously not at all the same kind of player as victorino, but the fact that his downside is "reasonable 4th OF on a big-league roster" is a big point in his favor.

by jpahk on Jan 14, 2008 12:19 AM EST reply actions

Agree

Nate is my #2 followed by Bumgarner, Alderson, Sosa, Fairley, Noonan, Bowker, Waldis Joaquin and Wilbur Bucardo.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions

Nate

Nate Schierholtz and I actually have a couple of friends and acquaintances in common -- and we both graduated from the same high school, although separated by over three decades.

But I wouldn't rank Nate as high as #2 because I feel he has a fairly low ceiling for a guy who might be rated that high.

When I saw Nate play in Fresno last April, I felt he could be ready to play in the bigs this season. And I have tremendous respect for his cutting his strikeouts nearly in half while rising from High A San Jose to AAA Fresno in two years.

But IMO unless Nate emulates the approach Kevin Frandsen took a year ago, working hard on waiting for a pitch to drive, he will never be much more than an average hitter.

Average? You bet. I personally think he can be a .290 or so hitter, and that's not chump change. But he walks less often than Pedro Feliz, and unless he waits for more pitches to drive, I don't see his power exceeding that of Feliz by much. Nate's .304 batting average in the majors last season was nothing to sneeze at -- but he had no homers and only two walks in 112 at bats.

I definitely think Nate deserves to be a top-10 prospect for the Giants. I definitely do NOT think he deserves to be ranked #2 behind only Angel Villalona.

In Deric McKamey's system I would rank Nate a 7D -- the potential to become an average regular with a 30% chance of doing so. Or I might rank him an 8E -- the potential to become a solid regular, but only a 10% chance of doing so.

I believe Nate is major-league ready. I just don't believe he is ready to be much more than a platoon player. I hope the Giants start him in 2008 (I would certainly choose him over aging Dave Roberts, since the Giants' future isn't now.), and I hope he plays well enough to package for a prospect with higher potential.

The Giants have PLENTY of so-so players. What they need are STARS.

by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions

DrB's 2008 Giants Top 50 Prospects

If anybody is interested, I posted my annual Giants Top 50 Prospects list over on the Giants Message Board. Here's the link:

http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-giants&tid=96839

What do you think?

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:42 AM EST reply actions

Where's Merkin???????

Just kidding. I really like the depth you went into there, lots of good info. I think D'Alessio is a bit low at #34, personally.

by ajake57 on Jan 14, 2008 1:23 AM EST up reply actions

Andy D'Alessio

I hope you are right about D'Alessio, but there was some reason why he dropped all the way to round 19 and started out in the AZL.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 10:27 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah

The fact that he was a graduating senior didn't help him out in that respect either, but how much would that have moved him up? I'm not saying he's a top 15 guy, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt... 18-24 maybe?

by ajake57 on Jan 14, 2008 7:49 PM EST up reply actions

Big Andy

I think I listed a bunch of relievers and second tier starters ahead of Big Andy. I certainly can see that his upside is higher, but what is his liklihood of reaching it? I figure there are a lot more bullpen jobs in MLB than first base jobs. The odds are really against a guy that old starting out that low, especially at a position like first base. Of course, the Giants haven't had a MLB quality hitter at 1B since Will "The Thrill" Clark, so the first guy in their organization to get there might have a long career.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 8:33 PM EST up reply actions

I thought

I thought your top 50 prospect list was fabulous, Dr. Few have demonstrated the restraint to include neither Eugenio Velez or Manny Burriss in their top 10. But you did.

by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions