SF Giants Top 20
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh Yeah
We haven't had position player prospects in so long, or at least good ones.
Alderson
Response
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
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.
Let's See
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
yes
Yes
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
BTW
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:53 AM EST up reply actions
BA
BA
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
I have a hard time
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.
Bumgarner vs Alderson
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
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.
MadBum
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
Big Bottom
-David St. Hubbins
Response
where's Micah Owings when you need him
Open mouth
Response
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.
Eh...
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.
I Do
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.
schierholtz is #2
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.
Agree
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions
Nate
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.
DrB's 2008 Giants Top 50 Prospects
http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-giants&tid=96839
What do you think?
Where's Merkin???????
Andy D'Alessio
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Big Andy
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 14, 2008 8:33 PM EST up reply actions

by 














