Community Prospect List: #9
by King Billy Royal on Oct 22, 2008 6:28 PM EDT
Email
PrintHi Everyone,
I am ending this poll a bit early due to Cahill winning with a DOMINATING victory. He won with 33% of the votes. The next highest recipient was Matt Laporta with 13% of the votes. Due to poor showings by Chris TIllman (4%), Dexter Fowler (4%), and Derek Holland (1%) they are being removed for the time being. Newcomers on the poll include Rick Porcello, Michael Stanton, Eric Hosmer, and Andrew McCutcheon. Lars Anderson and Tommy Hanson have been added to the testers list.
1. MATT WIETERS - C (Baltimore)
2. DAVID PRICE - SP (Tampa Bay)
3. JASON HEYWARD - OF (Atlanta)
4. TRAVIS SNIDER - OF (Toronto)
5. MADISON BUMGARNER - SP (San Francisco)
6. COLBY RASMUS - OF (St. Louis)
7. CAMERON MAYBIN - OF (Florida)
8. TREVOR CAHILL - SP (Oakland)
CANDIDATES - Matt LaPorta, Neftali Feliz, Pedro Alvarez, Tim Alderson, Mike Moustakas, Rick Porcello, Michael Stanton, Eric Hosmer, and Andrew McCutcheon
TESTERS - Chris Tillman, Jesus Montero, Brett Anderson, Lars Anderson, Tommy Hanson, Dexter Fowler, Derek Holland, Jhoulys Chacin
Please post more ideas for testers and we will consider them.
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Feliz
Like Cahill, only 20, Feliz was dominant in A ball and then performed extremely well at Double A, as well as in the Double A playoffs for Frisco.
Next vote either Laporta or Moustakas for me.
+1
Man I still shed a tear when I think about the day I saw we dealt him to Texas.
Poll timing...
Unlike most, I don’t see a problem with the actual voting time having an effect on the outcomes of these polls, and I do understand you all wanting to get these done soon…. but…..
I also think there should just be one per day for discussion purposes. With us getting two per day it makes the discussions all over the place. Most threads on this site stay popular for a day or two. I think leaving each poll open for 24 hours will keep us from discussing the same thing (like Anderson’s ceiling, LaPorta’s defense, or any other small thing) over and over since we can have more of a complete argument done without having to move it to a new poll and re-hashing the ideas.
Just an idea to help. I think the discussion is the best part of these things since I put very little stock in rankings (it has no effect on how a player will turn out). I want to know more about the player, and having a nice long discussion can help.
You two are doing a great job though, and you two should be commended for such. Thank you for taking the time to do the Community List this year and for being pretty well organized about it.
Also, I have to go LaPorta here. I think he has one of the best bats available. I don’t think Hosmer should even sniff the Top 25 though. A high school bat who only had 11 at bats at the Rookie Level is still too far away to properly guage. I know he was a high draft pick, but we all know that being a high draft pick doesn’t ensure anything. It’s not like he is a “can’t miss player” or anything. I think Top 10 to Top 20 should be more of the can’t miss guys. Guys that are going to be stars, or even if they aren’t stars, you can almost bet they will reach the majors at some point.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
Agreed, Tim Beckham didn't suddenly drop below Hosmer based on a couple hundred plate appearances in rookie ball
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I really think the logic that Hosmer shouldn't be ranked in the Top-25 is really silly.
It’s your personal opinion but I still think it’s silly. J-Up was ranked in the Top-5 without playing and deserved it, A-Rod was ranked 6th and was 5 spots too low. Scouts love Hosmer’s bat. Some saying it was the best since Hamilton. I mean they really, really like it. He seems like a pretty much can’t miss guy to me. I’m not voting him here, but I could see it justified. I also think I could justify Beckham, despite his struggles, they were retooling his swing, of course he was going to struggle. He started hitting the ball a lot harder at the end of the year.
Personally, I like LaPorta here too, but I could hear an argument for anyone drafted in the Top-5 with a scouting report to back it.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
Tim Beckham
I will keep him in mind for the tester list.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Oct 22, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think he'll get any support personally. But I could see a justification for him.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
Scouting reports....
Almost every hitter in the past 15-20 years who was drafted in the Top 5 in the First Year Player Draft has had grat scouting reports. Every single player gets compared to some current or former star also. But not all have panned out. Looking back at Player Rankings is great, but only to see what went wrong with players. What was missed. If there was proper justification for A-Rod to be 6th, then you can’t fault them just because he may be the greatest hitter in the history of the game. You have to evaluate the rankings by thinking about the information they had at the time. Just because Len Bias died doesn’t mean the Celtics made the wrong draft pick back in 84 or whenever it was. He was still the right pick at the time.
All I am saying is that I believe it is silly to all of a sudden put a high school hitter in the Top 20 prospects knowing what we know about bust rates for high school players. If he does well this coming year, then we can put him in the Top 5 next year. But make him earn it before giving it to him. Let’s see what he can do.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
Does that mean it was silly for the Rays and Royals to pick them above college players?
Or are you saying any 2008 draftee should be ineligible unless they played a lot at full season ball?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 23, 2008 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions
I too, have read this
I think it was Rawnsley at PG that said the best three bats he’s seen in the last fifteen years were A-Rod, Hamilton, and Hosmer at the same points in their respective careers.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
Not an elite prospect w/out a game
Hosmer’s a high school 1B. A-Rod and Hamliton were plus defenders at up the middle positions. Hosmer might have a great-looking bat, but he’s at a power position. NO 19-year-old is a lock to put up .300/.400/.500 numbers, and you have to be pretty certain that a 1B will reach those levels to consider them an elite prospect. You also might want to take a look at Rany Janyzerli (sic?)’s draft work. High school 1Bs attrition rates are huge. Hosmer doesn’t belong here.
i never proclaimed him a lock
I was relaying information. David Rawnsley, a very respected scout/writer, thinks Hosmer has one of the best high school bats in the last 20 years. That’s it. Nothing about position. All about the bat.
I don’t really care about attrition rates anyways, each player is their own self.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
are HS 1b attrition rates
higher than highschool lefthanded pitchers from the northeast who have thrown less than 50 innings their senior year, but fewer than 100 over their entire highschool career but also play hockey?
come on. the attrition rates for ANY player in the draft is huge. any position. from HS or college.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 23, 2008 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions
OK
So the difference between 80% and 90% is not worth noting because both are “huge”?
I’m making up the numbers, obviously, but whatever the numbers are, they’re not insignificant.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
so we shouldnt consider him as a top 25 prospect because of the attrition rates of high school 1b?
if the arguement is that its the bat, no GG defense, etc thats one thing
but if someone is saying hes not in the top 25 because of fucking attrition rates…are you kidding em?
what is the percentage of players drafted who make it to the major leagues?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 23, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn't the easy answer
that it should be a factor, but not the decisive one?
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Oct 23, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Jesus, it's not racial profiling
There’s nothing morally wrong with considering group characteristics when that group is “high school first basemen.”
And, as Old Prospects points out, it’s hardly determinative, it’s just a piece of evidence to take into account.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Yes,
We shouldn’t consider him a top-25 prospect because of the attrition of HS 1B’s. It’s a scouting profile thing. Guys who aren’t athletic enough relative to their high school peers to play a more difficult position than 1B break down at a really high rate. They also have to be crazy elite bats to rank high, because no first base prospect can ever be considered elite unless and until he looks like the kind of player you can expect to put up .300/.400/.500 numbers. The standard for being an elite major leaguer at the position is incredibly high.
When scouts return glowing reports on a guy’s bat AND he plays a plus defensive SS or CF, he can be considered for elite prospect status as A-Rod, Hamilton, and Upton were before playing. Hosmer’s a guy who risks falling off due to old player skills, and his position absolutely should make him take a hit in prospect rankings. Tim Beckham was considered a better prospect on draft day, and he’s a better prospect now.
Rany’s work can be found here if you have a baseball prospectus account:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4836
riiight
Sounds like your making up some stuff now to try and enhance your argument. Who says he has “old player skills?” There are PLENTY of scouts who think he’s athletic enough to play the outfield, if that’s your argument that he’s not “athletic” enough. Anyways…
“They also have to be crazy elite bats to rank high, because no first base prospect can ever be considered elite unless and until he looks like the kind of player you can expect to put up .300/.400/.500 numbers.”
And he is A CRAZY ELITE BAT. That’s the point that was originally brought up. When scouts are comparing your bat to arguably the two most talented players in baseball (A-Rod and Hamilton), my guess is scouts think it is a CRAZY ELITE BAT. The guy was a top 5 prospect in the draft as a high school first baseman. Teams absolutely wouldn’t even think of drafting him highly if he didn’t have a CRAZY ELITE BAT because he’s stuck at 1B (or possibly RF in this case).
Here is Rawnsley’s column on Hosmer
http://www.pgcrosschecker.com/2007/columnists/davidrawnsley/weeklycolumn/hosmer_special_hitter.aspx
“That’s all part of evaluating 17 year old prospects and part of the risk factor. But for me, Hosmer compares favorably with just about any 17-year-old hitter I’ve seen develop in the United States over the last 20 years. He’s No. 1 on my 2008 high school prospect list.”
So he’s not top 25 in your opinion…heck…I put him at #30 when I made a list a while back. I think it’s a bit low looking back, but whatever. Point is, don’t downplay how good of a prospect this guy is. The guy has a GREAT bat. If someone thinks the dude is going to rake, then there is zero problem putting him extremely high. None.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
Wait, so, if I think Rashun Dixon is "going to rake," I should rank him like #30 overall?
That’s ridiculous hubris. Acknowledging that you might be wrong on a prospect, that it’s possible you’ve misevaluated how good he is, is not shameful, it’s a sign of intelligent thinking.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well, if you think he'll hit well enough to be the 30th best prospect
Sure, rate him there. I feel like I’m missing something
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Oct 24, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Oct 24, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
You don't think that the fact that there is no evidentiary support,
of any kind, for that position is a problem?
You guys seem to be operating under the “all opinions are equally valid” paradigm, while I’m operating under the “many opinions are ill-informed and/or stupid and should be rethought” paradigm. It’s impossible for any reasonable observer to think that Dixon is the 30th most valuable player in the minors right now. Ranking Hosmer in the top 15 isn’t quite that nutty but it’s close.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Fowler
Wow, the community is real low on him. I had him top 10 for sure.
Yet he’s barely getting sniffed here?
SNTS
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
Pardon e moi?
Not familiar with that acronym.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Shiny New Toy Syndrome
Defined as obsession with a new prospect (the shiny toy), which leads to neglect of other good prospects (not shiny toys).
by David Tokarz on Oct 22, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I voting moustakas till he gets in
I think long term I have a hard time saying I’d rather have LaPorta.
Moustakas at 19 had a bad April,
none the less he put up 22 bombs A ball and according to minor league splits had a 310/371/513 park and luck adjusted line overall this year.
I don’t have a link but I also remember Goldstein having a post on Mous hitting a twelve second pop up which in the scouting world showcases incredible power.
Moustakous also has some defensive value playing a little SS and 3B this year.
Laporta at 23 had 22 bombs in AA. He a very good bet to be a real good hitter no doubt bu I don’t see the star power there that Mous has. Also, as sure a bet as he is, he like all prospects are not 100% for sure as his time in the eastern league showed. Laporta has no defensive value and won’t be leaving LF, 1B or DH.
If you want to argue Feliz over Moustakas I’d be fine with that, but I think after Moustakas is simply a much better prospect than Laporta.
Go Jays
by providence bruins on Oct 22, 2008 7:05 PM EDT reply actions
LaPorta v. Lars
Setting aside guys with more defensive value like Fowler and Moustakas, what makes LaPorta superior to Lars Anderson, who looks almost as good at the plate right now and is 2.5 years younger?
OK, so Anderson’s line at Lancaster isn’t that impressive given league and park conditions; it was still quite good for one of the younger guys in the league. And, of course, Anderson continued mashing when promoted to AA – his (admittedly small sample size) line was much better than LaPorta’s full season line.
Getting more technical, Minor League Splits calculates Anderson’s MLE at 216/323/335 compared to LaPorta’s 229/332/408. That’s a definite advantage for LaPorta, but I don’t think it’s enough to make up for the 2.5 year age difference (and LaPorta certainly doesn’t gain much if any value in a defensive comparison).
Does LaPorta’s power potential really trump the fact that Lars looks like he will be better in every other facet of the game (except baserunning, where neither of them is going to add much value)?
+1
I am a much bigger Lars fan then Laporta. I like Laporta but I often think that people believe he is a 20 year old. His numbers in AA aren’t overly impressive in my opinion.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Oct 22, 2008 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions
here's a crazy question
just based on hitting, is the A’s chris carter at all close in terms of upside to a laporta/anderson
i wouldve liked to see carter get tested in AA late in the season then had him spend all season in high A for whatever reason
i dont know his reasoning, but goldstein ranked anderson/carter at the very end of his top 08 100. it will be interested in their rankings for 09. since anderson is definitely in the upper top 25 of prospects and carter i assume top 75. one is a potential GG 1b type and one is destined for DH, so that would make a big difference in their rankings
by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 22, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I think his upside is clearly superior... he's just much, much less likely to reach it...
which makes him less valuable overall.
Incidentally, for those of you who don’t read Athletics Nation regularly, they just had an interview with online journalist Melissa Lockard, and she thinks Carter is eventually going to end up in right field.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Upside
I assume you mean that Carter’s upside is superior to Anderson’s?
I’m not sure I agree. Carter arguably has more power potential, but Anderson is more likely to hit for a high average and will draw at least as many walks, leading to a higher OBA and a closer call in SLG than HR totals might suggest.
To take a couple of comps, Carter’s ceiling may look something like Ryan Howard, while Anderson’s may be closer to Lance Berkman – and I’d take Berkman’s 302/413/560 career line over Howard’s 279/380/590.
That said, if Carter can hit close to that and stick at 3B or even RF, that would be a major plus. Any reviews of his 3B defense?
Decent hands, no range
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 23, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions
testers
can one of you explain the testers to me. is it just the list of the next best that dont make the poll? What is the point of them?
Holland, Feliz, Hosmer, Alderson
I have all those dudes on my team, so now I am getting psyched.
I don’t know that Holland is getting credit for continuing his awesome run into the playoffs:
20 2/3rds, 10 hits, 1 earned run, 4 walks, 18 ks, 1 home run.
But I voted for Hosmer.
Almost as good as my farm team :)
Holland, Feliz, Bumgarner, Tillman, Rasmus and Snider – with Briggy, Bowden, C. Marrero and D. Guerra rounding out the ten man squad.
I think I’m in decent shape :)
wait, there's more
I also have Hanson and Chacin for the staff, and for hitters (poorer in that area) I also have Wilmer Flores, Michael taylor, Logan Morrison, Angel Salome and Aaron Cunningham. I got a late start adding prospects so some guys have more of thevery top prospects, but once I saw all the guys in the league add some I had to get going.
+1
Tillman is more developed then any of the other arms on the list. He’s also dominating at an extremely high level.
Other
I voted other for Brett Anderson, who I have right there with Cahill. Right behind Anderson I see Feliz and Holland. There is so much high level pitching talent right now it’s ridiculous. As a LaPorta owner, I can see him in this range, but these pitchers all seem like they have ace potential, and that is more valuable in my mind than a guy like LaPorta, as great as his bat looks like it can be.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Oct 22, 2008 7:50 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
+1
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
whats the arguement for anderson over alderson/feliz?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 23, 2008 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Better stuff than Alderson, better control than Feliz
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
How hard does Anderson throw?
Does he throw that much harder than Alderson?
I really like Anderson, too. I know he had one really awful start with an injured finger and other than that was really good.
92-93
I don’t know if that’s literally faster than Alderson’s fastball, but lefties generally are equally effective with slower fastballs. He also has better offspeed stuff.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Alderson
The main arguments for Alderson are his stuff, superb command, and ARL; Anderson rivals him on all three of these.
As for Feliz, his stuff is obviously more “electric,” but Anderson is much more polished, with an equally impressive track record.
by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 23, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
fair enough
i dont think hes a top 10 guy but thats me (hes a 10-20 guy, but then again i rate ceiling pretty damn high at this point and feliz has a MUCH higher ceiling than anderson imho)
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 23, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Bad argument
The difference between aces and good-but-not-great starters is rarely “stuff.” Dan Haren does not have amazing stuff, yet he is a great pitcher. In retrospect, Dan Haren’s ceiling was (has to have been) that of an ace pitcher, but I defy you to look at his minor league numbers and tell me that they indicated anything more than “pretty good.” And the scouting reports sure weren’t saying “ace,” either.
Or look at Johan Santana. There’s really nothing there before about his 3rd year in the big leagues, and he doesn’t have an overpowering fastball. What was his “ceiling?” By definition, ace. At this point the notion of ceiling is so vague that it becomes utterly useless.
AN had one of their periodic interviews with Billy Beane a few months ago, a guy who knows a thing or two about developing pitching, and he said that the difference between aces and #2-#3 starters is basically as much to do with perceived personality as it is with performance. I don’t know whether he meant that the guys with the confidence to project themselves as #1s actually do better because of that or whether they just get more media attention, but the point is that it has little to do with “stuff” and a lot to do with the psyche.
So, quite frankly, I think this is a bogus argument. Anderson’s ceiling is every bit as high as Feliz’s, since they’re both perfectly capable of becoming ace pitchers, and I think he’s substantially more likely to be a good MLB pitcher because his command is so much better. And going off the “mental factor” line of thinking, he apparently has extremely strong psychological makeup. Maybe Feliz does, too, but I don’t know.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
In terms of Haren
I think what’s interesting about him is that we judge prospects differently from major leaguers in the sense that we look at prospects’ potential and major leaguers’ performance. Obviously this makes sense, but I think it leads to some limitations as well. For example, when we say a pitcher has a ceiling of an ace, it seems like people mean that he has the potential to be one of the 5 or 6 best starters in the major leagues, whereas an actual major league ace is simply one of the top 30. Haren is not a dominating starter and may never win a Cy Young, but he is sufficiently very good that he is in actuality an ace.
Feliz might have the possibility of being a better starter than Anderson, maybe a superstar pitcher to Anderson’s excellent, a Santana to Anderson’s Haren, but the real difference between such players is not so sizable that we should under-emphasize the differences between what they can do right now. Incidentally, I think this is one of Billy Beane’s major ideas.
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Oct 23, 2008 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Shrug
I’ll take Hudson, Mulder and Zito over Felix Hernandez and a couple of chumps every day of the week, even if none of them is a quote-unquote “ace”.
BTW, I think Haren has at least a 50-50 or so chance of winning a Cy Young in his career at some point. Pinpoint command, strikeout ability and impeccable health is a good recipe.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Um Zito?
over Felix? Even now?
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Oct 24, 2008 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Zito is well past his cost-controlled years at this point...
There’s rarely a good reason to sign a pitcher beyond 6 or 7 years. Haren is one of the few moves like that that I endorse, because he has a spotless health record.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Did I not understand what you said before?
I thought you said you’d rather have Zito than Felix Hernandez? Why would Zito’s ludicrous salary make you more interested in him?
As for your point, I agree
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Oct 24, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm saying I'd rather have Zito, Mulder, Hudson when they came up
than Hernandez et al when THEY came up. Or take the Twins approach— sign a ton of pitchers who don’t walk anyone, then sift out the ones who have relatively better stuff and strikeout ability over time. No one seems to give them credit for how good their pitching consistently is; in fact, they’re routinely derided for picking “low upside” pitchers. (I hate their philosophy on picking hitters, but I love their pitching program.)
For obvious reasons, no one would now want either Zito or Mulder; Mulder’s shoulder is shot and Zito’s mechanics are shot. And didn’t Hudson just have TJS? Bad year for the Big Three…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Holland and Lars
IMO deserve to be here more than Alvarez and Porcello…
Really...
How do you figure that. True, Holland and Lars have proved more, but Alvarez and Porcello have more potential. Also, Alvarez not only has a higher offensive upside than Lars, but he plays a more premium position too. Porcello also has more potential. He could be a true ace, where Holland is more likely to be a very good number 2 or decent number 1. Also, it’s not like Porcello has yet to prove anything. He had a 65% ground ball rate in his first full professional saeson.
Alvarez
has not one game of pro baseball. There’s a difference between college and pro, and Ike Davis will agree with me on that.
I don’t think he’s bad by any means, but should he be on the Top 10 ballot without pro experience? Of course not. Top 20 would be more suitable.
As for Porcello, does he really have more upside than Holland? IMO Holland’s upside is through the roof. Holland has shown no areas of weakness, while Porcello has a little more room for improvement in the K departmen. I’m not saying that Porcello’s a bad prospect by any means, but I think they’re both extremely projectable with Porcello having a little edge, and Holland is a little closer to the MLB.
by METSMETSMETS on Oct 22, 2008 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
you do realize that he has been called a
“once in a generation talent” by respected guys like KG at baseball prsopectus, etc
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 23, 2008 8:42 AM EDT up reply actions
"once in a generation talent"
You here that term thrown around every couple of years. By definition shouldnt once in a generation talents only come about every 20 to 30 years.
I’m not arguing that Alvarez isnt a great prospect, I just hate that term.
ummm
the only one ive heard it actually attached was felix hernandez, michael iona and pedro alvarez
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 23, 2008 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Justin Upton?
‘cause I think he’s saying hi.
lol yes theres another one
so thats what 4 guys in the last 10 years?
and the 2 who have played a professonal game were pretty fucking good (im sure you can add arod/griffey in there too)
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 23, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, of course that's not true
You’ll always find people referring to all sorts of players as the next Joe Dimaggio or the next Ken Griffey etc. The question is who is making that judgment. I don’t know when Kevin Goldstein said that about Alvarez, but if he really believed that he was a “generational” talent, then I imagine he would certainly rate him the best or 2nd best prospect, and would have shouted at the Rays for not picking him first, Longoria or no Longoria. (If he’s that good, then move him to 1B or OF) If it was the general view that he was a generational talent, then the general reactions would much different than they are. I could be wrong, but my impression is that most people think that Alvarez has an awfully good chance to be a very good 3B, maybe one of the best for a while, but not in the class of ARod, and probably not significantly better than Wright or Longoria.
I mean, if the generational (position player) talents in the majors right now are ARod, Pujols and maybe Hanley Ramirez, do you really think that Alvarez could be in that league?
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Oct 23, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
I think he was called a generational talent before the start of last year’s college season at Vandy, where he struggled with injuries and arguably struggled with power numbers afterwards. So while that may have been said a year ago, when it was time for the June draft there was argument whether he or Hosmer actually had the best bat in the draft.
by RoyalsFan4Life on Oct 23, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
As a matter of fact
I don’t think we should judge a baseball generation the same way we judge a “real” generation (and even that is kind of outdated considering people live much longer than they used to). I’d guess a generation in baseball is about 10-15 years, the length of a good player’s career.
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Oct 23, 2008 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Voted other for Tillman
I don’t necessarily see him as the #9 overall prospect, but I like him more than Cahill.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
And I'd throw Anderson in there sometime soon...
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
B. Anderson
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
guys
once again, i remind you, that this isnt supposed to be the worlds perfect list, its supposed to reflect this communitys view on prospects as a whole… it is simply a different kind of list and should be viewed as such… Lets please keep that in mind even if we disagree with who is being ranked where.
It seems clear that the voters on this site tend to like low level pitchers who had dominant seasons…. do i agree, no, but that doesnt matter, this is just about seeing what the consensus community is feeling.. and I think that is an interesting thing to note.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
Anderson and Tillman should be in here
I think they will both be in the next 4-5 spots in my opinion.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Alderson?
How come no one ever mentions Alderson as a top five guy when we’re debating top pitching prospects, yet here he is at number 3? This is weird.
heh
Thought that same thing.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 23, 2008 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Feliz vs Alderson
I don’t think either guy should be this high, but I don’t see how can anyone think Alderson is a better prospect?
At the same age Feliz put up better #s than Alderson at the same level and then ended up in AA putting up great numbers as well. Furthermore, Feliz’s scouting report far outweighs that of Alderson and his fastball is probably the best in the minors right now. Frankly, I don’t see either as top 10 guys and I have no idea how Alderson could be ranked above Feliz.
The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.
I agree
they probably don’t belong this high, but Feliz spent most of the season at A ball, with a brief sting at AA, while Alderson pitched in A+ the entire season. Makes it kind of a tough comparison numbers wise…
by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 23, 2008 3:19 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
