Rank the Farm Systems of Baseball.
by schmosterballs92 on Nov 21, 2008 9:57 AM EST
95 comments
How would YOU rank the systems. In what specific order? The obvious top choices revolve around Texas, Oakland, Florida, etc. Though I'm wondering what the whole list would look like in your opinion. For example, where would the Red Sox rank? How 'bout them Yankees? Have the Diamondbacks completely fallen off the radar? Do the Orioles have enough depth to be considered a top farm? Questions like these would be answered through a list of rankings. So have fun and tell me what you think. :)
2 recs |
95 comments
Email
Print
Comments
This might be cool as a ranking list
i.e. Best Farm System, 2nd, etc. Maybe after the top 100 prospect list is done?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Nov 21, 2008 11:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Na, talk about your ballot stuffing. Haha
by jfish26101 on Nov 21, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tried that last year.
Didn’t get very far and it ended up looking kind of dumb, if I recall.
by aCone419 on Nov 21, 2008 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...
I was the one who tried it. It got a little ridiculous.
by slamcactus on Nov 21, 2008 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland Indians
Since that’s the only farm system I’m really familiar with, I’d say it’s top 10. I’ll leave the rest of the lists to you guys.
by JP_Frost on Nov 21, 2008 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
What a weird thing to say...
“I’m not really familiar with 29 of the farm sytems in MLB, but I’d say no more than 10 of them are better than the Indians.”
by mraver on Nov 21, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what I mean is
that I’m most familiar with the Indians system and I can discuss that more in depth than other systems. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a overall view of where the teams rank.
by JP_Frost on Nov 21, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
O's
I think this very difficult to do, b/c people’s opinions of depth vs front line talent will greatly differ. Personally, I am more a fan of front line talent just b/c I see most major leaguers as easily replaced (especially corner OF’s, 1bmen, RP’s). It’s the elite talents that are hard to find. Thus, I might rate the O’s higher than many people would, b/c I think they have potential impact players. To me, having a guy in the system who might be a “solid” major leaguer is nice, but not overly valuable. But again … that’s just my opinion, and I think a lot of people will disagree.
by jayjay on Nov 21, 2008 11:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lets see a prelim list, on a tier system to kinda start with without doing a ton of research
Texas/Oak
Atl, TB, Balt, SF, KC, FL
LAD, Mil, Bos, Min, Stl, Col
Clev, Mets, Jays, Pit, NYY, LAA, Cin, Cubs
Nationals, Sea, SD
WhiteSox Hou Det Phil, Ariz
Ok who should move up or down a tier and Why? detailed answers on who they should replace and why they should move up would be nice….
by laxtonto on Nov 21, 2008 11:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Braves
I feel like the Braves don’t get enough respect. They’ve got not only pretty incredibly front-line talent (Heyward, Hanson, Freeman, Schafer, Hernandez, etc.), but a lot of depth with very talented but young guys (Locke, Teheran, Rohrbough, etc.). Maybe they aren’t on the top tier but I consider them to be better than pretty much everyone they’re listed with. Maybe they’re like a tier 1-A?
by was385 on Nov 21, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not enough respect?
He’s put them in the group right behind TX and OAK, which seem like the clear top 2.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 21, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Beethoven thanks you for your sig.
Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Whatever's happened, it's like I've landed on a different planet. Now, maybe if I can work out the reason, I can get home.
by Lyle on Nov 24, 2008 9:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tex and Oak too good
I think even as a Braves fan its tough to put their farm system up with those two. Oakland and Texas are just too stacked. But the Braves being third on this list is not unreasonable. How many teams have eleven prospects like:
Heyward
Hanson
Freeman
Schafer
Flowers
Hernandez
Medlen
Rohrbough
Locke
Teheran
Kimbrel
by Braves on Nov 21, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would probably have
SF, then Atl, then TB, then Balt
Depends on how much stock you put in the AFL and if you like the young guys for SF more than the young guys from Atl.
by laxtonto on Nov 21, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of agree
I think you’re too high on Gorkys Hernandez, but I’m very impressed by the people they have in the low minors, beyond Teheran and Rohrbough. I’m not sure if they’re quite as strong as the Rangers, but I think they might be a serious competitor for the #2 slot
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Nov 21, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No...
Oakland will easily have the 2 spot. Then TB, SF, and Flor.
Florida has Cameron Maybin, Logan Morrison, Matt Dominguez, Kyle Skipworth, Micheal Stanton, Jose Ceda, Sean West, Ryan Tucker, and a few others.
Sf has Bumgarner, Alderson, Posey, Villalona, Noonan, Rafael Rodriguez, Pablo Sandoval, and Clayton Tanner.
TB has Reid Brignac, Wade Davis, Jeremy Hellickson, Jeff Niemann, Desmond Jennings, Tim Beckahm, David Price, Heath Rollins, and Ryan Royster.
by joegonzo on Nov 21, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, look! I can list guys, too!
ATL has Jason Heyward, Tommy Hanson, Jordan Schafer, Gorkys Hernandez, Freddie Freeman, Julio Teheran, Cole Rohrbough, Tyler Flowers, Randall Delgado, Brandon Hicks, Kris Medlen, John Gilmore, Craig Kimbrell, Jeff Locke, and Jose Ortegano
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
by mraver on Nov 21, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sandoval
exhausted his eligibility.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's true
But I think that’s more important for a prospect list. He really is still basically a prospect.
I guess it depends on how you view the list – because just as a farm system, I think he should be counted as a part of it.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Nov 21, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brignac exhausted his bat
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Nov 22, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Braves get plenty of respsect
They should be in the conversation for 3rd best system, but I don’t think they can really touch the As or the Rangers.
You could argue that Toronto (who should be clearly middle-of-the-pack rather than low 20s/high teens) is underrated, but not the Braves.
by mraver on Nov 21, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
In fact, the Braves have enough talent that they would likely be the #1 farms system in many years…. but in 2009, there are two teams with a crazy amount of talent.
I really dont see much point in arguing about the top 3, to tell you the truth. That’s the least interesting part of the list.
by alskor on Nov 21, 2008 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, how about this
Tier #1 TEX, OAK
Tier #2 TB, ATL, SF, FL, BAL
Tier #3 KC, LAD, BOS, MIL, CLE
Tier #4 Min, STL, COL, NYM, TOR
Tier #5 NYY, LAA, PIT, CIN, SD, CHC
Tier #6 SEA, WSH, CHW, PHI, AZ
Tier #7 HOU, DET
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mariners
are underrated here. They don’t have any top tier talent, but they have a really solid collection of guys very close to the majors. Saunders, Tuiasosopo, Halman, Adam Moore, and Luis Valbuena all look like league average players with a chance for more right now. How many other teams have 5 position players set to begin in AAA next year, all of whom have a chance to graduate to the big league club with only marginal improvement?
Their pitching depth is horrible, but I’d rank the team somewhere in the 18-20 range.
I don’t understand why people consider the Mets a decent farm system. Flores is a ray of hope, but it’s still one of the shallowest systems in baseball.
by slamcactus on Nov 21, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So....
who would you put them ahead of(besides the Mets)? I mean seriously, I’m curious who you’d put them ahead. I can’t see them ahead of the Yankees, Angels, or Reds for certain. I’d rather take my chances with Alvarez/Cutch/Tabata or Vitters/Samardzija/Cashner than the group you mentioned for Seattle. I can see a case for maybe putting them ahead of San Diego, but I prefer Blanks, Kulbacki, Decker, Antonelli, Hunter, Canham, Latos to the Mariners system. So if we throw out the Mets, you’d still have pick from 3-5 of the above mentioned teams to put the Mariners in the 18-20 range. I just don’t see it.
And honestly, I’d probably switch Cincinnati with the Mets the more I think about it.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I...
didn’t even mention high-upside guys in the lower levels (Triunfel, Aumont, Ramirez, DeJesus). I’d rank the Ms in front of the Angels and Padres for sure, and maybe the Pirates as well. The Pirates’ top talent is way better, but the Mariners have significantly more depth.
by slamcactus on Nov 21, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
Just curious. I tend to disagree with you, but thanks for explaining your position.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Angels?
I’m just curious about the Angels system right now. Who do they have that excites you? I know they’ve consistently had a very good system through the past decade, but I really don’t see much there now to get excited about.
by slamcactus on Nov 21, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I like Walden better than anyone in the M’s system. O’Sullivan and Bell should both be useful arms, Bourjos could be very good, Pettit was great in 2007 but struggled this year(injury?), Conger still has a good bat. What the hell happened to Matt Sweeney by the way? I didn’t realize until going to answer this that SeanRod had used up his eligibility, he may not be a star but I think he can an above average hitter at 2B.
It’s probably not a whole lot better than the M’s system, but I prefer more of the Angels guys.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pettit
Broke a bone in his foot fielding a flyball in the first game of the season and missed almost half of the season. His numbers were terrible when he initially came back (something like a 1-for-20 slump) but seemed to warm pretty well as the season went on, and he finished the AFL on a strong note with a .359/.417/.545 line.
by Grudyfan on Nov 21, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hm...
Here are the cores of both systems as I see them (in no particular order). Tell me if I’m missing anyone from the Angels list, as I’m more familiar with the Ms.
Mariners: Michael Saunders, Philippe Aumont, Gregory Halman, Carlos Triunfel, Luis Valbuena, Adam Moore, Matt Tuiasosopo, Juan Ramirez, Dennis Raben, Michael Pineda, Jharmidy De Jesus, and Mario Martinez.
Angels: Peter Bourjous, Hank Conger, Sean O’Sullivan, Chris Petit, Matt Sweeney, and Jorden Walden. Beyond that, I’m assuming there are guys with breakout potential, but I see very few present prospects.
The Mariners list looks a lot more impressive to me.
by slamcactus on Nov 21, 2008 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's fine.
Triunfel is like Andrus, Tabata, and FMart to me. I get it, he’s young for his level, but color me unimpressed at this point. I’d rather see these guys repeat a league at a more appropriate age and show they can hit than continually getting pushed upwards with no real success. Aumont is pretty far away still, and anything could happen. Not a guy I have alot of faith in at this point. I’d love to see Tuiasosopo develop into something good, since I took a flyer on him in a fantasy league.
I’m not saying there is a huge gap between them in my mind, probably a spot or two. But I prefer the Angels system at this point.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on Triunfel...
I don’t see him as a present top prospect and think the community list is a little nuts for ranking him where they did. I think even if you take him out, the Ms have more depth though.
Lack of any pitching whatsoever is really concerning, though, and puts the Ms pretty far down the list. I think i’m in a similar state as you, but reversed: I think the Mariners are a little bit better. I do think the Angels tend to get a flier based on a long run of very good systems, but they might deserve it, since they always seem to get more out of their players than their tools would suggest, turning nobodies like Reggie Willits into valuable players.
by slamcactus on Nov 21, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For some reason
Pineda doesn’t seem to get a lot of love from people on this site. I’m not sure on the quality of his pitches (essentially I have no real knowledge of his scouting reports) but his statistical performance was very impressive – as a 19-year old, he posted a sub-2.00 ERA and struck out almost a batter an inning in A-ball, with a K-to-BB ratio of almost 4:1.
The Ms do seem to have decent depth and they also were bigger players in the international market this year, landing Morban and Vildivia, while the Angels didn’t really land any top talent from this year’s crop.
As for the Angels, they do still have some good prospects like you mentioned, and others that are mired in position battles with other young players, guys like Sean Rodriguez and Brandon Wood, who, because the Angels had a top-flight system for the past few years, have graduated an incredible amount of talent to the ML roster.
It’s hard for me to say which system I prefer (if Seattle’s youngsters like DeJesus, Aumont, Martinez, and Triunfel continue to progress next year, it wouldn’t be close), but I do agree that Seattle is unjustly placed in the second-to-last tier in the previous posts, and should be a middle-of-the pack team.
by Grudyfan on Nov 21, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One Mets top prospect list I've seen recently:
1. Fernando Martinez OF
2. Wilmer Flores SS
3. Jon Niese LHSP
4. Dan Murphy 3B/2B/1B/LF
5. Brad Holt RHSP
6. Mike Carp 1B/LF
7. Nick Evans LF/1B
8. Reese Havens SS
10. Jenrry Mejia RHSP
11. Jefry Marte 3B
12. Bobby Parnell RHP
13. Scott Moviel RHSP
14. Maikel Cleto RHSP
15. Dillon Gee RHSP
That’s a pretty decent list, IMO. As most have said, a lot of the talent is in the low minors but there’s a LOT of it. Obviously, Murphy shouldn’t be on the list.
The Mets major flaw, I think, is a relative lack of impact projectable starting pitching candidates.
by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 21, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Being a Jays fan
BA’s podcast about the AL East which is free on their site the two commentators debate who has the 2nd best system in the division and the two contenders are Baltimore and Toronto. Rays were considered tops. Toronto’s system currently is much better than Boston’s as they have graduated a lot of their young talent. Torono has a nice mix of almost ready prospects(Snider, Cecil, Arencibia, Mills, Romero) and some high upside young guys(Cooper, Ahrens, Tolisano, Fuenmayor, Emaus…etc.)
by JJACK on Nov 21, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yet another reason BA sucks.
Toronto’s system is not “much better” than Boston, even with the graduations.
Lars Anderson, Bowden, Bard, Reddick, Casey Kelley, Westmoreland, Lin, Kalish, Exposito, Wagner, Oscar Tejeda, Hagadone, Middlebrooks, Hissey…
I like Cecil and Snider a ton… but theyre not that much better than Anderson and Bowden, Theyre all top 50 prospects. After that Boston’s system is much deeper with lots of high end guys. For instance: Romero or Bard?
Im not claiming Boston is “much better” than Toronto by any means, but the Jays certainly arent “much better” than Boston.
by alskor on Nov 21, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Snider and Cecil ARE a lot better than Anderson adn Bowden
Whether its enough to call Toronto’s a better system is debatable, but Snider is a beast, and Cecil is underrated.
by mraver on Nov 21, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jays vs Boston
Maybe. But I don’t think its fair to make a random comparison like Romero vs Bard. Bard is much higher up the BoSox depth charts than Romero is on the Jays’. Which says a lot, b/c he’s a RP. How about Arencibia vs Bard? Or Arencibia vs pretty much any Sox prospect outside of Anderson? I’m not actually trying to make those comparisons, but I think you get my point. Its much easier to do position vs position, but the BoSox don’t have a C prospect anywhere near Arencibia.
At the end of the day, Snider is the best prospect on either team, Anderson, Arencibia and Cecil are probably the next 3 and since 4 of those guys are Jays, that gives them an advantage right away. Is it “much” … well, thats very subjective.
by jayjay on Nov 21, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Jays have
a better top 3, but taking the whole system into account, Boston is better top to bottom. I’d rank the top guys like this: Snider(big gap), Anderson(big gap), Cecil(very close) Bowden(small gap), Arencibia(big gap)….but after that I think it really leans in Boston’s favor.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well ...
I think if you look at pure stats, you are right about after that b/c guys like Jackson and Ahrens didn’t have great years. But you cannot forgot those were 19-year olds playing at full season ball.
Also, I think you overrate Bowden and/or underrate Cecil. In pure numbers? They look close. But look a little deeper, you have Bowden who is a flyball pitcher who had a great year but was pretty lucky (25% BaBIP) and was repeating the level. Meanwhile, Cecil, in his first go round in AA had a slightly better K rate and a huge GB% (consistent with the rest of his minor league career). You show me a guy who can K ~26-27% of batters he faces and has a GB% of over 60% and I’ll show you someone who has a very, very good chance of being a successful major leaguer.
Would I put him ahead of Anderson? No. But the gap between him and and Bowden is BIG IMO, and I would even put Bowden behind Arencibia (but not by much, JP has his own problems).
by jayjay on Nov 21, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here are the park and luck adjusted lines
for both Cecil and Bowden, who played in the same league.
2.80 FIP 1.24 WHIP 9.91 K/9 2.62 BB/9 .46 HR/9 59.2 GB%
3.07 FIP 1.15 WHIP 9.21 K/9 2.19 BB/9 .64 HR/9 41.7 GB%
I did this comparison in the Community Prospect list too, and there isn’t just a lot of difference here. Bowden may have “repeated the league”, but he was one of the youngest players in AA last year and he and Cecil are the same and basically on the same developmental path. I’m sure Bowden starts in AAA next year, and Cecil I could see in either AA or AAA without concern, so they’ll basically stay on the same path, so age doesn’t factor in. Cecil has 2 plus pitches, Bowden has one plus pitch but an above average FB to go with it. I think both have #2/3 upside, but I don’t think either has ace potential.
Like I said, I’ve got them very close to each other and I don’t think that’s really to far off. As for putting Arencibia ahead of Bowden, that seems a little crazy. Bowden seems to be underrated by alot of people here. He’s not going to be an ace, but he’s a pretty damn good bet to be a #3 SP in the Kevin Slowey/Scott Baker mold. I’d take that certainty and slightly lower ceiling over the plate discipline issues and possible higher ceiling Arencibia. Again, I don’t have Arencibia that far behind Bowden, as I posted (small gap) between them. That probably works out to 10-15 spots in a top 100 ranking.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is SD in the 5th tier?
That organization is pretty weak
by JBImaknee on Nov 21, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They don't have a stud necessarily
but there is a lot of depth in that system. Blanks, Hunter, Canham, Dykstra, Antonelli, Kulbacki, Decker, Darnell and Huffman is a decent list of hitters. Latos, LeBlanc, Inman, and Garrison aren’t going to blow you away, but all should contribute in the bigs to varying degrees. I’m sure I’m leaving someone out too.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Reds
wow, am I losing my mind or something.
There top 5 includes Yonder Alonso, Todd Frazier, Neftali Soto, Drew Stubbs and Chris Valaika. It doesn’t include a 22 year old pitcher with a sub 2.75 ERA in AAA who can throw up to 95 MPH in Daryl Thompson. Yeah, he has injury risk, which is why he isn’t in the top 5, but how many other teams in that tier have a guy not in their top 5, who can throw up to 95 MPH as a starter, is ARL or better with strong results? Toss in their big International Signings of Juan Duran and Yorman Rodriguez, both of whom didn’t even make my Reds top 10 lists and I just can’t see them being anywhere near the tier you have them in.
by dougdirt on Nov 21, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you're replying to me(hard to tell this far down)
two comments below my tiered comment, I say I’d switch the Mets and Reds tiers. Nothing more than a mistake made in haste, and corrected.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well the Reds top 5 place last year was based on
Votto, Bialey, Bruce and Cueto…
3 are not eligible and 1 has severely hurt his prospect stock.
No premier top 20 prospect, most of the talent is at the low levels. The Reds are a victim of last years rankings and the fall associated with massive attrition.
I would rank them probably above the Cubs and Mets in my 4th tier.
Clev, Jays, Pit, LAA, NYY, Cin, Cubs, Mets or about 20th… Which might be a tad low but i can see between 17-21
by laxtonto on Nov 21, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yankees should be Tier 4. The Mets should be Tier 6
by schmosterballs92 on Nov 21, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Homer?
I am a homer because the I think the Reds are a better system than most people on here?
Give me a good rundown of the Reds top 10 prospects versus the other teams in the same tier and convince me otherwise, because I think you are mistaken on the Reds system and their prospects.
by dougdirt on Nov 21, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
swing and a miss bro
read it again.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on Nov 21, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I'm biased.
I do however think that the Yankees have a great system..a lot of depth.
by schmosterballs92 on Nov 22, 2008 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Houston
I think the Astros are their own tier.
by Brett Perryman on Nov 21, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Detroit deserves to be higher
Porcello alone makes them better than Houston, the ChiSox, the Nats and arguably San Diego and Philly.
by demondeaconsbaseball on Nov 21, 2008 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mets...
Down 2 tiers. They belong in the bottom-5 discussion, not the middle of the pack discussion.
by slamcactus on Nov 21, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on how you evaluate prospects, I suppose.
The Mets system in the upper levels is rather poor, in that there isn’t much in immediate help along the way, and the pieces they do have lack elite upside (Sans F-Mart), but…..
Mets system is very, very good in the lower levels (Possibly the best), Give them 2 years, barring trade/injuries, and they could be an elite system. Wilmer Flores is really just the icing on the cake. There’s alot more there when you dig deeper.
by adropofvenom on Nov 21, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
It depends on what you mean by system: a great organization or a good group of prospects at this moment.
IMO, I’d rather have a couple of true impact players than OK depth. Atlanta is great because of their fantastic top 5, not 6-10. And, I’d take Pittsburgh’s McCutchen & Alvarez and little else over any team on tier 5 and probably even tier 4 (save possibly Tor).
Mets are too high
Det is too low
Pit is too low
StL is too high
etc
by my dixie wrecked on Nov 21, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First off, I am a Cardinal fan, and might be biased
Anyway, I don’t think the Cards have one of the top 10 farm systems in baseball yet. Maybe 15-20, I can go along with most of gatlings list, the Cards included.
All that being said, I don’t understand the logic behind “StL being too high” based on the couple of true impact players logic. With Rasmus and Wallace they do have a couple of true impact players, if nothing else.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Nov 21, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SO I take it that this is a reasonable start then?
by laxtonto on Nov 21, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I think that Cincinnati and Cleveland should both be bumped up a tier, and I think you’re sleeping on San Diego’s depth due to lack of that star guy. The Mets might be a tier high too, although I think if you re-work tiers 2-4 a bit and make them into 4 tiers, it could help a bit. Kind of like I did, but then I made the Cincy/Mets mistake and it could be easily argued to move KC up a level in my format.
But your list certainly helped me put mine together, and it’s a great start to work from. This is pretty good idea by the way, but if you’re looking to do voting, I’d recommend going with the +1 system. I’ll volunteer to help tabulate the votes if you go that route.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why are the Dodgers so high?
DeJesus isn’t an elite shortstop, he doesn’t profile as well as Drew or Tulowitzki in that division and has some make-up questions. McDonald profiles as a #4 starter, and well, I like Lambo a lot, but he’s still got a climb ahead of him and after those three the system drops into a lot of question marks. I just don’t see the justification for putting them with the rest of that tier, all five of which I could point to at least one player I’d take over any of the Dodgers top three, most of them two or more players.
by Rox Girl on Nov 21, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
McDonald just got done whiffing 141 players in 141 innings in AA/AAA this year (age 23)
He has a career K/BB of 3, a career K/9 of 9.74.
The statement that he “profiles as a #4 starter” is completely preposterous.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 21, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's an RHP that relies heavily on a curveball,
Which AA/AAA hitters are notorious for whiffing on. His FB is nothing special. He reminds me of Jason Hirsh, who struck out 165 at that age in AA. I think you’re putting too much weight on K numbers taken out of context. His ceiling is probably a number three, but he’s more likely to come in below that. I know I’m not the only person who thinks so.
by Rox Girl on Nov 21, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here is what
Goldstein posted about McDonald’s stuff in last year’s Dodgers Top 11:
His average-velocity fastball is brought up a full grade due to his movement and command of the pitch, while his curveball is his best offering-–a slow, big-bending breaker that McDonald like to bend into the strike zone. He also has a deceptive changeup with plenty of depth, and an excellent pickoff move. bq
I actually think he’s a pretty good bet to be a #3 starter, although his performance in the playoffs shows he could possibly outperform expectations of him.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
McDonald has one plus MLB pitch in the curve,
And two average-ish pitches in the FB and change-up according to the scouting reports I’ve seen, and Goldstein’s don’t really seem to differ from that. If the FB movement proves (and it will need more than a September/October sample to do so) as deceptive to MLB hitters as it has at times to minor leaguers, than he would fit as a #3. If it doesn’t, and he has to rely mostly on that curve, than he’s a #4. I think his performance in the playoffs did prove he could be a very good late inning reliever, should the Dodgers decide to put him there, but did little to alleviate doubts about his starting potential. Still, arguing whether McDonald’s a #3 or #4 only highlights how out of place LA’s system is on that tier. If he’s the brightest bulb in the system, how does it make them worthy of placement ahead of some of the teams below them? I’ve got some bias to the Rockies, obviously, but Colorado’s system is a step ahead of LA’s right now. I don’t want to sound foolish ranking divisions I don’t know enough about, but the NL West hierarchy is pretty distinct:
1. San Francisco – Pitching out the wazoo and now developing some hitters too
2. Colorado – Fowler and Chacin beat the best from the next three systems, some quality depth after that.
3. Los Angeles – Decent depth, lacking the topline talent of Colorado for the moment
4. San Diego – A very good 2008 draft has them rising, but there’s a ways to go
5. Arizona – poor system outside of Parker and Schlereth and a poor draft, no clear direction
by Rox Girl on Nov 21, 2008 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent summary of the NLWest
Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Whatever's happened, it's like I've landed on a different planet. Now, maybe if I can work out the reason, I can get home.
by Lyle on Nov 24, 2008 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
Jon Niese struck out 144 in 164 IP between AA/AAA as a 21 year old, and I think he profiles as a #3/#4 SP. Jeremy Hellickson struck out 162 in 152 IP, an SO/9 of 9.6, and he doesn’t really profile as better than a #3 either.
How about Will Inman, with a SO/9 of 9.3 this year at age 21 in AA, what does he profile as? Or Ian Kennedy, with a career minor league SO/9 of 9.86?
Especially with a plus curve, guys can rack up strikeouts in the minors. That rate isn’t always going to stay high against better competition. The plus breaking ball is nice, and a good reason to expect him to have success in MLB, but without a true plus fastball setting it up, it doesn’t really profile as top of rotation.
by acerimusdux on Nov 22, 2008 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeremy Hellickson profiles as better than a #3 in my opinion
I think he should have been in the 20s on the prospect list. It’s no coincidence that the teams that consistently produce good young pitchers— Twins, A’s, Rays— look for that profile (high Ks, low BBs) above all else. Hellickson could easily be the next Dan Haren.
Inman has concerns about his platoon splits because of his throwing angle. Kennedy appears to be injured. Those really aren’t fair comparisons to McDonald.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 23, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the Rangers have to be #1
Neftali Feliz, Derek Holland, Michael Maine, Neil Ramirez, Martin Perez………and the list goes ON AND ON. it’s almost unfair how stacked the Rangers. they have to be No. 1……
by psugator on Nov 21, 2008 1:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
biased?
Listen, dude. I don’t even like the Rangers, nor do I like the American League. But whenever I hear of a really good minor league I might be interested in signing, I look up his team and it’s almost always the Rangers. I know that seems like a bit of an exaggeration, but they really are loaded.
by psugator on Nov 21, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else
get a kick out of this?
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have an Astros buddy
that always complains about all the cool prospects he finds that he hasn’t heard on the major top 10 organizational lists are either Rangers or A’s or Dodgers…
I think it is because he is looking for young pitching, but still i find it rather funny regardless.
by laxtonto on Nov 21, 2008 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
that’s not what I was getting at. I believe psugator intended to reply to LCT below here, but instead he replied to himself. To me, it kind of read as a split personality thing, from one post to the next. I know it was an unintentional mistake, but it made me chuckle.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a popularity contest.
Everybody seems biased.
by LCT on Nov 21, 2008 1:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I, as a Yankees fan, believe they are a top 10 system.
Get it?
by schmosterballs92 on Nov 21, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
for explaining bias. That was my real question. Good work. Anyway….if we vote with the +1 system, it should eliminate ballot stuffing possibilities and give us a pretty accurate read on things. I also don’t see too much bias in the comments here, at least as of the time LCT made his post. So all I really wanted was for LCT to expound on his comment a little bit, instead of just dropping the “everybody seems biased” bit on us. Instead I get Mr. Dictionary. Lucky me.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 21, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hence my comment earlier
I, as a Mets fan, believe the Mets farm system can turn water to wine.
by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 21, 2008 9:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fish around 4-8 range?
I think we are somewhere around that range, not the top few elites (imo SF, As, TB) but around the next catagory or so below there?
by Fishfan79 on Nov 22, 2008 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think
the Fish are probably in the 5-7 range really. I think Texas and Oakland(in that order) are the top two systems, and after that I think it’s Atlanta and Tampa Bay in some order( I think that ATL has the better 1-2 combo, but I prefer the Rays depth over Atlanta’s). Then depending on what you value more, I think it’s San Francisco, Baltimore and Florida in some kind of order there.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Nov 22, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like this system
I find this farm system very attractive:
Four position players who played in AA at age 20 or 21, and posted OPS’s of .909, .932, .937, and 1.109.
Five starting pitchers who were young or very young for their leagues (age-appropriate being 20 in A, 21 in high-A, etc.), and had ERAs of 1.61, 2.62, 2.80, 2.95, and 3.56.
Six starters who were age-appropriate, and had ERAs of 2.08, 2.34, 2.50, 2.70, 2.97, and 3.12.
Three good-glove shortstops in full-season leagues (all young or age-appropriate) whose Davenport Translations target them to be above average offensively for their position.
Additional position player depth? There’s a catcher (21 in high-A) whose Peak DT is a nearly .800 OPS, a RF in low-A whose Peak is .860, a jetquick CF in low-A with a 24-3 career assist/error ratio (24 OF assists in under 180 games) who peaks around an .800 OPS, and two solid-to-excellent defensive 3rd basemen in AAA and AA who peak at .808 & .820 OPS’s, respectively.
There’s also some power relief arms. How about a foursome (3 young for level, one age-appro.) who combined to fan more than 10 per 9IP, while posting ERAs all between 2.86 and 3.34. More importantly, at the uppermost level, there’s a pair of still-rookie-eligible flamethrowers who work at 95-98 MPH, and who in just 92 innings combined to fan 148(!) AAA batters…then went on to whiff another 58 in 53 MLB innings, and post a combined sub-3.00 ERA in The Show.
Finally, in keeping with the Thanksgiving season, here’s some gravy. Two rookieball teen shortstops who exceeded their league OPS’s by 146 and 160 points, and combined for a stellar BB/K/AB ratio of 57-72-443. (Both age-appropriate, or slightly young, as well.)
I doubt that any other farm system had more high-quality performances by guys who were young or age-appropriate for their leagues. But maybe I’m wrong.
by Mekonsrock on Nov 22, 2008 2:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Could be that you are wrong,
Jones 36 G, .909 OPS
Anderson 19 G, .937 OPS
Wallace 9 G 1.109 OPS
I can’t find the .932 guy, but the small sample you’re using with the trio already mentioned in one of the most hitter friendly parks in AA has me dubious that you’re putting any sort of context to your claims. St. Louis has a solid system, I like the collection of arms and I could see an argument to allow it into the top ten, but I’m willing to bet every fan here could find three players who hit similarly for a similar stretch of AA games when park factors are considered.
by Rox Girl on Nov 22, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're doing better than me
I can’t even find what system he’s talking about :)
(ps. ignore misplaced double post below)
by acerimusdux on Nov 22, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing the .932 was Rasmus's 2007
Don’t eat me, I didn’t look that up.
I think St. Louis is a top 10 system, yeah. Not in the upper tier but they have a lot of talented players.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 23, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're doing better than me
I can’t even find what system he’s talking about :)
by acerimusdux on Nov 22, 2008 9:41 PM EST 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.
