Top 7 Systems
by caincecum on Dec 16, 2008 6:26 PM EST
Email
Print
In my opinion the top 7 systems (in no order) are the Giants, Braves,A's,Rangers,Baltimore,Tampa,Marlins
I wanted to take each systems top 4 prospects and compare them. As a way of measuring which system had the best elite talent
OAKLAND: Cahill, Anderson, Inoa Cunningham
ATLANTA: Heyward, Hanson, Schafer, Freeman
Florida: Maybin, Stanton, Morrison, Coughlan GIANTS: Bumgarner, Posey, Alderson, Angel V
Rangers: Feliz,Holland, Smoak, Andrus
TAMPA Baltimore: Wieters, Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta
Price
Davis
Beckham
Brignac
- Also rank the systems 1-7. My personal ranking: 1.Rangers 2. Baltimore 3.Tampa 4.Giants 5. Atlanta 6.Florida 7. Oakland
- Florida and Atlanta could have gone either way a but Stanton and Maybin have scary strikeouts to go with their huge ceilings.
- Rangers great upside from each position as a variety of positions sealed the deal
- Baltimore-love Weiters can put up .310/.380/520 as a catcher potentially with good D remaining three can be front of the rotation starters
- Price to good to ignore, Davis another high upside arm not that full away. Beckham toolsy as they come but very far away not a big fan of Brignac but Price/Davis to good to pass up.
- Giants mix huge upside from their arms with high ceiling first baseman and premium talent behind the plate.
- Oakland-Cunningham could be weakest number four. Inoa offers ridiculous upside but hasn't even thrown a pitch in the U.S Anderson and Cahill don't have upside of other pitchers on the list.
92 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Boston
Has to be in the top 7, no?
Lars, Bowden, and some huge high ceiling guys like Bard, Reddick, Kelly, Navarro
I am starting to think Boston is going
to fall in the 8-12 range. Boston has seem a lot of attrition the last 2 years and for the first time in several years won’t have a top 10 prospect. Lars is great but he still has very few bats in AA and has an obscene BABIP.
boston
they may not be in the top 7 this year, though I think they are, but i can understand the arguments for some others, but I think boston’s players have the ceilings and scouting reports to just absolutely have huge breakout seasons from top to bottom
hagadone, kelly, westmoreland, hissey, navarro, tejada, kalish, reddick, these guys could all just almost come out of nowhere (as far as people who just look at stats are concerned), not to mention if bard keeps his control and anderson continues to progress it could be absolutely filthy
this might not make sense because the definition of ceiling should mean that they can be better than other players if their “ceiling” is higher, but I think the real ceilings of these players are through the roof while many people haven’t been apprised to their skills yet so people want to say that the ceiling of this team or that team is higher, but I just don’t know that is true…
the rangers are similar, but i think a lot of these guys are simply more likely to be better than some of their young studs who haven’t produced yet, the red sox can draft and develop amazingly well that’s for sure
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 16, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
No.
They don’t really have an elite prospect this year. A lot of their top guys have been called up, and, a lot of systems have improved past them.
You would rank Oakland 7th?
I’d have them 1st or 2nd, seems a tossup between TX and Oakland right now.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I'd rather ATL's top 4 too
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 16, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
the A's system isn't great at the top
the reason it is so good is because of the depth. they have about 10-12 B/B- prospects with only two borderline A- guys. you can’t base a system just on the top four.
"I think people in this state like BOTH teams," proclaims Nick Aliotti, the Ducks' defensive coordinator. "Except for our hard-core fans, I don't think most Duck fans would have been terribly upset to see Oregon State going to the Rose Bowl."
Another reason he needs to go.
by UOSportsDude on Dec 17, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
The top 2-3 Systems have...
..the top elite guys AND depth. Systems like Texas and Baltimore have their top 4-5 guys, but their depth goes all the way down to about #20. Right now I think both Baltimore and Texas have guys around #20 who may contribute in the big leagues in some form. That’s depth.
Uh, OK
Their #10 player just had labrum surgery and is characterized as “useful pitcher, but not likely a star.”
If you think Baltimore’s depth is even vaguely comparable with that of Oakland (or Texas, for that matter), you’re delusional.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
True...but you forget to...
..acknowledge that this guy was once considered the top pitching prospect of the Astros organization…Yes, it’s only the Astros system we’re talking about, but, he did post solid AAA numbers in 2007, and, if you can take any other organization’s top pitching prospect, and he’s projected to be a #3-type MLB starter and he’s placed at your #10, that is a sign of depth. I am not saying that the Os have more depth. I am just saying that they have depth AND impact players.
A Top 10 system can be one due to good depth, but, to be a Top 5 system it needs to be both depth AND elite prospects. About 5 years ago one of the deeper systems but without impact types were the Blue Jays, very similar to the As.
Problem is
if you aren’t sold on Stanton as an elite prospect, like me, then it drops big time. It also doesn’t help that I am not a big Maybin fan either.
I think Boston and KC definitely are in the mix for the top 7. Tampa is probably closer to the bubble than you have them. I would also field a case for the Indians.
My rankings would probably be..
1.Texas
2. Atlanta
3. Oakland
4. Baltimore
5. Kansas City
6. San Francisco
7. Tampa
8. Boston
9. Cleveland
10. Florida
Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.
same for bumgardner
you absolutely have to believe he is a top 10 prospect as a low A pitcher with one pitch and then this group MIGHT be top 7, i DONT believe and though I think Alderson is gonna be great, i’m not very high on any catcher prospect that isn’t wieters, florida state might play in the greatest hitters park in ncaa D-1, posey is not that good
san fran is top 10, but top 7 though
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 16, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed +1000
Posey is overrated. He doesnt do anything that well.
I do like Bumgarner, but among top prospects he has as many issues/questions as Lars. Consider the huge difference in depth and Id take the Sox over the Giants. Both are very good systems though… also a factor is that only one of those teams is… you know… how can I phrase this? Not run… stupidly… …yeah.
PS If anyone decides he/she wants to defend the Giants I want to hear an explanation of the Renteria deal.
Explanation...
for the Renteria deal is that Saban is tricking everyone into believing that he can compete so they take him seriously and they actually do not win a game. SABAN is a genius… HAHAHAHA
who is this Saban fellow?
I thought Alabama won quite a few games this year.
aight here i go
Burris is not the future ss, he would be a below average defender and below average offensively for the position. The giants figure if they move him to 2b he will be a premium defender because of his range and also his weak arm won’t be exposed. The giants have no long term SS currently close to being ready to take over the reigns. The giants had money to burn so they signed a SS until they A acquire a long term SS or one of their own prospects is ready to man the position. I also think the organization believes there not far from competing in the weak NL west and though it’s not the wisest way to spend money I tend to agree with the notion that it’s not far fetched.
Really?
Below average defender at SS? I know he wasn’t world beating, but I thought he was around average at SS and great at 2B.
If you’re talking about him being below average offensively for SS then he’d be even belower average offensively at 2B.
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Burriss's future position
Has been in doubt since we drafted him.
A good number of scouts believe he don’t have the skills to stay at SS and believe 2B is his future. I guess his future is now.
Adoptive parental unit of Kevin " 2007's Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.
"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Dec 17, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
its a 2-year deal and we have no other half-decent SS
and nowhere else to dump the money. Why the hell not? What if he becomes Edgar Renteria circa 2007? Then it’ll look great. Either way, he’s an offensive improvement over what we had last year. And if he flounders, then ah well he’s gone in one more year. It’s not like he’s restraining us financially and it’s not like we have anything else to do with the money.
and another thing
Posey doesnt do anything well? …Elaborate please? I’m sure all the pro scouts that think otherwise would love to hear your explanation. His defense may be questionable, but his bat, too?
I need to hear more about Bumgarner
He is not a one pitch pitcher from what I have read.
Here is what MLB.com noted about him after ranking him the 6th best prospect in the majors for the 2009 season: "Scouting report: The left-hander debuted in pro ball with one pitch — though that offering was a plus, plus fastball that easily hits the mid-90s with good late life. His curve and slider have shown great progress and the changeup is improving as well, though perhaps lags a bit behind the others. He also has excellent command on both sides of the plate. His work ethic is off the charts and he has excellent mound presence.
Upside potential: The kind of left-handed ace that everyone wants, but few possess."
The same ranking had Posey as #19 overall, 2nd best catching prospect after Weiters. Their report noted: "Scouting report: Very athletic catcher who used to be a shortstop. Has an advanced hitting approach, good strike zone knowledge, and should hit for average with some power. Ability to use all fields for extra-base pop.
Upside potential: Top all-around catcher who reaches the Majors quickly and stays for a long time."
Adoptive parental unit of Kevin " 2007's Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.
"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Dec 17, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions
I'd rank Baltimore over Oakland.
They have depth and elite prospects.
I think...
his list is about right. I can’t see how Kansas City or Clevaland rank above any of those guys. I think they are both top 10, but at the bttom. Kansas City’s Hosmer, Moose, Cortes, and Duffy are OK. Clevaland’s LaPorta, Santana, Miller, and Mills are OK to but I can’t take either of those over the 7 he has. The most underrated top 4 who should at least be considered is Seattle’s with Truinful, Halman, Aumont, and Saunders.
Seattle
The guys you listed for Seattle aren’t considered elite for good reason. They all have the “I’m young for my level, so forgive my weakness with __________” thing going.
Any system that looks only at the top-teir prospects underrates Oakland
Ya’ll remember how John had to go to 26 just to get through all of the Bs and C+ guys Oakland has? That system is insanely deep.
How you view Atlanta depends a lot on how much you like Hanson (I tend to think he’s been underrated by some people here and is a fringe top 10 guy) and how much you like Schafer. If you’re high on these two, there’s enough elite talent to put Atlanta in contention with Oakland and Texas. Otherwise, I think those two are clearly the best.
The Giants’ talent pool has a lot of young arms in it and not much in the way of position prospects. So unless you likes you some A-ball arms, you can’t really put them all that high. OTOH, when it comes to A-ball arms with through-the-roof upside, the Giants have all you could possibly ask for.
I’d probably rate them out:
Texas
Oakland
Atlanta
Baltimore
Tampa
San Francisco
Florida
But to be honest, 3-6 seems like a tossup. I just like Atlanta’s depth (guys like Randall Delgado) more than those others, and I’m a big Bumgarner guy.
Same thing you say for Oakland could be said for Atlanta
John listed like 5 or 6 guys outside the top 20 that were C+ in his book, plus a long list of others. He said 55 were worth writing about, but had to trim down to 40 or so for the book.
BTW, flip flop San Fran and Tampa and your list is right on.
It might make more sense to compare the Top 4 prospects rather than the Top 26 because
major league games are frequently decided by the four best players on each team. Having 26 above replacement guys is nice, but isn’t going to win you a lot of pennants without the four elite guys. And then there’s the Mets.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 16, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Actually
It’s the whole scope of a team that wins games. Most teams have star-level players that stand out compared to their positional brethren, but it’s the entire depth of the team that matters. When someone gets hurt, who do you have to replace them? When you throw your number four and five starters, do you have a good chance of winning? How good is your middle relief? These are some of the most important factors in building a team. Depth is essetial.
by Andy Seiler on Dec 16, 2008 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
wow
you sure you don’t mean basketball?
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 16, 2008 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
If we're just going off the top 4
I think I’d go:
1. Texas
2. Baltimore
3. Atlanta
4. Oakland
5. Tampa Bay
6. San Francisco
7. Florida
As a homer I’ve got to say that I think top 4 is a bad standard for Oakland because of the drop off from 2 to 3 while 3-10 is a bunch of pretty close prospects. But I still think Cahill and Anderson make a pretty good top two which puts them in the middle of this list.
Feliz
So where do you guys think that Feliz would rank if he were still in Atlanta’s system. I think its safe to say for this community that he is above Hanson, but below Heyward. Am I off base here? And just for fun would Andrus be ahead of Hanson and Shafer? Wow just think if they hadn’t made that trade.
No trade rankings
Something like this:
Hanson
Heyward
Schafer
Andrus
Feliz
Not too far off
I would move Feliz ahead of Schafer and Andrus.
I am concerned that Feliz still has Jose Capellan potential, but I think Hanson has more stuff to work with.
Schafer and Andrus may be a tossup to me. I think I would go Schafer first.
I'd replace Dominguez for Coghlan in the Marlins foursome and rank them:
1) Orioles — Wieters plus three pretty good pitchers
2) Rangers – A good team nucleus right there
3) Marlins – Same as Rangers
4) Braves – A good offensive nucleus
5) Rays – Price plus a SS and a #2 starter
6) Athletics – Like the O’s but without Wieters
7) Giants – Alderson and Posey seem the least impactful of the third best guys
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 16, 2008 10:24 PM EST reply actions
Agree on Orioles
If I’m taking just the top 4, Baltimore’s 4-some wins out for me right now. I’m not sure if I buy any of those three becoming truly elite “aces”, but they are good arms to place bets on and all are fairly close to the bigs.
I think the idea of rating the systems
by only using only four prospects is inherently flawed. How did this number get picked? Why not three? Or 7? How about 20? Good read but largely meaningless.
I'm guessing
because it’s about the farthest the author could go to get his Giants into a discussion for the top five. They’ve got good top end talent, but it’s not as deep a system as Texas, Tampa, Oakland, Boston, or Atlanta. You go past about 4 guys and the Giants start to fade away a bit more.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
i think even if you take the whole system under consideration
giants would still be top 5 or 6. I think they could compete with pretty much any team in terms of pitching depth. And its not like there are absolutely no hitting prospects: posey, villalona, rafael rodriguez, noonan, adrianza, neal, and fairley constitute a core better than many other systems.
Well
they’re pretty easily behind Texas, Oakland, Atlanta and Tampa Bay without much question I think. Then, you’ve got systems like Cleveland, Boston, Florida, Baltimore, and Kansas City that I think are at least on par with San Francisco. The biggest thing the Giants have going for them is their top 4 guys. After that, there isn’t a lot to get terribly excited about, at least not yet. They’ve got lots of talent in the lower minors, but so does a team like Cincinnati. I think I’d rather have the Red Sox core over the Giants, probably the Marlins too, and possibly Cleveland as well. Then I think that Baltimore and KC are right there with the Giants to round out the top 10. In a year or two, if some of these lower level guys start to break out for the Giants, I could see considering them a top 5 or 6 system, but at this point I just don’t know that I see them in that range.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
Baltimore has...
…guys in their #15 who may be strong sleepers. I like their depth.
I consider Baltimore
a top 10 farm system. I didn’t say anything about them not having depth.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
My bad.
I just got the impression here (mainly OAK supporters) that Baltimore was getting knocked down a few notches to scooch up OAK. Having talented depth is very important, and not a slight against the system, but, a Top 5 System needs to have depth AND elite prospects. The Angels and Rays of the last several years are good examples of that.
Not sure
where you’d rank Oakland, but they’re a consensus top system. They have elite talent, and tons of depth.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
I think they are a Top 10 system.
…it’s just on this particular page there’s a few OAK supporters who are placing them in the Top 5 AND knocking out the Orioles out of the Top 10. I think both systems deserve to be in there. In what order? Not too sure. I would have to think about it. I love Oakland’s depth for sure. Few systems can compare with how many similarly ultra-talented players they have who each seem to have a issue or two to work out, which keeps them B prospects (not a BAD thing at all). I don’t think Baltimore’s depth can compare right this minute because they have a lot of Sleeper types who have a lot of potential or are raw/young HS type of picks in their 10-15. That’s not a bad thing either. For me what really sticks out is their Top 4 guys.
Yeah
Baltimore has great top end talent, and I do like their system, but they’re probably in the 8-10 range I think. They just don’t have quite the ridiculous depth that Texas/Oakland/Atlanta/Tampa has(my top four, probably in that order), and I like the systems in Cleveland, Boston, and Florida a bit more than Baltimore, but for different reasons on each system. Still, the O’s have quite a collection of talent, both in the minors and with some of their youngsters in the bigs too.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
Agreed.
I’m not too sure about Boston though. They’ve got a lot of graduated guys now, and, in my opinion Lars is a bit overrated (comes with the territory being a Boston prospect, I guess).
That being said, it will be interesting where Baltimore’s system sits entering 2010. As well as Texas. Wieters will probably lose his status in 2010, but they may have added more to the system as well, via trades and drafts. Both Texas and Baltimore systems have been rising at a strong pace the last several years. For me those are the stories of the System rankings. The other clubs have been in and around the Top 10 for a while now. Baltimore used to be around the Top 5 every season back in the day. Though, like you suggest, they might need another season to get there. Then again, being in the Top 10 at all is a great sign for all of these clubs.
What makes you say that
Baseball america has said numerous times that the giants probably have a top 5 system, what makes kansas city, cleveland or boston (who graduated most of its top talent though does have depth) on par with it, I’m just curious what your rationale is. And i really just don’t see Cincinnatti being that close.
BA
grades with a very heavy bias towards tools and projection. Lots of those type guys never pan out. While SF has better top end talent that KC, Cleveland, Boston, or Cincy I don’t care as much for their next 15 or so prospects. Boston has 24 guys that grade out as C+ or better by John, Cleveland has a very impressive top 12-15 guys that I’d consider all B- or above types, Kansas City has 19 C+ or better prospects by John’s list(plus 3 or 4 other guys in the C range I still like). Cincinnati has 18 or 19 guys that grade out as C+ or better, and that doesn’t include guys like Juan Duran and Yorman Rodriguez, two guys who are similar to Rafael Rodriguez who you mention as a top Giants hitting prospect, or Devin Mesoraco who was a first round pick in 2007.
I really don’t see how calling SF a top 10 farm system is a bad thing. But I’m not a Villalona fan(he falls in the FMart/Tabata/Andrus category for me) and I’m not as high on Posey as some people are. I love Bumgarner(I think he’s top 5 material) and I like Alderson alot, but after that there just aren’t a lot of guys that jump out at me as being better than guys on the above mentioned teams. But that’s all just my opinion. Your entitled to disagree with it.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
I think that SF's system is a lot deeper than you think
and I already said its depth was based in pitching, the examples i gave were mainly to show that we weren’t devoid of position prospects. Few others I should have put were keischnik, ishikawa, and conor gallespie. But don’t take my word for it, Sickels will do the Giants in about a week or two (or so he says), I think you might be surprised by what you see.
And I think
that you’re not giving enough credit to these other teams. The Giants need to go 18 prospects deep to get into the top 5, and I’m just not sure they have enough guys there to do it. Again, I’m not sure why saying they’re a top 10 system is a bad thing.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
Also
would like to elaborate a little on this pitching depth the Giants have that you’re touting? I don’t see pitching depth that rivals any of Texas/Oakland/Tampa for sure, and there has to be some guys I’m overlooking to be anything more than on par with Atlanta and Baltimore there. Look at the Giants top 20 from last year. 7 of those guys won’t be on the list either due to graduation or not being with the team any longer. Culberson, Noonan, and Sosa are going to be lucky not to drop a notch on the grading scale due to their 2008 seasons(Sosa could hang on to his B grade, depends on how John handles the injury issue). Tanner and Bucardo could drop down as well. Bumgarner should get a good bump up, and Alderson probably comes in at B+ too. Posey, Gillaspie, and Kieschnick should all be B- or better(Posey a B+, the other two either B or B-). Unless there are some real breakout guys that I’m totally overlooking, you’re talking about maybe 15-18 guys that should be C+ or better. That gets you into discussion for the latter half of the top 10 at best, but with some of these other systems, I don’t see how they go much higher than 10th.
If I am overlooking someone, please let me know. If you can give some reasons to change my mind, I’ll freely admit it. But I need some actually evidence of it, not just generalized statements about “depth”.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
okay
For some reason I think the pitching depth was assumed, sorry about that.
Starters:
Sosa: Possibly the best pure stuff in the giants organization (great curveball too) but an injury set him back a little, healthy again
kevin pucetas – 2007 most spectacular pitcher award, 2008 CAL pitcher of the yaer (moving up this year, even talked about for the 5th spot on the giants rotation)
Scott Barnes – 2008 draftee (why you prob don’t know him), redic stats and quick progression through minors after signing
Clayton Tanner – Good stuff and good numbers for a 20 yo in A+ (not sure why you’d want to drop him a grade)
Jesse English – 3.19 ERA in the hitter friendly CAL league (moving up this year)
Joseph Martinez – 2.55 ERA at conneticut, good ground ball percentage
Aaron King – Stuff improved since drafted, now can throw up to mid 90’s, good stats so far, questionable mechanics
jorge/wilber bucardo – young groudball pitchers from the DSL, good potential
Waldis Joaquin – Ridiculous pure stuff, needs to put it together, has some time, might end up a reliever being behind so many in the depth chart
Kyle Nicholson – Just drafted, stuff is okay but still some projection but stats are hard to ignore (ranked in BA’s top twenty in league)
Relievers
Osiris Matos – crazy stats in the minors last year before being called up for a while
Kelvin Pichardo – Definitely could be a serviceable reliever soon
Edwin Quirarte – Good potential and stats so far, projected to be a good reliever
Luis Perdermo – Newly acquired from St.L in Rule V draft, mid 90’s, good stats (not sure if he counts as he would have to be on the major league team)
Now probably all these pitchers won’t get a C+ or better but given the quality of prospect that is required to obtain that level, I think all these players have that potential. Though our first 4 picks were hitters in the last draft, we still got a great core of new pitching prospects as well.
Other hitting prospects who could receive grades – brandon crawford who is a five tool player once and jesus guzman (great pickup from the A’s); my favorite sleeper is hector sanchez (watch out for him when he comes to the states this year). By my estimation at least 11 or 12 people in the system should or could be given a B rating of some variety.
Now back to the original point of my post, it is not to say that the Giants are better than Atlanta or Boston (though I definitely think there is a solid argument there), it is to say that it is in no way out of the question. And to dismiss them as being fringe top ten, in my opinion, is a little off.
Okay
Sosa-Had a knee injury at the end of 2007 and surgery that kept him out until almost June, then a pectoral issue to end the year. I realize they’re not arm issues, but two injuries limited him to just under 60 IP. I could see his grade dropping to a B- do to concerns over potentially being injury prone, but I could see him stay at a B as well.
Pucetas-Had a good year, and probably jumped from a C to a B- this year. Skipping him over AA and AAA wouldn’t be a good idea.
Barnes-36IP at rookie ball, short season, and A ball. I’m guessing a C+ for him.
Tanner-Pitched pretty well, but the K-rate is a little sub-standard. He’s a finesse guy and we need to see him in AA and how he handles it(per John at midseason). Probably stays a B-, but I think he is kind of a B-/C+ borderline guy.
English-He’s 23 in A+ ball, which isn’t a huge deal for me, but his FIP was over a run higher than his ERA and his luck and park adjusted FIP is another half a run higher than that(4.64). Probably a C+ guy.
Martinez-The GB% is nice, but his K rate dropped from A+ to AA, and he’ll be 26 next year heading to AAA. Probably a C+.
King-Not enough data to say a whole alot about him. Decent draft spot, I’m guessing a C+ here as well, but could be a B- maybe?
Bucardos-Wilber gets grounders,but that’s about it. Was a C+ last year, and wasn’t that impressive outside of the GB’s. I’d say he’s still a C+ at best, probably the same thing with Jorge.
Joaquin-I’m guessing injury issues here? Only 152 IP over 4 years. Still young and could turn things around, but I’m guessing C+ at best here.
Nicholson-22/23 in rookie ball. Not exactly awe inspiring numbers when age is taken into account. C+ at best.
Matos-Looks like he can be a servicable reliever, probably a C+/B- type.
Pichardo-Needs to cut the walk rate. That plus flyball tendencies don’t excite me much. C+ at best.
Quirarte-I could see C+/B- based on potential/draft status.
Perdomo-Probably a C+ guy, could be a decent pickup.
Ok, that’s 12 guys I’m comfortable as C+ or better guys(adding in MadBum and Alderson), and then 4 guys that I feel are grade C, but I can see John going to a C+ with them at best. I’ll give you 8 hitters that should for sure be C+ or better. That’s 20 guys I see as a C+, with up to 24 by John. That puts them in the same range as teams like KC, Cincinnati, etc. Atlanta has probably 16-18 pitchers in the same range as the Giants 12-16. SF has an advantage at the top, as I’d take MadBum/Alderson over Hanson/Rohrbough, but if we went out to 3 SP’s, I’d probably lean over to Atlanta then. I prefer the Red Sox overall system to the Giants, although the Giants may have a little more pitching depth than Boston.
I haven’t “dismissed them as being fringe top ten” at all. I’ve said they’re right there with KC and Baltimore to round out the top ten. That puts them in the 8-10 range, which like I said before means you can’t put them much higher than 10, like say 5 as you mentioned. I certainly don’t see anything wrong with that ranking. I’ve said they have lower minor talent, but some of that talent has to do something to really get into a top 5 spot.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
of course
we are all entitled to our opinions, as I said earlier we might now be as deep as some of the other systems, but I think the combination of significant depth along with elite talent puts us up there. i guess we really aren’t that far off in the rankings, the difference between 5 and 8 isn’t too much and its all so subjective. good talk.
I am not arguing the Giants don't belong
in the top seven. I don’t think it is a good measure of a system. It is a valid question about the best 4 prospects in each system but not a measure of the entire system. The Giants do have excellent top prospects but I don’t believe the system is particularly deep. I wonder what answer you would get if you evaluated each systems 7-10 prospects. Not particularly valid either but it would give a better idea whose prospects are closest to premium.
I think it's somewhat interesting, albeit arbitrary
It’s usually a stockpile of elite talent that produces contender worthy teams rather than solid depth, which can be filled cheaply other ways. Last season, the Reds probably would have rated #1 and they’re a vogue choice for being the next small or mid-market surprise club.
Imagine
if Atlanta had not traded for Teixeira and Mahay how great their system would be right now.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
It makes me sad
While trading Salty was a given, it’s the fact that Feliz has pretty much pitched as best as could be imagined of him since the deal. If he hadn’t gone, it wouldn’t look nearly as bad.
Baltimore
While I think they have a good system, it is really mostly top heavy, there is not a very good amount of depth to it so rating it #2 would be a bit hasty. A top system usually has top talent along with significant depth to it, Oakland being a very good example with Beane’s current fetish for prospect trades. Baltimore’s top 2, in Tillman and Wieters, is very good combined with Matsuz and Arrieta. Afterwards, though, the system really does not have a great deal of players that can have their value improve considerably.
by tdot mariner fan on Dec 17, 2008 1:01 AM EST reply actions
Erbe and Rowell
Two guys with good upside if they get back on track. Both are still very young. Same with Tony Butler.
I also think Reimold is undervalued.
This just ain't true.
They have guys outside of their top 10 who led their league in strikeouts and/or put up pretty strong years. The system is peppered with strong showings in pitching. The position player outlook might agree, but the pitching picture has few comparable systems who can match its depth.
Depth is Probably Way Underrated
Top 10 prospects in 1996 included Paul Wilson, Ruben Rivera, Alan Benes, Karim Garcia, and Ben Davis. They combined for 154 career Win Shares, or 64% of what #88 Miguel Tejada has accrued so far.
David Ortiz peaked at 84, Dustin Pedroia at 77, Jason Bay at 74, while Kevin Youkilis was never a top 100 guy.
I think an objective analysis would show that having a ton of guys who have the potential to someday be in the top 100, even if they’re not there yet, is more important than having elite prospects.
Ortiz is WAY overrated. Pedroia had a fluke year. Bay is good. Youkillis is good(overrated fielder).
by schmosterballs92 on Dec 17, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yankee Fan...
First off, Pedroia’s year was not a fluke. He is porbably one of the hardest workers in baseball and has good enough tools to do what he did. Ortiz is not overrated, he just has not been producing the way he usually does.
Pedroia
If you were to put Pedroia in a lesser lineup, he wouldn’t have had the numbers he did. He’s a great player, but he’s not an MVP-level guy if he isn’t with Boston (or another large market club). Compare what Pedroia did in 2008 to what Michael Young did in 2005 and then tell me that Pedroia doesn’t get the attention he does because he’s in Boston.
I thought this was a joke at first
now it seems serious.
Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.
Any list that has Inoa as the A's #3 prospect is a dumbass, silly list. Sorry. He's not.
A 16 (now 17 year old) who nobody has seen pitch to a batter, much less in a game, is not better than some of the A’s other Top 10 guys.
Sure, the A’s have the 7th best system if you don’t actually use their top 4 prospects. They’re probably 30th if you decide their top 4 are Pennington, Petit, Gray, and Stomper the mascot.
by thejd44 on Dec 17, 2008 1:10 PM EST reply actions
Stomper the mascot
Isn’t he a little old ARL?
Yea, but he has superstar upside
I gave him an A- due to the immense upside.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
My List
I’m not up to speed on the National League, so I’ll just do the top 7 AL…
1. Oakland; B. Anderson, Cahill, G. Gonzalez, Simmons
2. Tampa Bay; Price, Hellickson, W. Davis, Niemann
3. Texas; Saltalamachia, Smoak, Andrus, C. Davis
4. Red Sox; Masterson, L. Anderson, Lowrie, Bowden
5. Indians; B. Mills, LaPorta, Laffey, J. Brown
6. Angels; Conger, Wood, Walden, Reckling
7. White Sox; Poreda, G. Beckham, Danks, Fields
Honrable Mentions: Twins, Toronto, Royals, Orioles, Yankees
I know some of the guys probably aren’t considered prospects anymore. For the most part, it doesn’t affect the rankings until you get to #7. If Fields drops out…
then I would move the Twins up to #7 with T. Robertson, Mulvey, Liriano, and Revere.
If Liriano is no longer considered a prospect…
then I’d move Toronto up to #7 with Cecil, Snider, Arencibia, and Ahrens.
are you crazy?
Baltimore is way better than the White Sox, Red Sox, Angels and Indians systems!
Baltimore should be #4 on that list!
A lot of the "prospects"...
…that you’re using to prop up the Red Sox and White Sox aren’t even prospects anymore. The Yankees and Orioles are arguably better systems than Boston right now. The Yankees have made good progress last year. The Orioles might have the best top tier of impact guys. Boston doesn’t really have an elite guy anymore, or at least nothing on par with Wieters-Matusz-Tillman-Arrieta.
after looking at this a little more...
…it feels likes prospect values from about a year or more ago…this list might have been true about 2007.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
