BA A's top 10
by jfish26101 on Dec 3, 2008 10:41 AM EST
67 comments
| 1. | Brett Anderson, lhp |
| 2. | Trevor Cahill, rhp |
| 3. | Michael Inoa, rhp |
| 4. | Aaron Cunningham, of |
| 5. | Adrian Cardenas, 2b/ss |
| 6. | Chris Carter, 1b/3b/of |
| 7. | Gio Gonzalez, lhp |
| 8. | Vin Mazzaro, rhp |
| 9. | Jemile Weeks, 2b |
| 10. | James Simmons, rhp |
Interestingly enough, they have Anderson ahead of Cahill. I remember there being an awful lot of debate over Anderson when the community poll was given and I must say this is very surprising to me. Nothing against Anderson but I just think Cahill is clearly better.
0 recs |
67 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Interesting
Glad to see Carter well down on this list, closer where I think of him as a prospect. Anderson v. Cahill is interesting.
by thudean on Dec 3, 2008 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Got to really disagree with Iona at 3...
Hard to me to consider a guy that high based on just hype and projection. I like Iona, but with his age and his lack of professional experience, I have a hard time placing that high. I owuld have expected in the 5-10 range.
Might just be th shiny new toy syndrome.
by laxtonto on Dec 3, 2008 10:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
BA
BA have tended to rank a player based on ceiling alone without considering what the likelihood is that the player reaches that ceiling – they basically said as much over the Redsox list. While 3rd is very aggressive spot for Inoa I wouldn’t have been surprised if he would have been top of their list if he had some pro-experience behind him.
by DeJay on Dec 3, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If that is what they did here, that could definitely account for Iona but how does Cahill rank lower than Anderson? I’d think ceiling wise you would have to give it to Cahill.
by jfish26101 on Dec 3, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I would rank Cahill higher than Anderson as well. I think this is purely a personal preference from Badler – I seem to remember he stated in one of his chats that he preferred Anderson over Cahill. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Cahill above Anderson in BA’s Top 100 list when that is released later
by DeJay on Dec 3, 2008 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They seem to have dinged Cahill a little for his ribcage injury last year
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ranking based on ceiling alone
either that’s not the case or you really have to question BA’s ratings even more.
based on ceiling alone:
-shouldn’t inoa (“once in a generation talent” ceiling) be ahead of cahill and anderson?
-shouldn’t chris carter (40+ hr ceiling) be ahead of cunningham and cardenas?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Dec 3, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
-shouldn’t de los santos and h rodriguez be ahead of simmons?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Dec 3, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OMG BA is the STUPD
Just getting the obligatory shitting-all-over-every-list comment out of the way.
I think Badler is kind of a weird BA writer. He’s taken on a lot of responsibility over there pretty quickly and is basically their token stats guy, but sometimes I feel like his rankings belie a lack of experience with how prospects really develop.
Maybe that is just me. I remember reading a blog written by him absolutely tearing BA a new a-hole over their Balester rankings, but that was taken down. Then all of a sudden he was writing for them. It has always made me read his articles in a strange light.
by aCone419 on Dec 3, 2008 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps good points, I didn’t even look at who wrote it and don’t know much about Badler to be honest. That could make up the difference, I doubt some of the higher ups at BA would have ranked those 2 the same. Good post, thanks.
by jfish26101 on Dec 3, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not this REALLY matters
but Anderson was #3 last year and that was mostly on projection, he was above minorleagueball’s most hyped player ever, the guy no one could say his name, so they just said, “fdls” and he did nothing this season to disappoint that he wouldn’t reach that projection, I mean cahill could be better for sure, i think without even considering stats or much else most people in history would say take the big lefty with amazing control and 4 good pitches over the guy whose main pitch is a sinker when we’ve had a very very small collection of sinkerballers ever be really good
i know it’s more complicated than this and cahill is good, but it isn’t like he didn’t put one of the top two guys in the top 2
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with Anderson over Cahill
Not with Inoa though. Highest ceiling of anybody in the minors, IMO, but we still have seen nothing from the kid.
by NateHST on Dec 3, 2008 10:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
wow????
highest ceiling of anyone in the minors? is that the consensus of the collective group? if so, those are pretty lofty compliments. i didn’t realize his ceiling was THAT high…….
by psugator on Dec 3, 2008 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with NateHST
Or at least I dont think his comment was off base. I mean the kid is 16 6’7 and already throwing mid 90’s. Id call that if not one of, the highest ceiling in the minors.
by FishHead on Dec 3, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's meant to be a once in a generation talent,
but I’d like to see him throw a pitch in America before rating him that highly.
by OldhamA on Dec 3, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh i agree
I was just responding to the “highest ceiling in the minors” quote. Which I believe he may have the highest ceiling.
by FishHead on Dec 3, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Basically what FishHead said
He’s 16 years old. He’s 6’7" and actually knows how to use his body. He’s not just a tall, lanky, projectible kid, he’s extremely athletic. His parents were athletes.
Scouting reports I’ve read about him said he has a really easy motion that gives him outrageous control for a sixteen year old. The Oakland freaking A’s spent more money than the Yankees to get this kid.
But it’s true, nobody but scouts have seen him pitch, and he’s never played professionally. But yes, I honestly feel he has the highest ceiling of any prospect around.
by NateHST on Dec 3, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Higher than Matt Wieters? Really?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean
Wieters right now looks like he’s on track for a HOF career ceiling. The argument could be made that his ceiling is one of the top 3-5 catchers of all time. Seriously. Im not an Orioles fan or anything.
For the sake of argument lets say top 10 catcher of all time ceiling… anyone really projecting a ceiling of top 10 pitcher of all time for Inoa?
by alskor on Dec 3, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, catchers are sort of weird historically
So that isn’t quite fair. I think the basic point, that both Wieters and Inoa have the theoretical potential of being HoF players, is real, though obviously Wieters is significantly more likely to reach that potential, or even be a major league player at all
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 3, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And there are way more pitchers than catchers
If Inoa is a top 40 SP of all time, that would be equivalent to a top 10 catcher of all time, I think.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 4, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sort of
The larger problem is that for most of baseball history, catcher has been seen as a strictly defensive position. When we say Wieters could be one of the best catchers, that’s because there is a heavy consideration of his offensive contribution – it’s kind of unfair to compare him to 90% of the catchers from 1925 then.
Further, in terms of the best catchers, length of service is a huge issue because very few catchers played there for more than 10 or 12 years.. Even Berra got moved to LF
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 4, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its a good point
But I dont think it really changes my argument… Projecting Inoa as a top 40 all time pitcher… I mean, that’s crazy. In the last few years we’ve had some really great pitching prospects come up – Felix Hernandez comes to mind. No one projected him for top 40 realisitically… you know?
by alskor on Dec 4, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Its hard to compare hitters and pitchers, i mean weiters has a HOF ceiling as a catcher and Inoa has a HOF ceiling as a pitcher. And i dont think anyone is saying HANDS DOWN the highest ceiling. I said one of the, if not the highest ceilings in the minors. That is just saying his ceiling not the likelihood of reaching it.
by FishHead on Dec 3, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
There’s also really no meaningful distinction in ceilings once we’re at the HOF level – what, are we saying that Wieters could be an elite HoFer while Inoa is only a marginal HoFer? That’s when the conversation gets ridiculous
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 3, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The kid is 16 years old.
He’s been clocked as high as 97 and sits an the mid-90s before he’s even physically mature with good control.
Hell, he hasn’t even had any professional training. It’s all natural skill. That, my friend, is absolutely ridiculous. Wieters is going to be a stud for a long time, barring any injuries, but Inoa’s ceiling his still higher.
by NateHST on Dec 3, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
mazzaro over simmons
Sems like the A’s fans here might disagree with that. Mazzaro does seem like he will keep the ball in the park better.
by wobatus on Dec 3, 2008 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like Mazzaro better than Simmons. But I probably like Simmons less than any A's fan I know.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'll second that emotion.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Dec 3, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
who's the next 10?
maybe…
mazzaro
donaldson
hrod
brown
dixon
carignan
dls
hunter
outman
ross
leon
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 3, 2008 11:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Next 10 As?
J. Donaldson, B. Hunter, J. Outman, J. Weeks, S. Doolittle, J Guzman, H. Rodriguez, M. Sulentic, C. Brown, R. Dixon (in no particular order)
by thudean on Dec 3, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sulentic is a myth
It’s not immediately obvious when you look at his statline, but he was lucky as all hell this year (.398 BABIP). We haven’t rolled around that far yet but I don’t know that he’s making my top 30 at this point. If I were them I’d be looking to deal him while he has some value.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As system that deep?
That he wouldn’t make your A’s top 30? I mean, thats just insanity. He may not be legit, but he definitely belongs in the top 30 prospects.
by thudean on Dec 3, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The community list is at #14, so I like all of those guys more
Can I find 17 others? Hunter, DLS, Leon, Outman, Ross, Coleman, Christian, Leyja, Dixon, Brown, Demel, Carignan, Bailey, Hernandez, Morla, Italiano, Paramore, Powell, Patterson, Petit, Baisley, Spencer, Berroa, Rosario. Thats… [counts] 24 (in no special order). It appears I’d rank Sulentic 38th.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm not sure he's outside the top 30
but if you take BA’s list as a starting point(I don’t like it, but we’ll use it) I’d rather have Carignan, Demel, Rodriguez, Leon, De Los Santos, Donaldson, Outman, Doolittle, Brown, Dixon, Bailey, Hunter, Ross, Paramore and then maybe Italiano, Lansford, and even Baisley who I’m not a huge fan of. Sulentic is Billy Butler without the bat.
And I see while I was working on my list, PT came up with quite a few more guys than I did.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Dec 3, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mazzaro was 8th
I would probably have Demel instead of Ross and Doolittle certaintly needs to be on the list but apart from that my list would be pretty close
by DeJay on Dec 3, 2008 12:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
forgot about doolittle
mazzaro, doolittle, donaldson could probably be in some of the worse farm systems top 10
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 3, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mazzarro is in the As top 10
According to BA, at least.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 3, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very solid list
All good prospects. Cahill and Anderson are a tough 1-2 to rank any day of the week, and both are totally defensible. The righty with the power sinker and nasty curve, or the lefty with plus control, plus command, and multiple plus pitches?
Also like the Mazzaro over Simmons call . . .I really think a lot of people are missing the boat on Mazzaro.
by mrkupe on Dec 3, 2008 12:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I really hope you're right
But I’m going to be very cautious with Mazzaro. He was very good this year, and very bad last year. Maybe he put somethings together or it just clicked for him, but I want to see a little more evidence before buying into him fully.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Dec 3, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
odd question?
If all of these A’s prospects reach close to their potential and stay in the system is that actually a bad thing for their rotation?
Every single one of them seems to have the same pitches and works off of a sinker, which is very hard to hit when dominant, but it kind of seems like the flavor of the month as of late and as more people really learn to hit or lay off this pitch it seems as though a whole rotation of these guys would just hurt them all immensely.
I know several will be traded and several will fizzle, but when did Oakland turn into the Sinkerball Academy?
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 12:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
So Gio will confuse everyone and win Cy Young Awards?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They don't all have sinkers, so it's not a problem...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they all reach their potential we'd have the best staff in the majors,
regardless of what pitch they throw.
For the record only Cahill and Mazzaro throw the sinker as far as I’m aware. Simmons throws a fastball and a changeup and is working on a breaking pitch. Gio throws a killer curve, Anderson throws a fastball/slider I believe and Inoa throws pixie dust.
by OldhamA on Dec 3, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a's
I wasn’t really talking about anderson and gio as much since they were just acquired via trades and not developed in the system, but I don’t think gio will ever be a good starter and anderson definitely throughs a sinking 2-seamer, it is his main pitch, he has good other pitches and a 4 seamer, but his 2 is his pitch, he is a left-handed cahill, but with a weaker sink and better secondary stuff…badler swung for the fence just like he did with carlos santana, but i think anderson’s ceiling might be higher than cahill, it’s hard to tell, but he did pitch well at a higher level already
they are both studs either way
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
Inoa throws lightning bolts.
The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.
by mckeeno on Dec 3, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It seems...
that when BA rates the best fastball that they are really just rating the hardest, I wish they’d give it to who acttually had the best, based on velo/command/movement.
by groundingout on Dec 3, 2008 12:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
De Los Santos almost certainly has the best fastball in the system, or at least HAD prior to having Tommy John...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are we talking straight fastball?
Cos Cahill’s sinking fastball is meant to be all that….
by OldhamA on Dec 3, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DLS has better pure stuff than Cahill does
I rated him #1 in the system last year; the only reason he’s dropped is that he’s hurt.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
“…including a fastball, slider and curveball that all rate among the best in the system…,”
chris kline on last year’s BA top 10
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You had him ahead of Barton and Carlos?
That would be mighty impressive if not for the injury.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Inoa
Color me skeptical.
I dont care what scouts say about someone, i need to see him play before hand. Do you remember what the scouts said about Toe Nash (The real life Natural)? Ruben Rivera ring a bell (the next MICKEY MANTLE)?
I’ll believe it when I see it, and honestly, I would be willing to bet he flames out before ever throwing a major league pitch.
by loop on Dec 3, 2008 5:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I hate this arguement
pointing out a few misses by scouts and therefore dismissing anything they say is terrible logic, if you can even call it that..
by slurve on Dec 3, 2008 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So you've been 100% correct on all your prospect calls?
Why aren’t you a GM?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love Anderson over Cahill
Inoa at #3 is just asinine to me, though.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on Dec 3, 2008 11:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
SO MiLB.com just put up their 11-20 and Anderson was again ahead of Cahill.
Anderson = #13
Cahill = #17
I know very few around here are giving that list any credit what so ever but I just didn’t expect to see Anderson ahead on lists like that. I guess we can’t chalk it up to simply being the writer’s preference anymore.
by jfish26101 on Dec 4, 2008 9:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Most of their top prospects came from trades.
by Orioles77 on Dec 4, 2008 5:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
On this list, it's 50-50...
and believe me, the A’s have a TON of depth under the top 10, most of which is not due to trades. The trades have inflated the system to near the very top (same is true for the Rangers) but it’d be a top 10 system even without them. My top 10 “A’s natives” are:
Cahill
Doolittle
Simmons
Inoa
Leon
Brown
Weeks
Dixon
Demel
Rodriguez
No crap there… and there’s at least 10 or 15 more potentially good players behind those 10.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2008 6:39 PM EST up 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.
