A's/Ranger's BA top 10
by laxtonto on Dec 8, 2008 12:09 PM EST
98 comments
Ok, BA just published the Ranger's top 10 to finsh off the AL League. It has been a poorly kept secret that the 2 system's are regarded as 1 and 1a in all of baseball.
Let's Vote... And please stuff the ballot's as much as you want becasue it is a meaningless Internet poll and both clubs cheat on polls anyways....
Oakland
| 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 |
Texas
| 1. | Neftali Feliz, rhp |
| 2. | Derek Holland, lhp |
| 3. | Justin Smoak, 1b |
| 4. | Elvis Andrus, ss |
| 5. | Martin Perez, lhp |
| 6. | Taylor Teagarden, c |
| 7. | Engel Beltre, of |
| 8. | Michael Main, rhp |
| 9. | Julio Borbon, of |
| 10. | Max Ramirez, c/1b |
3 recs |
98 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The question favors the Rangers
because they are much stronger at the top. The As strength is their depth – but I still think the Rangers’ system is better
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 8, 2008 12:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
maybe more depth through the top 10
but i would agree the rangers are deeper 11-40
i still think max ramirez would be in the A’s top 10 though
by dustinvandeman on Dec 8, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you might have made a typo
But I’m not exactly sure where
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 8, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No way the Rangers are better 11-40
A’s take that one pretty easily. The Top 10 alone though is a real tough one.
Anderson and Cahill are 1 and 2. Then the rangers clearly take 3-5.
After that nothing is clear to me. If Teagarden or Max can TRULY STICK at catcher then I give the nod to the rangers but as I do not see them making it I am giving the nod to the A’s based mostly on my dislike of Elvis.
by novaoakland on Dec 9, 2008 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
11-40
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The Rangers have a lot of potential in that range, just like the A’s. I think the systems are too close to call. Last year you could say that the Rangers had few top prospects but had quite a bit of depth. This year their top guys have moved up the ranks and if anything, the rest of the system jut got deeper. They now have strength at the top and depth, strong at every position save 3B and maybe corner OF.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 9, 2008 7:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rangers are Deep too
I think even in depth, Rangers are close with Kiker/Beavan/N. Ramirez/Vallejo. Probably after 15 or so, A’s may be deeper, but I’d still go Rangers
by thudean on Dec 8, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's have an incredible system
and I think Inoa’s ranking on the community prospect list could look silly two years from now, but I would still rank the Rangers higher both in the star potential of their respective top 10s and in the overall depth of the two systems. the only area in which I would prefer the As is their collection of minor league relievers.
by clark on Dec 8, 2008 12:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
whoa didn't expect it to be a blowout
anyhow, i like the a’s arms better … but i like texas’ balance of hitting and pitching better so they get the nod from me. i love brett anderson, though.
by toonsterwu on Dec 8, 2008 12:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Texas
They have the best top 10 since Tampa from a few years back.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 8, 2008 12:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
I’m not sure the top 10 is all that close.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Dec 8, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+2
i dont think its close at all either.
by benzalman on Dec 8, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I voted Texas as well. A's position prospects aren't that impressive.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my thoughts are the same
Even the quality hitters the A’s have aren’t guaranteed to be playing premium positions. The best of them is either Cunningham who won’t be a star, or Carter who will probably end up at DH. Andrus will stay at short, Teagarden will catch, and Smoak will play first. That’s enough for me, and I’m an A’s fan. Gotta go with Texas.
by jdr on Dec 8, 2008 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
interesting, because i wanted to make a homer pick but i like texas’ list here. if it went to 20 or 30, who knows.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Dec 11, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Take this with a big grain of salt
since I’m a Rangers fan, but I think if it went to 30 you should be even more inclined to vote TX. The depth is unreal right now, a lot of under the radar guys, and the 2008 draft might turn out to be better than 2007.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 11, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A's fans are voting guys who are already cracking the majors
and look to be useful bench guys at worst as mid-20s to 30s. That’s a pretty deep system.
by thejd44 on Dec 11, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which guys are those?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Dec 11, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Petit, Pennington, Powell
If your name starts with P, apparently you’re an A’s bench player. Patterson was going to be voted on around now too, except people realized he’s no longer eligible.
Likewise solid relief arms like Lansford, Bailey, etc.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 11, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So he probably meant at best
bench guys, possibly a smidge better.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Dec 11, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Petit and Pennington have shown that they're capable of playing in the majors
Not as starters, necessarily, but if Marco effing Scutaro can make a few million bucks a season I don’t see any reason why those two guys can’t be useful bench players.
by thejd44 on Dec 12, 2008 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ranger fans are voting guys
who are already cracking the majors and look to be useful bench/bullpen guys at worst in the 20s-30s. Of course, a lot of these guys will flame out for both clubs, but both systems are incredibly stocked. It would take someone with a deep, deep knowledge of both (far deeper than any person here) to really have any idea which is better.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 11, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That hardly sounds amazing
I think you could find major league ready bench players in a number of teams’ 20-30 range.
by aCone419 on Dec 11, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I think you would see bench players in the teens. If you look at John’s grading system a person with a C is generally a bench guy or someone with high upside who was just drafted (a lot of question marks). I think it would be inaccurate to say that “a number of teams’” 20-30 prospects are bench players.
by asyouwish33 on Dec 14, 2008 3:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, really
If you look at John’s grading system a person with a C is generally a bench guy or …
And every team has C guys in the 20-30 range? Prospects that profile as bench guys generally don’t get graded very highly and every system save the most awful ones has them. Honestly, I think a lot of guys who are just going to be “bench players” wouldn’t even make the top 30s.
And I definitely think you should be able to get through 30 actual A’s prospects before putting bench players on.
by aCone419 on Dec 15, 2008 9:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
high standards
With most teams, John starts giving out C+ or lower by the teens or earlier. Look at the Brewers. He calls their system “solid,” yet they have a guy with a C+ ranked 10th. By your standards, they would have an absolutely awful system.
A team that has 30 guys with the potential to be starting at the major league level either has the greatest scouting department in history, or is putting something in everyone else’s water on draft day.
by ozzman99 on Dec 15, 2008 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I should elaborate
When I talk about C+ (or lower) guys, I only mean the ones who have enough professional track record behind them to reasonably project their future, not guys fresh out of school who have a month of pro ball under their belts.
by ozzman99 on Dec 15, 2008 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Meh
John had 26 C+ or higher guys for the A’s. I think you could find four of the C guys with an upside higher than “bench player.” I didn’t say all systems should be like that.
And I don’t know what you mean by “my standards,” since I didn’t espouse any. I am merely commenting on the way prospects are generally graded and ranked. Guys in AAA with no upside above bench filler usually are at the tail end of a top 30 or off it completely, except in the case of awful systems.
by aCone419 on Dec 15, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
your own words
And I don’t know what you mean by "my standards," since I didn’t espouse any.
Sure you did.
Prospects that profile as bench guys generally don’t get graded very highly and every system save the most awful ones has them. Honestly, I think a lot of guys who are just going to be "bench players" wouldn’t even make the top 30s.
Sure, some guys with a grade C profile as more than a bench player. They are generally young and new to pro ball. And some guys are a little older, are in the upper levels, and profile as bench players. But they get the same grade. As for your question about every team having guys with a grade of C in their 20-30 range, yes, every team has that or worse. Nobody has guys that rank B- or better as their 30th best prospect.
by ozzman99 on Dec 15, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
?
Those are not my standards. It is an observation of John’s standards (or BA’s in the case of a “top 30” list). Every team in the book has over thirty players and most teams have about half of those as Cs. The C bench players fall at the tail end of the list.
I am confused as to what you are trying to pick an argument about. The person I was responding to claimed that bench players would get a C grade, and that most teams would NOT have those players in the 20-30 range. I was pointing out that almost every team has only C players in the 20-30 range. And some bench players will not be in the top thirty, as John gives Cs out to up to forty prospects in a system.
I don’t understand how you get from there to “The Brewers are a shitty system.”
by aCone419 on Dec 15, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
first off
I am not “picking an argument.” I simply disagreed with you. I am trying to promote a discussion, sure, but why does an honest disagreement have to be construed as me “picking an argument?”
That being said, my point, very simply, is that the guys that end up as bench players are generally going to easily rank in their team’s top 30, and probably in their top 20. As for the Brewers… if bench players rate as grade C, and you believe that most bench players don’t belong in the top 30, than the Brewers must be pretty bad to have grade C players in their teens. Personally, I don’t think the Brewers have a bad system at all.
I think the problem here is that you are lumping all grade C prospects together. They are not all created equal, and I think we need to differentiate grade C guys who have high upside but little experience vs. guys with low(ish) upside but lots of experience. No one is saying that all guys that get a C are destined to be bench players at best.
by ozzman99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Poor wording
I just meant I don’t know what you are disagreeing with.
You are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that a lot of guys with “bench player” ceilings are going to not be in the top 30s of their respective teams. This is clearly the case since there are 33-40 players at C or better for each team in John’s book. That’s 3-10 players per organization outside the top 30, and a good portion of those guys have bench player ceilings.
And there is a difference between a guy with upside that turns into a bench player, and a guy who profiles as a bench player. The latter is what I am talking about.
As for the Brewers specifically, they have C+ guys through #17. That leaves 18 – 35 as C’s, only a portion of which profile as bench guys. That fits almost exactly with what I was talking about: the 20-30 range or outside the top 30.
by aCone419 on Dec 15, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love this debate
I understand your argument Cone, but you have to put things into perspective. A club is allotted 27 active players a year on their roster. To say that a good number of teams’ top 30 will end up being better than bench does not add up. A club frees up maybe 6-7 spots on their roster yearly (and that is a liberal estimate). I just don’t think it works out numerically to say, realistically, that a number of teams’ top 30 have a higher ceiling than bench.
I’m going to take two random clubs from John’s 2007 Top 20 rankings as an example. First is Washington. A mediocre minor league squad. Ranked 12 is Ian Desmond at a C+. Here’s what John had to say:
“12) Ian Desmond, SS, Grade C+
.246/.321/.388 for Harrisburg. I thought he was capable of better, but Double-A transition has exposed flaws.” Desmond is OK, but I don’t see him being more than a AAA player or reserve SS.
The second club I chose was the 2007 Boston Red Sox top 20. Ranked at 16 is Reid Engel at C+. Here is what John says;
“16) Reid Engel, OF, Grade C+
.248/.298/.396 for Lancaster in the Cal League, has had problems with the strike zone.”
Engel is young at just 21, but he has yet to post above a .800 OPS. I think you would have lofty expectations to say he would be a MLB regular. Though, with his youth, there is still hope for a break out season.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that most of the players ranked between 10-20 end up being bench players because that is actually a very serviceable role for a major league club. But I believe it is inaccurate to believe that bench players are NORMALLY found after the top 30.
by asyouwish33 on Dec 15, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
that he’s ignoring the fact that AN is (rightly, IMO) by and large voting for the MLB-ready bench players ABOVE the high-upside, zero-track-record lottery tickets at the bottom of the system.
Robin Rosario, who had the franchise record for a signing bonus for a Latin player before Inoa smashed it, had a nice age 17 season in the DSL (top 20% of hitters in the league) and is not in the top 30. Ronny Morla, who would rank in a lot of top 20s as a 20-year-old projectable pitcher with solid low-minors numbers, is not in the top 30. Dustin Coleman, recently bought out of college for $750,000 after a great Cape Cod League, is not in the top 30.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 16, 2008 2:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not what I said
To say that a good number of teams’ top 30 will end up being better than bench does not add up.
But I never said that.
I just don’t think it works out numerically to say, realistically, that a number of teams’ top 30 have a higher ceiling than bench.
Sure it does. Most prospects don’t hit their ceiling. Having 30 prospects with an upside of a regular doesn’t mean you get 30 regular.
I specifically said above: And there is a difference between a guy with upside that turns into a bench player, and a guy who profiles as a bench player. The latter is what I am talking about.
You seem to think I am saying “players in the 10-20 range will not end up as bench players,” but that is explicitly not what I am saying.
Both Desmond and Engel have an upside greater than a bench player, even if there median outcome may be a bench player. The original point was about players with the upside of a bench player.
by aCone419 on Dec 16, 2008 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
What kind of “prospects” would you consider to populate most teams’ 20-30 range, if not bench players? Minor filler? Because those guys aren’t usually considered “prospects” and are excluded from these lists.
by aCone419 on Dec 16, 2008 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Difference in Language
You are right. We just had a difference in perspective. Teams do have ceiling guys that make up the top 30. I guess I just want to highlight PaulThomas’ point that for the deeper systems, the major league ready bench players would probably be lower on these lists, 40-50, if ceiling was emphasized more. I believe ceiling is sometimes overemphasized, which is why I appreciate AN’s ranking of Inoa at 11 rather than BA’s 3.
by asyouwish33 on Dec 16, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I would say most teams' 20-30 slots
are filled with either bench filler or extreme longshots.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2008 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+3
i like texas system quite a bit better actually. furthermore, i think guys like wieland, font, ramirez, boscan etc.. all have huge potential.
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 9, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Voted Texas
because their positions players look better at this point, but Oakland has better pitching. It could be closer if Oakland have drafted another player ( like brett Wallace ) other than Weeks that high.
by LCT on Dec 8, 2008 1:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
draft
i guess they werent convinced wallace could stick at 3b and felt they had enough depth with 1b/dh types
they went for the up the middle athlete which didnt have many in this draft at that point…then later added 2b types like cardenas/patterson through trade. suddenly they have too many 2bn. add in christian, coleman, leyja also from the 08 draft
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 8, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm still bitter about not getting wallace
he wanted to be an A
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Dec 11, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rangers
The Rangers are legit. The A’s have a very nice top 3, but after that it’s a pretty ordinary system that gets way over rated on this site.
by acerimusdux on Dec 8, 2008 1:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
question
FishHead, I’ve been meaning to ask you a question about your interest in international signings. There doesn’t seem to be an IM feature here at SB Nation, so I wonder if you would email me at pjbclark at yahoo dot com? If you don’t feel like responding, no sweat…
by Patrick Clark on Dec 8, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The real question should be
Which team’s fans are the #1 ballot stuffers? I voted Texas for both questions.
http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/
by lemonjello on Dec 8, 2008 2:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think Oakland is showing how its done...
by laxtonto on Dec 8, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy Shit!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 8, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, these polls are bogus
Kanye, you want to be the voice of this generation? Get in line! It goes me, Obamagirl, the Freecreditreport.com guys, then It's a tie between you-and Crocs.
-Stephen Colbert
by Conjunction on Dec 8, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its because the creater of the post
has been spamming it in every thread on AN.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 8, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't care about the poll... It is more a hook to get the discussion I want.
I want to hear the dialog more than anything else. You can’t expect to have any form of accurate vote. Thats why I placed a link in both LSB and AN. It is easier to get a comparison here in a neutral environment then for either side to try and go to the other’s site and do a comparison.
by laxtonto on Dec 8, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Oakland's pitching alot better but
Texas hitting with Smoak, Taylor, im a big fan of. Everyone knows texas doesnt need more hitting. They have had hitting past 5 years and done nothing. Its all about how texas will develop this young pitching coming up with holland and feliz. Rangers and A’s will be damn dangerous in a few years with all this yougn talent
by buckfan6 on Dec 8, 2008 2:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
A's have an edge in pitching, Texas has a somewhat larger edge in hitting
I think Texas has the higher ranked system, but it isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a blowout. Not that the poll signifies that, necessarily… could be everyone thinks the Rangers are 1% better… but you get the point.
I really don’t like that BA top 10 list at all.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 8, 2008 2:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rankings
Some of us over at LSB were talking about ranking prospects in groups, or tiers, as a better way. Some of these guys are too close, or have too many questions to rank one by one. Feliz, Holland, and Smoak are all the top 3 any way you want to order them, and then groups of 3 to 5 or so all the way down. With systems this deep it seems especially silly to argue about whether Beavan or Hurley should be 12th.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 8, 2008 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This makes some sense, looking at the voting patterns on the community list
For the A’s, it’s been:
Cahill
Anderson
Carter
Cunningham
Gio
Cardenas
Doolittle
Simmons
Mazzaro
Donaldson
Inoa
Other big break points after DLS (15), Brown (18), Ross (22)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 8, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Goldstein
in his Q & A with Ranger fans (link below) he said he’d rank Inoa right up there with Feliz and Holland. This was in response to a question about where he’d rank if the Rangers had kept him out of evil Beane’s clutches. That firmed my belief that he should rank in the top 5 in the A’s system, in that second group you have there.
http://www.bbtia.com/home/2008/12/8/kevin-goldstein-qa-part-ii.html
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 8, 2008 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas
I like Anderson and Cahill a smidge more than Feliz and Holland/
Smoak a lot more over Inoa. I like Inoa but he’s so far away.
Andrus over Cunningham.
Cardenas vs. Perez, Carter vs. Teagarden are draws.
Gonzalez over Beltre because of plate discipline.
Main over Mazzaro.
Last two pairings are a draw.
So Smoak’s big lead over Inoa clinches it for Texas.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 8, 2008 3:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Anderson, Cahill, Feliz, Holland -- Draw
Smoak > Carter
Cardenas > Andrus
Cunningham > Beltre
Inoa > Perez
Mazzaro > Main
Teagarden > Weeks
Simmons and Borbon — Draw
Ramirez > Gonzalez
I still picked Texas though
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'd be more interest in a comparison
of the prospects outside of the top 10…the next group
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 8, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Texas Community top 20
1. LHP, Derek Holland
2. RHP, Neftali Feliz
3. 1b, Justin Smoak
4. RHP, Michael Main
5. SS, Elvis Andrus
6. C, Taylor Teagarden
7. C, Maximiliano Ramirez
8. LHP, Martin Perez
9. OF, Julio Borbon
10. RHP, Eric Hurley
11. OF, Engel Beltre
12. RHP, Blake Beavan
13. RHP, Wilfredo Boscan
14. RHP, Neil Ramirez
15. LHP, Kasey Kiker
16. 2b, Jose Vallejo
17. RHP, Wilmer Font
18. RHP, Omar Poveda
19. LHP, Robbie Ross
20. RHP, Tommy Hunter
A’s Community top 20
1. Trevor Cahill, RHP
2. Brett Anderson, LHP
3. Chris Carter, 3B/1B
4. Aaron Cunningham, CF
5. Gio Gonzalez, LHP
6. Adrian Cardenas, SS/2B
7. Sean Doolittle, 1B/RF
8. James Simmons, RHP
9. Vin Mazzaro, RHP
10. Josh Donaldson, C
11. Michel Inoa, RHP
12. Jemile Weeks, 2B
13. Henry Rodriguez, RHP
14. Rashun Dixon, CF
15. Fautino De Los Santos, RHP
16. Arnold Leon, RHP
17. Josh Outman, LHP
18. Corey Brown, CF
19. Brett Hunter, RHP
20. Sam Demel, RHP
Have at it…
by laxtonto on Dec 8, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They ranked Inoa
that low? I’d have him in the top 5.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 8, 2008 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No pro pitches + injury risk
means that even a pitcher with unlimited upside has limited actual value right now.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 8, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or he/she may not find the guys 5-10 very impressive
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that
but I’m more willing to vote on upside than some. I rank Beltre and Font higher than some of my fellow posters at LSB, for instance.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 9, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Beltre and Inoa are both ranked #11 in their respective polls. Beltre could be the position player equivalent to Inoa. Unlimited skills, but no translation to pro success…yet.
by snatch attack on Dec 9, 2008 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
“No pro time” > “Horribly shitty pro time”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 10, 2008 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
He ranked 13th in BA and led his league in hits at a young age. Ya his K/BB ratio was terrible and he didn’t slug that well but was he horribly shitty?
by groundingout on Dec 10, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
of course it is shitty.
/paul thomas
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 11, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
11
wow
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 11, 2008 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Voted Texas
I tend to like the A’s pitchers a bit better but the quality of hitting prospect in the Rangers system pushes them over the top. The A’s have hitters that could be good but lack that true elite prospect like Smoak. If the A’s have drafted Wallace this question would be a lot tougher for me. Both are great systems, and I’m happy for what the A’s have put together, but I think Texas is better.
As for depth, I don’t think I could make an unbiased judgement on that. My knowledge of A’s prospects outside the top 15 greatly surpasses what I know about Rangers guys so I don’t think I could make a fair comparison.
by DiegoAsFan on Dec 8, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ramirez
He’s only #10? Seems a little low. I’d have him around 6.
by supermets on Dec 8, 2008 4:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rangers
For the top 10 the Rangers have by far the best system. That puts them ahead for me.
by supermets on Dec 8, 2008 4:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
From today's BA chat...
Joseph from Fort Worth, TX asks:
Q: Over/Under, 7 1/2 Ranger Prospects in the BA Top 100? Thanks for the chat.
A: Aaron Fitt: I’ll take the over.
For the rest, buy a BA membership…
by laxtonto on Dec 8, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BA's Top 10s compiled
I took the liberty of putting together a few pages reflecting BA’s top 10’s. The American League is now complete with todays release of the Texas Rangers top 10. The pages show the past few seasons for side-by-side comparisons along with this years reviews. The pages are formatted by division which allows you to read multiple teams on one page instead of going back and forth.
Anyway…BA Top 10s
Let me know…
- Would you like to see a BP & Sickels comps as well?
- Is there something you’d like to see added?
Peace
by Hardball Warriors on Dec 8, 2008 7:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think adding Sickels and BP would be good
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 9, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for the Rangers
but I really don’t care for the ordering of either list. I lean more to the stat side of things, so I just can’t see a guy like Inoa #3 or Perez #5 in systems this deep. That’s not to say those guys don’t have talent, because obviously they do, but they’re so far away.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Dec 8, 2008 10:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm so with you
Not only are they far away, with Inoa at least, we literally have NO IDEA if he can pitch. We know he would impress everybody at the carnival game where you throw hard and guess your speed. But, really, that’s about it. I still can’t find any information that says whether scouts have seen him face actual batters (even if it’s a scrimmage-type situation).
Like I said on the A’s board: the information we have on Inoa is the baseball equivalent of Yi Jianlian posting up a chair. I just can’t rank a guy who is that much of an unknown ahead of really good prospects who have proven something.
And, if/when Inoa proves his mettle, I’ll move him up my list and improve his grade. Sickels does this all the time! The more info you have, the more things change.
by thejd44 on Dec 11, 2008 3:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i would agree if it was only the a’s who were saying he was good
but everyone was saying how good he was
everyone was bidding major coin to sign him
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 11, 2008 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
two stacked systems
i’d love either one.
by son.of.sourman on Dec 8, 2008 10:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The A's have such amazing depth.
But the Rangers have the large advantage in hitting. It’s pretty much a draw.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on Dec 9, 2008 12:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
mainly smoak imo tips the scales
oh well, drafted him in 05, couldnt sign him..then just missed by 1 pick
the rest of the hitters are comparable after that, you could argue for either side
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 9, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
rangers pitchers...
The rangers have an absolute TON of pitching prospects, I know them better than the As pitching prospects overall so i wont comment on the lower prospects because i am obviously going to value the rangers higher because ive seen them more….That said ive seen the top two from both teams and cahill/anderson vs feliz/holland isnt a win for the As. Its at best from an As perspective a draw and more likely a loss. Thats not just a rangers homer opinion either. Callis saw it the same way.
by CDFAN on Dec 9, 2008 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rangers have a clear edge - hitting prospects are always better risks than pitchers
I’m a Mets fan playing in an AL-only roto league and have no bias for/against the Rangers or A’s. This much is clear:
(1) Pitching prospects have a much higher failure rate than hitting prospects, in large part because so many are injured, but also because small changes, both physical and mental, tend to have a greater effect on pitching than on hitting.
(2) The Ranger system has a big edge over the A’s when it comes to hitting prospects.
On my roto roster, which is down to 25 players and must be trimmed to 15 before the auction next year, I have Smoak, Andrus, Borbon and Cahill. Smoak will be a starter in 2010 and a late-season callup in 2009 and is the surest star in either system. Andrus won’t be called up until Young is moved to third or is traded and has some development left before he is ready, though he has been the youngest player at each level. Borbon is under-rated — he does everything well except taking a walk, something he improved on a great deal during the Arizona league, and he has the brains and demeanor of someone who tends to improve. He could by the Rangers starting CF in 2010. And while I don’t believe much in young phenom pitchers, if you are going to take one, go with an Athletic — the home field gives a big edge to pitchers. Cahill may or may not be better than the Ranger pitching prospects but his home park is a big edge.
by Rotofan on Dec 13, 2008 11:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not only are hitting prospects lower risk but a team needs 9 of them, vs about 7 pitchers to field a team
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 13, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
something about pitching prospects and Oakland. Don’t know if it’s the park, the coaching staff, the minor league pitching coordinator, the scouting department, whatever it is…. I’m a huge Rangers fan and have a lot more confidence in Cahill and Anderson being good for the A’s than I do for Holland and Feliz being good for the Rangers. Hopefully these are the two that change everything
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
by trident on Dec 14, 2008 4:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
anyone would have more confidence that Cahill/Anderson will have more success than Feliz/Holland, due to ballparks and track records, but that doesn’t change who is the better prospect. A lesser talent can have a brighter future for the Padres than a more talented pitcher would have for the Rockies. The Rockies pitcher is still the better prospect though.
by groundingout on Dec 14, 2008 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point
One should qualify for what purpose one is grading a prospect. If I am selecting keepers for a roto league that I hope will contribute in 2009 and 2010, than for my purpose, Cahill and Anderson are better choices.. Here’s another example: I have both Smoak and Lars Anderson; Smoak has a clear path to the majors in 2010; Lars does not, especially if the Red Sox sign Tex. That gives Smoak a big edge at this moment regardless of how I rank their talents.
by Rotofan on Dec 14, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well we know the perceptions about the organizations when it comes to pitchers.
Texas’ reputation with pitchers is pretty bad. Oakland’s reputation is very good. Its why Inoa left a million on the table to sign with Oakland over Texas.
Its either coincidence or bad management that the Rangers have a history of trading away pitchers who become much better once they leave the Texas organization (Danks, Young, Duchscherer, etc…). The question is, with Nolan Ryan coming into the organization, will they improve their minor league pitching system. No one questions the offense, but the pitching needed an overhaul.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 15, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's no arguing most of that
But does that make Feliz/Holland etc. worse prospects? If you rank Holland as the 40th best prospect in baseball, and he gets traded to Atlanta, does he move up 10 spots or so? No and he shouldn’t.
by groundingout on Dec 15, 2008 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
immediately? no.
But if they are traded to Atlanta, they would have a better chance of being ranked higher in a year than if they stayed in Texas.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 16, 2008 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
by Coolbean04 on Dec 17, 2008 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So the most idiotic thing you have ever heard
is the thought that a Pitching Prospect would have a better chance of being valued higher after spending a year in an organization known for good development of pitchers than an organization known for badly developing pitchers?
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 18, 2008 3:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, then they would just be
overrated by Braves fans instead of by Rangers fans.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 17, 2008 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
depth = more trade chances
for both teams…a pitching surplus or htting surplus can be used for whatever other holes need to be filled. also its expected there will be some busts, injuries, etc that will be involved
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 14, 2008 5:13 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.
