BA's Rangers top 10:

by rothe on Feb 4, 2008 12:46 PM EST Comment 23 comments

Elvis Andruz, ss
Chris Davis, 3b
Eric Hurley, rhp
Taylor Teagarden, c
Neftali Feliz, rhp
Michael Main, rhp
Kasey Kiker, lhp
Blake Beavan, rhp
Julio Borbon, of
Engel Beltre, of

Impressive. Again, doesn't even include a number of guys: Duran, Poveda, Diamond, Mayberry, Ramirez, Harrison, Santana, etc, etc.

Poll

Who will be the Rangers top prospect in 1 year

Hurley

13 votes

Beavan

11 votes

Main

23 votes

Davis

16 votes

Borbon

4 votes

Feliz

26 votes

Beltre

15 votes

Kiker

13 votes

Other

4 votes

Andrus

54 votes

179 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rangers Top 10

Ya know, I know this system has been getting a lot of pub recently, but I don't think any system with Andrus as their #1 prospect should be considered elite, or as close to TB, Cinci, Boston, and New York

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that I'm pretty risk averse, but I don't see any prospects who are close to sure things, or who have had success in the upper minors. Sure, there's plenty of talent on there, but it all comes with significant risk.

I'm not trying to bash the prospects or the work that has been done, because at least there's plenty of potential there, I just don't consider this system close to the others they've been mentioned with recently...

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Feb 4, 2008 1:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yea

This system seems to have a lot of "really good" prospects, but there's no one that is currently an "elite" prospect in my mind.

It's very deep, there's just not one prospect that jumps out at you and claims the consensus top spot.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Feb 4, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure thing...

I am not sure why you say they do not have any "sure thing" prospects.
As I see it, Andrus is the most "Sure Thing" SS in the minors. It is true that he has not shown much power yet, but he has the best understanding of the position out there, and I think that even in a defensive competition with SS in the Majors, he would compete. Pair up his well above average defensive skills with a pure leadership that his teammates seem to agree upon, and you have the best sure thing out there...

by team name deleted on Feb 4, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Andrus

Well, he hasn't hit for power and he hasn't hit for average (a .300 batting average in 27 games in the California league is not enough to convince me, especially compared with a .266 BA for his minor league career). He's showed some pretty good discipline, but not enough to offset his other offensive deficiencies

To me, someone who hasn't shown any positive offensive skills is far from a "sure thing". There are at least 4 other SS prospects I'd rather have than Andrus: Wood, Lowrie, Brignac, and Hu. All have had success in the high minors, all have shown either power or discipline or ability to hit the ball, and most have shown a combination of all three.

Leadership and defense makes him more of a sure thing than the guys I listed above? I'm not buying it.

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Feb 4, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

rangers

I don't think any system with Andrus as their #1 prospect should be considered elite

well, the weird thing is that nobody seems to agree who their #1 prospect actually is. BA says andrus. john says teagarden. KG has feliz (i still don't get his feliz fetish, but that's neither here nor there). the community prospect list had hurley highest. (hurley is my choice too). you could also make a pretty reasonable argument for davis, main, beavan, or even beltre.

if you're risk-averse, why don't you like a system with 8-10 good prospects over a system with 2-3 great ones? even prospects who have had success in AA and AAA entail quite a bit of risk. the naturally risk-averse preference is to spread the risk over many players, to decrease the chances that your system produces nothing of use.

by jpahk on Feb 4, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

"If you're risk-averse, why don't you like a system with 8-10 good prospects over a system with 2-3 great ones?"

Two problems with this statement:

I'm not convinced there are 8-10 good prospects in that group. Guys with potential? Sure. Guys who would become good prospects, also very possible. But to me the Rangers look like a bunch of lottery tickets. The only guy I'm remotely confident about is Teagarden
With the exception of the Reds, all of the teams with excellent prospects at the top have a lot of interesting guys afterwards, as well. The Red Sox have Bowden, Kalish, Tejada, Middlebrooks, hagadone, Lars, etc after their group of 'great' prospects. TB I hardly have to talk about. The Yankees have Montero, Jackson, and Horne.

So we're not comparing 8-10 good prospects to 2-3 great ones, we're comparing 8-10 guys with a chance to be good prospects vs 2-3 great ones and another 6-8 very interesting ones who are at least on par with what the Rangers have

As someone said a down below, in a year we could be looking at a lot of interesting guys in the upper minors, but I don't see it right now. The rangers have done a great job of putting themselves in a position reap the benefits of their minors, but there are still significant obstacles to reach that point

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Feb 4, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you are missing one other point

that there are probably 5 guys easily in their top 15 or top 20 which would easily make other teams' top 10s, in other words the Rangers depth is so great that I would take their prospects over many others, not sure if you can accept that as a counterpoint to the exact argument, but i think it applies i definitely agree that andrus as a number one looks a little shaky, but look at the astros, their number one is towles and he isn't that great, with absolutely no big names behind him, just one example

by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 4, 2008 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Comparing anyone's farm system against the Astros is going to make yours look like gold (see the arguments below here)

Like I said, there's a lot to like with the Rangers. I just don't think they're an elite farm system right now. In a year, possibly. But there are so many question marks and so few guys with success in the upper minors, that I can't label this team highly without seeing how it plays out

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Feb 4, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Elite minor league system

Next year. Tremendous depth currently, but very little in the upper minors. Next year, however, we could be looking at a near-TB collection of talent.

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Feb 4, 2008 1:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

the DVD boys were supposed to be elite

we know how that ended up, get back to me when they get any pitching. yes they do have high upside arms in lower minors, but their system track record to produce pitching has been horrible.

by rayver723 on Feb 4, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do we?

Danks pitched well at times as a rookie and Volquez looked better this year, and between them brought the Rangers a young starter and a young CF'er and Diamond is comming back from injury. I don't think their careers have been decided yet.

by groundingout on Feb 4, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're getting ahead of yourself, there

Those guys are all still young. Danks still looks like a viable starter, though probably rushed last year, and the trade return, McCarthy, certainly looks like a viable starter. Volquez netted a guy who might be the best CF the Rangers have ever had if he stays healthy. Diamond had TJ and still has a shot.

Given the low probability of any pitching prospect making it very far, I'd say that's pretty good. If McCarthy grows into a 3rd or 4th starter, and Hamilton stays healthy enough to do what he can do, and Diamond even appears in the bullpen, you've beaten the odds by a mile.

by t ball on Feb 4, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hamilton

the best centerfielder they've ever had, whoa, settle down there sparky...I love hamilton, but Kenny Lofton for one played for Texas, it's a long time before he would unseat his production

by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 4, 2008 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lofton???

Played half a season for them, dude. Nice argument.

by rothe on Feb 4, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

woulda-coulda-shoulda...

re: "Volquez netted a guy who might be the best CF the Rangers have ever had if he stays healthy. "

Not really debating your main point here, but I think that even this statement shows the issues with Hamilton pretty clearly... even in praising him, both of the conditionals "might be" and "if" need to be used.

Personally, I'm rooting for Hamilton. But then again, I have rooted for Chris Snelling to make it for years, too. To me, the ironic thing about this deal is that even with the qualifiers on Hamilton, he's really no more risky than a good pitching prospect, which just points to the risk inherent to pitching prospects. :>

by BobbyMac on Feb 5, 2008 9:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Borbon

I think he has a real shot to take off this year..he is farther removed from his college injury and could move very fast and be near the top of this list regardless of who is here in a year.

by NYSOX on Feb 4, 2008 4:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Texas system

The funny thing about it is if you read the BA chat you get to see how unbelievable the Texas sytem is,,,,,

"Big Dave from Arkansas asks:
How many of the Rangers prospects that didn't make the top ten, would have made the top ten in Houston's system?

A: Aaron Fitt: At least seven, maybe 10 or 12. I'm no expert on the Astros system, but those names don't look very impressive to me, and this Texas system is very deep."

Now thank about that, that means the gus 11-18(22) would all be ranked ahead of the likes of

J.R. Towles, c

Felipe Paulino, rhp
Troy Patton, lhp
Juan Gutierrez, rhp
Michael Bourn, of
Mike Costanzo, 3b
Bud Norris, rhp
Brad James, rhp
Chad Reineke, rhp
Eli Iorg, of

Thats a DEEP system, with likely only 1 guy graduating in the top 10 this year (2 if Harrison goes aswell as Hurley)

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 4, 2008 5:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fitt

Is getting ahead of himself to make a point. Towles would be very high in Texas' system, IMO, just above Teagarden.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Feb 4, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Response

But wouldn't you want a system that has MORE players graduating to the majors, not fewer?

It's not like you get a positive modifier to your win total for having X number of players on the BA Top 100 each year.

by mrkupe on Feb 4, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rebuttle

Not really at this point for Texas, look at it this way, you have a top 5 system that only has the possibilty of graduating 1 guy next year.

That means that regardless of the fact that the top end of the system is not developed yet, there is so much talent in the system that is still has to be rated in the top 5. That a huge amount o talent. Even TB, who have dominated the prospect rankings the last few years, have had more than guy graduate each year.

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 4, 2008 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, you bring up a solid point

and one that makes the whole exercise of system rankings sorta pointless.

Case in point: The Rangers get more credit in these ranking for their first round pick in '06 (Kiker) than the Giants do for their first round pick in '06 (Lincecum), because the Giants dude exhausted his prospectness.

I almost never get attacked by birds. It's uncanny.

by thedirkatron on Feb 6, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are misreading his reply in my opinion.

The question didn't ask how many Ranger prospects are better than the top Astros prospect (which is what you are trying to suggest he meant).

He didn't say the top 10 plus 10-12 more would all be ranked before and of the Astros...he said they would have made the Astros top 10 had one of them been over there. He doesn't say where they would rank among them nor does he say they would all go to the top of the rankings list.

Does that mean that 22 of the Rangers prospects are better than the top Astros prospect? No.

by jfish26101 on Feb 4, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I agree with what everyone has said above me, but additionally, I would say that his comment is more indicative of how insanely pathetic the Astros system is than how "unbelievable" the Texas system is.

There are at least a handful of teams who you could say the same thing about.

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Feb 4, 2008 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs