Future Shock Organizational Rankings, Part 2

by rayver723 on Mar 5, 2008 2:22 PM EST Comment 35 comments

1. Tampa Bay Rays
Last Year's Ranking: 1
Why They're Unchanged: Evan Longoria's full-season debut went even better than expected, and they added No. 1 overall pick David Price to the system.
Strengths: Yes. There are just tons of prospects everywhere, as 20 of MLB's 30 teams don't have one prospect ranked higher than Tampa's fifth-rated player.
Weaknesses: It's hard to figure out what to do with all of this talent. Seriously, they're not just No. 1, they're No. 1 by a mile.
Outlook for 2009 Ranking: Unchanged. Even with Longoria in the big leagues, the Rays have more than enough talent to remain at the top, and once again, they have the first overall pick in June.

2. Oakland Athletics
Last Year's Ranking: 23
Why They're Up: Their rebuilding process got off to excellent start, as the Dan Haren and Nick Swisher deals brought in a bevy of excellent prospects to restock the system.
Strengths: Their High-A rotation will have three Top 100 prospects, and there are more arms worth noting at nearly every level in the system; Daric Barton is ready to step in at first base; Carlos Gonzalez is nearly ready as a five-tool outfielder.
Weaknesses: Infielders.
Outlook for 2009 Ranking: It's hard to go up, but most of their talent, especially the pitching, has a maturation date of 2009 and beyond.

3. Texas Rangers
Last Year's Ranking: 22
Why They're Up: Deadline deals filled the system with prospects, as six of Top 11 weren't with the organization at the beginning of year; Chris Davis turned into legitimate power-hitting prospect.
Strengths: Young power arms; high-tools prospects; catching.
Weaknesses: Left-handed pitching; outfielders.
Outlook for 2009 Ranking: Holding the line, if not going up, as only Eric Hurley might lose eligibility.

4. Boston Red Sox
Last Year's Ranking: 11
Why They're Up: Clay Buchholz became the top pitching prospect in the game, Jacoby Ellsbury grabbed the center field job, and they had a strong '07 draft.
Strengths: Right-handed pitching; toolsy outfielders.
Weaknesses: Catching; pure power prospects.
Outlook for 2009 Ranking: Down significantly, as Buchholz and Ellsbury move to the majors and leave no elite prospects in their wake.

5. Los Angeles Dodgers
Last Year's Ranking: 5
Why They're Unchanged: Clayton Kershaw became the top lefty prospect in the game, and the '07 draft added even more pitching depth; Chin-Lung Hu added an offensive game to supplement his already Gold Glove-caliber defense.
Strengths: Andy LaRoche and Hu make one of the top left sides in the minors, and there are more third basemen and shortstops to brag about beyond them; power arms.
Weaknesses: Outfield prospects; catchers; right-side infielders.
Outlook for 2009 Ranking: Little movement, but possibly down if the Dodgers do the right thing and make LaRoche their everyday third baseman this year.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7204

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Part 2?

What did part 1 say? Does it list the overall ranking of all organizations? Please share.

by parish on Mar 5, 2008 2:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Part 1

Part 1 was the bottom half of all teams, this is the top 15 teams.

by SuperBean on Mar 5, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strange

Part 1 (the lower half of the order) was partially considered premium content but Part 2 is not. Just thought that was interesting.

Part1 - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7188
Part2 - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7204

by scstrato on Mar 5, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Without trying to sound like a homer.....

I find it hard to believe that the Reds are the #7 team in terms of Minor League systems.

They have top end talent.

They have depth.

They have legit prospects at EVERY position with the lone exception being SS and even that is up for debate depending on how you feel about Neftali Soto or to a lesser extent Jose Castro.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 2:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think its much of a Reds thing

Yeah, I am a fan of the Reds, obviously.

I also follow the minor leagues pretty extensively and I can't see the Reds as the 7th best farm system in baseball.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bailey

From his latest ESPN Insider blog...

* The stock of Cincinnati prospect Homer Bailey seems to have taken a dramatic tumble in the past year. Talent evaluators say the Reds have demonstrated a clear willingness to deal Bailey, while coveting fellow prospect Johnny Cueto. And rival teams have grown increasingly skeptical about whether the young right-hander will make the adjustments necessary to become a successful big league pitcher. "What you hear is that [Bailey] is someone who thinks he's got it all figured out," one evaluator said.

by rayver723 on Mar 5, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Saw that.....

curious who they are talking to, because it seems everyone of the major prospect publications aren't talking to those guys in terms of his ability and stuff.

The 'he thinks he has it all figured out' thing may hold a little bit of water from what I heard last year, although from things I have heard in spring training it doesn't seem so much something applying itself this year yet.

Those are the things I am picking up.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I tried

I know you all will find this hard to believe, but I tried to get John to rank Tim Lincecum above Homer last winter. :)

by sharksrog on Mar 5, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

in 2 years, when Bailey as old as Lincecum is now, we can evaluate that suggestion

by Galt on Mar 5, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand

I understand what you're saying, but evaluation is an ongoing thing. Just as we were able to evaluate Bailey vs. Lincecum last winter and we can evaluate them next winter when Homer is the age Tim was last winter, and we can evaluate them again in two years, we can also evaluate them now.

And I don't think many would take Bailey ahead of Lincecum at this particular point. I read something a bit negative on Homer recently, perhaps right here at this site.

One of the reasons I gave John for rating Tim over both Homer and Phil Hughes was that -- amazingly enough -- I expect better health from Tim. Both Homer and Phil had missed time due to injury, while Tim doesn't even have to ice his arm. And surely enough, both Homer and Phil again missed time this past summer.

At this time I can see how one could still make an argument for Phil over Tim, but I have a hard time evaluating Homer over Tim at this time.

A year from now it may well look different. But right now I would rank Tim ahead of Phil by a bit and ahead of Homer by a fair amount. And I might rank Yovanni Gallardo over Phil and almost certainly over Homer at this point.

Homer's ERA wasn't bad last season -- but he pitched in good luck and was pretty wild, while not being very dominant.

As you so correctly point out, Homer is two years younger than Tim. Always will be as long as both are alive.

by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 3:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you realize

that Gallardo was better than Lincecum last year, and is 18 months younger, right?

Gallardo is ABSOLUTELY ahead of Bailey, Hughes, and Lincecum.

by Galt on Mar 7, 2008 7:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on that

Gallardo was a little under the radar last year, and still is when compared to the press and hype that Lincecum, Hughes and Baily get around here.

Where is the thread that asks "How good can Gallardo be?".

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Mar 7, 2008 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One can make an argument

As I posted a month or so ago, one can make an argument that Yovanni Gallardo was better last season -- or that Tim Lincecum was. Personally I would be delighted to have either one -- and this will really surprise you, but I would rather have Lincecum. :)

One can indeed make a nice argument on behalf of Yovanni, however.

by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

I think we can evaluate it now. There's uncertainty now, but saw enough in 2007 to be able to use strong inference.

Would you trade Bailey for Lincecum straight up? I sure wouldn't.

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Mar 7, 2008 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's why

That's why I would make a good GM, and you wouldn't. :) I'm just joking, of course, since it will likely be years before we know how this one will turn out, but I will indeed go with Lincecum.

Bailey is two years younger, but he has had injuries, doesn't appear to be as dominant, showed less control last season and was said somewhere to have attitude problems.

by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ummmm

I'm in agreement with you - I meant that Lincecum is had such a clearly better 2007 that he's the safer bet right now, regardless of the 2-yr difference in age.

Confusingly written on my part, I agree.

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Mar 8, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Thanks for clarifying, Sidd. By the way, you played a great game for the Penguins today -- or are you not that Sid(d)? :)

by sharksrog on Mar 9, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

rose-colored glasses

They certainly have an amazing top 4. I disagree that they have much depth; I certainly disagree that they have "legit" prospects at every position.

So their ranking is largely dependent upon those top four. If someone doesn't love one of the top 4; then it's going to significantly weigh down the organizational rankings.

Goldstein is a little negative on Cueto it seems, ranking him outside his top 40.

by Galt on Mar 5, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No depth?

If the Reds don't have depth then not many teams have depth. Sure, they have a very good top 4, but even after that they had Drew Stubbs, Devin Mesoraco, Matt Maloney and Juan Francisco recieve top 150 votes from BA. That doesn't include Todd Frazier or Kyle Lotzkar from last years draft as supplemental first rounders who impressed in their debut's. Frazier was the #1 prospect in the Pioneer League and Lotkar was 17 years old last year and the highest rated pitcher in the GCL with a 95 MPH fastball. That doesn't even tough on the bullpen depth they have with guys like Josh Roenicke, Tyler Pelland, Pedro Viola or as some want to claim him as a prospect still Jared Burton. Then there are guys like Danny Dorn and Adam Rosales fighting their way up the system as those underdog types who have done nothing but hit (although in Rosales case he didn't hit in 2006 while playing through an elbow injury all year).

As for legit prospects at every position....

1B - Votto
2B - take your pick from the group of Frazier, Valaika, Soto
SS - Soto/Castro maybe.
3B - Francisco, Frazier, Rosales or Waring.
LF - Danny Dorn
CF - Jay Bruce, Drew Stubbs (if you don't want to count Bruce in CF)
RF - Jay Bruce
C - Devin Mesoraco, Craig Tatum

Relief pitchers - Josh Roenicke, Tyler Pelland, Jared Burton, Pedro Viola, Sean Watson and Carlos Fisher.

Starting pitchers - Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Travis Wood, Kyle Lotzkar, Matt Maloney.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yawn

by Galt on Mar 5, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

awesome reply

that surely puts everything in perspective on why I am wrong about the Reds having depth.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the reds are the best team ever

Every player in their farm system is a future hall of famer. They have the 10 best prospects in baseball.

Please continue to post exclusively and ad nauseum about every Reds prospect.

You win. I give up.

by Galt on Mar 5, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, yes

rather than make a simple argument, just tell me that I have right in a very sarcastic way.

You gave up without actually providing an argument past 'you are a Reds homer'.

If you want to go through and give me a breakdown on why so and so team is higher than the Reds, I am all ears for listening. You didn't want to do that though, you just wanted to mock in an immature way.

I took your comment that they don't have much past the top 4, and gave some evidence to support my claim that they did. You had no rebuttal outside of what you posted above. Maybe you are this way with everyone and I just haven't noticed it before, but I don't think I had anything out of line in my response to cause the response you gave.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 6, 2008 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

don't you see it's pointless?

It's like a Muslim trying to tell a Christian why they are wrong.

Logic and reason has no place in faith. And yours is clearly a faith-based argument.

Engaging you is purely wasted time.

by Galt on Mar 6, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yet you come to this conclusion

without even attempting to show me why.

You claim that the Reds didn't have much depth. I provided plenty of players who I would call solid, if not very solid depth.

John, for example gave the Reds 27 players with a C+ or better and then 11 more a C. He said this when he did the Reds 2008 top 20, "A very rich farm system with a lot of depth".

I doubt John would give a ranking to a guy like Juan Duran that the Reds just signed, but when you give kids 2 million dollar signing bonuses, I think that would likely make 39 players in the Reds system that John would probably give at least a C grade.

Its not just me being a Reds fanatic and being blind to a 'lack of depth'. John thinks the Reds have a lot of depth. I believe that as well. Baseball America thinks so as well, despite the acknowledgment that there is a dropoff after the top 4, but when you are talking about 4 top 5 prospects, there is going to be a drop off of sorts for the next 4 guys in every system not named the Rays.

I just feel as if you are coming at me with something based on a notion that I have shown little to no basis of here. I didn't just say 'the Reds have depth', I said they have depth, then gave reasons why I believe that they have depth. At that point, I am a Reds fan who only see's their prospects through faithful eyes with no sense of reality for them....

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 6, 2008 1:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

correction

Meant to say 4 top 50 prospects, not 4 top 5 prospects.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 6, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly, not sure

but does that change the fact that he felt that the Reds had a lot of depth?

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 6, 2008 1:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Galt

Galt, I don't really know all that much about the Reds' farm system, but at this point I have to go with Doug. Why? Because you tried to shoot him down with shouting, when you should have used facts and logic.

You may be right in what you say. If so, would you mind sharing your reasons with us? You say that Doug is going on faith alone, but in all honesty that is precisely what you are asking us to do in order to go along with you.

by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 3:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well..

I think about #7 is where they should be. They have most likely the best 1-4 prospects in baseball. But after that they aren't impressive. They have some talent but i don't think they're quite as good as seem to think they are.

Francisco has power and decent defense at third until he ages and loses his currently average range. He also struck out 161 times in 135 games.

Mesorace hasn't proven anything yet except that he can hit .219 in rookie ball as a 19 year old. Again, he has natural talent but that isn't the end all be all.

Stubbs still has a whole lot of work to do as well.

by deadboy on Mar 5, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am with Galt

No depth. And you just proved it by listing out the players.

1B - Votto
2B - Nothing substantial
SS - Nothing substantial
3B - Nothing substantial
OF - Bruce
P - Bailey, Cueto
C - Mesoraco

Color me skeptical on Frazier and Stubbs. If Frazier does what he did last year, I'll change my mind and call him a legit difference maker. I am not convinced at all that Stubbs will hit. The rest of the guys you mentioned are very mediocre at best.

The fact is that the Reds have a very top-heavy system. I'm not sure I'd put them at 7 (6 or 5 seem a little more appropriate), but at the same time I would not put them in the top 4.

by guru4u on Mar 6, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With you, I think

I've still got one finger on the chess piece here, but I'm pretty sure I'd take the Reds system right now over the Rangers. Bruce, Votto, Bailey, Cueto, Stubbs, and Frazier are a nice 6-some, and they have just as decent of a "next wave" of possibilities, right? The Rangers, OTOH, are pretty much all about the next wave. I'd rather have the squad that's got 4 guys kicking ass at AAA, really.

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Mar 5, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Man Oakland..

Jumps from 23 to 2. I figured they be top 10 but didnt think they would get as high as #2.

by ACif23 on Mar 5, 2008 10:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A's pitchers

I think the A's are gonna be in the same spot next year. The young pitching they have is increadible. Three top 100 prospects in their Hi-A rotation? DLS will be a top 10 prospect next year, and Anderson and Cahill will be top 30 atleast. Even though Anderson already is on some lists.

by deadboy on Mar 6, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know...

Before I saw this, I had the Braves at about 5 or 6 in my head. But after reading this, I think I tend to agree with Goldstein that 8 is more appropriate. I mean, they just don't have the MLB-ready impact talent that the teams above them do. Their depth is very impressive, but outside of Schafer, their upper-level guys project as solid regulars at best rather than the stars that other teams look to have.

So yeah. #8 looks about right to me. And next year's gonna be even better when Heyward is top 10 and two or three of the top 5 lefty prospects in the game are Braves. :-D

by mraver on Mar 6, 2008 12:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed for 2009

They'll be really interesting to see develop over 2008 and the picture for 2009 could potentially be really good.

As for 2008, Lillibridge, Jones, Reyes, and Jurrjens are not terribly sexy, but they do project as being every day regulars (the pitchers will go thru growth pains, of course), and that is fairly impressive in its own right. I wish my team would have four guys coming up to plug holes this year.

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Mar 6, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs