St. Louis Cardinals Top 20+ Prospects for 2009
by John Sickels on Jan 5, 2009 12:20 AM EST
98 comments
Tools galore. . .
All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change. Don’t get too worried about exact rankings at this point, especially once you get out of the top 10. Grade C+/C guys are pretty interchangeable depending on what you are looking for.
1) Colby Rasmus, OF, Grade A-: I’m going to cut him some slack due to youth. Power, speed, walks, defense are all still here. Not going to hit for a great average right away.
2) Brett Wallace, 3B, Grade A-: Monster bat should be ready within a year. Glove at third should be adequate in the short run.
3) Chris Perez, RHP, Grade B+: Outstanding closer-quality stuff, just needs to throw strikes.
4) Daryl Jones, OF, Grade B: I buy into the improvement being real. Has always had the tools and skills improved rapidly this year. This is an aggressive grade but I’m comfortable with it.
5) Jess Todd, RHP, Grade B-: Strike-throwing inning-eater type if used as a starter, could be more dominant in shorter stretches if used in pen.
6) Jon Jay, OF, Grade B-: I like him more than a lot of people, but I think he can play center and put up solid numbers. Another aggressive grade, but both Jay and Jones have impressed me and I think both tend to be underrated..
7) Jason Motte, RHP, Grade C+: Gotta love the strikeouts, but questionable secondary stuff precludes higher grade. Should be fine short reliever.
8) Bryan Anderson, C, Grade C+: This ranking may surprise some, but I’m starting to wonder if we could be looking at a Sean Burroughs situation here, where the line drive bat just kind of stalls at an early age. Am I overreacting?
9) Mitchell Boggs, RHP, Grade C+: Live arm, still trying to put everything together, another guy who could be a decent starter or dominate more in the pen.
10) Jaime Garcia, LHP, Grade C+: Hard to rank due to Tommy John. A grade B+/B if healthy.
11) Pete Kozma, SS, Grade C+: I rather like him and I think he might end up being a better hitter than people think.
12) David Freese, 3B, Grade C+: An older prospect and plate discipline looks spotty, but he has power and a good glove at third.
13) Adam Reifer, RHP, Grade C+: Excellent stuff, dominated the New York-Penn League, need to see at higher levels. Could hit the Top 5 next year if all goes well.
14) Allen Craig, 3B, Grade C+: A personal favorite, could rank as high as 9 or 10 depending on criteria. I think he’ll hit, though glove isn’t the best and he’s got a lot of competition.
15) Lance Lynn, RHP, Grade C+: Polished college pitcher, could rank much higher once we see him against better hitters.
16) Niko Vasquez, SS, Grade C+: Good performance in pro debut, strikeouts and defense are questions. Has higher potential.
17) Clayton Mortensen, RHP, Grade C+: Gets grounders, could be an inning-eater, but strikes me as overrated by some other sources.
18) Francisco Samuel, RHP, Grade C+: Outstanding stuff, command is wobbly.
19) Fernando Salas, RHP, Grade C+: Throws strikes, great K/BB and K/IP marks, but gives up a lot of fly balls.
20) Richard Castillo, RHP, Grade C+: Very young pitcher with high sleeper potential.
21) Deryk Hooker, RHP, Grade C+: Another young sleeper, and a breakthrough candidate for 2009.
22) Roberto De La Cruz, 3B, Grade C+: Young Dominican with power, big bonus, and reportedly has good strike zone judgment.
23) Shane Peterson, OF, Grade C+: High OBP college guy with gap power, but not many homers.
24) P.J. Walters, RHP, Grade C+: Uses a nasty changeup to rack up large numbers of strikeouts.
Others: Nicholas Additon,LHP; Jermaine Curtis, 3B; Anthony Ferrara, LHP; Eric Fornataro, RHP; Scott Gorgen, RHP; Tyler Greene, SS; Luke Gregerson, RHP; Tyler Henley, OF; Tyler Herron, RHP; Steven Hill, 1B-C; David Kopp, RHP; Gerardo Mannbell, SS; Adam Ottavino, RHP; Shane Robinson, OF; Nick Stavinoha, OF.
As usual, don’t sweat so much about where the Grade C+/C types rank exactly on this list. After I get past the top 10 I don’t worry so much about exact placement, since I’m trying to concentrate on the book right now. Some of the Grade C guys could be C+ in the book, and vice versa.
NOTE TO READERS:
I’ve received criticism lately about these lists being “incomplete” and not detailed enough. These aren’t supposed to be in-depth reports, folks, these are preliminary grades from the book and thumbnail blurbs. That is what "full reports are in the book" means. I thought everyone understood that.
SYSTEM IN BRIEF
The Cardinals system is rapidly improving. Rasmus, Wallace, and Perez all have strong impact potential, and the B/B- guys all look like useful role players at least and possibly regulars.
After that you have a gigantic mass of Grade C+ prospects that are difficult to rank. Some of these Grade C+ guys look like role players, but others could end up with much higher grades next year once we get more data. The Cardinals continue to focus on college guys in the draft, but are now popping an occasional high school ceiling player (Kozma, Vasquez, Hooker,
Overall I think Cardinals fans should be optimistic about the way this system is going.
Full reports on these players and over 1,000 others can be found in the 2009 Baseball Prospect Book. Pre-order for January 31st shipping now!
0 recs |
98 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Love this system.
You’ve got big time impact talents, plenty of guys to project as solid contributors to a major league team in some form, sleepers galore . . .maybe not as flashy or as deep as the best systems, but lots of good stuff.
I quite like Scott Gorgen as a sleeper.
by mrkupe on Jan 5, 2009 12:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Certainly as deep as Texas or Oakland in C+ or above guys.
Pretty close to Oakland unless there’s a vast chasm between B- and C+.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 5, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's a pretty decent gap between the Oakland and Texas B-s and the St. Louis C+'s, fwiw.
I wouldnt call it a vast chasm but I strongly disagree that its “pretty close to Oakland.”
by alskor on Jan 5, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering generically about the difference, although my post didn't read that way.
“Decent gap” is still significant, but I was struck by how close it turned out given the difference in hype.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 5, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What about Joe Mather?
Any chance he gets some playing time? What will happen to him? AAAA slugger? Trade fodder? If any Cards fans could give me more insight, I’m just learning about him, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
by The Colonel on Jan 5, 2009 1:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He eclipsed the 130 AB threshold this year, losing his prospect status.
by slu on Jan 5, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am curious
to see where Bombs would have ranked on this list… Probably graded similar to Freese.
by mateodh on Jan 5, 2009 3:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Donovan Solano
What about him? He’ll be 21 this season and quite possibly starting at AAA this season if Greene makes the big club. There’s nothing particularly flashy about him, but I think he at least deserves being listed in the others category.
by slu on Jan 5, 2009 1:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Solano
He is one of my players to watch in 2009. Many in the Cardinals organization compared him to Edgar Renteria when he was in Johnson City. As you mentioned, he is still very young and is in the upper levels already.
The main reason why he is someone to keep an eye on IMO is because he collected 22 extra base hits from 2005 to 2007. In 2008, Solano collected 26 extra base hits.
by UncleBuck44 on Jan 5, 2009 8:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How I see it UB. Even if his potential is that of a utility infielder that certainly deserves inclusion on the list. Not sure if its an oversight by John or he purposely left him off entirely. An explanation would be great John!
And thanks for all the hard work on this! I probably refreshed the site about 200 times yesterday in giddy anticipation of this.
by slu on Jan 5, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Solano might be
an oversight but if John thinks Solano just doesn’t have the bat then I can understand leaving him off. He seems like one of those guys that could just fly under the radar and then have success anyway, but at this point he’s low on the depth chart of shortstops. If he puts up numbers on ‘09, though, he’ll climb quickly based on his tools.
by mateodh on Jan 5, 2009 9:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
solano
I was very concerned about his lack of power. Even as the list stands, the Cardinals are over the 38player limit. If I add Solano someone has to get cut.
by John Sickels on Jan 5, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Perez
I’ve always been a fan of him. I do think his command will come. If it doesn’t, he’s a perfect Kyle Farnsworth type.
I expect better of Perez than Farnsworth though.
by Brian DIngo on Jan 5, 2009 1:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Farnsworth
Motte reminds me more of Farnsworth than does Perez, straight fastball all the way, but I do expect better of him, too.
by mateodh on Jan 5, 2009 3:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Motte
I love converted pitchers, and think Motte’s going to have a long career as an 8th inning guy and possibly a closer. As he continues to learn how to pitch, his K rate goes up and his BB rate goes down. I’m unabashedly rooting for him, but I think he’s got as good a shot as any prospect to be a lights-out reliever.
by seabass on Jan 5, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't Perez lose rookie status
because of number of days spent on the major-league roster?
by StanTheManFan on Jan 5, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
I don’t really know why he continues to be on prospect lists. He absolutely does not qualify as a rookie anymore, and I thought that was the clear line of demarcation between being a prospect and not being a prospect.
by Galt on Jan 5, 2009 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He has 41.2 IP. The rookie threshold is 50.
by slu on Jan 5, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's also a roster time limit
Chris Perez is 100% absolutely not a rookie this year. And if he’s not a rookie, I’m surprised that he’d be classified as a “prospect” He was on the roster for over 3 full months – longer than Chris Davis. If John (or anyone else) put Chris Davis on a prospect list, they’d be laughed at.
by Galt on Jan 5, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
roster limit
Most sources I see don’t worry about the service time limit.
by John Sickels on Jan 6, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
prospect status
there is no standardized definition of a prospect. each prospect list makes its own determination of who qualifies. many will exclude players that have lost rookie eligibility, but that is by no means a requirement. i believe john uses 130 at bats/50 ip and ignores the amount of time spent on the roster. its easier to do it that way than count up all of the days.
by dmb60614 on Jan 5, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tony LaRussa
loves his veteran pitchers. Perez is pretty clearly the Cards’ best choice at closer this year, but the latest has LaRussa talking about converting Carpenter into a closer rather than turning the ball over to Perez in the 9th.
by RotoKing on Jan 5, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't worry about the "criticism" John
That was just some guy trying to get traffic to his site at your expense (though really it probably brought more traffic to yours). We all still love your grading system and your evaluation of the players. Keep up the good work!
The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!
by The Congo Hammer on Jan 5, 2009 9:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
critics
Oh, it wasn’t just that guy. I’ve had a few other complaints too. I don’t think people understand the “free website” thing means that I have to find revenue through other sources, like the book, in order to stay afloat and make a living.
by John Sickels on Jan 5, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
John
I know I prefer your work to Baseball America’s. Keep it up.
by richieabernathy on Jan 5, 2009 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of "free website", have you considered putting some of the book content online for
subscription? I’m more a web person than a book person. I subscribe to Scout, BA and B-Pro. I would certainly subscribe to Sickels premium content.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 5, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Although I do enjoy taking the book into the can.
Daddyboy
by Daddyboy on Jan 5, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
alright George Castanza
Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.
by 306008 on Jan 6, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
critics
Yeah, God forbid that you try to actually make a profit on your book when you give away tons of free information on your site :) Hopefully 99% of your readers see these lists as the free appetizer and the book as the entree.
This is probably a dumb question, but have you looked into the possibility of broader distribution of your book (instead of just being available through your site). I realize that this would push your per unit profit down, but it might boost sales – especially on the book sites that recommend “similar” books when you are book shopping.
by kosmo on Jan 7, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My "pet guy" is
Adam Ottavino. Is he at least still a C+, or is his stock falling?
"I'd like to f*ck Sandra Bullock." - Pedro Martinez, explaining his secret ambition to Sports Illustrated for Kids.
by OCD SS on Jan 5, 2009 9:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
ottavino
I’d heard his velocity was down a bit along with his command.
by John Sickels on Jan 5, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
He was starting to go the Chris Lambert route in the first half of the season. From what I heard, he regained some velocity in the 2nd half and finished the season somewhat strong. He did have a rough showing in the AFL but I believe he was working on a few things much like every pitcher does.
Ottavino will only be 23 next season so he has plenty of time. I expect that he will start out back in Springfield. If he does well then a callup to Memphis should be in order.
Ottavino is one of the few pitchers in the Cardinals system that has middle of the rotation potential but he is so far away from reaching that potential. I’m crossing my fingers that he figures out a few things in 2009.
by UncleBuck44 on Jan 5, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Best hitter duo?
Rasmus/Wallace might give Alvarez/McCutchen a run for their money
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jan 5, 2009 10:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
That’s a tough choice.
by demondeaconsbaseball on Jan 5, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd take Rasmus and Wallace
I’m not sure there’s a huge difference btw Alvarez and Wallace’s bat. I like Rasmus better than McCutchen.
by toonsterwu on Jan 5, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
cardinals' system
the only thing this system lacks is a pitcher that projects as a top of the rotation guy. i would love to see them address that in this year’s draft. it may be hard to get that guy at #19, but there is some pitching depth. guys like zach wheeler, andrew oliver, and tanner scheppers would be the obvious ones to look at.
by fewgoodcards on Jan 5, 2009 10:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agree with this statement John
The Cardinals system is rapidly improving. Rasmus, Wallace, and Perez all have strong impact potential, and the B/B- guys all look like useful role players at least and possibly regulars.
After that you have a gigantic mass of Grade C+ prospects that are difficult to rank. Some of these Grade C+ guys look like role players, but others could end up with much higher grades next year once we get more data.
This was a tough system for me to rank b/c of the glut of those C+ guys, many you could interchange in the rankings and not do much harm.
I think De La Cruz, Reifer, Lynn and Vasquez are relatively safe bets to make next year’s top ten, while there are others who I could see falling relatively hard e.g., Mortensen.
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds
by erik on Jan 5, 2009 11:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wallace an A-?
I think you’re a bit high on him John. I mean the bat looks great, but the kid hasn’t even had 300 professional at-bats yet. I also think you are being extremely generous saying that he is adequate at 3rd. He’ll be Ryan Braun their if not worse. I think a B+ would be a more reasonable grade.
by Birdfan01 on Jan 5, 2009 11:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
it'll be interesting
It’ll be interesting to see how his glove does, given that there’s that fella named Pujols at 1B taking what seems like would be Wallace’s spot.
It does look like Pujols wil be getting some reinforcements in the lineup soon though, with Wallace and Rasmus coming up soon
by blinkshot on Jan 5, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cards' GM said
Wallace will be tried out in LF this spring, while still getting looks at 3B
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds
by erik on Jan 5, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace
will not be an everyday 3B. He’s a 1B on a team that’s not going to need one for a long time. If he can show he can handle LF at least as well as Burrell (or insert your own good arm, no range colleage corner OF type here, that’s probably the best bet at maximizing his value.
by RotoKing on Jan 5, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure?
Recent reports out of the AFL said that he surprised scouts in how well (average defensively) that he we was doing at third. The professional opinion of his ability to stick at 3B is changing (this is in at least two publications – MiLB top 50 prospects & the MLB website). This is at least for the short term. After a few years, he may have to switch, but as of now, he is changing opinions about his defense.
by ATLCardinal on Jan 5, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
A lot of the criticism of Wallace’s defense come from those who have seen a picture of the guy, but never actually watched him play. He has the body of a DH/1B. Time will tell I suppose…
by Beware the Molinas on Jan 6, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By your comments
Pedro Alvarez doesn’t deserve an A- either since he didn’t register 1 professional at-bat.
I think you have to take into account the entire body of work last season – Wallace repeated as the Pac-10 Triple Crown winner before playing his way to AA and the AFL.
Wallace is an adequate 3B. He has a good arm, and he can make the routine plays. He is not going to blow you away with his defense, but he can play solid. Wallace actually had some spectacular defensively plays at the hot corner during the Fresno St. Super Regionals last year.
He has been working extremely hard with Pop Warner on his defense. I think his advanced bat actually helps him – he has the ability to spend a bit more time developing at 3B.
by gunkdog on Jan 5, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Except...
Alvarez has a better offensive ceiling and has a better chance to stay at third. Also, if Wallace is an A- then McCutchen should too because he is at least as good of a prospect. They re around the same age and McCutchen has proven he can play at the highest minor league level.
by joegonzo on Jan 5, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You Misunderstand My Argument
I don’t think that a lot of professional experience is essential for a prospect to receive a high grade. I just think that John is overvaluing Wallace’s debut. Here is How John has graded the first 15 picks:
1. Tim Beckham- B+
2. Pedro Alvarez- A-
3. Eric Hosmer- B+
4. Brian Matusz- B+
5. Buster Posey- A-
6. Kyle Skipworth- NA
7. Yonder Alanso- B+
8. Gordon Beckham- B+
9. Aaron Crow- NA
10. Jason Castro- B
11. Justin Smoak- A-
12. Jemile Weeks- B
13. Brett Wallace- A-
14. Aaron Hicks- B+
15. Ethan Martin- B
If your keeping score at home, out of the first 15 draft picks, 13 have been given a grade. Here’s the breakdown: 4 A-, 6 B+, and 3Bs. I don’t think that Wallace is one of the 4 best prospects in this year’s draft. Yes he had a great debut with the bat, but it was only 300 at-bats (including the AFL). Yes, he did play well in the AFL as a 22 year-old, but so did Tyler Flowers, who at the same age slugged 12 HRs and hit .375 in 75 at-bats, compared to Wallace’s 6 HR and 309 average in 94 at-bats. What grade did Flowers receive? A B: “Tyler Flowers, C, Grade B: Love the power and walks, main question is glove.” Could this write-up not be substituted in for Wallace and still make complete sense? Flowers is a catcher right now, a much more demanding position than 3rd, and he still has a better shot of sticking there than Wallace does at third, yet he gets a B and Wallace gets an A-. I think there is a disconnect there. I don’t care how hard Wallace is working at 3rd he will not be anything short of a butcher there. In a recent Goldstein chat on baseballprospectus he talked to a scout who described Wallace’s range as: “fall-down range”.
In short I don’t think the 13th overall pick should get a highest grade of the draft, and a higher grade than 8 of the players picked ahead of him because he had a good professional debut. Teams pour tremendous resources into evaluating talent, and twelve teams all decided that there were players who had more talent than Wallace. I don’t think that John’s grades should be set in stone by the way in which players were picked, but don’t understand how one can make the case that Wallace is a better prospect than Beckham, Hosmer, and Matusz among others.
by Birdfan01 on Jan 5, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WHY...
should where a player was drafted factor in at all? Organizations rate players differently (don’t we all?) and each year, signability and cost factor a little bit more into draft position as well. I do agree with your opinion that Wallace is, but I’d feel the same if he was drafted 1st overall or in the 14th round.
by RotoKing on Jan 5, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Over-rated
Wallace is over-rated. Makes a lot more sense when the main point is actually included in the sentence.
by RotoKing on Jan 5, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
David Cooper
had a great debut too.
by richieabernathy on Jan 5, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
close to the majors
i dont want to put words in john’s mouth, but if i recall correctly he gives consideration to how close a player is to the majors as well as their likelihood of achieving their ceiling. most people seem to consider wallace very close the majors, and there is the feeling he could probably hold is own with the bat in the majors next year. i think he is getting some bonus points for being very close to being ready, and for being considered something of a “safe bet” to achieve his ceiling. some of the other guys, like t.beckham are still several years away, which also adds to the uncertainty of them achieving their ceiling.
by dmb60614 on Jan 5, 2009 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wallace
Because he should be ready very soon and I really really believe in his bat.
by John Sickels on Jan 5, 2009 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Responses
RotoKing- Why should a player’s draft position affect how good of a prospect he is perceived to be? A couple years down the road I don’t think it should be given much weight, but a couple months after the draft I think it should be given significant weight. Every game these guys played was attended by dozens of scouts who meticulously dissected every facet of their game, and I don’t think 300 of Brett Wallace’s at-bats as a pro should override their opinions. Signability certainly plays a role in draft position, but it could have only helped Wallace, as he was considered an easy sign, eventually signing for less than every player selected in front of him.
John- I agree that proximity to the majors is important, but it by no means precludes that Wallace will succeed in the majors in the near future. Look at Dan Johnson and Daric Barton, similar players who put up very good numbers at AAA, and didn’t hit in the majors. Wallace, Johnson, and Barton are all one dimensional players, if the bat doesn’t come around they don’t have any value. When you consider that is Wallace really any “safer” than someone like Tim Beckham or Aaron Hicks where, even if bat doesn’t turn out, the player has value based on speed and defense?
My basic complaint is that I don’t think a guy who has a good bat, but is not going to be passable anywhere at but first, and is picked 13th overall, should get a higher grade than 3/4 of the first 4 picks of the draft. At the end of the day shouldn’t a prospect’s grade reflect how good he is supposed to be? I find it hard to believe that so many teams could have misjudged his talent when they had three years to see him in the Pac 10.
by Birdfan01 on Jan 5, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Debuts
Yes – Brett Wallace has one of the highest grades – he shares that with Posey, Alvarez, and Smoak – these four were the best hitters in NCAA baseball. While Tim Beckham and Eric Hosmer are great prospects, they are years behind these four players.
Wallace started his 2008 leading Arizona State to the Pac-10 championship while repeating as the Pac-10 Triple Crown winner. After being drafted by the Cardinals, Wallace quickly signed and proceeded to end up with a 957 OPS in 200 minor league at-bats between A and AA. Then he reported to the Arizona Fall League where he ended up with a 966 OPS in 94 ABs.
This came up in the mock drafts here this summer – Is Wallace for real or not? Or my favorite discussion – Ike Davis vs Brett Wallace. I supported Wallace then and it has been reconfirmed with his debut. Wallace has a great batting eye and a short quick swing.
If you think Wallace is being overvalued because of his debut – is it possible to be undervaluing Tim Beckham’s debut due to his 659 OPS? Of course not
Many many years from now – it is possible that some of these B+ prospects could be better than these four A- prospects. However, from the knowledge that we have now, Wallace has to be an A-.
by gunkdog on Jan 5, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All You Wallace Lovers
Ok lets turn back the clock a couple of months to the 2008 draft. We’ve all heard that in baseball you don’t draft for need you draft who you believe is the best player available. Brett Wallace went 13th. Has 3 months of baseball really changed the value of Beckham, Hosmer, and Matusz so much so that Wallace is now a better prospect? No way.
Ya Wallace is closer than those three, but he’s not better. If you asked scouts farm directors, and scouts who they would rather have- Wallace or one of those three I guarantee that they would pick one of Beckham, Hosmer, and Matusz. John’s grade should reflect that.
by Birdfan01 on Jan 6, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And . . .
. . . Rick Porcello was the 27th best player in 2007.
I don’t understand your philosophy with respect to the draft at all. Why do you even need to come to a place like this? Your prospect list should look exactly like the drafts.
by gunkdog on Jan 6, 2009 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace didn't have signability issues, and he/she has a better point than you do.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 6, 2009 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This seems unlikely.
Sometimes teams don’t draft BPA. A lot of the time, teams tend to have a developmental philosophy and they stick to it. For example, the Rays love projectable prep pitchers and toolsy position players noted for good makeup. If they think that Player A grades out higher than Player B but that their system of development is better suited for turning Player B into a major leaguer, then taking Player B clearly makes more sense. You spend your money on the best fit, not the BPA.
by mrkupe on Jan 6, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Player A is going to be a better major leaguer, but Player B is better suited to your system,
isn’t it time to change your system to produce the best major leaguers?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 6, 2009 2:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Draft
Gunkdog- As WaddellCanseco says the Porcello comparison is completely irrelevant to Wallace. Porcello slipped due to signability concerns, not talent concerns- Porcello got 3.58 million, the 4th highest amount in that draft. Wallace got 1.84, less than everyone taken in front of him. But at no point do I say that draft position or bonus should exclusively determine where a prospect ranks. Ben Revere signed for 750,000 a pick after Porcello, the lowest amount in the first round. Am I arguing that Revere is the 28th prospect or worse in the 2007 draft? No! But we have had a year and a half to evaluate Revere, and a year to evaluate Porcello. We have had 3 months to evaluate Wallace and Tim Beckham. What a week to see Hosmer as a pro? And Matusz only pitched in the AFL. What I am saying is that this very limited sample size should not all of a sudden make Wallace a better prospect than the 1st, 2nd, and 4th overall picks! If Wallace comes out and rakes next year and Beckham struggles, fine give Wallace a better grade. But the guys who have seen Wallace and all these guys play numerous times, and evaluate talent for a living made the decision that Beckham, Hosmer, and Matusz are all better prospects. Ya these guys make mistakes, but I think it is a bit early to overrule their opinion.
mrkupe- I don’t really understand what you are saying. Ya teams have some organizational preferences, the Phillies come to mind immediately, but at the end of the day the vast majority of teams take who they think is going to ultimately become the best player, regardless of high school college or tool set. I don’t see how you can argue that if the Rays thought Wallace was going to be a better player than Beckham they still would have taken Beckham because he fits an “organizational philosophy”. Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that 12 teams’ philosophy’s just happened to not mesh with Wallace. Teams passed on Wallace cause they thought their guy was better.
by Birdfan01 on Jan 6, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to interject,
Birdfan01, John IS one of those talent evaluaters that you speak of. Sure, he may not be the Rays evaluator that looked at Beckham for an entire year or more, but he does have a track record (good or bad) for ranking prospects based on his personal criteria. You may agree or disagree, but based on his criteria, this is what he thinks. I am sure John would tell you that Hosmer, Matusz and Beckham each have the potential to be better than Wallace. That being said John likes guys who appear to be closer the majors and Wallace does look like an impact type player. That being said, a half grade higher may be how John fleshes out his preference for guys closer to contributing right now.
I am sure John would rather have a great all around shortstop than a great hitter with questionable position, but the fact is Wallace came out of the NCAA where he dominated against higher competition and Beckham came from the High School ranks. Wallace hit well in a small sample size across two levels, one being AA, and Beckham was rather bleh in the Appalachian league. Sure, they are small sample sizes but they are not completely void of value. Prospects crash and burn and they also exceded expectations. If John thinks he can make that call with what he knows as of now, I have no problem with it. If it turned out to be wildly false on a consistent basis, he would have no credibility and you wouldn’t interested in what he has to say on the sight.
Finally, I don’t always agree with John, and know one does, but to say the grades he has given are inconsistent, I think is a stretch.
As to the draft debate. I think Daniel Moskos is a fine example of a player that was taken high but never did and has yet to earn a grade consistent with the next ten players drafted behind him. Just because the draft is the organizations job, that doesnt mean they make the best pick every time out. I feel like every site i read talked about him being a reach and not the type of prospect worthy of that draft position.
by t7rick on Jan 6, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is pretty accurate
This is pretty accurate.
Tim Beckham’s ceiling is higher than Wallace’s. But Wallace is much closer to the majors, has a good ceiling of his own, and has less risk of failure. I’m also a lot more certain of the shape of Wallace’s possible success than I am of Beckham’s. Hence, the higher grade.
Everyone has different critieria. I’m not trying to reproduce and report what other people think…I don’t regurgitate what scouts say….I’m giving my own opinions. That’s my job.
by John Sickels on Jan 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace
Wallace is just as good a hitter as Alonso, Smoak and Alvarez.
The reason he fell in the draft was because of his body. He didn’t look nearly as good as the other 3 in baseball pants.
In terms of talent at the plate, its hard for me to really rate Wallace behind anyone in the 2008 draft except maybe Alvarez.
Wallace is one of the best pure hitters to come out of college in awhile. I think his power potential maybe a little lower but I think his chances of becoming a .300+ hitter are better.
Going back to his body, it was a reason to push him down the rankings at the time of the draft. Sometimes you do want to take the more complete package although none of the other 1B/3Bmen are extremely athletic.
However, what has helped Wallace climb back up the rankings is a mixture of great success in the minors and showing an ability to stay at 3rd base.
I also agree with John in that Wallace’s chances of being a bust seem lower than the other players. One scout said of Wallace “if this kid doesn’t hit in the majors, I don’t know who will”(or something like that). I agree.
by UncleBuck44 on Jan 6, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we have hit a philosophical crossroads
I’m not asking you to repeat the opinions of others. I value your opinion, that’s why I read your stuff. But I think your grades are generally too tough on high school kids for no reason other than they are farther away. If the high school kid is is ultimately going to be the better player I feel he should get a higher grade. You may think Wallace is better, that’s fine, but I don’t think it is accurate to give all 4 of the best grades in this years draft to college hitters.
I don’t mean to be an annoyance. I really appreciate the time you put into the site, a putting your top 20s on the website for free. I just feel that you have a college-hitter bias that you should look at.
by Birdfan01 on Jan 6, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bias
I freely admit I am biased in favor of college players. I’ve never denied that.
by John Sickels on Jan 6, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a bias
that makes sense. High ceiling high school players have a greater chance of not making it to the majors, because they have to close that gap between what their athletic ability makes it look like they can be and what they are. Not all guys close that gap. College guys have smaller gaps to close, and thus have a higher probability of being what they seem. I think some rankings bias too much for upside. All the best prospects aren’t necessarily 16 and in rookie ball.
by Toddius on Jan 8, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
variables
high school baseball has so many variables that obviously make the level of talent more difficult to judge. condition of fields, level of competition, fluctuation of talent, small sample size, multiple sport athletes, etc., etc., etc.
by richieabernathy on Jan 8, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There are
some scouting reports that suggest that he could stay at 3d early in his career and be league average. I know internally the Cards have said they are higher on him than some scouts outside the org. We’ll see who is right in the long run. Saying he’ll be “an absolute butcher” is an unsubstantiated claim. You might be right, but there are professional scouts that would disagree with you (although more would prob agree with you).
by Toddius on Jan 6, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cards
Well I will take that with a grain of salt, since the Cardinals don’t really have a great track record with scouting first round picks. Wallace was a signability pick and as a Cardinals fan I realize that. The Cardinals as an organization, mey be the most risk averse drafters in Major League Baseball. It can work with drafting hitter, but its a terrible policy for a team that is totally deprived of high upside pitching prospects.
I do think Wallace is going to be a very good major league hitter. If the Royals were smart they would utilize Hosmers athletism and move him to right field. I also think that the Rays made the wrong choice for a franchise that is ready to contend now. I really don’t think Beckham is going to be as good of a player as people think.
by CoolCat23 on Jan 6, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get your argument Birdfan....
Not sure why you think Tyler Flowers is at all comparative. He’s taken 3 years thru the minors and has reached high A levels. Sure he started at a younger age but nothing in his minor league stats suggest his bat is as potent as that of Wallace. His best slugging percentage over a full year was .494. Yeah he did great in the AFL but that really is too short a time span to make any determination. The guy was definitely on a roll. On the other hand, a questionable glove at catcher is a red flag. You challenge Wallace’s glove at 3rd despite numerous scout comments that he continues to surprise to the upside. The guy only had one error at 3rd in the AFL and his coverage was considered impressive.
The very reasons that Wallace may not have been selected earlier seem to be crumbling while his bat is at least as good as advertised if not better. I don’t care how many scouts evaluate the selection, the proof is in the pudding and Wallace has been a pleasant development and very much deserves his A-.
play a hard nine
by hugecardfan on Jan 13, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Non-Buyer's Remorse
Man, I wish the A’s had taken Wallace instead of Jemile Weeks.
C’mon, Jemile! Make me eat my words.
by DavidS on Jan 5, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Happy to see they're (re)building well.
I was hoping people had given up on Rasmus being a star because of the injuries last year. Now there’s going to be competition for him in my keeper league.
How much do you think I’d have to pay John to get him to lower it to a B- ?
by fps31520 on Jan 5, 2009 12:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Jose Martinez?
Anyone know why Jose Martinez flopped so badly this year? Not that he was great before, but his half-season in AA last year certainly seemed to promise more than he delivered in 2008. And, has he been moved off of shortstop for good?
by BobbyMac on Jan 5, 2009 1:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
On Anderson
If he can stick at catcher, which it seems like he can, wouldn’t a Sean Burroughs type bat still justify a grade higher than C+? That would be an above-average offensive catcher.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 5, 2009 3:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If only...
Sean Burroughs could have stuck a catcher’s mitt on and even done a bad Piazza impression (or better yet, a real catcher), I’d certainly take him on my team. That being said, I’ve seen little in Anderson that indicates a drop-off. Coupled with the fact that he’s solid defensively, that makes him a solid B in my “book”.
by RotoKing on Jan 5, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Perez's grade
John, if possible, could you mention why Chris Perez would get a higher grade than other similar relief prospects, such as Daniel Bard or Mark Melancon? Does he have stuff that is significantly better than the other two? Or is it because he’s already has had a taste of MLB success? Perez’s consistently high HR/9 and BB/9 rates still seem like pretty big warning signs.
Thanks.
by jibs on Jan 5, 2009 3:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
yes
yes because he’s shown he can succeed in the majors.
by John Sickels on Jan 5, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Talk about 3B Depth
We have 4 solid 3B prospects in Wallace, Fresse, Craig, and De La Cruz. I am really surprised one of them hasn’t been traded yet.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 5, 2009 3:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cards stacked at some positions
I agree the Cards are strong at 3B. They may be working on converting either Freese or Craig Their stats are amazingly similar. I would not be surprised to see one of them involved in a trade. I also expect that with Molina having many more years ahead of him in the bigs, B. Anderson will be moved elsewhere.
by Knothole on Jan 7, 2009 2:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hooker
I’d probably stay away from calling this guy a sleeper. I think he’ll easily go down on this list by the time it’s all said and done.
by RotoKing on Jan 5, 2009 4:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't get
the Anderson comp john. Everybody focuses on what he can’t do, but he was the fourth youngest player in the PCL this season, while posting a .281/.367/.379 line, and 32/47 BB/K ratio. sure he slumped at the end of the season, but he’s done that for three years now, always to bounce back the next season.
I only am who I am because I was born that way. I have a gift and I'm trying to not be selfish about it, but to use it, OK? Jealousy will get you nowhere!
by Dave Barry on Jan 5, 2009 7:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Anderson month to month
Anderson is currently the 4th youngest player in the PCL. I don’t think you can judge him with out looking at his month by month numbers.
Look at his numbers from last 2 years month to month
2007 in Springfield
Split PA AB ISOP HR BB% K% BABIP AVG OBP SLG wOBA
April 60 55 .255 2 8.3% 20.0% .390 .327 .383 .582 .410
May 93 79 .051 1 11.8% 10.8% .279 .253 .344 .304 .294
June 85 78 .102 2 4.7% 14.1% .438 .385 .400 .487 .384
July 88 80 .025 0 6.8% 20.5% .355 .275 .330 .300 .290
August 96 90 .044 0 4.2% 26.0% .354 .256 .281 .300 .260
2008 April in Springfield the rest in Memphis
Split PA AB ISOP HR BB% K% BABIP AVG OBP SLG wOBA
April 87 81 .136 2 4.6% 13.8% .433 .383 .402 .519 .397
May 75 67 .105 0 8.0% 16.0% .436 .358 .400 .463 .377
June 63 54 .166 1 12.7% 9.5% .340 .315 .413 .481 .383
July 63 52 .039 0 14.3% 17.5% .341 .269 .365 .308 .302
August 69 59 .085 1 11.6% 23.2% .238 .186 .275 .271 .242
For the past 2 years he has posted solid 1st half numbers and poor 2nd half numbers. So it seems his biggest issue right now is stamina which is not atypical of a catcher sliding in the 2nd half.
You are also completely skipping over the most important issue about Anderson, he is left handed. Why is it so important of an issue? Do you know the last time a left handed catcher even played in a major league game? 1983!!!!!!!!!!! Benny Distefano played 3 games at catcher for the Pittsburgh Pirates, becoming only the fourth southpaw to step behind the place since the AL and NL merged.
He throws right handed though. There definitely seems to be some kind of discrimination against left handed throwing catchers but the rarity of situation gives Anderson additional value imo. That fact he throws right handed allows him not to get discriminated against BUT still allows you to get a left handed bat in a position where it almost never comes from.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 6, 2009 12:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about?
There are plenty of left handed or switch hitting catchers.
by jibs on Jan 6, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he
means a catcher that throws lefty, which Anderson is not.
by Toddius on Jan 6, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True but I just wanted to throw out some obscure stats
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 6, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then why did you say
“That fact he throws right handed allows him not to get discriminated against BUT still allows you to get a left handed bat in a position where it almost never comes from.”
by jibs on Jan 6, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't really process it till after the fact
But by that point I already typed it up and it was kind of a long post
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 6, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Regardles his month to month argument I feel is still valid
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 6, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sleepers/Other Depth
Thanks for the post. I love this stuff. My take is as follows:
Dudes I would add to the book if I were you:
Jonathan Edwards – 20 year old in 2008 who posted a 900 OPS between SS and Low A. Cannon for an arm. Projects to be a RF with Power. I would personally rank him in the 15 range. This guy needs some cred!
Sam Freeman – 20 year old in 08 who dominated the rookie league (I know that isn’t a huge accomplishment but it got Niko in right) as a LHP with a 90-94 MPH FB and solid slider. I would put him in 20-25 range but is reported to be a quick riser in the system.
Tommy Pham – 20 year old in 08 with ISO of 220+ in low A. No doubt he is a wild card but with a plus arm and speed to go along with plus power he could be a sleeper CF prospect.
Tony Cruz – 22 year old catcher who did well in HIgh A and is expected to start next year in AA after doing well in the Hawaiian league as well. Could be an 800 OPS catcher with an average glove. Mid 20s seems right…
Other C type prospects that are “in the team picture”
Kenny Maiques – Throw out 08. This guy has setup/closer stuff. Needs to get head in order.
Mark McCormick/Blake King/Gary Daley/ – See Kenny Maiques
Steven Hill – Combined 900 OPS for 23 year old “catcher”. If he can be usable in the field the man can hit. I would put him in the mid 20s.
Curt Smith – Is 1000+ OPS in rookie ball for real? Worth watching…
Shawn Garceau – 20 year old pitching well in High A. Springfield will be a big test…
Luis De La Cruz/Aaron Luna/D’Marcus Ingrahm/Ryde Rodriquez – Toooollllsssyyyyyy
Curt Smith – in ’09 dominated rookie ball and is expected to start the
Mark Hamilton – He could bounce back right?
Other dudes who could be useful big league ballplayers:
Mike Parisi, Bret Zawacki, Josh Kinney, Luis Perdomo, Donovan Solano, Jose Martinez, Jarret Hoffpauir, Josh Dew, Josh Wilson, Tyler Norrick, Dan Descalso, Jared Bogany, Amari Marti, Justin Fiske, Matt Scherer, Mike Sillman, Paul Vazquez, Arquimedes Nieto, Ramon Delgado, Jon Bravo, Colt Sedbrook, Eddie Degerman, Jameson Maj, Blake Hawksworth
by Lawless on Jan 6, 2009 7:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
book
Unfortunately I can’t put EVERYONE in the book. I’m already over the limit as it is and some guys will have to be cut. I can’t add more.
by John Sickels on Jan 6, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the tough thing is
The top ten are pretty simple to put together, but from there until about 40 you have guys who just seem like they should be higher than they are, that’s how deep the system is. Then you have two A- guys at the top, so it’s top-heavy as well. Two good signs.
I like John’s inclusion of Mannbel, I like him a lot although that’s just based on his numbers. Edgar Lara has a lot of power, maybe even more than Edwards, he’s just lacking in plate discipline. I was hoping to see Ryde Rodriguez in the Top 20, just to see a report of some kind, but getting more than 20 was a nice surprise =)
by mateodh on Jan 7, 2009 7:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've gotta admit...
I’m pretty intrigued by your opinion of Reifer.
by mynameistyler on Jan 9, 2009 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Richard Castillo
Happy to see Castillo #20… I suppose you can call him a sleeper but it isn’t like the kid is sneaking up on anyone. He has outstanding peripherals and has pitched effectively in A+ at 18 years. I’d like to see a little more meat on his bones but the kid makes me think of Martinez. If he isn’t hurt, I’d be surprised if he isn’t top 5 in two years.
play a hard nine
by hugecardfan on Jan 13, 2009 11:52 PM EST 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.
