Los Angeles Angels Top 20 Prospects for 2010
by John Sickels on Nov 23, 2009 5:55 PM EST
65 comments
Los Angeles Angels Top 20 Prospects for 2010
All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change. Don't get too worried about exact rankings at this point, especially once you get beyond the Top 10. Grade C+/C guys are pretty interchangeable depending on what you want to emphasize.
1) Mike Trout, OF, Grade B+: On overall upside potential, has to rank number one but although I'd love additional performance data about his power development. A bit of a risk, but the upside is outstanding.
2) Hank Conger, C, Grade B+: I think a full breakout is possible in 2010. I like the bat, the glove is coming along, just hope he stays healthy.
3) Trevor Reckling, LHP, Grade B: Needs to lower his walk rate, but I liked him a lot last year and he performed well as one of the youngest pitchers in Double-A.
4) Garrett Richards, RHP, Grade B: First-class stuff and command was much better in pro ball than in college ball.
5) Peter Bourjos, OF, Grade B-: Borderline B. Speed goes nicely with improved plate discipline.
6) Fabio Martinez, RHP, Grade B-: Great stuff with high strikeout rate, needs to lower walks and prove himself at higher levels.
7) Tyler Skaggs, LHP, Grade B- due to lack of experience, but supremely projectable.
8) Jordan Walden, RHP, Grade B-: tough to rank and grade due to '09 injury problems. If healthy he's a personal favorite, and dominated at times in the Texas League before getting hurt.
9) Jon Bachanov, RHP, Grade B-: Tommy John survivor drew raves in the Arizona Rookie League, showing sharp command of plus stuff. Just needs more experience.
10) Chris Pettit, OF, Grade B-: I think he can be a solid player but not a star.
11) Randal Grichuk, OF, Grade B-: borderline C+. Very strong power potential, but needs to make a lot of improvements with his plate discipline.
12) Trevor Bell, RHP, Grade C+: Forgotten prospect re-established himself in 2009. Does not have the upside of the other Grade C+s, but he's closer to being able to help. Didn't do great in the majors but deserves more chances.
13) Ryan Chaffee, RHP, Grade C+: High strikeout rate with very high GO/AO ratio. Needs to lower walks, big sleeper for '10.
14) Tyler Chatwood, RHP, Grade C+: Similar to Chaffee, gets strikeouts and grounders although not quite as extreme, also a sleeper if he can throw more strikes.
15) Jean Segura, 2B, Grade C+: Very young, fast, hit well in the Pioneer League, but has problems with injuries.
16) Alexia Amarista, 2B, Grade C+: Scouts don't love him due to small size, but he's young and he hit the hell out of the ball at Cedar Rapids.
17) Michael Kohn, RHP, Grade C+: Reliever with gaudy numbers and good stuff. If he throws strikes in Double-A he will help in the majors sooner than expected.
18) Carlos Ramirez, C, Grade C+: Bad body, but the guy has hit everywhere and is an underrated defender.
19) Tyler Kehrer, LHP, Grade C+: Lefty with good stuff, needs better command to survive at higher levels.
20) Will Smith, LHP, Grade C+: Didn't dominate the Midwest League like he dominated the Pioneer League in '08, but he throws strikes and knows how to pitch. People are probably overcorrecting: he was overrated last year but perhaps underrated now.
21) Pat Corbin, LHP, Grade C+: Very projectable lefty but will need development time.
OTHERS: (all Grade C): Dillon Baird, 1B; Josh Blanco, LHP; Buddy Boshers, LHP; Clay Fuller, OF; Rolando Gomez, SS; Pil Joon Jang, RHP; Young Il Jung, RHP; Baudillo Lopez, RHP; Tommy Mendoza, RHP; Robert Mosebach, RHP; Ryan Mount, 2B; Jake Rife, OF; Fernando Rodriguez, RHP; Andrew Romine, SS; Freddy Sandoval, 3B; Chris Scholl, RHP; Andrew Taylor, LHP; Mark Trumbo, 1B.
The Angels have more interesting prospects than I expected when I first began this. I really like Trout, who has the highest upside of the three B+s, with the most star potential if it all comes together. Conger and Reckling are closer to the majors, of course, and you can make the case to rank them ahead as a result. There is a considerable amount of interesting pitching at the lower levels, including guys who could break through big in 2010 such as Chaffee, Chatwood, Skaggs, Richards, and Martinez. Walden could also be really good if his arm is ok.
They could use additional hitting depth: aside from Conger and Trout, I don't see many people with the potential to be stars. Grichuk could be very good if he gains command of the strike zone. Segura and Amarista have potential as well but we need more data from both. I love Ramirez based on what he did at Arizona State, but we need some numbers from a place other than the Pioneer League.
Reports and statistics for all these players will be in the 2010 Baseball Prospect Book, now available for pre-order.
0 recs |
65 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Maybes it’s just me but it’s little weird how you have Trout at #1 and Grichuk at #11 despite the Angels just drafting them back-to-back and Grichuk getting slightly more money.
Grichuk was a big overdraft that's why.
"I was going to say, 'You’re gay for Elvis.' But then I realized that I, too, am gay for Elvis." ~Adam J. Morris.
by Kinslerhomer on Nov 23, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
Trout is a much better prospect, IMO.
I’d make Skaggs a C+ if you’re going to make Chaffee and Chatwood C+. They’re pretty similar pitchers but Chaffee and Chatwood have actually made significant appearances and showed pretty good results. Considering Chatwood’s relative rawness and the adjustments likely made to Chaffee’s somewhat funky delivery, I wouldn’t be too worried on the walks on either.
Happy to see you caught Bachanov. I think he’s pretty interesting as we head to 2010.
Brandon Wood
So he’s not “technically” a prospect, but remains one of the more intriguing guys in their system… what do people make of him now? Maybe all he needs is a legit, prolonged opportunity.
that's basically everybody's take
there’s nothing left to prove after two .900 OPS years in a row in AAA. he has a long swing, and he needs time to adjust. i think he’s a sleeper for 2010
Thank you, Nick Adenhart. You will always be remembered. #34
by howiestheman on Nov 23, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
Part of the reason
Why I think the Angels should let Figgins go – to give Wood a legit opportunity to start at 3B next year.
it makes sense, but
the question becomes what happens to the top of that lineup in the short term?
That said, I doubt they’ll go ridiculous in trying to keep Figgins, so maybe it happens. In the past, that idea made a bit more sense, IMO, since they were still searching for another bat, but with the emergence of Morales, it isn’t as pressing to try and find a big bat to force in at the cost of their only top of the order hitter. At least, that’s my guess at their thought process.
I do think they need to find a spot for Wood, even if it’s as a supersub that plays a dash of 2nd, SS, 3rd, 1st, corner OF, and takes some DH time.
Is Woods Defense good enough for that role? I thought he ended up at third because his D wasn’t good for short.
Wood
He was a +1 at third according to Zone Rating last season. For what thats worth.
Personally, I don’t see Brandon Wood as an everyday player for a Mike Scoscia team. There has to be something going on there between the two. Otherwise there is no excuse for Wood not a major league third baseman right now.
I doubt there is 'something going on there between the two'
People at this site often seem to forget that for managers on contending teams, their primary goal isn’t to break in young players; it is to win now. Players like Figgins gave the Angels a better chance to win the last two seasons, as opposed to Wood who seemingly struggles each time he is promoted. That being said, I still think Wood will be a very good player, however people should not castrate Scoscia for doing what is best to help his team win.
"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 Nov 25, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
That doesn't mean Scoscia makes good decisions
I agree that there probably isn’t anything between Scoscia and Wood, but I still question the behaviour of a management (coaches & front office) group that makes such odd decisions. All the extra playing time given to Mathis over Napoli for instance (including some bizarre pinchhitting of GMJ). Or perhaps the constant playing of Robb Quinlan & Maicer Izturis.
Keep in mind, “struggles each time he is promoted” is a bit strong when its a young player with a long swing being called up to sit on the bench for two weeks, pinch hit a couple of times, get one start, then get sent back down. That sample is less useful than him being hurt for two weeks.
Surprised based on Bell's description that Mendoza didn't make the list.
He ranked as a top 10 prospect in this system for two straight years so he has some sort of track record of success, and he looked really, really good at higher levels this year.
Skaggs
LHP and projectable. I take the chance on him over Chaffee/Chatwood for sure, and it’s worth half a grade pretty easily imo.
I'm very surprised he's so low
I was expecting him to be a B+
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Nov 23, 2009 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
um . . .really?
A guy who went 40th in the draft (and it wasn’t an underdraft), has no college or pro experience, and has decent-but-not-great stuff?
I know there’s a lot of projection with him, but . . .sheesh. I think John was being rather kind by giving him a B-.
I would give him a B...
because pitchers with his potential are very hard to find. He has almost cy young award winner potential. A tall power lefty is really good to have. Just ask the Yankees.
really
did you really just compare Tyler Skaggs to CC Sabathia? cuz I think you did. I’m with mrkupe here… Let’s see this guy get through A ball before we get too excited.
by another know it all on Nov 23, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
No...
Im saying that tall lefties are hard to find. skaggs is nothing like Sabathia other than he is a power lefty.
Skaggs is not a power lefty.
I’m tired of hearing that. He tops out around 92. That’s nice for a lefty, but doesn’t qualify as power. In addition, his main secondary pitch until very recently was a slow curve. I mean slow. Not power. Slow.
by Andy Seiler on Nov 23, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry...
I mean he has the potential to be a power lefty. Im getting all screwed up. His amazingly projectable frame means he could be a really good power lefty if he fills in and adds velocity.
So...he's tall and left-handed.
There’s going to be a lot of B+ grades out there if that’s the criteria.
Tall
Lefty, sound, repeated mechanics, sits low-90s now as a teen with an extremely-projectable frame and additional velo to come. The curve I saw is better than Andy is saying. Different days, different results?
I thought the folks at BA were overrating Jake Odorizzi in their league rankings and the Brewer Top 10, but they insist he has the upside of a #2. He profiles very similarly to Skaggs and Skaggs has the additional benefit of being a southpaw. John’s got to go out on a limb sometimes, and Skaggs is a decent flier in that regard.
by blackoutyears on Nov 25, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
When did you see him?
He’s shown a better slurve that’s harder with sharper break that he started working on and throwing competitively in games this fall. He worked with a slow curve before then, though it’s of less pro potential.
And I wouldn’t say he sits in the low-90s. He’s 88-92, though he was lower than that before Jupiter last year, and he fell lower than that late in the spring. That’s why he wasn’t in the first round.
The video
was prior to the draft. I went hunting for it but couldn’t locate it. A lot of times that stuff gets pulled. He was spinning a decent curve in it. His velo did drop some, but I thought most observers attributed that to a nagging injury. It’ll be nice to see where he is at the start of the season, almost a year separated from the draft, in terms of conditioning and stuff.
Skaggs was clearly behind the first round HS arms for most, but being taken in the first sandwich round is hardly a badge of shame. And ranking just behind guys like Matzek, Miller, Turner, Wheeler and Purke (I don’t personally think he gives up much to Hobgood) isn’t either. Clearly the Angels see a lot of promise to draft him that high. Considering his handedness and projection he’s a solid, solid prospect.
by blackoutyears on Nov 30, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
I like the overall list
was a bit surprised to see Conger get a B+ right now, I would have thought more of a B and a 5th overall grade in the system or so…
This system has a little more depth than I originally thought….
Surprised to see Garrett Richards’ name there at #4
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Nov 23, 2009 7:03 PM EST reply actions
Agreed on Conger
I’m pretty surprised he got that high of a grade as well. He’ll have to stay at catcher to justify it.
This system has...
a lot of guys I really like. Trout seems like a Jim Edmonds in the making, Skaggs has an ultra projectable frame, Honger has a ton of power for a catcher, Grichuk also has a lot of power potential, and I still like Jordan Walden a lot. Very underrated and has the potential to be a top 5 system in a few years.
11 B- or better prospects! The system is deep! Crap.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
depends on your definition of deep
Overall, it’s not a top tier AL system, and outside of Toronto, may have the weakest collection of high end talent.
Top Tier:
Cleveland
Texas
Boston
Oakland
Tampa
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Nov 24, 2009 9:38 AM EST up reply actions
I tend to agree
It may be deep, although I am not all that familiar with some of these guys. But I am not that blown away by the high end and have to admit I’m a bit surprised Reckling and Conger were both B+, and Trout may be a bit agressive as well, although they all 3 have nice potential.
As a completely biased Mets fan i could make some kind of case for about 12 at least B- guys, although i know several of them will fall short for a lot of people (in no particular order): Martinez, Davis, Nieuwenhuis, Holt, Havens, Mejia, Flores, Tejada, Niese, Familia, Thole, Allen. problem is a lot of them i can see folks saying C+ or so but it is all in the eye of the beholder. But if Chris Petit at that age and with that babip in Salt Lake is a B-, then I think most of those 12 mets I name are too.
But this is why I love these top 20s, because they help me learn about systems where I am unfamiliar with a lot of the guys.
technically
Every system is deep right? But saying this is “one of the deepest” and only the “Giants, Indians, and Rangers are close” has Angel fanboy written all over it.
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Nov 24, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Keep in mind that something like 6 of those 21 were picked in this year's draft
including 4 guys in the B range.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
(Lesson: free agent compensation is a ridiculous crock that actually helps big-market teams)
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Cant wait for Orioles!!
Angels really do have a great, deep system. No studs but a lot of guys who can be solid contributors.
Check out my website, it has scouting reports for all the Orioles' top prospects and is updated daily. www.oriolesprospects.com
Follow me on twitter
Great?
In time, it may be great, but I have a hard time calling this a great system right now. The lack of upper level impact prospects (I mean, Wood’s hanging around, but he doesn’t qualify) stands out. Add in that, I’m not sure there’s many high level impact arms in the system (a lot of very good arms … and I am a fan of Reckling, but are any of these guys TOR potential types? Not sure, granted, a lot of arms far away, feeding into the upper level issue). I think a lot of these guys may see time in the bigs, but great system seems a stretch to me. Solid and deep, sure.
In to plug...
Trevor Bell.
I want him to find his curveball again. I hate when they take guys who throw hard curveballs and just switch the grip and have them throw sliders instead.
I think there’s upside there, but maybe I just cling to personal favorites too much.
trout
surprised to see john rate a raw toolsie OFer from a cold weather state so high. Not saying Trout isn’t a high prospect, but he usual tempers his enthusiasm for such players.
I personally think carlos Ramirez is a big sleeper. Yes I’m biased because he went to ASU, but he hit 20 bombs for us last year and 7 more in the minors. His line of 376/500/638 is obscene. His defense has been criticized but he always looked good to me at ASU (blocks balls well, takes charge behind the plate, only issue could be arm).
My bet is he becomes a very servicable starter for many years. One of the those guys that are around forever and always seem to be underappreciated. A line of 270/350/450 with 20 homers is very resonable
FutureAngels.com Top 10 Prospects
’Tis the season … The FutureAngels.com Top 10 Prospects list was published today. The link is:
www.futureangels.com/top10/2009.aspx
The Top 10 are:
1. Trevor Reckling LHP
2. Garrett Richards RHP
3. Will Smith LHP
4. Hank Conger C
5. Mike Trout OF
6. Jordan Walden RHP
7. Mark Trumbo 1B-OF
8. Peter Bourjos OF
9. Randal Grichuk OF
10. Alexi Amarista 2B
I respect Jon’s work a lot, so for me it’s always interesting to see how our opinions compare and contrast.
angels
The only ones that surprise me are Smith and Trumbo. . .Trumbo has just never looked that good when I’ve seen him. I still like Smith, but ranking him ahead of Conger is interesting.
by John Sickels on Nov 24, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Trumbo
John, that must be because you’ve only seen him on the baseball field. If you ignore the way he actually plays, he looks really good!
by realitypolice on Nov 24, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve seen Mark Trumbo in about 30 games over the years, from Rookie-A Orem to Low-A Cedar Rapids to High-A Rancho Cucamonga, from spring training to fall instructional league.
How many games have you seen him in?
by FutureAngels on Nov 24, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
trumo
FutureAngels has seen Trumbo a lot more than I have.
by John Sickels on Nov 24, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
trumbo
have seen him a lot too, is unathletic and heavy footed, i don’t see a move to the OF a viable option.
He has big power, but his swing is long and has a lot of holes. . . kind of a Napoli w/o huge walks
by SoCalSoxFan on Nov 24, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Hi John —
As for Will, as I indicated in the article I keep hearing from a lot of longtime baseball people who think he’s much better than what some people think. As I wrote, the Midwest League manager with another organization told me he filed a report with his parent club projecting Will as a #3-#4 starter, and he’s seen Will for two years now. Will had some conditioning issues this year that resulted in injuries and poor numbers, but the Will Smith at year’s end was in much better physical condition than the one in April.
As for Hank, I’m a bit concerned by the power outage. His home park is the most pitcher-friendly park in the league, but if you look at his home/road splits he was actually much better offensively at home than on the road; it concerns me that in more neutral conditions he didn’t do that well, his .392 road SLG in particular. His catching skills have a long way to go, although he’s making progress.
As for Trumbo, what convinced me to rank him higher were two factors — (1) his excellent second-half numbers, and that it appears the Angels may attempt to move him to right field. The latter liberates him from the criticism that he’s a subpar first baseman, and it neatly provides the Angels with a power-hitting corner outfielder at upper levels they currently lack. The early tests of him in RF last August were quite positive.
I’ve watched Trumbo since 2005, so I know all the pros and cons. He has his bad habits, but when he’s right he’s a dangerous hitter. Like all young players, the question is whether he’ll outgrow those habits. Moving him to RF takes the defense issue off the board, as well as the depth issue behind Kendry Morales.
huh?
“…appears the Angels may attempt to move him (Trumbo) to right field. The latter liberates him from the criticism that he’s a subpar first baseman”
All that does is make him a subpar OFer. Where the plus?!?
If Trumbo doesn’t make a giant stride this coming season, the Angels should consider putting him back on the mound.
“All that does is make him a subpar OFer. Where the plus?!?”
Perhaps you should actually read my review. You’d find the answer there.
It’s pretty clear from the people I spoke with in Angels player development that they think he can be a good right fielder. He went through a ten-game test drive in August and played the position well. I’m told he has a “power” arm and was more mobile in RF than at 1B.
But then they’ve only seen him play. No doubt you know better.
by FutureAngels on Nov 24, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
Typical...
Anyone disagrees with Stephen he has to turn it into a personal attack.
Trumbo is a below average athlete with below average speed. He be a statue in RF…kind of like Joe Ferguson when the Dodgers stick him in RF. Great arm, but he isn’t getting to much.
oh yea, Angels player development people….hey are not God….and they fall in love with own prospects and always see the loftiest projection…seldom tempered.
I once had an Angels development person tell me that Alfredo Amezaga was going to be a Gold Glove SS in the major leaguess someday…. this after one of my friends had opinioned they didn’t even think he could play. That player development guy ….was Tony Reagins. And that is not to denigrate Reagins whom I like and respect. They just see things thru rose colored glasses when it come to their own.
Relax Stephen, nobody is attacking you or your website- just your list.
And I’d still like to see Trumbo back in the mound if his position career completely stalls.
Chatwood over Smith?
John how can you put Chatwood over Smith at all, let alone 6 spaces? I know Smith was a bit disappointing this year, conditioning or whatever the reason was, but Chatwood at times was downright awful with his command and location. Where as Smith was dominant at times, was hurt, and struggled.
They got the exact same grade
From the lead in:
Grade C+/C guys are pretty interchangeable depending on what you want to emphasize.
Anyone else get an....
AJ Burnett feel from Richards? Sick arm.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
