John's Farm System Rankings
by dougdirt on Jan 16, 2010 11:34 PM EST
Email
PrintJohn is now done with all of his rankings. I know he said he had a few changes to make still, so this could change ever so slightly, though I doubt it makes much of an impact overall.
I went through each system that John graded and took down the grade for both hitters and pitchers. Why did I do that? Well, hitters and pitchers have different values. The value's that I used were the ones first identified by Victor Wang in an article at The Hardball Times. The guys at Beyond The Box Score took that and made it into a monetary value. Here is what the average prospect was worth who fell in these ranges:
| Top 10 hitting prospects | $32.5M |
| Top 11-25 hitters | $22.3 |
| Top 26-50 hitters | $20.8 |
| Top 51-75 hitters | $12.6 |
| Top 76-100 hitters | $11.1 |
| Top 10 pitching prospects | $13.5 |
| Top 11-25 pitchers | $14.2 |
| Top 26-50 pitchers | $14.2 |
| Top 51-75 pitchers | $10.8 |
| Top 76-100 pitchers | $8.7 |
| Grade B pitchers (as graded by Sickels) |
$6.5 |
| Grade B hitters | $4.9 |
| Grade C pitchers 22 or younger | $1.9 |
| Grade C pitchers 23 or older | $1.3 |
| Grade C hitters 22 or younger | $0.62 |
| Grade C hitters 23 or older | $0.45 |
Now I did have to make some adjustments. As we can see, Pitching prospects in the 11-50 range tend to be more valuable than those in the Top 10. To counteract that sense ideally, it shouldn't be that way, I made each pitching prospect in the Top 61 (B+ or better grade) worth 14.2M. Here is the value I gave each grade - split for pitchers and hitters:
| Team | A | A- | B+ | B | B- | C+ | |
| H | Value | 32.5 | 22.3 | 20.8 | 12.6 | 4.9 | 0.88 |
| P | Value | 14.2 | 14.2 | 14.2 | 9.8 | 6.5 | 2.6 |
For the C+ guys I had to change a little. I didn't go through the 268 players who were graded C+ to find the age. So what I did was take the average C grade (split the difference between the two grades). That made 1.6 for pitchers and 0.54 for hitters.I used the weighting for the B grade prospects to wind up with the C+ being worth the same for a C as the B+ was for the B grades. Now that we had the value for each type of prospect, I just ran the numbers for the different teams. One thing to note, I didn't include the grade C prospects because not all of the C prospects made each list, so the data was left out because it was incomplete. Here are the results(updated to include the grade changes John has posted as of 1:30 on Monday):
| Hitters | Pitchers | |||||||||||||
| Team | A | A- | B+ | B | B- | C+ | A | A- | B+ | B | B- | C+ | Value | |
| 1 | Indians | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 150.94 |
| 2 | Athletics | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 140.88 |
| 3 | Braves | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 133.84 |
| 4 | Rays | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 133.32 |
| 5 | Rangers | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 122.40 |
| 6 | Cubs | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 120.94 |
| 7 | Angels | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 120.14 |
| 8 | Brewers | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 118.08 |
| 9 | Red Sox | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 116.86 |
| 10 | Giants | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 116.34 |
| 11 | Padres | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 114.16 |
| 12 | Royals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 109.00 |
| 13 | Mets | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 103.94 |
| 14 | Reds | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 100.92 |
| 15 | Pirates | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 100.64 |
| 16 | Dodgers | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 100.24 |
| 17 | Tigers | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 97.84 |
| 18 | Orioles | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 93.38 |
| 19 | Blue Jays | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 90.60 |
| 20 | Yankees | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 85.18 |
| 21 | Nationals | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 83.80 |
| 22 | Rockies | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 81.50 |
| 23 | Twins | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 80.40 |
| 24 | Astros | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 80.14 |
| 25 | Marlins | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 79.70 |
| 26 | Mariners | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 73.20 |
| 27 | Phillies | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 58.58 |
| 28 | White Sox | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 57.38 |
| 29 | Cardinals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 50.12 |
| 30 | Dbacks | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 44.50 |
| Totals | 6 | 4 | 23 | 30 | 54 | 127 | 3 | 5 | 18 | 32 | 60 | 142 | ||
66 comments
|
19 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rangers
Shouldn’t that be one A on the pitching side of things? (Feliz)
Where is Perez to? Shows 1 A- and then nothing till B-.
Still a pretty informative look at the rankings, thanks Doug.
Yes
However since A, A- and B+ pitchers are all worth the same, it doesn’t change the actual value of the team.
wow...so much money spent by dayton to be middle of the road....
why does he have a job again?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 17, 2010 12:21 AM EST reply actions
The chart is great
How to value prospects is sticky, but its nice to just take a look at the grades in a system.
Agree
Nice way to show the quality of each system’s prospects in relation to other systems. One note, I think there are 3 “A” and 5 “A-” pitchers instead of 2 and 6.
by Rhody Royals on Jan 17, 2010 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
Pretty cool. And not just because the A's did better than I thought they would.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2010 12:24 AM EST reply actions
Wow, John is really high on the Angels system
I haven’t seen them ranked top 5 by anyone.
Thanks for putting this data together, BTW. It’s a great reference chart.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
probably because they're aren't worth being a top 5
I didn’t really get John’s rankings of the Angels system . . .Conger and Reckling both seemed like a grade too high, and Trout is a pretty borderline B+ as well.
It really does show when you compare the system to that of other teams, too . . .would you really take No. 5 LAA over Baltimore at No. 18? No, you wouldn’t, and it wouldn’t even be a debate. The Royals at 15? The Dodgers at 16? Hard to argue for a system that features Trout/Conger/Reckling as its very best over either of those two.
I can see why some are so low on the Dodgers
But I’d be careful. They have 5 guys who have #2 or better potential. They are weak on hitters simply because of bad trades(Santana and Bell). A good draft by White(which he seems to be so good at, finding talent wherever and whenever in the draft) and guys like Lambo, Robinson and Gordon have good years.. and this system is easily top 10. Even now, it is expected they will have Gordon and Withrow on the top 100 list.
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Jan 17, 2010 5:33 AM EST up reply actions
um
You know I said that the Dodgers should be ABOVE the Angels, yes?
OK...
no more late night posting. I completely misread what you were saying. 100% my bad…
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Jan 17, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
mlb.com had Gordon 36 and Ethan Martin 49. I’m definitely happy about Martin being that high, but I honestly believe Withrow is better than Martin, but I really don’t think i’ve truly appreciated how good Martin actually is.
I like Martin more than Withrow personally
Withrow’s health is a pretty big concern for me.
I like Withrow a lot, but I like Martin even more.
But
The reason why the Angel system is so high is not because of the ‘strength’ of the top three prospects in this ranking system, but by the overall depth of the system. Particularly if pitchers from A to B+ are all weighted the same, it just does not emphasize the strength of say the Orioles with Matusz (and penalizes their lack of B+ hitters).
If you were going by the top 3 players then of course, this list would be vastly different.
I would always take the Rangers system over the Angels in any case. I think the Orioles and Angels are a lot closer outside Matusz.
by TheQuestforMerlin on Jan 17, 2010 6:27 AM EST up reply actions
Nice recovery by the Angels
They really added to the lower levels of the system last year. Hard to tell which ones will still be good as they move up the system, but with as much depth they have it’s likely a few will prove to be really good. Next summer the Angels are going to be getting much deeper at the lower levels, thanks to comp picks and having 5 of probably the first 50 picks in the draft.
But as for major league ready help, they don’t have much to offer for 2010, just a few backup types or 5th starter replacements if injuries strike.
The HK-47 hitting droid is the finest line drive machine ever built
by RallyMonkey5 on Jan 28, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
grades
And that’s why doing these rankings until I finish the grades doesn’t tell you much. You will need to relcaculate.
So the new Moneyball would be
To give up pipedreams of your future Ace pitching 1200 innings before hitting free agency and trade that A level pitching prospect for top 100 hitters.
In the meantime build a system around B level pitchers, snubbed by others for being projected nr.3 or nr. 4 starters only.
For whom would you trade Strassburg ? Feliz ?
Heyward
Nationals wouldn’t do it otherwise. Stras means too much to them, and they spent too much signing him (in their eyes).
In theory
Yes. One thing to note though, the value is based upon prospects from 1990-1999. I have noted other places that there has been a change in pitching prospects being brought along since then. Unfortunately we just don’t have enough data to say for sure one way or the other. High schoolers drafted in 2003 are still just 24 years old.
Historically though, a lot of big time pitchers tend to miss. Just go look at any end of the year ranking and look at the top 15 pitches on the list. Count how many of them just flat out didn’t come close to their ranking.
I like theory, but I'm sure at least the top 10 pitching annomaly is closed now
Still, singning Aroldis Chapman for 28-30 mln seems like a very big risk. And I’d trade Feliz for an A- hitter anyday.
Even with Strassburg, injury risk is always an issue, and pitchers aren’t as valuable as hitters. Maybe pitchers just seem more heroic than hitters.
Where should I go to start a league?
I want to start a Dynasty League, which site should I use?
"Sports don't build character, they reveal it." -John Wooden
Great post, the only thing I don't like about it is that Wang's rankings are static
to show immediate value. This however underrates raw prospects/sleepers that have a better chance of jumping up a grade than others might. Also, understates value of potential high impact talent. On the other hand, high floor, medicore potential players are overvalued by this.
For example, Jason Donald last year at a B- is valued as more than Robbie Grossman, who was a C+. Yet I do not think many would trade Grossman for him straight up even though Donald is valued several times more than Grossman is here. International FAs, recently drafted players, and toolsy but raw minors players get undervalued due to the static rankings being unable to account for what they could become.
This is probably accounts for some of the differences people see in the rankings.
by tdot mariner fan on Jan 17, 2010 3:00 PM EST reply actions
But it doesn't underrate guys
Its based on how those guys have turned out historically. If those raw/sleeper guys turned out even close to ‘often’ then they wouldn’t be worth so little. You would see the value be much higher in Wang’s research. But they don’t do that anywhere close to often.
But these do not represent the practical value to a team
For example, Ryan Sweeney offered around 18 mil in surplus value last year and projects to probably offer around 5-10 mil surplus for the 4 years of team control. That is conservatively 20 mil, even 15 mil if you include chance of injury and overly high arbitration awards.
Would you be willing to trade Zach Van Rosenberg (B-, 6.8mil at your estimate), Robbie Grossman (C+, 1mil value), and Colton Cain (C+, 2.6 mil) for 4 years of Sweeney. That would be an advantageous trade for the Pirates according to this formulation. However, no FO would do this, I think, for raw low minors players have different value than more refined upper minors prospects.
by tdot mariner fan on Jan 17, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
I would never seriously consider that offer if I was the A's... that's for sure...
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Why not...
when Grossman alone could make this deal a steal for the A’s in the long run. ZVR has top end potential, Cain also has top end potential and is a lefty, and Grossman has more potential than Sweeney. It totally depends on the situation of the team on whether or not they would do it. A rebuilding team like the Pirates would never do that trade because that is three guys that who could all end up better than the guy they are getting. The A’s also would probably not do it because of the risk of high school pitchers and they are likely to compete before those guys are ready. I am sure a team like the Royals would do that trade if they had Ryan Sweeney though because they are farther away and need help from more than just one player.
OK
but there’s like an 80% chance that none of them ever becomes as good as Sweeney. Hell, there’s a very sizable chance that none of them ever even reaches the major leagues.
The fact that they COULD be better doesn’t mean that it’s LIKELY that they’ll be better.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Given that he has massive historical research on his side and you have, well, your say-so...
I’d say it’s more that you overstate the value of potential high impact talent and undervalue high floor, mediocre potential players.
Rankings absolutely account for “what [low-minors tools guys] could become.” Once in a blue moon, one of those guys actually meets his potential and is worth a lot. Most of them end up being completely worthless. Averaging the value out gives you a very low average worth and, thus, a low grade.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I would disagree
First of all, I am not discounting Wang’s study altogether but by no means did I think he meant for those values to be taken verbatum.
Second, prospect rankings are very subjective especially when considering letter grades and top 100 lists. Some prospect evaluators emphasize floor more than cieling, others downgrade recent IFA and draft signings due to lack of pro-experience, others love tools and high cieling, intangibles are valued by some, stats are a heavy decider for others(the list can go on). So to evaluate a value based on one or two sets or rankings that emphasize certain qualities bring out value relative solely to the ranker.
Third, it treats all prospects within their ranked field as the same entity. Ryan Westmoreland and Aroldis Chapman are completely different entities than Desmond Jennings and Dustin Ackley, yet these valuations treat them the same. His study presents a average value of what all the prospects in that field provided in the future. He could refine the study for better results by dividing each ranking group ex. top 10-25 pitchers, into years of pro experience, level played, and other factors to get more refined results.
Finally, on low minors/raw players/recent signees having different values. Most organisations will place a greater reluctance on trading away toolsy/high potential low minors players until they get a decent amount of chance to show what they are worth. There value is usually not very high and unless there is a surpluss, of depth. Ex. Cain right now offers very little value by Wang’s formulation trade wise, and rightly so. But unless he is not needed, the Pirates are well served to wait a bit to see if he realises his potential rather than bring in the MR trade value is seen as.
by tdot mariner fan on Jan 18, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
How did he mean for those values to be taken, as a metaphor?
Synecdoche? Litotes? (OK, I actually don’t even remember what litotes means.)
The reason organizations do not regularly trade very-low-minors players with upside but little certainty of success is that they are the equivalent of penny stocks. Once in a while, they will become worth something; mostly they’ll go bankrupt and you’ll lose your investment. There’s no real point in trading in those stocks when they’re still worth pennies. The transaction costs (making sure guys are healthy, sending your own evaluators to check out their talent, etc etc) are enormous relative to the average return on the trade. You’d have to aggregate so many of those players together to make a package worth a proven big-leaguer that in practice, there’s no point in bothering to talk about them. Trade talks cost GMs’ time, which is a scarce commodity.
You’re welcome to go through other evaluators’ grades and check their results against performance. But given that BA is kind of the industry standard, and their rankings significantly influence people’s perception of prospect value, it’s hard to fault Wang for choosing them as the source for his study.
And in any case, this is the best info we have right now. It’s better to use it than to ignore it.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Yeah it is valuable
But it is a work in progress on a monumental task. These are the baby steps in valuing prospects, which is something that will likely rely on something very hard to quantify for a long time. I think his work is useful but is only one of the many things you should factor in judging a trade offer. Much like how UZR might be one of the best fielding stats out there, but it should not be taken by itself.
For example, on hardball times there is a work valuing draft picks by Wang also. He puts tier 1 picks of # 16-30 at 6.5 million surplus value. However, last year Brett Wallace would have been in the top 50 despite, A- by John. Would that make him worth 20.8 million or is it some number in between the 6.5 and 20.
Trout this year is another good example. Is he the B+ value John gave him this year and likely top 100 talent or the 6.5 mill of the tier 1 range. What separates him from Nick Franklin, who was picked in the same range but has a lower grade. Are they worth 6.5 mil or do they have different values.
The same thing goes for Strasburg and any other player selected in the top 10. Do you value two Strasburg’s over an Ackley.
My issue with the study is that it generalizes players within the tiers when there is arguable discrepency in value. I hope does more to build on his work though because he has made some great first steps.
by tdot mariner fan on Jan 18, 2010 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
I have no problem with this
My only dispute is with your initial characterization of this evaluation as somehow inherently ranking high-ceiling/low-probability players worse than it should. Maybe it does, but if so, the evidence hasn’t been assembled yet.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
It should be pretty obvious that the same WAR spread across multiple players
is worth less than WAR in one player, due to roster limits. That’s where the equation has a hiccup. But it’s pretty easy to account for on a case by case basis. There’s a reason why platoon players are always “undervalued” by this equation. But a team that can bear the additional roster spot can take advantage of the undervaluation.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
One interesting thing
is that the value of C+ pitchers is shown to be higher than one would expect, and thus systems with a lot of C+ pitchers rank higher than most of us would think to rank them.
The A’s and Indians are an obvious two examples.
That’s the point of having complex statistical analysis—to show where our brains’ quick-take automatic valuation systems are wrong. And here it seems that (at least for me) there is too strong a bias for singular high ranking prospects over overall depth.
Very interesting stuff.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
Ya it indicates that you should draft a position player with the first pick or two and then
a whole horde of pitchers.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
That follows what the Pirates did last year...
they “over drafted” for a position player who filled a positional need in their system while still providing decent enough value. Then, they drafted a ton of high upside pitchers later in the draft who could all have a chance at one day becoming an A.
Well
This system has to be clearly flawed because any methodology ranking the Cubs’ system as the sixth best cannot be based in reality. Everyone here on this website knows that there is no such thing as a Cubs’ prospect (TINSTAACP). To think otherwise is entirely nonsensical. Unlike every other team’s prospects, all their prospects have question marks and thus must be completely discounted in any ranking system.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jan 18, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
The Pirates are develpong a farm system, finally
So we have an average system in terms of hitting, what about pitching
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: DIck Lebeau, Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"If you give Arians a fullback, he won’t use one. Instead, he insists on using Matt Spaeth, who probably doesn’t cast a shadow because it would require blocking sunlight." steelin with some very true words
vitters
As elite prospects go, Josh Vitters is a tough to analyze. The strengths are obvious: if you see him play, he has a beautiful swing and tremendous bat speed, one of the quickest bats in the minors. He makes contact easily and seldom strikes out. He has power to all fields. On defense, he has a strong throwing arm and is reasonably mobile for a big guy. Statistically, he hit very well in the Midwest League with a 26 percent OPS, and he also looked good against older competition in the Arizona Fall League, hitting .353/.380/.485. But for all the strengths, there are some negatives in the record that make grading him difficult. His walk rate is incredibly low. It is a mistake to say that his strike zone judgment is bad; he’s not a free swinger in sense of being fooled or overmatched by the pitchers. But if there is a pitch remotely close to the strike zone, he’ll swing at it, even if it is a pitch that he can’t do much with. He manages to make contact on pitches that other guys miss, which keeps the strikeout rate low despite his lack of patience, but at higher levels the lack of discipline is going to become a bigger issue. His poor performance in the Florida State League should serve as a wakeup call for him. On defense, he makes too many errors, and a lot of scouts worry that he will lose the range to play third as he gets older, which would increase the pressure on his bat. Vitters is just 20 years old and there is plenty of time to remedy his problems, but I have to admit I’m not sure exactly what to make of him. I don’t think 16 games in the Arizona Fall League outweighs how badly he hit at Daytona last summer. If I were the Cubs, I would send him back to the Florida State League for at least another 50 games. Grade-wise, he’s either a weak B or a strong B. I’ll go with the Grade B+ for one more season, cutting him some slack due to his youth, but it’s a tough call. He needs to make some adjustments to keep that grade in 2011.
weak B+
that should read “weak B+.” it says that in the text, not sure why it didn’t copy up there.
by John Sickels on Jan 18, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting
I find it odd that the Mets system is so high up and the Phillies and Marlins are way down in the bottom of the barrel (though the Phillies traded away many of their A and B rated prospects over the last year).
Why? The Marlins are constantly graduating top talent
The Mets haven’t graduated a top prospect in years lol. Not since Mike Pelfrey. If you took Heyward out of the Braves system, the Mets would actually be tops in the division.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jan 19, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
I would just expect to see all 3 systems ranked around the same area given current talent (meaning if you asked me, on the spot, with no data, where I thought each system ranked), clearly, the data supports the ranking, it’s just much different than I expected.
I’d be interested to see a 3 year running average on this to see how systems rank, but it sounds like a way bigger PITA than I have time for.
Yeah I hear you
I expect that project would yield results much more favorable, or at least consistent, especially on the Marlins. The Phillies have dumped a lot of talent the last couple years, but they haven’t graduated much. I mean, Fernando Martinez has been a B+ for three years running now. Plus a very large percentage of the Mets top prospects are IFA guys brought in since Minaya took over, and since those guys sign so young, you wouldn’t really expect them to be breaking into top prospects ranks until now, except for the guys who got a ton of attention to begin with like Martinez and Flores. Mejia’s signing got almost no attention, he signed for less than $20,000. Ruben Tejada, Jeurys Familia, and Jefry Marte too, they got bigger bonuses than Mejia but there wasn’t much fanfare around them when they originally signed. Francisco Pena’s really the only high profile IFA bust the Mets have had, and he’s still only 18 or 19 and has some time to catch up.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jan 19, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Well, the Phillies haven’t had to graduate much talent the last few years like the Marlins have. However, that chicken is coming home to roost over the next few years, and I hope the talent is ready to come up then. Because resigning Werth, Howard and Hamels all in the same year, with Rollins and Vic immediately thereafter is going to be impossible.
Graduations
Keep in mind, if the both Niese and Martinez had managed to stay healthy, they would have graduated, dropping the Mets over $30M in value in this ranking to 26th. Now, I think they have a few more C+ guys in the pipeline than they are given credit for here as well, but if the right guys had graduated, they still wouldn’t be higher than about 20.
nice job on presentation
and improving upon the $ values on the grades. Rec’d
godfather of futureredbirds.net
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
