Detroit Tigers Top 20 Prospects for 2011
Detroit Tigers Top 20 Prospects for 2011
All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change. Don't get too concerned about exact rankings at this point, especially once you get past the Top 10. Grade C+/C guys are pretty interchangeable depending on what you want to emphasize.
Feel free to critique the list, but use logic and reason rather than polemics to do to. The list and grades are a blending of present performance and long-term potential. Full reports on all of players can be found in the 2011 Baseball Prospect Book. We are now taking pre-orders. Order early and order often!
QUICK PRIMER ON GRADE MEANINGS:
Grade A prospects are the elite. They have a good chance of becoming stars or superstars. Almost all Grade A prospects develop into major league regulars, if injuries or other problems don't intervene. Note that is a major "if" in some cases.
Grade B prospects have a good chance to enjoy successful careers. Some will develop into stars, some will not. Most end up spending several years in the majors, at the very least in a marginal role.
Grade C prospects are the most common type. These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars. Many end up as role players or bench guys. Some don't make it at all.
A major point to remember is that grades for pitchers do NOT correspond directly to grades for hitters. Many Grade A pitching prospects fail to develop, often due to injuries. Some Grade C pitching prospects turn out much better than expected.
Also note that there is diversity within each category. I'm a tough grader; Grade C+ is actually good praise coming from me, and some C+ prospects turn out very well indeed.
Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment for my full opinion about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.
Detroit Tigers Top 20 for 2011
1) Jacob Turner, RHP, Grade A-: Borderline B+. Main worry here is standard young pitcher health concerns, plus will the Tigers rush him?
2) Nick Castellanos, 3B, Grade B: Want to see what his batting average and OBP look like in addition to his power.
3) Andy Oliver, LHP, Grade B: A personal favorite despite the issues with his breaking ball and poor handling by the Tigers last summer.
4) Dan Schlereth, LHP, Grade B-: Borderline B, love the power relief arm but will control issues keep him from being an effective closer?
5) Daniel Fields, OF, Grade B-: I thought the Tigers were stupid to jump him from Michigan high school competition to the Florida State League. He wasn't bad considering the circumstances, and the tools are excellent. Give him credit for staying afloat.
6) Casey Crosby, LHP, Grade B-: Very difficult to rank and grade due to uncertainty about his health.
7) Chance Ruffin, RHP, Grade B-: Won't need much minor league time, very polished, good stuff.
8) Brayan Villareal, RHP, Grade B-: I really don't understand why this guy doesn't get more respect. Good stuff, good numbers.
9) Drew Smyly, LHP, Grade B-: Polished college lefty, future fourth starter but should be a good one.
10) Casper Wells, OF, Grade C+: Old for a prospect, won't hit .300 in a full season, but will provide power.
11) Francisco Martinez, 3B, Grade C+: Tigers officials love the tools, but he's been rushed and performance has suffered as a result. I'm not confident in him, at least in the short term.
12) Lester Oliveros, RHP, Grade C+: Borderline C. Power relief arm with enough juice to get a "+", but command is troublesome.
13) Jose Ortega, RHP, Grade C+: Borderline C. Power relief arm with enough juice to get a "+", but command is troublesome.
14) Bruce Rondon, RHP, Grade C+: Borderline C. Power relief arm with enough juice to get a "+", but command is troublesome.
15) Robbie Weinhart, RHP, Grade C+: Borderline C. Got killed in the majors, but I still expect him to be a useful reliever.
16) Adam Wilk, LHP, Grade C: Very polished lefty with mediocre stuff, could be a fifth starter.
17) Charlie Furbush, LHP, Grade C: Very polished lefty with mediocre stuff, could be a fifth starter, got killed in Triple-A.
18) Danry Vazquez, OF, Grade C: Nothing but scouting reports and a big bonus at this point, could be great, could be lousy, just need to see. Will they do the sink/swim thing with him like they have with other Latin American players?
19) Ryan Strieby, 1B-OF, Grade C: Will his wrist ever heal? If it does, he could have a really nice season in his age 27-28 peak window.
20) Avisail Garcia, Of, Grade C: Outstanding tools, but has been rushed and doesn't know how to play yet.
OTHERS OF NOTE: Rob Brantly, C; Alex Burgos, LHP, Josue Carreno, RHP; Brandon Douglas, 2B; Wade Gaynor, 3B; Scott Green, RHP; Bryan Holaday, C; Jaime Johnson, OF; Corey Jones, 2B; Dixon Machado, SS; Tony Plagman, 1B; Cody Satterwhite, RHP; Danny Worth, SS.
The Tigers system is thin, although there is some intriguing material for the pitching staff. Turner, Oliver, and Smyly give them three strong starting pitching prospects, and Crosby's upside is undeniable if he can stay on the mound. There are lively arms for the bullpen as well, with Schlereth and Ruffin leading the pack, plus a gaggle of hard-throwing relievers with command issues. Villareal is the sleeper who could help in either role.
The hitting is another matter. Castellanos should be good and Wells can help this year, but after them there are nothing but high-upside/high-risk players. Fields is the best of the tools guys, but I really don't like how he was rushed; same goes with Martinez and Garcia. How will they handle Danry Vazquez? They are willing to spend money at the top of the draft and in Latin America, but the way the Tigers handle some of these guys reminds me of what the Mets were doing a few years ago, pushing some guys too fast. I much prefer the less Darwinist approach of the Rays and Twins.
All in all, there is some cream at the top, but underneath it this system needs help.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Castellanos
So, is the over under basically at Matt Davidson and Bobby Borchering?
surprisingly a little better (deeper) system than i thought
though i wouldn’t have handed out quite that many B- ‘s 1 or 2 of those guys would have been C+’s for me….
though maybe Wilk would have gotten a C+ too
I called it - Joe Mauer's first career Home-Run at Target Field !!!
Why Oh Why did the D'Backs select A.J. Pollock over Mike Trout?
I hate Hunter Wendelstedt, you hate Hunter Wendelstedt we all hate hunter w
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 22, 2010 5:08 PM EST reply actions
Turner vs. Gibson
Jacob Turner received an A- / borderline B+
Kyle Gibson received a B+
I would rank Gibson higher. What do you think?
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.
Let me get something straight
Brayan Villareal had 142 IP in his pro career prior to 2010. Charles Furbush had 174.1 IP. Furbush had better BB and K rates in High A, and a better K rate in AA. In his final month in AA, Furbush posted a ridiculous 30.8% K rate, and a 7.5% BB rate.
In August (AAA) Furbush posted a 4.21 ERA, and may have had fatigue issues due to reaching a career high in IP. In August (AA) Villareal had a 5.63 ERA and likely also had fatigue issues due to reaching a career high in IP.
Both pitchers are flyball pitchers. Furbush has a low 90s fastball and both his secondary pitches have gotten decent reviews. Villareal has a low 90s fastball and a plus slider, but a poor changeup.
Summation: I’m pretty sure you got the two mixed up. Furbush deserves the B- thanks to his 3 pitch mix and great numbers across two levels, followed by a minor tumble in AAA. Villareal…I could see a C+ due to the great numbers, but he’s far more likely to end up in the pen.
Now writing for BaseballInstinct.com
I thought Furbush was throwing more in the 86-89 range these days?
Also, that wasn’t a minor tumble in AAA. He got killed.
Yeah
It wasnt pretty. He’s a homer-prone lefty, and a bit of a soft-tosser.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2010 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
Not really...
Furbush’s final start was a 2.1 IP 7 ER game. That’s over a fifth of his earned runs allowed in AAA. This is why SSS warnings should be going off before people start to try and infer things from AAA…it was 48.2 IP, not exactly a meaningful sample.
As for his velocity, I asked someone who saw him in Erie and was told he operated at 89-92 primarily, and hit 94 at least once. After some Google searches, I found that range quoted quite a bit from both this year and last.
Now writing for BaseballInstinct.com
by Franchise887 on Dec 23, 2010 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
This sounds about right
Furbush still needs to be anchored in AAA for a while, but the homer rate (1.4 in Erie and 1.7 in Toledo) is scary. They’re all small sample sizes, but even the 0.8 is scary.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
okay, I can live with the velocity report
But your argument about his numbers doesn’t hold up at all. First of all, I’m not even really looking at the ERA in this situation. He got hit extremely hard in AAA, with lots of quality contact made off of him. Nobody should really care at all about his High A numbers, as he was 24 and got to pitch over 110 innings at the same level last year. We got to learn that a 24 year old finesse pitcher can handle himself in A ball, which might sound great to you but doesn’t mean much to me.
But if we DID want to look at the AAA ERA, and evidently you do, we have to look at the whole sample size. 48 innings isn’t a huge sample to go on in the first place, which you note . . .but then you actually want to throw out some of that sample because it’s disagreeable to your perspective. Doesn’t make any sense. Every pitcher would look awesome if we could throw out their crappy starts. And in any case, if we actually did throw out that sample, that only drops Furbush’s ERA to 5.29, which is obviously still pretty terrible.
So no, I don’t think John “mixed up” Furbush and Villareal. Personally I thought it was a crass remark on your part towards a guy who’s certainly doing his homework on these players.
Thanks Sheriff
But we got it the first time round champ.
Now writing for BaseballInstinct.com
by Franchise887 on Dec 24, 2010 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
Sheriff?
I’m not the one policing how many times folks register their disapproval. If you don’t like it, try to be less of a douche, champ.
by blackoutyears on Dec 27, 2010 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
A 5.07 FIP isn't quite getting killed
It’s not good, but having that over your first 48 IP in AAA isn’t necessarily a sign that you’ll never be a solid major league pitcher. Especially considering a lot of his difficulties come from giving up a ton of HRs, which could be a sign that he isn’t a good pitcher, or a case of a spike in HR/FB
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 24, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
I'd say it was getting killed
It places him in the bottom 10% of the IL of guys with 40+ IP in terms of FIP.
Castellanos
1 of my 2 fav HS bats from the 2010 draft (J. Sale the other). Assuming he has avg D his bat should play anywhere. The key is plate discipline and having a decent avg to go with the power. He was on my short list of wants for the Cards 1st Rd pick.
Wells
I’m not sure what the org has in mind for him, I’m guessing 4th OF, but I think he’s a bit like Boesch in 2009 in that their recent numbers were a bit overlooked (for different reasons) and they both have a bit more actual talent then what they were given credit for. I think he might be a name you see doing nicely for a few months before the league adjusts. He also plays a good defensive OF.
Schelereth will be in the pen from day one, Weinhardt pitched better than his numbers and will be up at some point in the season. I think they will want Oliver to be the 6th SP.
Douglas is interesting to me. I wonder if he plays his way into the starting 2B discussion for 2012.
I like Weinhardt way more than I should
And normally I despise relief arms.
Douglas is an interesting prospect- he hits, but it’s mostly for contact. He doesn’t strike out, but he doesn’t walk much either. I also haven’t heard great things about his defense. I certainly hope he pans out, but I’m still a Scott Sizemore believer.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
Sizemore better pan out
because i will hate Rhymes more than Nick Punto most likely if he ends up starting. that’s saying something too. :(
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix
What's wrong with Rhymes?
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2010 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
lil small ball turd in the same mold as Punto
can’t stand ’em.
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix
Touche
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
Weinhardt
Seems to be another guy getting penalized for a small sample at the highest level. His FIP at the MLB level was a nice 3.63, but his BABIP against was .392…given he only pitched 29.2 IP, this isn’t that big a surprise as luck plays such a huge role when you’re dealing with such small sample sizes.
Now writing for BaseballInstinct.com
by Franchise887 on Dec 23, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
Thats what I'm thinking
Weinhardt got unlucky and his stock fell.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
This reads a lot like the St. Louis Cardinals system
with the 2009 upside high school arm at the top followed by the 2010 3b followed by a succession of intriguing B- players.
Fire John Mozeliak
Seriously?
Oliver was rushed and clearly needed more time to shore up some rather serious weaknesses. Fields was a raw prospect moving to a new position…there was no reason not to start him in Low A, instead he was put into one of the hardest leagues to hit in in pro ball. It’s pretty damn hard to defend how the Tigers dealt with either of those two guys.
Now writing for BaseballInstinct.com
by Franchise887 on Dec 23, 2010 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not John
But I can answer these.
Oliver was a good pitching prospect missing a breaking ball in AA. He did reasonably well, but he threw his fastball something like 88% of the time. Detroit then decided to call him up to give him four starts in the middle of a pennant run (the Tigers were close to first at the time- this was before the fade). He did okay in his first start against the Braves… and then collapsed in the next one. And the next one. And the next one. He should have gone down earlier than the Tigers sent him, and I’m guessing John also objects to the fact he’s in AAA as opposed to AA (you can argue he was rushed a little bit, but I think the assignment to AA was pretty good).
Fields was a 19 year old that Detroit put in the FSL, which has an average age of 22 or 23 (that’s probably off- he was a lot younger than the league though). He was also a really raw prospect expected to move from the infield to the outfield as well. Never mind that the FSL is difficult to hit in. It ended pretty well- his line was about average and he walked a bunch, but that doesn’t make it a good decision from the start.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
We don't even know if their development has been hampered yet
The moves looked as if they panned out as of now, but we have no idea what they’d look like otherwise.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2010 7:48 PM EST up reply actions
Then how can it be called stupid? I know for a fact that Oliver benefited greatly from the lessons learned in Detroit.
Do you now?
Glad to hear that you’re on such familiar terms with Mr. Oliver.
Now writing for BaseballInstinct.com
by Franchise887 on Dec 23, 2010 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
Whether it had positive or negative effects in this case is somewhat immaterial.
What remains that the team took a pretty big risk with their treatement of the player.
how do you know it is a risk?
Without knowledge of the player’s mental makeup…
not quite
There is statistical proof that not wearing a seat belt increases risk. No such proof exists for developing prospects.
further clsrifying...
The risk doesn’t necessarily outweigh the reward. That can’t be known without knowledge of how a player’s development is affected. As an aside my only internet the next couple days, so I’m stick on a phone, thus one liners.
You still haven't
explained how you “know for a fact” that Oliver benefited from his time in DET.
by blackoutyears on Dec 24, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
listen to the tigstown podcasts...
episode 8 I believe
Maybe
you could paraphrase? I wish I had time to listen to podcasts. lol
by blackoutyears on Dec 27, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
Long story short...
He returned to Toledo more focused than he was in Erie on developing his weaknesses, knowing what he needed to do to become a successful MLB pitcher (basically, improved breaking stuff)…
Thanks
As “benefits” go, that’s one with variable return — knowing (or thinking you know) what you need to improve doesn’t always lead to improvement — but it’s something.
by blackoutyears on Dec 28, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
Oliver threw his fastball 88% of the time in AA?
either that’s not accurate (he threw it 67% of the time in the bigs) or he was really not being smart doing that. I’m guessing that the MLB stint would then knock some sense into him.
It was in the 80's
I don’t think it was 88, but that sounds about right.
Mark Anderson, who runs TigsTown, the scout.com Tigers website, tweeted about his high FB percentage when he was promoted. I’m thinking that was the only bright spot in the MLB stint.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Dec 24, 2010 12:34 AM EST up reply actions
Finally have a keyboard...
So I can respond in full instead of with the one liners above…
I really really have a hard time with some of the rhetoric in the original rankings.
“poor handling by the Tigers last summer.”
“I thought the Tigers were stupid to jump him from Michigan high school competition to the Florida State League.”
“but he’s been rushed and performance has suffered as a result. I’m not confident in him, at least in the short term.”
“but has been rushed "
“Fields is the best of the tools guys, but I really don’t like how he was rushed; same goes with Martinez and Garcia. How will they handle Danry Vazquez? They are willing to spend money at the top of the draft and in Latin America, but the way the Tigers handle some of these guys reminds me of what the Mets were doing a few years ago, pushing some guys too fast. I much prefer the less Darwinist approach of the Rays and Twins.”
I guess my question is… What is the purpose of a farm system? In the most general form, the answer is to cultivate given minor league players for the purposes maximizing their value to the parent club. That value comes in two forms, reaching the potential that scouts see in the player, and maintaining trade value to help the big league team cash in on their talent.
I’ll tackle the second one first… I don’t think that teams are going to pass on Daniel Fields because his slash line is lower in high A than it would be in short season ball. I don’t think that teams are going to pass on Andrew Oliver because he was roughed up a bit in the Majors his first full professional year. In short, I don’t see anything, independent of developmental issues, that “rushing” the players does to affect the value the prospects as trade chips.
As for the developmental side, there is no way any of us has enough information to conclude one way or another if the player’s development. Each of these players is a different human being, with different makeups, different attitudes, different strengths and weaknesses, different IQ’s, different past challenges, different abilities to adjust to challenges. Quite frankly, as frustrating as this is (I’m a numbers guy), we just cannot quantify with a general statement whether it’s a good idea to aggressively promote a player or not. Any such study cannot take into effect the player’s intangibles that are crucial to their development, and different on a case by case basis. As a byproduct, a causal link cannot possibly be proven. Did a rushed player fail because he was rushed or would his makeup have caused him to fail anyways? There’s no way we can know this.
To tie these two points together, I want to present a mental exercise: where would the Tigers organization be right now if Andrew Miller and Cameron Maybin were not rushed? Would Miller and Maybin have developed differently? Would the Tigers have been able to trade Miller and Maybin? Would they have been able to trade them for more? Would they have been willing to trade them? Ultimately, would they be better off, worse off, or about the same?
we just cannot quantify with a general statement whether it’s a good idea to aggressively promote a player or not.
I don’t think John’s doing that, though he is on the record as preferring player development that promotes prospects one level at a time. I agree with you that it’s a case-by-case basis, but that doesn’t mean that one can never know if “rushing” a prospect has hindered or derailed their development. And implicit in your criticism, as often seems to be the case with your line of thinking, is that organizations never make mistakes with promotions of their players. Do you really believe this to be the case?
by blackoutyears on Dec 28, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Nope...
Of course they make mistakes, there’s just no way for somebody on the outside to quantify it…
How about
if the organization admits it? That’s certainly happened (literally “We rushed him”). And while it’s valid to disagree with the premise that players are best promoted on a uniform basis, that doesn’t mean that premise doesn’t have planty of merit and isn’t seemingly borne out by practice in some cases (Rays). You can feel free to pursue this ontological approach (can we really “know” anything?), but if you actually buy into it then what are you doing commenting on prospects at all? At the very least you have to question every premise that you’re likely mistaking for knowledge.
by blackoutyears on Dec 29, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions

by 

















