Pittsburgh Pirates Top 20 Prospects for 2012
Pittsburgh Pirates Top 20 Prospects for 2012
The list and grades are a blending of present performance and long-term potential. Comments are welcome, but in the end all analysis and responsibility is mine of course. Full reports on all of players can be found in the 2012 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 in the book 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.
1) Gerrit Cole, RHP, Grade A: Cole can be enigmatic and sometimes gets hit harder than he should given the quality of his stuff, but he's still a Grade A prospect. At his best he throws strikes with three excellent pitches, and I think he'll get more consistent. Looked great in Arizona Fall League, except for the disaster in the Rising Stars game.
2) Jameson Taillon, RHP, Grade A-: They are being very careful with his workload. As he incorporates his secondary pitches more often and builds his stamina, I expect greater dominance. Still struck out more than a hitter per inning even with restrictions on secondary pitch use.
3) Josh Bell, OF, Grade B+: Switch-hitter, should develop 30+-homer power and a high OBP. Pure hitting skills solid too. We'll have to see about his defense and I want some pro data, but I'm very optimistic about him.
4) Starling Marte, OF, Grade B: Borderline B+. Hit well in Double-A, starting to develop more power, despite poor strike zone judgment. Superior defense. Still raw, needs a year of Triple-A, a wide range of possible outcomes, could become an All-Star, a mediocre regular, or a fourth outfielder.
5) Robbie Grossman, OF, Grade B: If he had fulfilled his commitment to the University of Texas, 2011 would have been his draft year. I know he was repeating High-A, but a player jumping from the college ranks to High-A, hitting .294/.418/.451, then ripping up the Arizona Fall League would be getting an awful lot of praise, not skepticism. I also think that Grossman's tools are better than commonly reported. I expect he'll provide gap power with some speed and a high OBP, and that's valuable.
6) Luis Heredia, RHP, Grade B-: Grading this guy is very difficult. His upside is enormous and he was in rookie ball as the equivalent of a high school junior, but there are so many things that can still go wrong. You can make a case for a Grade A if you look only at projection and potential, but the uncertainty factor is so high, and the history of similar prospects so clouded, that I can't do that with my hybrid upside/sabermetric approach to grading. Keep in mind the explanation of what the grades mean listed above. With proper development he can be a B+ a year from now and into the A-range a year after that. He could also blow out his arm or otherwise fail to develop. Remember Michael Ynoa or, going way back, Jose Pett.
7) Kyle McPherson, RHP, Grade B-: Throws strikes with solid stuff, proved himself in Double-A. Not an ace, but projects as a number three or four starter. We should see him sometime in 2012. Nice development for an unheralded 14-round pick from a non-major college program.
8) Nick Kingham, RHP, Grade B-: Strikeout rate was low in the New York-Penn League, but other numbers were solid, scouting reports are strong, and he's quite projectable. If the secondary pitches develop properly, could become a number two starter.
9) Stetson Allie, RHP, Grade C+: Borderline B-. Grade A velocity, Grade B- secondary stuff, Grade D- pitching skills. Still young with enormous upside, would rank much higher on pure potential but there is more to it than that.
10) Tony Sanchez, C, Grade C+: Not developing as well as hoped and his stock is slipping. Still has potential to develop into an excellent defender with a solid bat, but needs to take a step forward in 2012.
11) Jeff Locke, LHP, Grade C+: Classic southpaw with fair stuff, can succeed as fourth starter if his command is sharp enough.
12) Alex Dickerson, 1B, Grade C+: I like the bat, but as a first baseman the grading curve and expectations are tougher. Grade will go higher if he keeps hitting outside the NY-P.
13) Bryan Morris, RHP, Grade C+: Took well to relief role in Double-A with his power sinker, can be effective middle reliever with some chance to close eventually.
14) Zack Von Rosenberg, RHP, Grade C+: Hammered by homers in the first half, but gave up just two in his last nine starts. Strong K/BB ratio, still has the potential to develop into a mid-rotation starter. 2012 would be his draft year if he had gone to LSU, so it is way too soon to give up on him.
15) Zach Dodson, LHP, Grade C+: Pitching time limited by a broken hand but he was effective when on the mound. I like his delivery. Breakthrough candidate.
16) Rudy Owens, LHP, Grade C+: Stock down following difficult season in Triple-A, but still a prospect. Not as good as he looked in 2010, but not as bad as he looked last year. Could rebound and still has a shot at being a fourth starter.
17) Justin Wilson, LHP, Grade C+: Very live southpaw arm, command was spotty in Triple-A but has good stuff, could be impressive in bullpen or sneak into fourth starter role if control sharpens up.
18) Clay Holmes, RHP, Grade C+: Ninth round pick got first round money, number two starter upside but we need to see how secondary stuff and command respond to pro instruction.
19) Jose Osuna, OF-1B, Grade C+: Hit very well in rookie ball, good power, approach is more refined than typical for his age. Defense is limited. Stock could be much higher next year once we get higher-level data.
20) Jordy Mercer, SS, Grade C: Hit 19 homers and 30 doubles in Double-A/Triple-A. Defense at shortstop is solid and he can also play third and second with skill. Age (25) and shaky plate discipline hold back his grade, but with some adjustments he could be a surprise major league contributor this year. Keep an eye on him.
OTHERS: Nate Baker, LHP; Colten Brewer, RHP; Jake Burnette, RHP; Ramon Cabrera, C; Colton Cain, LHP; Jarek Cunningham, 2B; Matt Curry, 1B; Tyler Glasnow, RHP; Eleyvs Gonzalez, 3B; Matt Hague, 1B; Alen Hanson, INF; Gorkys Hernandez, OF, Phil Irwin, RHP; Yamaico Navarro, INF; Davydas Neverauskas, RHP; Gustavo Nunez, INF; Mel Rojas, OF; Adalberto Santos, OF; Duke Welker, RHP.
The Pirates have a clear and consistent strategy in recent drafts: dump lots of money into pitching, with an emphasis on overslot deals in the middle rounds for projectable high school arms. So far it hasn't paid many dividends, but it wasn't expected to do so quickly: it is a long-term strategy.
Recent first-round picks Gerrit Cole and Jameson Taillon could both develop into number one starters, as could Mexican prodigy Luis Heredia. Cole is the most advanced of the group (as you would expect from a college pitcher). Personally I like Trevor Bauer a little better, but I can understand why the Pirates went with Cole and he's certainly a Grade A guy. Taillon did just fine in Low-A, but Heredia could develop into just about anything, including nothing.
Stetson Allie was hugely disappointing last year, but it was just his "freshman" season. Other overslot high school guys like Kingham, ZVR, Dodson, and Cain have provided mixed results. All could thrive, all could still fail. The 2011 draft brought in another group headlined by Clay Holmes, but again, it is just too early to know how they will pan out.
With all the emphasis on the young guys, Kyle McPherson gets lost in the shuffle but he'll be ready to help soon. Morris, Locke, Owens, and Wilson will all get trials within the next year and one or two of them will turn into something good. I also want to point out two of the Grade C guys as sleepers, control artist Phil Irwin and sinkerballer Duke Welker. They don't get much attention but both have a chance to contribute something interesting, especially Irwin, who lacks plus stuff but never walks anybody.
Hitting is much thinner. Josh Bell should be excellent, but he's at least three years away. Starling Marte and Robbie Grossman give additional hope for the outfield. If you could combine Grossman's approach with Marte's tools, you would have a superstar, but last I checked such genetic experimentation is illegal. Jordy Mercer has several sleeper attributes.
This list might disappoint Pirates fans, but there is a lot of upside here on the pitching side. Keep in mind that grades are all shorthand. They have invested a lot in pitchers who haven't had time to do much yet or have been moved forward slowly.
200 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
you know, I don't think there's a single grade here I disagree with
Well, I think I’d ding Taillon a tad . . .still concerned that he will prove too hittable at higher levels. But obviously that would seem to be a minority opinion.
I know
we went back and forth quite a bit yesterday, so I don’t plan on really arguing this at length but I think the best thing Taillon has going for him (at least when looking at this season’s performance) is that the organization hardly let him throw his curveball at all. Taillon’s curve is probably his best pitch which is saying a lot for a guy with a 99 mph fastball. He did have trouble elevating his fastball this year so he needs to work on that but I think an A- is just fine for a guy with his upside and his performance this season.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 24, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Why would you call it a 99 MPH fastball?
Because he touches it on occasion? Every pitcher in baseball is going to sound a lot better if that’s how you describe their pitches. I mean if you described Randall Delgado as having a 97-98 mph fastball (what he touched per pitch f/x in the bigs) he sounds like an A prospect.
Sorry
didn’t know it would upset somebody that much and I was trying to write a more succinct comment. Since my central point was the quality of his curve as opposed to his fastball, I didn’t think somebody like kupe who knows plenty about these guys would know that his fastball touches 99 as opposed to sits at 99.
If you would like a more complete description fine. Taillon’s fastball sat at 94-96 this season while the Pirates had him working on fastball command. He is big, projectable and only 19. He also hit 99 several times during this season. As I said above, his fastball is not considered his best pitch.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 24, 2011 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
Stupid typo
I didn’t think somebody like kupe who knows plenty about these guys would know that his fastball touches 99 as opposed to sits at 99.
What I meant was that kupe doesn’t need to be told that Taillon’s fastball touched 99 as opposed to sitting at 99.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 24, 2011 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not upset, but its just annoying to me in general when people do that
Taillon has a good fastball, but calling it a 99 mph fastball reeks of trying to talk it up to talk him up. That’s nearly true 80 level, as opposed to his actual velocity which puts him more in the plus range. I honestly just don’t see the point of using peak velocities. Why not just call his fastball 95 mph instead? Its more informative to people reading and it doesn’t make you come across like a homer.
You
need to take a chill pill bro, it’s Christmas Eve.
But since you are nitpicking…
If a 99 mph fastball (which means it sits at 99 according to your definition) is “nearly true 80 level” then one that sits 94-96 can’t be just “plus.” Unless you are telling me there is a 20 grade range between ~4 mph from 60 to 80. Using that logic, a fastball that sits at around 91 mph is only a 40 pitch, and that doesn’t strike me as being correct.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 6:50 PM EST up reply actions
Its not a linear scale (not sure why you would ever think that)
The difference between 95 and 97 (in terms of grade) is smaller than the difference between 97 and 99. Obviously there is more to the grade than just velocity (movement and command) as well. You also might notice I said “near 80” and “plus range”. I was thinking something along the lines of 75-80 and 60-65.
I'm also not sure why you read that thinking I need to chill
I was simply pointing out it is a bit of a pet peeve for me (listing peak velocities instead of normal velocities) and explaining why I had initially felt the need to respond to him.
You
came across as extraordinarily snarky. My fault if you were not trying to be.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
Anyway
for the record, I never saw Taillon hit 99. The highest I saw him hit was 97 and that was once. He actually sat more in the 93-95 range, with the occasional 96. On the positive side though, he actually gained velocity when I saw him later in the year, hitting more 94’s, 95’s, 96’s and less 92’s and 93’s.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
interesting
I watched a couple of starts out of him online. His curve did indeed look like his best pitch. Thought right-handed batters got a long look at the ball. Saw a bunch of curves out of him, looked like a fairly standard pitch selection for a teenage arm.
Every time somebody talks about Taillon (or Pirates pitching prospects in general), the “working on fastball command” thing comes up like clockwork. It really doesn’t mean much to me. I seriously doubt you can find an organization that doesn’t put a heavy emphasis on commanding the fastball. I guess if you want to apply the same standard to most every other young A ball pitcher that’s cool, but I don’t see it as being something unique to Pirates prospects that suggests their numbers should be viewed in a more favorable light.
Personally I prefer a more holistic approach to pitching development . . .players need to not just learn how to throw their pitches effectively, but how to integrate them into an overall approach. Taillon seems to be doing fine with that, although like most young pitchers, he’ll need more work on becoming a three pitch guy. I think I have a relatively positive impression of him – that said, I am pretty tough when it comes to grading at the high end of pitching prospects.
Eh
he definitely wasn’t given full use of his arsenal, or even close, in the half dozen starts I saw him pitch from behind home plate. The Pirates definitely gave him more leash than they have other starting pitchers, and you are probably spot-on that Taillon didn’t have restrictions that other pitchers do a Low-A, but I would just point out that a guy like Shelby Miller was at A+ the same year (in his development) and presumably was restricted very little.
Miller benefited by putting up gaudy numbers and being elevated in prospect rankings. However, it still is yet to be determined who actually is being “developed” better. That’s not snark by the way trying to defend Taillon; It just is factually unclear as both are far from a finished product.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 6:54 PM EST up reply actions
Directly
from Baseball America…
Pittsburgh had Taillon throw approximately 80 percent fastballs to gain better command of his heater to both sides of the plate.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
yes, but
That’s really not as crazy a figure as it would seem. Major league starters, who have 3-5 usable pitches in their arsenals, throw their fastballs a significant majority of the time (this article put it a few years ago at 59 percent). Considering that Taillon is basically just fastball/curveball with a few changes sprinkled in at this point, one should expect a fastball percentage well in excess of that 59 percent figure. In all, the organizational philosophy probably amounted to what, 3-4 fastballs/game that might have been other pitches, at most? Skeptical that it would have affected his breaking ball percentage all that much . . .I’m assuming the Pirates aren’t big on having their young arms throw lots of breakers.
Not sure what Shelby Miller has to do with the conversation at hand.
Not to speak for McC
but if Taillon is throwing 80% heaters because thats the org. policy and most other pitchers are throwing 60%, I think thats a considerable difference. And I would guess that if thats what Miller was doing, I would think it allows him time to just concentrate more on just putting people away with whatever pitch is necessary, rather than working on spotting the fastball specifically. Thats just me guessing, and I think no one really has any idea which approach is more apt to produce an ace, or if that ends up mattering at all.
I’m going to sound woefully misinformed here…but what is Taillon’s primary breaking pitch? Curve? Slider? Does he have both? I’d read varying reports on him, that he had a plus fastball, plus curve, and a solid change, but since I’ve read reports all over the place, I’m pretty lost. Can anyone fill me in?
by NastyNate82 on Dec 25, 2011 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
his point
is that the average major leaguer throws around 60%
the average minor leaguer probably throws their heater more than that, because they don’t even have as many secondaries as the major leaguer. in other words, he’s not saying that the average minor leaguer throws 60% fastballs. it could be 70% or even higher.
the reason why people are skeptical about the whole “Taillon’s numbers are due to throwing a ton of fastballs” is because no one knows what the point of reference is, relative to other minor leaguer’s throwing fastballs
by blue bulldog on Dec 25, 2011 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
my mistake
I kind of took the 60% and applied it to other minor leaguers. And you’re right, there is no frame of reference, so that makes it difficult to judge. On the other hand, Taillon may be hittable because the command of his fastball, even at 95, is pretty spotty. So, working on fastball command may not be such a bad thing for him after all in that respect.
by NastyNate82 on Dec 25, 2011 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
taillon
He used his curve as his primary secondary this year . . .70-75 pitch.
What sort of velocity does his curve come in at?
Big breaker or more of a power curve?
not sure on velocity, but thrown hard
Power curve. It’s a hammer, I have to give credit where credit is due.
"Power curve. It’s a hammer.."
Mid-80’s, and I second the opinion.
I've always liked this video
from 2009 as a good look at the curve. Gives a great idea of the shape and spin. Very tight and he moved it around well.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Good to know
If it was a big breaker I would think Hanson would be a good comp (though obviously Hanson wasn’t nearly as far along at the same age), but I much prefer a power curve to the one he throws. The big breakers just don’t seem to transition nearly as well to the majors.
He is primarily
A fastball-curveball guy right now. there were pre-draft reports that he had a decent slider but he didn’t throw that at all this season. I’ve heard reports that he has a 2-seamer and a 4-seamer (primary fastball).
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
Well it is probably true
Most hitters in low-A can’t handle legit breaking stuff. Then again, most elite pitching prospects at that level are working on things other than dominating with their breaking ball, same as Taillon, for this exact reason.
So that people wouldn't question his performance?
Besides, its not holding him back. The point of the minors isn’t to put up the best numbers you can. The point is to develop the player so he can contribute in the majors. Honestly, what the Pirates did with Taillon is similar to what most teams do at that level.
Taillon was dominating, at least in the 3 starts I saw.
What Huntington meant by “if we let him” was if Taillon had no innings/pitch counts.
Most guys at that level don’t see the repetoire he has, one game I saw Taillon buckled the home plate umpire on a curveball.
He was victimized by Class A defense and Class A strike zones just as much if not moreso than by his own inconsistencies, which there weren’t many of.
Why would throwing more pitches allow him to be more dominant?
Most young pitchers tire as the game goes on, so taking them out early inflates their stats if it does anything. I think he was clearly talking about the amount of fastballs they were asking him to throw, but I could be wrong. Based on everything Pirates fans have said, this seems to be what the Pirates are talking about with regards to
"Most young pitchers tire as the game goes on,"
Taillon’s not “most young pitchers”.
Even if he was throwing a higher % of fastballs he would still be dominant.
So Taillon got better as games went on?
I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but that’s something I’d need to see numbers on to accept.
You're assuming he wouldn't.
He was on an innings limit/pitch count, so the number of times he went deep enough to actually make a determination probably wasn’t significant.
But you’re missing the point anyway.
If he holds hitters to a .150 first time around, .190 second time and .220 third time, he would still be dominating if he was better than league average in all three instances.
So, while his own numbers got worse as the game went on, he was still dominant compared to the league.
"While his own numbers got worse as the game went on, he was still dominant compared to the league."
While that’s true, it is irrelevant to my point, which was that taking him out earlier would inflate his numbers. If there was confusion, by numbers, I meant rate stats. Obviously his counting stats would look better if he pitched more. If he does worse his third time through the lineup than he does his first and second time through, then his rate stats are obviously going to look better if you take him out after the second time through instead of after the third time through.
It was specifically in response to a question about the “fastball command accademy” thing the Pirates are known for. NH also doesn’t care what BA thinks of his players and is pretty straightforward for a GM so I see no reason to question the comment like bulldog does.
just for the record
i wasn’t questioning the accuracy of the statement
whether Taillon could have put up better numbers than he already did if he was allowed to throw more breaking balls (i’d also like to point out that i think Taillon’s numbers were fine as is) is not something i care to get in a debate about
all i was trying to point out, is whether or not the GM says he “would have dominated A hitters” if the org “had let him” is a largely meaningless statement. it should have no bearing whatsoever on whether you think Taillon would/should have dominated A ball hitters (if his breaking ball was thrown more often).
if you thought the stats/stuff were an accurate reflection of Taillon’s talent beforehand, then you should still think so even after reading that statement. if you did not think the stats/stuff were an accurate reflection of his talent, then that statement does little to vindicate you.
by blue bulldog on Dec 26, 2011 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
Another aspect of fb command re:taillon
If this notion is known to all of us (greater fb command/ control by pirates as an org. development track then it’s certainly known by the teams the pirates low affliates play against. If all the opposing hitters were sitting dead red all the time wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would get hit harder than their stuff would suggest? That their stats would be worse than the stuff should play (in a vacuum). Also, any of you think this would have a negative role in the mental aspect of pitching development? It can’t be fun to get killed on the mound knowing you can throw the deuce and get them flailing in the dirt when you have it in your back pocket. Just throwing it out there….
by thehitonecafe on Dec 25, 2011 1:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The idea is
if you can locate a 95 mph fastball (that tops out at 99) you can still get A-ball hitters out more often than not. The bulk of the guys Taillon will face for WV will never even reach the majors so it is enough to be able to back them off the plate then go outside, or to make sure that you’re keeping the ball down. The Pirates know that these guys can’t hit Taillon’s curve which could easily be graded as a plus-plus pitch. What the Bucs are hoping is that Taillon can learn to put his fastball where he needs to to keep hitters off balance and then use the curve to deal with more advance hitters at higher levels. Plus, it puts less strain on a young arm.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 25, 2011 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
well, let me try slightly changing what you said and we'll see if you still agree
The idea is if you can throw a 95 mph fastball (that tops out at 99) you can still get A-ball hitters out more often than not.
Low A is filled with guys with very pedestrian fastballs and batters with iffy bat speed. If you can throw a pretty good fastball for strikes (not even necessarily quality strikes) at that level, you are golden – not only do you have swing-and-miss, but many players simply can’t turn around good fastballs. Thinking about it, I’d love to know how many foul balls Taillon induced as opposed to the average pitcher . . .it’s a statistic I think should be monitored much more closely than it is, especially as a player moves up in levels.
The thing is, batters should already be off balance against Taillon. He throws 4-6 mph harder than the typical pitcher they get to see, and it’s paired up with a curve that is probably better than even a lot of the reports make it out to be. He’s not really even going to get a serious chance to learn to really use his fastball in the way you suggest until he gets to Double A.
I still can’t help but be reminded of Casey Kelly in a way. Taillon is better than Kelly, so please don’t get me wrong, but neither seems especially deceptive. It obviously won’t preclude a major league future for either, and both have the potential to be frontline starters, but it feels like a potential limiter that should be watched.
Correct me if I'm wrong
but the only that that you changed from what I wrote is that Taillon won’t get a chance to use his fastball as I suggested until AA ball because A ball hitters can’t hit his fastball anyway so it doesn’t matter if he catches the fat part of the plate when he’s going for the outside corner. I could’ve misunderstood your logic but that’s the way I read it. Generally speaking, I’d agree with that, and his 9-1 K:BB ratio supports the belief that his opponents are usually overmatched. However, that doesn’t prevent him from working on it or the Pirates from tracking/teaching it.
Let’s say Taillon has 2 strikes on a guy and wants to go outside. He misses and the pitch is right over the heart of the plate and slightly elevated. Fortunately, the batter doesn’t have the ability to catch up with a 97 mph fastball so it’s a strikeout anyway. While that pitch looks great on the scoresheet, I’m sure the Pirates will have it charted as a mistake and when going over the start with Taillon, would use it as an example of something to improve, even though he got the K.
As for a lack of deception, are you talking about how easy it is to pick up the ball coming out of Taillon’s hand (what I think you’re talking about) or his pitch selection?
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 9:11 AM EST up reply actions
last things first, I was referring to the ball out of his hand
My other point was that a 95 mph fastball plays extremely well at A ball, regardless of where it is thrown for the most part. Occasional command is good enough to get by, and if you can put the ball on the plate consistently, you’re probably going to find a fair amount of success there.
I’m typically not all that enthused by BB/K as a meaningful statistic at lower levels, I’ll be honest.
That's fine
as I said, though, the ability to get by without FB command doesn’t prevent the Pirates from working on it. Maybe he doesn’t need to paint the corners but the Pirates can still try to teach him how to paint the corners.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
I don’t think this is rocket science. It makes perfect sense for the Pirates to work on Taillon’s delivery and angle to the plate with the FB, and that means a lot of reps. I completely agree that a 97-mph FB that was up for a swing and miss might still be considered a “mistake”.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
FWIW
I never saw a player make contact with Taillon’s curveball and that includes foul tips. I saw him throw at least two dozen for the record, so it’s not like he threw only 3.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 26, 2011 6:10 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
So,
they did swing at it most of the time? That in itself is worth noting if so.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
Actually
Alot of ducking out of the way as it broke across the plate. One guy hit the deck and it was a called strike. Probably only 8-10 swings and misses but it was a 100% swing-and-miss rate.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 26, 2011 6:51 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I like
the list overall, but I’m somewhat miffed on how a system like this has only 8 B- or better grades.
The Philadelphia Phillies had 8 B- or better
The Miami Marlins had 8
The Brewers had 9
The Dodgers had 10
Heck the O’s had 7
I have a hard time seeing those systems as deep as the Pirates system.
The Nationals had 13 B- or better
The Twins had 13
The Cardinals had 13
The Red Sox had 15!
I just don’t see those system being that much deeper than the Pirates system.
Clearly I need to re-evaluate my propensity to succumb to homerism or something. Sheesh this is ridiculously depressing.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 2:44 PM EST reply actions
They are just letter grades
Plus, part of the reason it looks bleak (solely based on your B- rankings and up) is because Sanchez, Allie, Owens, Locke, Wilson, Morris, ZVR, and Cain all had so-so years or regressed. If Allie or Sanchez had each had slightly better seasons then we would could have had at least two more B- players.
Take a deeper look at the C+ players and you will see a lot of potential for breakouts (Dodson, ZVR, Cain etc.).
by Cainyoudigit on Dec 24, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Yep
Keep in mind also that grades are shorthand.
by John Sickels on Dec 24, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
John,
I think it was a fair assessment of the system. Lots of talent but a few of the key components of the system need to realize their potential (Allie, Heredia, ZVR etc.) and you even say that especially with Heredia and Allie. If they progress this year it completely changes how the system looks.
by Cainyoudigit on Dec 24, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Lots of players have down years
and still get ranked highly.
Christian Colon has never had a good year and was still a B- and #9 in one of the top systems in baseball.
yeah, but that was not a good grade
Colon is terrible. there are 100 B- “John Grades” I would take over Colon…Probably another 50 C+ and C grade players as well.
John is the best in the biz, but he got that one wrong. Not a good comp for any player.
depressing
Don’t be depressed. But be realistic, too. They have a LOT of guys with considerable potential who are just at too low a level to tell much about yet, especially on the pitching side.
by John Sickels on Dec 24, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Yep
The system needs more time, which is both a blessing and a curse. It is disappointing that the 2009 class of arms had done virtually nothing yet. Not even a glimpse of a breakout and Trent Stevenson is all but dead.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
By C+ or better grades:
25 Jays, Rangers, Rays, Padres, Red Sox
24 Twins, Diamondbacks
22 Royals, Braves
20 Cards, Dodgers
19 Pirates
18 Mariners, Orioles
17 Tigers, Nationals (pre-trade; now 13)
16 Phillies, Marlins
14 Brewers
13 Astros
It's definitely depressing
I remember having a conversation with somebody after the first few reports came out that it seemed like Sickels had gone soft because of the abundance of B grades (no offense intended, it just seemed like the grades were typically higher this season). Obviously I was hoping to see the Pirates compare more favorably to systems that I expected to rank behind the Pirates. Having said that, I’m not sure who else I would say really deserves a B- grade. I am a big Tony Sanchez supporter (probably more than most) so I think he still deserves a B- (at least). Other than that, the other C+ guys still have too much to prove. As others have pointed out, since several are breakout candidates, many of those C+ guys could make major jumps if 2012 proves to be a strong year.
Overall, the only grades that I would change on this list other than Sanchez are Heredia and Marte. Heredia was a B- (borderline B) coming into this year and I think he showed enough as a 17 year old in the GCL to justify a full B. Marte, well, I can understand the concern over a lack of walks but I just think his tools and his performance justify a B+ instead of a B. He cut down the strikeouts to a better rate, showed much improved power and has a ton of defensive value at a premium defensive position. I think it says a lot about the work put into the list, though, that there are only 3 guys that I consider to be even half a grade off. I guess I can’t complain too much about it even if I was hoping it would look better.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 24, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
We
had that conversation I believe.
On the bright side (from a farm system rankings standpoint) not a single player in the top 10 should graduate unless Marte really gets pushed.
From there Locke will probably graduate, and possibly Morris, Wilson, Owens, and Mercer.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
what does that really say about a system
that well before the season starts, you feel comfortable in saying that none of your top prospects will play enough in the bigs to lose prospect status? Seems disappointing. If you don’t have anybody close, should you really be considered a top system?
Not rhetorical. I seriously asking.
It's
Somewhat of a problem..
At the same time, Locke, Morris, Wilson, and Owens isn’t that bad of a group. 1 or maybe 2 will stick as a back-end rotation guy most likely. Plus Mercer.
Furthermore, since 2009 the system has graduated Cutch, Neil Walker, Jose Tabata, Alex Presley, Chase D’arnaud, and Brad Lincoln, plus some bullpen arms.
Also, presumably Marte, Tony Sanchez, and maybe even Cole will have graduated by the end of 2013.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 26, 2011 7:03 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Plus
McPherson by 2013, although I’m not a big fan of his personally
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 26, 2011 7:07 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
There is no doubt its a top #10 system
Its hard to tell where, only because the value of prospects seems to have risen, causing several less likely teams to horde prospects into fantastic systems.
Being a huge fan of one of those “less likely” teams, KC, I am glad for that. Like the Bucs, we haven’t had much else to go on.
….a ’13 Royals/Pirates WS sounds pretty sweet to me. The fact that it would infuriate many of the bigger market cities would only make it that much sweeter.
by Bronzillo on Dec 26, 2011 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It also says
that this system is probably a year away from potentially being something really special. If you assume that Marte and Sanchez don’t graduate this year but both put up productive seasons, and you add 3 1st round picks (1 top-10 and 2 comps) to the system next year…that could be really big
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
How do you figure 2 comp picks?
curious what your reasoning is here. Surely your not presuming that you will receive 2 of the new welfare (small market lottery) picks?
Type B Free agent picks
for Doumit (45-46th pick) and D-Lee (51-58th pick).
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 27, 2011 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
Um, doesn't someone have to actually sign Lee first?
also, how can you get a B comp pick for a catcher with 200 abs? That seems ridiculous.
Im not saying your wrong at all, but what is your source on this info? Thanks.
Here’s a list of type A/type B free agents.
The ways of the Elias free-agent rankings are mysterious, but I think they go on two years of stats, so he gets credit for 692 PAs in the past two seasons, and his offensive stats aren’t bad — I don’t think they take account of his awful defense. It’s a lot less ridiculous than the comp pick the Rays got for Brad Hawpe, a guy who had been cut in the middle of the season.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Dec 27, 2011 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
Somebody does have to sign Lee before the Pirates would get a pick for him, so technically I was a little premature in saying two picks. Having said that, I can’t imagine Lee won’t sign somewhere considering his strong finish and the number of teams in need of help at 1B.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 27, 2011 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
The
pick for Doumit has already been awarded and it’s been well documented lol.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 28, 2011 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
I think its because
As Pirates fans, we dream of the max a player can become and don’t really think of the more likely scenario of what he will become. We try to…but we’re never as realistic as we should be. As John said, many of their high-ceiling guys (Allie, Heredia) are a long ways away, so that would likely ding their grades a bit. Plus, others like Sanchez had bad years. This system could, and likely will, look a lot different next year.
I'd have to say i disagree
If anything the Grossman and Taillon grades, i think are spot on.
I don’t see who else could possibly deserve a B- in this system.
other than maybe ZVR or Dickerson,,,, maybe tony sanchez?
I personally think the grades here are spot on and very fair, and also shows a great system. top 15-16 system in baseball.
Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 24, 2011 7:32 PM EST up reply actions
Marte
He had a pretty excellent season when you consider that it was his first full season of baseball in the U.S.
He could truly be excellent if he continues to progress
Taillon
I’m with you John, Jameson did just fine in his first season. I understand people may view it less then successful even being aware of them restricting his secondary pitches, but I believe in the scouting reports and his stuff looks filthy. Extremely happy with his command at such a young age too.
Cunningham
So is he a non-prospect now? What is the best case scenario?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
cunningham
Jarek is a prospect, certainly. Very impressive power. But his plate discipline and his defense are terrible and haven’t shown signs of improvement. He still has time though.
by John Sickels on Dec 24, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Hitting Only
So from a fantasy perspective (no defense factored in) he would be a C+/B- or is that too optimistic?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
Cunningham
Obviously he’s a high-risk prospect, but I think the knock against his D is a red herring. He has the athleticism to be a fine corner outfielder, and the power will play there if he has to move. The only real question is whether he can learn to control the strike zone. Personally, I give him some benefit of the doubt because of how inexperienced he is still, despite his age. He missed his senior season in HS, as well as all of 2009 and half of 2010, yet he’s moving a level at a time and not getting overmatched. He strikes me as the type of guy who could click suddenly and really start mashing.
Gradewise, is he really half a grade worse than a guy like Randal Grichuk, to give just a recent example of a high-power, questionable strike zone control corner outfielder? Cunningham’s older, of course, but I’m not sure I see half a grade’s worth of difference.
jarek
In the book comment I predict that he’ll end up as an OF.
by John Sickels on Dec 24, 2011 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
If Jarek ends up as OF
There won’t be room for him in 2014 (ETA) with Cutch, Marte, Tabata, Grossman, and Bell firmly in place. Jarek, if he keeps his power intact, will be trade bait for someone.
by BadAndy on Dec 24, 2011 4:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
bell's only going to play 2 seasons of minor league ball?
lets not act like he’s justin upton or something
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 24, 2011 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
Well
the comp and the time of the draft was a switch hitting Jason Heyward. /shrug. I don’t buy it, but it is what it is. Baseball America also has his ETA as 2014.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions
if heyward was a legit comp
he’d have gone top 5 or so…with teams knowing that they’d be willing to spend whatever it took to buy him out
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 25, 2011 1:10 AM EST up reply actions
Jason Heyward didnt have
Scott Boras as his adviser. Boras’s ploy of sending out a letter to ALL 30 teams stating that Josh Bell will go to college no matter the price scared them into not drafting him. The Pirates took advantage of that and paid him Top 3 money. This is something we’ll never see again.
Point is Josh Bell is talented enough batting wise to be a Pirates fixture in 2015.
by BadAndy on Dec 25, 2011 9:55 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
boras
My information is that it wasn’t a ploy. The Bell family was VERY serious about it. They have a lot of money already, and they are really into education. I don’t think it was Boras bluff.
by John Sickels on Dec 25, 2011 10:59 AM EST up reply actions
I was never able to understand
the family’s viewpoint. Regardless of how much money they had, their son likely made more by signing his name to that first contract than the two of them have in their entire careers (I believe they are both professors). Not only that, there is absolutely nothing standing between Bell getting his education later in life. He might not have been able to play baseball later in life (injuries?). It just struck me as a cop out. The whole point of a college education is to prepare a person for adulthood and in the case of a baseball prodigy, he will be better prepared as a minor leaguer.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 25, 2011 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
not really
$5 million is not that much from a career income perspective. if you work 20 years, that’s merely 250,000 per year. many people work for more than 20 years, at higher average annual salaries than that
also, the family wasn’t expecting Bell’s signing bonus to be in the $5 million range (as evidence of the fact that $5 million was required to dissuade Bell and his family from going to college). most likely, the family was expecting something in the $2 million range (for instance, Daniel Norris’s signing bonus). that may make it even less worthwhile for a couple of professors to allow their kid to skip college
by blue bulldog on Dec 25, 2011 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
While I generally agree, you need to look at present value
Getting 5 million right now is worth way more than 250,000 a year for 20 years.
sure
i didn’t talk about present value, because i figured it’d just over-complicate for other readers (because you’re not really avging 250K in your lifetime….)
fwiw, i don’t really think it matters all that much, because most jobs will give you raises year-to-year, which essentially takes into account cost-of-living adjustments and discount value
by blue bulldog on Dec 26, 2011 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
A couple of things
1) even if they are fantastic professors, they didn’t make $125K a piece as soon as they graduated
2) I was merely comparing Bell’s signing bonus to what has been made thus far, not a lifetime v. lifetime earnings potential (if so then the son’s ceiling as a ballplayer is exponentially higher)
3) The letter Bell sent to the teams said that he wouldn’t sign for any amount, not simply an above-slot amount
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 9:16 AM EST up reply actions
okay
1) My friend just got a professorship out of grad school and he makes $200K+ as a first-year professor. Granted, he’s fairly brilliant, and it’s Wharton.
2) That’s why I said for 20 years. How long do you think the parents have worked for already?
3) And obviously he did end up signing for some amount. People need to realize that everything in the world has a price to it. Obviously the letter just means the price to buy Bell out is exorbitant, and they needed to be aware of that before drafting him. For all intents and purposes, the letter just meant he wasn’t going to sign for a $2-3 million above-slot amount.
by blue bulldog on Dec 26, 2011 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Not that this argument really means anything but
1) Good for your friend! Seriously, that’s a ton. A friend of mine just got a job as a professor at FL International for $60K in her 1st year out of grad school. If your friend got $200K, hot damn.
2) You also said most people work more than 20 yrs. That’s why I mentioned career earnings differences.
3) As far as how far overslot the teams were willing to go and the family/parents/player were willing to accept, I don’t really see how it matters. $2M will set you up for life just as much as $5M.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
fair enough
i guess i just think the letter did exactly what the family expected it to do
they let it be known that they care a lot about their son’s education, and they wanted anyone drafting them to know that as well. of course that commitment to college could be bought out, but the family wanted Bell to be drafted by a team that was actually seriously committed to negotiating with Bell
another way to think about it, is that the letter is meant to have Bell drafted by the team who valued Bell the most (or at least one of the teams that valued Bell the most)
by blue bulldog on Dec 26, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
Business school professors always make more
Law School professors, medical school professors also make much more than traditional academic professors as well. Within the disciplines, there is also a hierarchy, with economists making the most (as you might have guessed, it’s determined by how much they could make outside)
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 26, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Bell's mom makes $122K
She’d almost certainly have made less when she first got the job.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Dec 26, 2011 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
we'll never see it again?
I predict we will, and we’ll see it a lot sooner than you might think. The new CBA doesn’t outright prevent teams from spending a boatload of money on a player. I can see teams signing a Bell, costing themselves a first rounder, and going “meh” and just drafting another big signability guy the next year . . .in the second round.
The 2012 draft might not see much of this . . .teams will take time to learn how to operate within the new system, and (perhaps more importantly) the 2012 draft might not provide as much reason to aggressively spend.
That's a pretty bold prediction
Giving a 2nd rounder $5M would, by itself, put a team more than 15% over slot. The first thing this does is add a 100% tax, meaning that one pick cost $10M to sign, not 5. Signing that player would likely cost more than the first overall pick in the draft. Secondly, it would cost 2 first round picks. That is an insanely high price. The only teams that could even consider it are the super-rich like the Yankees. Thank God this CBA restored the competitive balance by limiting free spenders like the Pirates and Rays!
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
the CBA is likely to be even worse than the detractors think
by AndrewTorrez on Dec 26, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
No, the detractors just aren't understanding the implications
Guys like Bell will generally just get picked earlier where slot money will be tough to turn down. And if he turns it down, the pick is still protected two more times. Because of the added leverage for teams, elite guys generally aren’t going to drop for signability reasons. That’s the whole point of the new system, getting elite talents to get picked at a spot more commiserate with their talent level.
+1
i don’t think the new CBA is going to affect top-tier talent all that much
it’s going to affect the types of guys that would have been drafted for $1-2 million in Rounds 2-3, the guys who have a significantly lower shot at success in the majors, and the guys who arguably would do better just staying in school, getting an education, and then figuring out if they wanted to go into baseball or a different career
the new CBA is definitely paternalistic in the sense that it tries to protect people (families and their high school baseball children) who don’t know better from poor investment decisions, but that’s arguably not a bad thing
by blue bulldog on Dec 26, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
"at a spot more commiserate"
I think you meant commensurate, but I like the implications of commiserate.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 6:51 PM EST up reply actions
You are of course right
That what I get for just choosing the first option that popped up on spellcheck
Well,
it’s one of those happy accidents, because it certainly applies.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
I think that's fair
I don’t see players as talented as Bell dropping . . .I’m thinking on a little smaller scale, first round caliber talents but not guys who want $4-5 million to think about passing up school.
I think someone like Bell will simply go to college
It will be much more prudent to go to college and get a degree then come out and get drafted and sing then to forego college altogether. Granted, a team could value a player like Bell as a first round grade and be willing to forfeit money and future picks.
by Cainyoudigit on Dec 26, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that the Bells of the world
As well as guys like Grossman, ZVR, Kingham and Allie will wind up in college instead of signing for slot.
I don’t think he was ever going to get a degree (which is one reason I thought it was funny that he was “prioritizing” education). He was going to go to Texas for 3 years, then bolt for the pros after junior year when he could have gotten more money.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
degrees
Lots of athletes in various sports come back after their playing careers are over and finish up their degree work. I can personally attest to this being the case as I’ve been a GA in classes involving a number of such athletes. Coincidentally, it’s been at the very school you mention.
Also, while some of these guys fully intend to go on to try to play professional sports, they nonetheless want to get an education, earn a degree, etc. I’ve seen my share of “dumb jocks”, but there are plenty of guys who do their work and do it well.
To clarify
I was saying that he wasn’t going to get his degree prior to turning pro. I completely agree that he could go back to school as you suggest, but he could also do that even if the only credits he had accumulated were the ones he earned through summer courses this year (I believe he enrolled in summer school prior to signing with the Pirates).
Obviously it would be easier to get a degree if he only had to go back for one year but if the degree is really as important to him as he (and his family) has said it is, getting a degree in the easiest manner possible shouldn’t be the goal should it?
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
seems like getting an education and a degree was "a" goal, not "the" goal
Which is perfectly fine. I’m sure being a pro baseball player was a goal of his as well.
Going back after the playing career is over (anywhere from late 20s to mid-30s) is a very different experience from what it is like for the guys who are taking classes with people in their own age range. Sometimes it’s the overall experience of getting an education while playing a sport that’s really desirable. It’s often not easy for these guys to go back later . . .beyond the obvious problem of having to make the decision to return to school, oftentimes they have wives and/or kids who demand their attention.
Going back to school
is obviously difficult. What I was trying to say is that the important things in life often are difficult and if he really wanted to do it, he could make it happen later in life. I don’t buy the argument that having a wife or kids would make it impossible either. I know plenty of people who went back to school with a wife and kids and, while it was not easy, it was doable. I’m sure that having enough money in the bank that it doesn’t put a financial strain on the family would make it much easier as well.
Yes, the experience of college at 38 would be much different than college at 18 but I’m not sure that it would be any more productive/valuable/interesting than the experience of the minor leagues at 18. Maybe his priorities are different than mine and maybe yours are too, but it always struck me as a no-brainer decision given the money involved and his abilities as a ball-player.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
To be fair
Heyward (who I’d say is a pretty good Heyward comparison) was the 14th overall pick and most reports said Bell was a slam dunk top 15 pick if not for the signability concerns.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 25, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
The reasons for that have been well discussed
Most teams hadn’t really gotten to see much of Heyward because the East Cobb travel program discourages kids from playing in showcase events (where teams that skimp on HS scouting do most of their scouting), he generally didn’t take BP on the field before HS games (preferred hitting in the batting cage), and teams refused to throw him good pitches and he refused to chase mediocre pitches (BB rate as a senior was ~45% from the numbers I’ve seen). For the most part, scouts who watched him just had no way of knowing exactly how good he was. Its hard to come away impressed when you maybe see a guy swing the bat 2 or 3 times (including BP) each time you go out to see him. The Braves decision to hide their interest in Heyward (their scout would watch from the woods in CF instead of from the bleachers) certainly made some teams second guess how good Heyward was too considering how well they evaluate GA talent. Finally, Heyward’s refusal to give private workouts to teams (I know he refused the Marlins, not sure about anyone else), certainly didn’t help him assuage the concerns teams had due to their lack of real scouting info.
That's all fine
but the point was a player like Heyward would be a slam-dunk top 5 pick when Heyward himself was (for whatever reason) the 14th pick.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 9:32 AM EST up reply actions
If not for those things, Heyward likely would have been a top 5 pick
There’s a reason he ended up ranking #28 the offseason after his draft, 10 spots behind #2 pick Mike Moustakas and 15 spots ahead of #3 pick Josh Vitters, and it certainly wasn’t the 12 games he had played since being drafted.
cool stuff
Very interesting, as always.
I love the straight A for Cole. I think the concern about his floor/command/changeup is getting drastically overstated by some. As you say, he’s got three excellent pitches, and guys like that don’t fail too often.
I’ll happily wait for the book to learn this, if you’d prefer, but what have you heard about Taillon’s slider? Pre-draft reports said he had a very good one, but he didn’t seem to throw it all year. Some places still note it while others don’t mention it.
I’m curious about Grossman – did sources you talked to differ in their opinions based on when they saw him? I watched him play a lot over the last couple years and was not impressed, but I haven’t seen him since July. He definitely improved statistically in the second half of 2011 and the reports from the AFL were pretty positive. I’m wondering if he’s making real improvements (probably in hitting from the left side, which he’s fairly new to) that people who’ve seen him more recently are privy to or if there’s just a basic disagreement on how talented he is.
Two grades that I find really interesting are the C+ for Locke and the C (off the top 20) for Cain. You had Locke as a B- last year, and he was above three other B- guys in the system, so probably a pretty solid B-. I’m curious what he did this year to drop half a grade. His performance in AA was a bit worse than at the same level in 2010, but only marginally so. And he performed very well in a small sample at AAA. He bombed in the majors, but you generally don’t ding guys for performing poorly in 17 IP in their first taste of the bigs, especially when they didn’t even get 30 IP in AAA to prepare.
Cain was a C+ last year, and again a pretty solid one, above three other C+ guys in the system, including Watson who’s now a decent major leaguer, and Kingham who’s now a B-. Again, I’m curious what he did to drop half a grade. His statistical performance was pretty good in the SAL, though the RA was a run higher than the ERA. I know he lost velo in the second half; is that why you dropped him? If so, are you hearing concerns that it’s a serious issue rather than just a dead arm type of thing (he did pitch almost 60 more innings this year than in 2010)?
some points
I’m bucking consensus on Grossman. I like him more than a lot of other people do. Interestingly the reports on his tools have gotten worse as he proceeds in pro ball, even when his performance gets better. Unusual dichotomy.
Locke I think might have been a notch over-rated last year. My opinion about him really hasn’t changed much. Cain I’m concerned because while his numbers are OK, his velocity was reportedly down and I’ve gotten a negative impression about his mechanics from a trusted source.
by John Sickels on Dec 24, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
One point about Grossman that I tangentially raised in another thread is that his breakout this year came in fairly dubious hitting environments. The AFL is obviously a drastic hitters’ league, and although the FSL is a pitchers’ league, the Bradenton stats make me concerned. They’ve only been playing in that stadium two years, so it’s hard to get a firm grasp on how it plays, but the home/road splits paint a fairly alarming picture. Overall, the Bradenton team has outhit and outscored the rest of the league in each of the last two years, and their home/road splits have been drastic in both years. They’ve also seen some pretty marginal guys put up some pretty good numbers there in the last couple seasons. It’s nothing definitive, but it’s . . . interesting.
It’s worth noting that Grossman hit way better at home than on the road and didn’t substantially outperform marginal guys like Santos, Gonzalez, and Cabrera overall, the latter two being the same age and not repeating the level. The only area he really excelled in was drawing walks, but given the mediocre reports on his tools that seems like the kind of thing that might not carry to higher levels and less forgiving home parks.
But it’s also worth noting that if you’re bucking the consensus on Grossman, I’m doing so too, in the opposite direction. I think I rate him lower than pretty much everyone.
Agree on Grossman
He’s one of the guys I saw this year in the FSL, and I was impressed. Defensively I think he’s probably a good corner OF, and maybe people think a corner OF has to have 30 HR power or something, but he looks to me like a good bet to hit. Strong approach, gets on base, nice swing, good bat speed, and I could see at least average power there down the road.
not more than average power though....
I probably should have said maybe average power. I could maybe see a B- grade there.
cain
If it matters, I’ve gone back and forth on C or C+ for Cain and that grade is under review.
by John Sickels on Dec 24, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
honestly
If you’re hearing bad things about the mechanics, I’d stick with the C. I have him as a C+, but I’m very skeptical of him. The secondaries are not impressive, and he’s mostly been succeeding on the strength of his fastball. That’s not a great recipe going forward anyway, and if there’s real danger that the drop in velo is a mechanical/injury issue then there’s a lot of reason to be pessimistic about him.
cain
FB reportedly in the 80s much of the year. His secondaries and his command aren’t good enough for him to get away with that.
But he’s young.
by John Sickels on Dec 24, 2011 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
I may be alone here, but I think McPherson is a straight B for me. Mid 90s velocity with very good control and so-so secondaries sounds like a Scott Baker type to me. I was much more of a fan of Baker’s than most when he was coming up, so perhaps that’s why I like McPherson so much.
Just
one source, but BA is really high on McPherson. I believe they labeled both his curve and change-up plus.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 24, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
cole is $
I would give him an A as well. He is gonna need more time than your average college starter but what a ceiling he has.
Bell
Serious man-crush on Bell… He might be my Dave hitter from the last draft (regardless of position). I think I had him like #10 overall…
-peter
by PeterF on Dec 24, 2011 7:34 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions
I had him higher than that
And agree with John’s aggressive grading there. Bell could be special.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
I don't really agree with the Cole grade
A straight grade A seems a bit optimistic even compared to popular opinion, and I’ve established that I’m lower on Cole than most.
Other differences. Marte, I would put on the weaker side of grade B, or maybe even strong B-. Grossman is a B-. Sanchez jumps over Allie and is still a B-. It feels like C+ is overreacting and dinging him slightly too much.
No other notable points of disagreement that I can see. Thanks for your work John!
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
Justification for a B- on Marte?
In his first full season, Marte just slugged .500 at Double-A and posted an .870 OPS as a center fielder with elite defense. He did that with limited time in A ball and while coming off of a broken hamate bone playing in a home park that favors pitchers.
He also significantly cut down his strikeout rate, while hitting 58 XBH at an age-appropriate level.
Obviously it’s just one man’s opinion, but Jason Parks tweeted that he was told Marte’s ceiling is Gutierrez’s defense and Starlin Castro’s offense, while playing center field. Argue all you want about ceilings and likelihood of reaching that ceiling, but it seems to me that anybody who has that type of ceiling, and produces strong numbers in the upper levels of the minors, has to be considered an excellent prospect.
People
Are really scared of his plate discipline.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 25, 2011 10:54 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
I'm torn between B and B-
My reasoning for being lower on him than many people is that his walk to strikeout ratio was awful last year, and he was already 22, so it’s not like he is an especially young prospect with tons of time to improve. His slugging looked good but it was more on the basis of an unsustainable .332 batting average—his contact rate was okay, but certainly not “.300 hitter in the majors” good. My concern with him is that his poor plate approach will mean he cannot hit for average in the majors, and without hitting for average, he would probably be a bench player.
Maybe his defense could salvage that, and people have said his defense is spectacular, but I’ve heard conflicting reports from others who’ve seen him, saying he struggles with inconsistency. Defensive metrics would seem to suggest that he’s been good but not great in the minors—I barely place any stock in those but it does tip the scale more toward skepticism on my part.
All of that said I guess I’m leaning more toward B right now. But certainly not borderline B+ from my perspective.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
Not sure
what sources you’ve seen question Marte’s defense but I haven’t seen anything close to that. He can absolutely fly, has good instincts and has a great throwing arm. Obviously there are some concerns about his K:BB rates but I’m not convinced that they are dispositive. The walk rates are frustratingly low. He really is the type of player that would be much safer even if he could boost his walk rate to 6%. Having said that, Marte has cut his K rate every season that he has played in the states and he has hit over .300 each of those seasons. While I can’t imagine he’ll ever be a 10% BB -10% K guy, I don’t think it’s out of the question to see the K% drop to about 15% this year which could put him more in the Carl Crawford mold. Combined with his defense, that’s a really great player.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
I too am concerned about the BB:K rate, but one thing to keep in mind is that Marte is a pretty inexperienced 22 year-old. Injuries have limited him to fewer than 1100 PA over the last three years, and he got a late start, not signing until he was 18 or coming to the states until he was 20. When he came to the states, he essentially skipped short-season ball altogether. Despite the limited playing time and excelerated promotion schedule, he made a really impressive improvement last year. Jumping from A+ to AA while also cutting your K rate 25% is pretty nifty. He’s still a free swinger, but reports are that he made pretty significant improvements in pitch recognition. All of which is to say that I’m more optimistic that he can continue to improve as a hitter than I would be if he were an average 22-year-old with a 5:1 K:BB ratio in AA.
That said, the discipline is worrisome and I agree that the defense is probably somewhat overhyped at this point. I could easily see a B/B- grade. I have him as a B myself, and not on the B+ borderline.
Unsustainable?
What is your reasoning when you say that it’s unsustainable? His lowest batting average at any level (albeit in limited times) is .312, so he clearly is able to collect hits with frequency. In addition to that, the lack of walks is mitigated by Marte’s outstanding speed, which leads to frequent infield hits and turn bloops into XBHs.
His BABIP looks extremely high this season, coming in at .390. But that also qualifies as the lowest BABIP he’s posted at any level, and PiratesProspects.com has posted an article some time ago that argued Marte would not need to walk much because of this apparently sustainable phenomenon. Additionally, his K-Rate dropped nearly 6% as well, which has to be encouraging.
I guess I just don’t see what’s not to like about a guy who is putting up excellent offensive numbers at a position where offensive skills are at a premium, while also playing excellent defense. His game appears to be trending upwards in every facet.
Orem likes Marte. A B/B- grade is nothing to sneeze at.
That said, a ~.400 BAbip is not sustainable. Unless he continues cutting down on his Ks, he’s going to struggle to hit .300 in the majors, even if he can sustain an elite BAbip there.
At what point is an anomaly accepted?
Marte has now had a BABIP of nearly .400 at every level as he enters AAA this season. How long until it becomes accepted that he his skill set allows him to sustain that average? This isn’t meant to be snarky or anything, it’s an honest question.
When someone sustains a .400 BAbip at the major league level I will start to believe that it’s possible to sustain a .400 BAbip at the major league level. That’s not snark either. No one’s ever been able to do that in history, and only the very best BAbip guys can even sustain .350. I think we know from his performance in the minors that he has a special BAbip talent, but I don’t think we can infer from his minor league numbers that he’ll be an all-time great BAbip guy.
Pretty much this
The minor league performance makes it easy to project him as a high BABIP guy, but no one posts BABIPs that high over an extended time in the majors. Part of the reason its so high in the minors is lesser defenders and lesser stuff from pitchers.
The skill set you talk about
good contact abilities, excellent speed, good line drive rates are probably best displayed by Ichiro Suzuki (who also rarely walks). Ichiro’s career BAbip is .351 so it’s pretty crazy to think Marte can consistently hit in the .400 range. It’s not that Marte can’t be a player who puts up a higher than normal BAbip but to think he can blow past a guy like Ichiro is a pretty shaky proposition.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
I like Francisco Peguero of the Giants as a comparison for Starling Marte prospect-wise. They’re pretty similar biologically and statistically with Marte having a bit more power, a slightly higher walk propensity, and lots more arm strength. I think a B+ to B grade is appropriate for Marte and a B to B- is appropriate for Peguero.
Cole
The popular opinion on Cole seems a bit absurd in its pessimism. What people say when they criticize him is stuff like “he might only be a #3 starter” or “I could see him never living up to his stuff like A.J. Burnett.” But #3 starters and A.J. Burnetts are really valuable players. Despite minor problems with his command, mechanics, performance, changeup, etc. (which really are all pretty minor problems), he’s still very, very likely to end up as a decent major league starter (barring injury). If he’s very likely to be a solid regular and has ace potential, how is he not a straight A? I guess I could see A- if you’re very conservative, but I don’t think there’s any question that a straight A is fair.
Of course, if you believe there’s a good chance he might move to the bullpen, or flame out entirely, or only ever be a #5 starter, or get seriously injured, then I can see questioning the straight A, but again I think such an opinion would be almost absurdly pessimistic. You just don’t see guys with strong builds, 100 MPH heat, a plus slider, a plus changeup, and good control fail entirely (again, barring injury), even if their command isn’t great.
by epoc on Dec 25, 2011 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But #3 starters and A.J. Burnetts are really valuable players.
the problem is the adverb there. #3 starters are valuable, but they’re not THAT valuable.
by JoelGuzman'sScout on Dec 26, 2011 4:00 AM EST up reply actions
Compared to what?
Compared to me, of course they are. Compared to #1 starters, you’re right
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 26, 2011 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
Compared to a replacement starter.
At least it seems obvious that is what he means to me.
by auclairkeithbc on Dec 26, 2011 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
Having great stuff doesn't mean automatic number three starter
Many guys with fantastic stuff have wound up as only back end starters or bullpen arms or even not good enough for either (but keep getting chances due to their raw potential).
Pitchability is extremely important. I think a big element of the way I view pitching has to do with my time watching Felipe Paulino, who I would characterize as having three plus pitches, including a 95mph fastball which touches triple digits and sustains its velocity late into games. Somehow his results have never lined up to where either scouting or advanced metrics say they should. He even strikes guys out and doesn’t walk them very much, but still year after year his ERA has been inflated.
I’m optimistic he can be more valuable than he has been so far, and his improvement with Kansas City was promising. But realistically, his career results to this point have been terrible, and not only has he been bad to mediocre as a starting pitcher, he has failed in the bullpen even worse.
That concern about Cole’s floor is what makes me so down on him relative to popular opinion. I don’t yet buy that his worst case is middle rotation or closer. I think he’ll make it to the majors barring career-ending injury because people always give guys like Cole a chance, but I do not think is very close to being ML-ready right now, which is a bit concerning from a 21 year old college arm, and enough for me to knock him down just into the B+ range.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
While
it might not be enough to explain the ERA over 5, Paulino always walks 4 guys per 9. Even in the minors, his ERA was probably higher than it should have been every year that he walked more than 3.9 guys/9. the only year that he cut it below 3, his ERA was also below 3. My problem with knocking Cole down to a B+ is that it puts (IMO) too much stock into what happens if everything goes wrong. Of course he might never pan out as a starter. I think there are plenty of examples of “safe” draft picks that never pan out for one reason or another. The reason why I, personally, am very high on Cole is that I feel like even when his results don’t match his abilities, it tends to be limited to a game or two as opposed to an extended stretch. He seems to have a short memory regarding those lousy starts.
The Rising Star game was a perfect example of production not matching talent. I thought his stuff looked pretty impressive at times in that game but he still gave up 5 runs in 2/3 (IIRC) and got hit HARD. Cole seems like a guy that might get lit up every now and then but he is dominant enough in the rest of his starts to make those bumps more palatable. It could prevent him from ever winning an ERA crown, but not from being a guy you’d want to have the ball every 5th day.
by KentuckyPirate on Dec 26, 2011 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
okay
But say, for the sake of argument, that Paulino is a good comp for Cole’s floor. How many minor leaguer’s have that kind of floor? Only the elite ones. And how many have Cole’s ceiling? Only the elite ones.
And then bear in mind too that Paulino’s been a basically average pitcher according to xFIP and FIP. It’s a small sample still, so the peripherals should mean more than the ERA.
Personally, I don’t think Paulino’s a very good comp for Cole, though. Paulino has much more trouble throwing strikes, and even if you think his changeup is plus, he hardly ever threw it before this year, which probably had a lot to do with the horrible platoon splits that were a big part of his problem before this season. Cole’s a different type of pitcher. He mixes three plus pitches with good control, and shows the ability to use different K pitches to get both righties and lefties out.
I'd like to add a couple things too
a) I wasn’t trying to draw a direct comp between Cole and Paulino, Cole is a better prospect now than Paulino ever has been.
b) I think it’s Paulino’s slider and curve which are plus pitches (or at least they play that way a lot of the time), not his changeup, which is just average.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
I think it’s Cole’s changeup that really makes him an A prospect. That’s the pitch that ensures he’s going to be a solid starter, IMO. He’s not going to have to move to the bullpen or suffer poor platoon splits with a changeup like the one he’s got. He might not end up an ace, but he’ll be a decent starter at least.
cole
I know a scout who thinks Cole will end up as a number three starter even with his great stuff. While that is a minority opinion, it is NOT uncommon. My Grade A is my own take and may actually be a bit higher than industry consensus if you averaged what everyone thinks into one grade.
But I don’t just duplicate industry consensus.
This is weird. If you use a rough guideline as #1 = 5+ WAR (Top 15 on Fangraphs in 2011),
“#2” = 3.5+ WAR (22 in 2011), #3 = 2.5+ WAR (23 in 2011), the following #3’s have what I might call “great stuff”:
Brandon Morrow
Michael Pineda
Jordan Zimmermann
Mat Latos
Javier Vazquez
Yovanni Gallardo
Max Scherzer
With all these guys, I’d be surprised if this was their best year unless they get hurt, which they might. In the case of Vazquez he’s already done a lot better. Going down further you get:
AJ Burnett
Chad Billingsley
I’m just not seeing cases where guys with “great stuff” who will never be anything more than 3-ish WAR pitchers or below, unless they get hurt or have to move to the pen. Who am I missing?
Going back further in time, here’s a list of “qualified” starting pitchers since 1990 in the Top 50 in Career K% and the highest career ERA-:
Scott Sanders 119
Brandon Morrow 111
Bud Norris 111
Oliver Perez 110
Edinson Volquez 108
Jonathan Sanchez 104
John Patterson 102
Hideo Nomo 101
Francisco Liriano 99
Scott Kazmir 97
Javier Vazquez 96
Scott Kazmir 97
Javier Vazquez 96
Daisuke Matsuzaka 94
Mat Latos 94
I’m seeing a bunch of guys who either had terrible control, injury problems, high peaks where they were #1 or #2, and Scott Sanders and Bud Norris.
I don’t see where you can really predict someone with “great stuff” to be doomed to #3 status with any degree of confidence
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 25, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
i'm not sure what you're trying to say
but what’s wrong with saying a prospect with good stuff will probably end up as a guy who usually gets between 2-3 WAR (assuming health) with some years in the 4-5 WAR range and some years in the 0-1 WAR range? as like, a 75th percentile outcome?
by blue bulldog on Dec 25, 2011 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
Because that hardly ever happens. Who on the above lists fits that description?
Maybe Javier Vazquez?
Usually the guys you’re describing don’t have “great stuff”, guys like Pedro Astacio, Ryan Dempster, Ted Lilly, Terry Mulholland, Randy Wolf, Steve Trachsel, Jon Garland, Jeff Suppan.
What brings the guys with “great stuff” down is almost always lack of control (Oliver Perez) or injury (Francisco Liriano). They almost never have several healthy years of 2-3 WAR and the occasional 4-5 WAR season.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2011 3:26 AM EST up reply actions
Yovanni Gallardo
I believe Gallardo is still considered the #1 starter on the Brewers’ staff, with Greinke and then Marcum following, so Marcum would be the #3.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
he means #3 by WAR, not by rotation slot
by AndrewTorrez on Dec 26, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
Yes I would count Cole Hamels as a #1 not a #3
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2011 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure I understand your argument
That’s a pretty long list of guys with great stuff who never became aces, no?
by AndrewTorrez on Dec 26, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
These scouts say he's got "great stuff" but will be a "#3 starter"
When I looked it up I found hardly anyone that has “great stuff” but is a consistent 2-3.5 WAR starter. The people who are consistent #3 starters tend not to have great stuff.
So I’m wondering why these scouts would say that.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2011 6:28 PM EST up reply actions
Serious
Command/Control issues ala bad A.J. Burnett and Edwin Jackson.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 26, 2011 6:54 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Those are very good starters to be the third best on your team
Jackson has been #32, 37 and 38 in fWAR for pitchers over the past 3 years. That’s more like a #2 than a #3. He’s been walking fewer than the average for his league each of those years — his Age 26-28 years.
Between 2002 and 2008, Burnett had 3 healthy seasons and finished 15th, 11th and 8th in WAR in those years. If you take the Top 20 as being of “all-star” caliber, he would have qualified every time. His problems have mostly been with injuries.
If these scouts are saying Cole isn’t going to be Pedro Martinez, but rather will be Jackson or Burnett, that’s still a very good pitcher in his prime when healthy.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2011 2:08 AM EST up reply actions
People in Pittsburgh
get a little skittish when a #1 pick is described as having #3 starter potential…just sayin.
"I know a scout who thinks Cole will end up as a number three starter"
I know more than one.
He was the first overall pick in a really deep pitching draft so it’s hard to argue with that, but I believe that was more a rep pick than anything.
I can see easily a half dozen first round pitchers who will have better careers.
Just out of curiosity
which 6 would you suggest? As a Bucs fan, I wanted Bundy, and I assume he would be on your list.
Taillon's going to be so good it's going to be ridiculous
I can’t honestly say I’d take any current minor league pitcher over him, and that includes Moore and Teheran.
Why?
Serious question. When you’ve actually given your reasoning, I find your posts quite informative. Without the reasoning it just feels like you disagree almost for disagreement’s sake.
As a high schooler, he had the best stuff in his draft.
He has a plus fastball, plus curve, decent slider. His change isn’t as developed, but he really didn’t need it against the competition he was facing.
He throws everything from the same arm slot and release point, which is really not something you see in an 18 year old.
He had some trouble in instructs (2010) repeating his delivery but that was attributed to a growth spurt and he was off-kilter for awhile, there were no such concerns last season, especially as the year wore on.
I would guess part of John’s reasoning ranking Cole first is he’s closer to the majors as a college pick.
If projecting ML success is a part of it, though, Taillon is first, and it’s really not close.
Cole wasn’t even the best pitcher on his own team.
confidence interval
Cole will be ready sooner and has a better changeup. Both are in the Top Ten of pitching prospects overall.
I do have to question your rating of Taillon ahead of Matt Moore though.
by John Sickels on Dec 26, 2011 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
"I do have to question your rating of Taillon ahead of Matt Moore though."
Fair enough.
Big picture.
Moore’s almost three years older, is lefthanded, and has already pitched in the major leagues.
Obviously today you take Moore.
As established major leaguers down the road?
Not so sure.
moore etc
It is harder to find lefties with his combination of stuff and command. I have seen more guys like Taillon than I have seen like Moore.
No knock on Taillon. But Moore is very, very special
by John Sickels on Dec 26, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
+1
I agree with that..to a point.
I scouted Brian Matusz when he was in high school, they are very similar.
I’ve never seen anyone like Taillon, especially as a high schooler.
He’s more advanced at the same age than Strasburg.
stras...
Well….LOTS of guys were more advanced in high school than Strasburg. His blossoming in college to the extent he did was highly unusual.
by John Sickels on Dec 26, 2011 10:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
Stras is an odd one to pick as a HS comp for anyone. Not sure how Matusz and Moore are similar besides handedness. I saw Matusz several times in college and there is not, nor has there ever been, any comparison in terms of stuff to Moore. Matusz is a four-pitch guy who rarely pitches within 4-mph of where Moore sits with his FB. His velo certainly tops out in a respectable range when he’s healthy, but Moore has far more power, and has two clear plus to plus-plus pitches, while it’s hard to argue that Matusz has even one.
by charles wallace on Dec 27, 2011 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough
I don’t agree, but I can at least understand your thinking.
crystal ball?
How do you know Taillon is going to be “so good it’s going to be ridiculous”? Soooooooo many pitchers had a similar profile but fizzled out. I agree that Taillon has all the makings of a legit ace and consistent Cy Young-winning pitcher, but he also has all the makings of a pitcher who can get AA hitters out.
We need to wait and see.
by JoelGuzman'sScout on Dec 26, 2011 4:03 AM EST up reply actions
"How do you know Taillon is going to be "so good it’s going to be ridiculous"?"
Stuff, makeup, etc.
Of course no one has a crystal ball, but he’s as projectable as anyone I’ve seen at his age.
Looking at prior Sickels list in the past
The Pirates have improved greatly compared to 4 years ago. It’s unlikely anyone in the Top 10 in this current list will lose their rookie eligibility save for a few catastrophic injuries in the big leagues. The Top 6 are as good as anyone in the big leagues and potentially could be one of the best minor systems next year. The fact that the Pirates could potentially have 4 draft picks in the Top 60 coupled with breakouts from Osuna, Holmes, Dodson and the resurgence of ZVR, Cain, Sanchez, and Allie will make our system loooooooooooooooooaded.
by BadAndy on Dec 26, 2011 11:08 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Hopefully
you are right.
I also like Dilson Herrera (link here for info). I hope he plays stateside this coming year. Small guy, but I think he could become a special one.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 28, 2011 2:14 AM EST up reply actions

by 














