Project Prospect 2011 Top 100 List

I talked to Spence in detail about his injury. I don’t see him as an above-average injury risk going forward.

I really like the way he pitches and competes. He doesn’t throw anything that doesn’t move. I see him as a potential No. 3-4. I realize that his kind of velocity and limited upside don’t excite many people. But I think he could shred through the minors and quickly surface as a big-league arm. There’s plenty of value in that.

It should also be noted that I haven’t seen Spence pitch since college. I made a strong push for him in our top 100 after talking to a scout who saw him in instructs last fall and LOVED him.

We published a piece on Tekotte vs. Tate last week (http://projectprospect.com/article/2011/02/03/blake-tekotte-vs-donovan-tate). In it, one of our must trusted evaluators — he’s a veteran front office member who has been doing this for a long time — had this to say about Tekotte:

Tekotte’s instincts, quickness and plus speed in center let him get good jumps and reads the ball well. He is aggressive on his routes and on the base paths. He’s sound mechanically at the plate, and shows good natural pull side loft. I think Tekotte could be a solid-average Major League center fielder and top-of-the-order bat with plus speed.

Tekotte hasn’t developed as quickly as some college guys. But he was a very good player for Miami and I think he’s been overlooked in the minors. He could surface as an average big leaguer as soon as 2012-2013. We’ve been high on him for years. I thought Veteran Scout and some of the other scouts we talked to would talk us down on him. A lot of people prefer going for higher-upside guys, but Tekotte could be someone who surfaces as a solid big-leaguer without ever getting universal praise by the prospect community.

Ha, thanks for the Spence correction.

but it was from behind 2B…haha.
I like Emaus there. The best sleeper in the Rule 5 draft this year.

but i do disagree with Harper not being a 10. I mean, he might not reach it, but it’s fair to assume if all breaks right he has HOF potential. I do think they should separate the hitters and pitchers somehow though, as judging them is TOTALLY an apples/oranges thing

I don’t have a problem with Adam and the rest of the guys defending their rankings or thinking “Player X will be much better than you think!” but this part of floor and ceiling in relation to the rankings doesn’t make any sense to me at the moment.

a slightly above average regular

Really ?

I think most of us, even the ones who don’t like Sano as much as Others would all agree Sano’s cieling is at least a “B or B”+ PP!

I went back and forth on Harper’s ceiling. I had him as HOF ceiling initially. A case can be made that he has that kind of upside. I just didn’t feel comfortable going that far with him.

Did you mean "how any pitcher’s floor isn’t above-average regular?

I set up a formula to auto-populate the risk levels based on the ceiling and floor numbers. I decided to include them because I had them already, but it is a little busy, isn’t it? I can leave them out next time.

Pitcher and hitters aren’t apples to apples, you’re right. The reason I haven’t ever been high on the pitcher and hitter lists is because when teams draft they look at hitters and pitchers at the same time. It would simplify thing to separate them, though.

It’s a valid opinion at this point.

They his ceiling as an average regular to above average (slightly in this case?), and a low floor, I’m surprised they had him that high to begin with.

Pitchers should be viewed with high inherent risk factors. Doesn’t mean he WILL bust an arm, just that nobody should be surprised if he does.

if you think his ceiling is that of a back end reliver, he wouldn’t be anyy more valuable than an average regular.

all pitchers should have a 0… IMHO

We have write-ups on every guy from our top 100 in the Digital Prospect Guide…video too.

You can get it here: http://projectprospect.com/article/2010/12/13/2011-dpg-now-on-sale

I’d be happy to give anyone who’s interested a free sample. Just shoot me an email at adamf@projectprospect.com.

I was surprised to see, for example, no Chris Dwyer. Seems from a ceiling/floor perspective he’s at least as valuable as Emaus. Several others that I would have preferred over several of these guys as well.

Ryan Adams over David Adams if I had to pick a 2B named Adams in the AL East.

Pineda is fairly high risk high reward, as most pitchers are. He’s also not a completed project yet. I’ve found some rankings of him to be interesting, to say the least, considering his issues with left handed hitters still. He’s coming along nicely and given another year removed from injury and showing much better command of his change up, I’d put him back in the 10 to 25 range. But 56 is defensible.

a good way to rate prospects. It’s all about projecting and speculating, isn’t it?

they can’t put everything that goes into their decision making into this format or chart
With that said I applaud their effort

just don’t love the list

I think he has the potential to be a well above average second baseman (I don’t think his defense there will ever be good enough for him to be a star). But I don’t like him that high, and the reason is pretty obvious. He has had one injury after another since entering pro ball. If you could guarantee his health, he would probably make my top 50.

Agreed 100% with Jeff that,

“If you could guarantee his health, he would probably make my top 50.”

In spite of that, the only reason he made my list is because hitter injuries =/= pitcher injuries and I don’t think Haven has Fernado’s chronic injury issues.

I think the expectations for him were so high that now people are writing him off because they know he’ll never become the player he was once touted to be.

I still like his power potential a lot. Like a wrote up earlier this off-season, I’d strongly consider moving him to first base in an effort to keep him on the field more. Then just see what happens with his bat. He could become an above-average big-league hitter. He’s still only 22 years old and has proven that he can do damage against Triple-A pitchers.

Dee Gordon probably isn’t on this list because he proved far more talented than Ivan Dejesus, Jr.

I’m not sure that is fair. His legs are far thiner than Wallace’s legs, the body types are not very similar.

ugh i hate my keyboard

The floors/ceilings were meant to establish the range of outcomes that we see as most likely. But you guys are right. We shouldn’t expect you to be able to read our minds and guess our logic.

That’s what the DPG is for, that’s what our top 100 chat (http://projectprospect.com/article/2011/02/06/2011-top-100-prospect-chat) is for, and that’s why I’m here posting right now.

My hope is that we can provide enough information to help people better understand the prospects they’re interested in. Our lists give our take, which I’m well aware is vastly different from most media members and prospect fans. But they are just one page of HTML.

I totally agree with his rationale. Probably OF/Questionable Bat.

I disagree. If they see him as a defensive wizard, a la Michael Bourn, I totally see their point.

(and there’s a case for it, since as a ballplayer he’s a pretty good athlete right now) then there’s really no reason he would appear high risk to you either. IF you felt that way about his bat, then he pretty much is what he is right now – a good glove.

Opinions change. You talk to different people. The big boys (BA, BP) do the same thing… You’re always trying to get more info and analyze each player better. You should ask their rationale before you judge this too harshly. Prospects are volatile by nature. Different people may have had more input here, too.

From our top 100 chat:

The elbow injury still scares me. And watching his arm action, I’m not a fan of how his lower half and upper body kind of work against each other. Pineda’s stuff is among the best in the minors. He’s near MLB-ready, too. So I pushed my health reservations aside with him initially. Then I talked to two scouts who had the same mechanical concerns with him as I do, and I decided to back off.

I don’t understand why these two get lumped together so much. They’re on the same team and played the same position last year…it doesn’t go much further than that.

Realize that Davidson’s lower half is similar to Chris Parmelee’s. He’s not Brett Wallace thick, but he’s close. I see both Davidson and Borchering as first basemen long term. I’m high on Borchering’s power potential and Steve Carter loves his swing. The primary reason Borchering made this list is because Steve REALLY pushed for him.

I saw Davidson play last year and left with more hesitation with him than I entered.

I realize that we take a very different approach from what people are used to. More than what kind of reactions we get this week, my focus is on what this list will look like 10 years from now.

How do you define realistic?

And it definitely adds something to the prospect discussion that’s backed by real information and analysis by scouts. However, I also wonder about the use of ceiling.

I think PP rarely uses ceiling like I think a lot of people intuitively understand it – the best case scenario outcome if basically everything falls into place for the player. It doesn’t have to be extreme, like “if he fixes his mechanics and gains 4 mph, he’ll have a Randy Johnson ceiling”, but should still lean more toward the somewhat unlikely, but reasonable chance that he will maximize his potential.

I think that maybe only 10-20 percent of prospects ever really approach what I’d classify as their ceiling. On the other hand, I think PP divides ceiling and floor so that maybe 1/3 reach their ceiling, and maybe 1/3 fall to their floor. As long as you understand that and read the lists in that contexts, they are valuable.

However, I’d say that making a “ceiling” rating that perhaps 10% or more of the prospects will inevitably outproduce kind of bastardizes the term “ceiling”. What they seem to really be doing is taking “absolute ceiling” and then filtering it through their personal view on the “most likely outcome” before they come up with the number they put in the Ceiling column. That’s the only way you can explain rating Mejia’s ceiling as if he were a RP when clearly there is a pretty significant non-zero chance that he becomes a successful starter.

I’m not saying that information like “most likely big league upside given what we believe about this prospect” is worthless. It’s just not what I’d call a player’s ceiling.

“Brian-Roberts-on-crystal-meth” wins

This is exactly what I was thinking after reading through this list.

Hamilton may be more of a Luis-Castillo-on-meth player (there’s still tons of value in that), but I agree with your other comments.

For instance if somebody wanted to say that Corey Patterson and Jon Rauch were highly overrated, they’d be called crazy at the time too.

Nobody is ever going to be 100% right, but certainly PP is taking a chance in order to make a name for itself.

Lincoln had this to say about Jenkins last night:

The Cards got Tyrell Jenkins with the last pick of the sandwich round. If you love upside, Jenkins is your guy. Fantastic athlete. Great arm strength. Just oozes potential.

And this on Bucknel:

The Rangers also got a kid named Cody Bucknel in the second round. Smaller kid. There’s some Lincecum in his delivery, above-average fastball and one of the best curve’s in the high school class.

Has Buckel as a breakout prospect…I’m becoming more and more intrigued

I think PP rarely uses ceiling like I think a lot of people intuitively understand it – the best case scenario outcome if basically everything falls into place for the player. It doesn’t have to be extreme, like "if he fixes his mechanics and gains 4 mph, he’ll have a Randy Johnson ceiling", but should still lean more toward the somewhat unlikely, but reasonable chance that he will maximize his potential.

I think that maybe only 10-20 percent of prospects ever really approach what I’d classify as their ceiling. On the other hand, I think PP divides ceiling and floor so that maybe 1/3 reach their ceiling, and maybe 1/3 fall to their floor. As long as you understand that and read the lists in that contexts, they are valuable.

However, I’d say that making a "ceiling" rating that perhaps 10% or more of the prospects will inevitably outproduce kind of bastardizes the term "ceiling". What they seem to really be doing is taking "absolute ceiling" and then filtering it through their personal view on the "most likely outcome" before they come up with the number they put in the Ceiling column. That’s the only way you can explain rating Mejia’s ceiling as if he were a RP when clearly there is a pretty significant non-zero chance that he becomes a successful starter.

I’m not saying that information like "most likely big league upside given what we believe about this prospect" is worthless. It’s just not what I’d call a player’s ceiling.