Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Kevin Goldstein's BP top 101 Prospects


Well, there's one good thing about waking up at 5 A.M. on a Monday, and this is it.

2012 Top 101 Prospects
1. Matt Moore, LHP, Rays
2. Bryce Harper, OF, Nationals
3. Mike Trout, OF, Angels
4. Jurickson Profar, SS, Rangers
5. Julio Teheran, RHP, Braves
6.Dylan Bundy, RHP, Orioles
7. Jesus Montero, C, Mariners
8. Manny Machado, SS, Orioles
9. Gerrit Cole, RHP, Pirates
10. Shelby Miller, RHP, Cardinals
11. Trevor Bauer, RHP, Diamondbacks
12. Miguel Sano, 3B, Twins
13. Jameson Taillon, RHP, Pirates
14. Taijuan Walker, RHP, Mariners
15. Jacob Turner, RHP, Tigers
16. Travis D'Arnaud, C, Blue Jays
17. Francisco Lindor, SS, Indians
18. Gary Brown, OF, Giants
19. Wil Myers, OF, Royals
20. Nolan Arenado, 3B, Rockies
21. Tyler Skaggs, LHP, Diamondbacks
22. Billy Hamilton, SS, Reds
23. Oscar Taveras, OF, Cardinals
24. Devin Mesoraco, C, Reds
25. Matt Harvey, RHP, Mets
26. Anthony Rendon, 3B, Nationals
27. Bubba Starling, OF, Royals
28. Jake Marisnick, OF, Blue Jays
29. Manny Banuelos, LHP, Yankees
30. Zack Wheeler, RHP, Mets
31. Carlos Martinez, RHP, Cardinals
32. Xander Bogaerts, SS, Red Sox
33. Christian Yelich, OF, Marlins
34. Drew Pomeranz, LHP, Rockies
35. Danny Hultzen, LHP, Mariners
36. Martin Perez, LHP, Rangers
37. Archie Bradley, RHP, Diamondbacks
38. Yasmani Grandal, C, Padres
39. Michael Choice, OF, Athletics
40. Gary Sanchez, C, Yankees
41. Randall Delgado, RHP, Braves
42. Luis Heredia, RHP, Pirates
43. Josh Bell, OF, Pirates
44. Brett Jackson, OF, Cubs
45. Mike Olt, 3B, Rangers
46. Brandon Jacobs, OF, Red Sox
47. Jake Odorizzi, RHP, Royals
48. Jarred Cosart, RHP, Astros
49. George Springer, OF, Astros
50. Jarrod Parker, RHP, Athletics
51. Trevor May, RHP, Phillies
52. Rymer Liriano, OF, Padres
53. Robbie Erlin, RHP, Padres
54. Daniel Norris, LHP, Blue Jays
55. Will Middlebrooks, 3B, Red Sox
56. Starling Marte, OF, Pirates
57. Jedd Gyorko, 3B, Padres
58. Cory Spangenberg, 2B, Padres
59. James Paxton, LHP, Mariners
60. A.J. Cole, RHP, Athletics
61. Wilin Rosario, C, Rockies
62. Arodys Vizcaino, RHP, Braves
63. Dellin Betances, RHP, Yankees
64. Brad Peacock, RHP, Athletics
65. Hak-Ju Lee, SS, Rays
66. Javier Baez, SS, Cubs
67. Jean Segura, SS, Angels
68. Anthony Gose, OF, Blue Jays
69. Matt Adams, 1B, Cardinals
70. Zach Lee, RHP, Dodgers
71. Nick Castellanos, 3B, Tigers
72. Sonny Gray, RHP, Athletics
73. Jonathan Singleton, 1B, Astros
74. Joe Wieland, RHP, Padres
75. Anthony Rizzo, 1B, Cubs
76. Robbie Grossman, OF, Pirates
77. Neil Ramirez, RHP, Rangers
78. Casey Kelly, RHP, Padres
79. Chad Bettis, RHP, Rockies
80. Jose Fernandez, RHP, Marlins
81. Addison Reed, RHP, White Sox
82. John Lamb, LHP, Royals
83. Cheslor Cuthbert, 3B, Royals
84. Jessie Biddle, LHP, Phillies
85. Jonathan Schoop, INF, Orioles
86. Yonder Alonso, 1B, Padres
87. Eddie Rosario, OF/2B, Twins
88. Kolten Wong, 2B, Cardinals
89. Jeurys Familia, RHP, Mets
90. Joe Benson, OF, Twins
91. Matt Purke, LHP, Nationals
92. Wily Peralta, RHP, Brewers
93. Noah Syndergaard, RHP, Blue Jays
94. Austin Hedges, C, Padres
95. Joe Ross, RHP, Padres
96. Derek Norris, C, Athletics
97. Tim Wheeler, OF, Rockies
98. Ryan Lavarnway, C, Red Sox
99. Mason Williams, OF, Yankees
100. Grant Green, OF, Athletics
101. Jorge Alfaro, C, Rangers

My intial reactions:

1. Surprised to see Sano so high. I know KG loves him, but he does have significant flaws and is so far away from the majors still. Also surprised to see Starling and Marisnick so high, but then again KG definitely puts a premium on upside over major league readiness. Still, the Lindor grade really is shocking (any BP readers that get that joke, high five)

2. Good to see that KG gives Olt the prospect love he deserves. Also like his only semi-conservative ranking of Banuelos, and proper respect for Choice, Sanchez, D'Arnaud.

3. Very surprised to see him rank Bundy over Bauer. That is certainly a bold minority opinion, but I can certainly see it coming true. He really doesn't seem too enthused on Hultzen or Paxton though.

4. Nick Franklin was a rather surprising omission. He's never been a fan of him much due to his size and position questions, but I still think he belongs in the top 100. He seems rather bearing on Hak-Ju as well, though I don't disagree with that.

5. Some guys I did not expect to be as high as they were ranked (not that I necessarily disagree): Daniel Norris, Sonny Gray, Cory Spangenberg, John Lamb, Kolten Wong, Jake Odorizzi

Comment 183 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Hmmm He's a bit down on the M's lefties....

But i have no problem with it.

I think the biggest suprise for me is Brandon Jacobs, i have him behind say…Mason Williams…
Also i’m not as high on Jesse Biddle or Robbie Elrin for that matter.
The Franklin ommision is nothing unspeakable. Its fine by me really.

Daniel Norris did catch my eye a bit too…

my biggest ommision though, is well, probably Drew Hutchinson.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 13, 2012 7:04 AM EST reply actions  

good point

Though I expected him to be down on Hutch for not liking his fastball much, and caring more about tools than stats in general. But if that’s the case, I agree that I don’t see why he would like Erlin that much.

The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!

by The Congo Hammer on Feb 13, 2012 8:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Biddle

Biddle did improve over the season, finishing with a 1.91 ERA over his last 11 starts. With his size and delivery, and good change and curve, and the fastball at 87-91 this year, he looks like a solid #3 SP along the lines of Jonathan Niese. And scouts do consider him very projectible, the velocity could be back to 90-93 in the future.

I might have him 10 spots lower, but I don’t mind him making the list.

by acerimusdux on Feb 13, 2012 8:06 AM EST up reply actions  

Franklin...

is probably in his 102-110 range. He is his only 4-star prospect so far that didnt make the list. He still has about 8 more Team Top 11 lists to post.

by rhd on Feb 13, 2012 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

also the lefy, Justin Nicolino of the Jays is my other ommission along with Hutchinson

i bet they’re both 100-120 though.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 18, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions  

10 Padres

Something to look forward to.

10 Padres in the top 101 certainly seems encouraging. With that many a couple of them have to make it big (at least average to above average Major leaguers). Right?

I like the two infielders, Spangenberg and Gyorko, but my favorite Padres prospect remains Joe Ross. And I can’t wait to see his progress.

by xam on Feb 13, 2012 7:46 AM EST reply actions  

and both Darnell, Decker are'nt one of them

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 14, 2012 12:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Hamilton over Mesoraco?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Feb 14, 2012 9:18 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree that it's an unpopular opinion

but it’s not untenable. Billy Hamilton’s first few months in low-A were awful, and nearly everyone wrote him off. After that though, his lowest monthly OBP in July, August, or September was .377. He showed a decent idea of the strike zone for a 20-year-old, and made good contact in the second half.

That’s not the reason to like him though. The reason is that Billy Hamilton has 90 speed. Like, literally, 90 speed. He’s going to show fantastic range at SS or CF (if he ends up there), and should be the kind of player that is a legitimate, terrorizing threat on the basepaths. If he can get to first enough times, he will be a very good offensive player. In the second half of 2011, he showed reason to believe that can happen.

Guys like Mesoraco are valuable because they’re surefire major leaguers, and probably pretty good ones. Hamilton’s ceiling though is Willie Wilson as a 60 shortstop (maybe better on both accounts), and that’s a potentially great player. I give Goldstein credit for having the balls to say it.

by PissedMick on Feb 14, 2012 11:40 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

"Guys like Mesoraco are valuable because they’re surefire major leaguers"

I think the argument is that Mesoraco isn’t just a surefire major leaguer (though that’s debatable of course), he’s a surefire major league catcher, where his positional value ups the ante considerably. Solid avg defense with plus hit and power tools for the position is hard to punt in favor of a guy with questions about his ability to make throws from SS whose chief selling point is a chance to set stolen base records. It takes balls because it’s pretty questionable from an objective standpoint.

by charles wallace on Feb 14, 2012 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree it takes balls to stand out from conventional opinion on a guy. However, aren't prospecting opinions relevant primarily because of their subjectivity?

If you want to distill it down to a percentage play, then you’re better off going with the sure thing. I can’t speak for Goldstein, but I would imagine his less-than-popular belief that Hamilton is going to hit is enough to project him as a borderline-elite player on both sides of the ball, and that’s a ceiling Mesoraco (a potential plus-hitter/average defender) doesn’t have.

The funny thing about this to me is that BA, while a little more down on Hamilton’s bat than KG is, lists both Mesoraco and Hamilton as potential 65 players. While Mesoraco’s risk might be slightly-to-significantly lower, it’s not unreasonable for anyone to like one over the other. What is unreasonalbe to me are the idiots who find the guy on the other side of the argument to be worthy of ridicule. Here’s a news flash guys: If you explore the other side of the argument, you might actually learn something.

by PissedMick on Feb 14, 2012 5:41 PM EST up reply actions  

For instance:

In this case, you might learn that after you wrote Billy Hamilton off in June, he hit pretty damn well. If he can start 2012 like he ended 2011, it’s top 25 territory by the end of the year.

by PissedMick on Feb 14, 2012 5:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I wrote Billy Hamilton off in June?

Good to know. What else did I do last year that I’ve forgotten?

by charles wallace on Feb 15, 2012 7:28 AM EST up reply actions  

It wasn't specific to you.

I don’t know you from Adam. Oh, there he is! Hey Adam, what’s up?

by PissedMick on Feb 15, 2012 10:03 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it's fair to say

that use of the general “you” lacked clarity.

by charles wallace on Feb 15, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

not to get into semantics, but ...

“Here’s a news flash guys: If you explore the other side of the argument, you might actually learn something.”

the post was in response to the above quoted comment he made. There is no lack in clarity, it is a 3rd person you. The only lack was you probably didn’t read it correctly or skipped over some of the comments.

by pedrophile on Feb 15, 2012 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Semantics?

It’s a thread. even that comment seems directed toward the last person who posted, which is me. Newsflash, if you respond directly to the ppst above, use of the thrid person you will almost certainly be misconstrued.

by charles wallace on Feb 15, 2012 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

btw

“"Here’s a news flash guys: " This part is referring to plural, therefore the only logical assumption is the “you” is a 3rd person you.

Sure, it’s possible it could be misconstrued. Not sure why you seem to get upset though. Heck, “it’s pretty questionable from an objective standpoint.” ;)

by pedrophile on Feb 15, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I can honestly say

that I have no idea what you’re going on about. But thanks for inserting yourself into the discussion. It’s been essential. lol

by charles wallace on Feb 16, 2012 8:23 AM EST up reply actions  

hahahaha

“thanks for inserting yourself” – I think you did that yourself in this very thread.

Further, it’s very apparent that the 3rd party you is in use because it refers to “guys” which is plural.

by pedrophile on Feb 16, 2012 10:48 AM EST up reply actions  

Pretty sure he was talking about the next post

Which included “In this case, you might learn that after you wrote Billy Hamilton off in June, he hit pretty damn well.”

When I initially read it, I assumed he was saying Charles had written him off during the year.

by nixa37 on Feb 15, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think

that was exactly some quantum leap on my part. It’s neither here nor there. I think ranking Hamilton over Mesoraco is reasonably questionable from an objective standpoint. I’m a Reds fan. I want Billy Hamilton to be awesome. There are questions about whether the throwing can be corrected and whether he’ll get on-base enough to become elite. I don’t think Goldstein’s insane, I just think it’s questionable. It’s a pretty mild divergence.

by charles wallace on Feb 15, 2012 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Are you intentionally skipping the part where Mesoraco plays catcher

and development time for catchers is notoriously slow, playing time is less, and probability of injury is higher?

by pedrophile on Feb 14, 2012 10:00 PM EST up reply actions  

"What is unreasonalbe to me are the idiots who find the guy on the other side of the argument to be worthy of ridicule. "

Where exactly am I ridiculing anyone? Ah, I guess “pretty questionable from an objective standpoint” is scathing upon a re-read. No coming back from that putdown.

by charles wallace on Feb 15, 2012 7:31 AM EST up reply actions  

By one person,

with most comments being pretty reasonable. At most we have one idiot in play here.

by charles wallace on Feb 15, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't take it wrong.

I’m not aiming anything at you. Me replying to your comments is just how the discussion developed. There are many people like the kid above who shit on every opinion that they don’t immediately understand. You’re not necessarily one of them, but they are legion.

by PissedMick on Feb 15, 2012 7:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I know they're out there,

but getting exercised over them while discussing the subject reasonably with a handful of people here is a little confusing. lol

I’ve honestly been surprised at how few people have questioned it. I think he answered one Hamilton question in his BP chat, and it wasn’t even an OMGRANKINGZ! thing. It’s clear that you’re passionate on the subject.

by charles wallace on Feb 16, 2012 8:25 AM EST up reply actions  

That is a big leap though

The only reason not to like the worst prospect in baseball is because we don’t think his bat or glove will play.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 14, 2012 10:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Ha fair enough

My point is that you can’t just glaze over whether someone’s “bat will play.” That is more than half of what defines a prospect…maybe much more than half. To say that someone would be a good prospect if his bat will play, when the main argument against the player is that his bat won’t play, isn’t really saying anything.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 14, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Then you're not understanding the argument.

Goldstein isn’t saying “IF his bat will play”, he’s saying he thinks it will, and that makes Hamilton a very valuable prospect in his eyes. The point is centered in what Goldstein thinks, not in what an argument against Hamilton is.

by PissedMick on Feb 14, 2012 5:27 PM EST up reply actions  

That is a little philosophical

I was just commenting on your post. “The only reason not to like Hamilton as a prospect is if you don’t think his bat will play.” That is only slightly less pointless than saying “The only reason…is if you don’t think his bat or glove will play.”

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 15, 2012 7:39 PM EST up reply actions  

not philosophical IMO

“if his bat will play” is a very relative point. It appears you are taking the relativity, ie. the context, out of the equation and then stating the statement has no value. This is a logical fallacy.

If Goldstein believes Hamilton will be a plus defender at a plus defensive position and then states “if his bat will play” isn’t he saying that Hamilton will bring a lot of value even his bat is slightly below average? And Hamilton will be excellent if his bat is even average – because an average bat to go with plus D at a plus defensive spot and plus plus base stealing is very valuable.

by pedrophile on Feb 16, 2012 12:45 AM EST up reply actions  

Problem is,

Mick said if his bat will play (“if you don’t think his bat will play” to be exact), not KG. Perhaps you didn’t read it correctly, or skipped over some comments? lol

by charles wallace on Feb 16, 2012 8:30 AM EST up reply actions  

yes, my statement should have broken it into two parts

the first stating Goldstein and the second PissedMick. Getting snarky now?

by pedrophile on Feb 16, 2012 10:45 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah it is a confused argument because of that

I don’t have any problem with someone presenting a case that Billy Hamilton’s bat will play, or that is fairly likely to play or whatever…even if the argument is unsupported, and just a gut feeling. That would have been fine. PissedMick seems to have attempted to make that case above (but after my comments and in a separate thread in this fanpost comments section).

My problem is when someone is claiming that a player is ranked too high and the justification is presumably because that player’s bat won’t play (the support for that argument is besides the point here as well), then it is pointless to simply say “if your whole premise is wrong — if someone’s believes the bat will play — then the player ranking is justified.” You can say that about ANY prospect, assuming adequate defense.

And furthermore, if some prospect is perceived to have both a bat bat and a bad glove, and therefore is considered to be a poor prospect, someone could just say “well, if his bat and glove were likely to play in the majors, he’d be a good prospect.” Unless you try to make a case that the player’s bat and glove will play, the statement is useless. The same is true if we are talking about a player with “just” a poor bat as well.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 16, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

"Getting snarky now?"

If by snarky you mean throwing your own snark back in your face, then I guess so? You’re the one who brought that tone to the proceedings.

by charles wallace on Mar 3, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Especially

since my initial comment was very much a baseball response to Mick’s comment.

by charles wallace on Mar 6, 2012 10:33 AM EST up reply actions  

I didn't respond to your initial comment

I replied to your post that had nothing to do with baseball in response to a comment that was over 2 weeks old.

by nixa37 on Mar 6, 2012 11:13 AM EST up reply actions  

A comment

to me by someone who was not you. You’re free to waste your time any way you like, but shouldn’t you be harassing someone about Julio Teheran’s breaking ball right now? lol

by charles wallace on Mar 6, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Is this serious?

You mean like how you have commented on comments I made to other people? And then you immediately go into another comment that has absolutely nothing to baseball. Why don’t you try actually talking baseball?

by nixa37 on Mar 6, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

seems to be his MO

he jumps in on other peoples conversations and it’s all Kool and the Gang, but when someone else does it he gets pissy about it.

by pedrophile on Mar 6, 2012 2:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Pissy about what?

I’d say that’s clearly your beat to cover. lol

by charles wallace on Mar 8, 2012 6:33 PM EST up reply actions  

"Why don’t you try actually talking baseball?"

Again, my first comment above was all baseball. Ignoring that doesn’t help your case. Nor does that fact that the vast majority of my posts here are about baseball. Not that’s the point. I get that you think it’s okay to be a humorless tool as long as you’re a humorless tool about baseball, but I reserve the right to commiserate with anyone unfortuante to angage you in discussion. lol

by charles wallace on Mar 8, 2012 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Why don't you try actually talking baseball?

And no, your first comment (which was 3 weeks ago BTW) in this specific tree of the discussion was:

Problem is…Mick said if his bat will play ("if you don’t think his bat will play" to be exact), not KG. Perhaps you didn’t read it correctly, or skipped over some comments? lol

What exactly does that have to do with baseball? And at this point your just personally insulting people for absolutely no reason.

by nixa37 on Mar 8, 2012 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Nope

First comment was:

“Guys like Mesoraco are valuable because they’re surefire major leaguers” I think the argument is that Mesoraco isn’t just a surefire major leaguer (though that’s debatable of course), he’s a surefire major league catcher, where his positional value ups the ante considerably. Solid avg defense with plus hit and power tools for the position is hard to punt in favor of a guy with questions about his ability to make throws from SS whose chief selling point is a chance to set stolen base records. It takes balls because it’s pretty questionable from an objective standpoint.
by charles wallace on Feb 14, 2012 11:18 AM PST up reply actions.

by charles wallace on Mar 10, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

So,

you’re wrong. And you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think that noting that the comments are weeks old is supposed to reflect poorly on me. It’s actually been a demonstration that if I posted a comment that you would not be able to let it go, as you’re pathologically unable to drop it if you feel aggrieved.

by charles wallace on Mar 10, 2012 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

you’re pathologically unable to drop it if you feel aggrieved

Wait, you responding to a post that was 2 weeks old because you felt aggrieved proves that I can’t drop it when I wasn’t even involved in the initial discussion?

by nixa37 on Mar 10, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I wasn’t even involved in the initial discussion?"

Every time you respnd, you prove my point. You can’t this one go and you weren’t even part of the original discussion. You can stop replying any time you want btw, but I’m betting you can’t. lol

by charles wallace on Mar 13, 2012 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Uh-huh

How long has it been now since you made a comment on this site that was actually related to baseball?

by nixa37 on Mar 13, 2012 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's not from this branch of the discussion

This branch is about this response to this comment.

The whole Mesoraco v. Hamilton thing is a completely different discussion.

by nixa37 on Mar 10, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

I said

my first comment above was all baseball. February 14 comes before February 16 on my calendar. You can point to subsequent comments, but they’re not my first.

by charles wallace on Mar 13, 2012 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Where?

“The only lack was you probably didn’t read it correctly or skipped over some of the comments.”

by charles wallace on Mar 6, 2012 10:24 AM EST up reply actions  

That's either snarky,

or simply insulting. Take your pick. lol

by charles wallace on Mar 6, 2012 10:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Snarky or correct?

It started with “Here’s a news flash guys: If you explore”. The “you” was immediately preceded with “guys”. Since guys is plural the “you” must be a 3rd person you. This is extremely clear IMO.

You kept insisting it lacked clarity. I disagreed. My comment stated that if there was a lack in clarity it came from your side since it was obvious from the statement.

Insulting? Or correct? It was just a statement of fact and not meant to be insulting.

by pedrophile on Mar 6, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

What's "correct"

about suggesting I skipped over the comments? You’re welcome to disagree, but I still think you’re clearly wrong about how that read to the average person. Regardless, as the person on the receiving end of your remark, I get to decide whether it came off as snarky andf insulting.

by charles wallace on Mar 8, 2012 6:32 PM EST up reply actions  

And the proof

of the inherent snarkiness in the comment was that when I turned it back on you, that’s exactly how you took it. Cognitive dissonance much?

by charles wallace on Mar 8, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I didnt take it that way at all

When I read it I just thought you sounded like a little kid saying “you are too” and was laughing.

by pedrophile on Mar 8, 2012 8:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Well,

since your original comment was childish, that’s a perfectly appropriate reaction.

by charles wallace on Mar 10, 2012 2:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Including Matts Purke and Adams

was interesting. Adams over Rizzo is also unconventional. And he’s ranking Addison Reed higher than anyone else probably will.

by charles wallace on Feb 13, 2012 9:01 AM EST reply actions  

D'Arnaud

over Mesoraco by 8 spots? That just seems silly. Meso had a K rate of 16% while not losing any of his walk rate (10%) and still getting on base at .371. D’Arnaud Ked more (21.5%) walked less (7%) and got on base at the same clip – in AA. That makes his list look just ridiculous. If he wants to claim D’Arnaud has a higher ceiling, Meso’s numbers we better (.299 ISO) in AA 2 years ago.

This list is a muddled/confusing mix of “I think this guy has high upside but no experience vs. this guy had one bad year so he’s getting dinged.” Consistency = nil.

by Mike Kaluk on Feb 13, 2012 9:12 AM EST reply actions  

Possible he's higher on D'Arnaud behind the plate?

If he sees a significant difference it could be on the defensive side. Mesoraco will be a catcher longterm, but does he have the all around ability (game calling/throwing/framing) behind the plate D’Arnaud is considered to have?

by TtD on Feb 13, 2012 9:18 AM EST up reply actions  

yeah I would guess defense is the reason D’Arnaud is higher than Mesoraco. Keith Law had D’Arnaud 6th I think so he was even higher on him than KG.

by Sniderlover on Feb 13, 2012 4:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Cole as a top 10 prospect.

Cole ahead of Miller? I just don’t see it. I see a CL when I watch the guy pitch. He is a “thrower” not a “pitcher” in my opinion. Sure his stuff ranks among some of the better prospects, that doesn’t mean he knows how to use it. It reminds me of the OF who has all the tools, but doesn’t know how to be a baseball player. If he is being compared to a Cards pitching prospect, it should be Carlos Martinez.

by ROBERTS04 on Feb 13, 2012 9:37 AM EST reply actions  

The command issues

are why he is starting in A+ instead of Pittsburgh. A guy with his stuff AND good command is an ML #1 right now. He has to work on his command, but calling him a future closer at this juncture wildly undervalues his abilities IMO. Three plus pitches and a 200 inning body does not spell relief pitcher to me…

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 10:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Not scared of my opinion

I said “his stuff ranks among some of the better prospects”. Good stuff does not automatically mean a guy will be a good “pitcher”. There is a reason some people have Bauer ahead of Cole, and it’s not because they believe Bauer has better stuff. It’s because Bauer is a better “pitcher”. Cole could be a solid SP, I just think he could be an elite CL. Go to baseballprospectreport and read the open letter to Cole and Bauer. Mr. Kilma explains it much better than I can. From the article in reference to Cole “You should be allowed to play to your strengths as a pro. You are a sprinter, not a distance runner.” I think Cole is an elite prospect. I just don’t think he is a straight A. For someone to suggest they can’t take me seriously because I have a different opinion on a prospect is a joke.

by ROBERTS04 on Feb 13, 2012 1:43 PM EST up reply actions  

For one thing

I didn’t say that I don’t take your opinion seriously. I also did not call your opinion a joke. I do think that you are wrong. I went to bbprospect report, didn’t see the letter on the first two pages and got sick of looking because I don’t really think it matters. I disagree with the premise that Cole is future closer. I think taking that tact would be an indefensible approach by the Pirates organization (or any organization that had control over Cole’s development).

Closers have substantially less value than starters. That is by an incredibly wide margin. For example, last season, Joel Hanrahan was one of the be closers in baseball. He was lights out. He throws 100 MPH, has good control and has the closer’s mentality. He was worth 2 fWAR. Paul Maholm had an xFIP over 4.00 and lost 14 games (I acknowledge that wins and losses are a lousy stat to show actual value but in this case it jumps off the page so I figured I’d add it…plus you have to love the irony of including losses and xFIP in the same sentence) He got hurt with a month left in the season. He struck out 5.3 batters per 9 innings. He throws about 88. He was worth 2.1 fWAR last season.

I strongly believe that it is premature to jump to the conclusion that Cole is better suited to the closer role because of his command. He will be in his first year of pro ball this season, so it’s premature to say much of anything about him, really. However, the scouting reports do not support your conclusion that Cole is better suited to be a reliever. Having 3 plus pitches makes him more likely to be a starter. His workhorse frame makes him more likely to be a starter. The fact that he maintains an upper 90’s fastball past 100 pitches (which, kinda blows the “you’re not a distance runner” comment out of the water) makes him more likely to be a starter.

It’s great that you’re not scared of your opinion (although I’m not sure why you would be since it’s your opinion). You’re absolutely entitled to it. At the same time, when you say something that runs contrary to popular opinion like suggesting the #1 overall pick in the draft is destined to be a relief pitcher before he’s thrown one official pro-pitch (AFL aside), you should be prepared to have people disagree with you. It’s not that I can’t take you seriously, but for the reasons listed above, I think your opinion is just flat out wrong.

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 2:31 PM EST up reply actions  

That report is a joke
You should be allowed to play to your strengths as a pro. You are a sprinter, not a distance runner.

Obviously Mr. Kilma has not seen much of Cole. Cole has a rare ability to hold mid-90s velocity deep into games. There were plenty of starts at UCLA where he hit 100 in the 7th inning. Calling him a sprinter is a complete joke.

Cole needs to work on his command. That’s really his issue. It’s not an injury issue, or a lack of a 3rd pitch issue, or a “can’t hold velo late in ballgames” issue. His issues would not be solved by moving him to the pen. Why would any team be that flat out stupid? If things don’t pan out, Cole is likely a good 3 or 4 starter. He’s not a closer, and unless injury strikes he will never be one.

If you say you don’t like Cole because you don’t think he will ever improve his command, that is one thing. But to say he is a closer is just plain idiotic – and it shows me you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry for being blunt.

by guru4u on Feb 13, 2012 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Starting in A+ means little

That’s where the Nats started Strasburg and he was ready to start in the bigs the day they drafted him.

Cole has work to do in the minors but I think his starting point says little.

by emoofb on Feb 13, 2012 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

its one spot rob, essentially meaningless diff

The closer comment makes it even harder to take you serious…he is a top10 prospect for any evaluator worth his salt.

by St.Steve on Feb 13, 2012 10:45 AM EST up reply actions  

too extreme the other way

Cole’s probably not a top 10 prospect for many evaluators

for one, i don’t think he’s going to be a top 10 prospect for John

by blue bulldog on Feb 13, 2012 11:14 AM EST up reply actions  

I think John will have him top 10

Certainly very close if not. He got a straight A grade.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 13, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions  

This

the A grade prospects this year are
Bauer
Teheran
Machado
Trout
Miller
Montero
Moore
Profar
Harper
and Cole
Even assuming that Cole is the worst prospect of that group (and I use the term “worst” loosely) he’s still the #10 prospect in baseball*

*Not including guys like Darvish and Cespedes

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 12:11 PM EST up reply actions  

my bad

for some reason i thought there were more A grade prospects handed out

from what i recall, John has said he’d have Cole behind Bauer, and Bauer behind Miller and Moore. so unless Cole is ranked higher than Teheran (which I don’t think he will be) he’s probably going to be the lowest ranked of the pitchers. As for the hitters, Cole will definitely be behind Trout and Harper. not sure where he will fall compared to Machado, Profar and Montero though. still, it looks to me like Cole will be either 9 or 10 on this list.

i guess the point i’m trying to make, is that Cole isn’t a guaranteed top 10 prospect for many evaluators

by blue bulldog on Feb 13, 2012 1:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Which is fair

at the same time, couldn’t you say this

Cole isn’t a guaranteed top 10 prospect for many evaluators

about pretty much every player who winds up ranked #6-#15? Also, I’d be willing to bet that if you really broke down the prospect lists from the past 10 years or so, there’s not going to be a substantially higher success rate for guys ranked #6 than for guys ranked #13…

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

i dunno

if you throw out sample size problems (when looking at how prospect lists have been done in the past 10 years), then it’s pretty intuitive that the value of a prospect and his ranking doesn’t decrease linearly

a ten spot difference in the #6-15 range could be worth as much as a 30-40 spot difference in the #60-100 range.

by blue bulldog on Feb 13, 2012 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

and you are right

you could say that about pretty much anybody in that range

my point was more that because Cole isn’t a guaranteed top 10 prospect for many evaluators, it seems extreme to say that “he is a top10 prospect for any evaluator worth his salt”

by blue bulldog on Feb 13, 2012 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Didn't notice

the worth his salt comment. I think that’s true. I wouldn’t be stunned by an evaluator who had Cole at 8 and I wouldn’t be stunned by somebody who had him at 18. FWIW, I’m not even entirely sold that he’ll even be the best pitcher on his on MiLB team next year. It’s possible he and Taillon will both start the season in A+ and you can at least argue that Taillon is better. I’m not sure how many people would agree with that but it’s not beyond debate.

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Banuelos gets more love

Banuelos continues to be ranked highly by the experts. Perhaps there is more than simply a New York bias here.

Big Sexy

Follow KBR and Dewey on Twitter! @KBRandDewey

by King Billy Royal on Feb 13, 2012 9:42 AM EST reply actions  

Oh no King BIlly, don't start that again!

Last time I suggested this, the place blew up!

The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!

by The Congo Hammer on Feb 13, 2012 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

LOL

Good Point!

Big Sexy

Follow KBR and Dewey on Twitter! @KBRandDewey

by King Billy Royal on Feb 13, 2012 9:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Everyone knows...

… that the only reason anyone could ever like a Boston or New York prospect is because their brains are clouded with bias. It’s not like those teams have any good baseball players on them.

(yes, sarcasm).

The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.

by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 13, 2012 4:28 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

ECB is easily the laziest criticism to make.

by guru4u on Feb 13, 2012 5:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Brandon Jacobs @46

Dig it. One of the most underrated minor leaguers out there to me (Stop me if you think that you’ve heard this one before’)

by Matt0330 on Feb 13, 2012 9:58 AM EST reply actions  

I have,

but nothing’s changed, I still love you (only slightly less than I used to).

by charles wallace on Feb 13, 2012 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Ha, nicely done

‘I broke my spleen & then my knee & then he really laced into me..’

by Matt0330 on Feb 13, 2012 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

very underrated

Happy to see him get love from KG, especially in the top 50.

by John Black on Feb 13, 2012 5:58 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I think he's deserving

To me he is a near perfect union of performance & talen although I’ve said this ad nauseum I know. I’m still surprised how generally under the radar he is.

by Matt0330 on Feb 15, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions  

well, considering Oscar Tavares is ranked way high i guess i could get Behind Jacobs approaching top 50.

but ehh.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 18, 2012 1:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Oscar Taveras in the Top 25

That’s not at all controversial to me. I’ve still yet to hear any legitimate concerns there & kids his age (with his kind of talent) that put up slash lines like he just did are not exactly common. I would slot him above Jake Marisnick, Bubba Starling (easily) & Anthony Rendon (easily) too at this point. I love Jacobs but I don’t think he’s at Taveras’ level yet.

by Matt0330 on Feb 20, 2012 9:46 AM EST up reply actions  

+1 to all of this

"Does it make your life easier to just throw a quick, racist term at somebody? A man who has seen the things I’ve seen… experienced the loss and pain that I’ve experienced… I transcend race, hombre." - Kenny Powers

by casejud on Feb 21, 2012 10:52 AM EST up reply actions  

That top 6

has to be one of the younger top 6’s in quite a while. 4 of them are under drinking age. Wow

surprised to see Jacobs that high although I do like him a lot. KG is a big fan of Hamilton, but I just don’t see him at #22, personally

by deltarich on Feb 13, 2012 9:59 AM EST reply actions  

This seems like a pretty good list to me

The Bundy Ranking is a bit bold, but I can get behind it. He’s obviously a huge talent.
Mesoraco is a little too low for me.
I do like how he seems to be one of the only ones to not aggressively overrate Manny Banuelos, even though I would have him below Pomeranz, it is a far better ranking then the top 10 spot he has gotten from other tankers.
I like Erlin a lot, but that spot seems a little high.
I like Robbie Erlin alot

Down 2 in the bottom of the ninth?
Lets Bring in Willie Harris!

by ShaqKazaam on Feb 13, 2012 10:17 AM EST via mobile reply actions  

stupid phone

Ignore that last line

Down 2 in the bottom of the ninth?
Lets Bring in Willie Harris!

by ShaqKazaam on Feb 13, 2012 10:18 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I don't think that is a high ranking for Erlin at all

He came in at 43rd overall on our community consensus list. So 53rd would be slightly low based on how this community feels about Erlin.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 13, 2012 10:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Bauer v. Bundy

I find it difficult to believe a lot of people have heartburn over seeing Bundy ranked higher than Bauer. I guess it is easy to forget that BA had Bundy the #1 draft prospect going into the 2011 draft. KG did as well. I’m not sure how it could be a shock to see Bundy ranked higher now when he ranked higher that recently.

by guru4u on Feb 13, 2012 11:53 AM EST reply actions  

Right

I would probably expect Bundy to be ranked higher on BA’s list.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 13, 2012 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

i agree

It might be slightly against the grain, but I too would have bundy ahead of bauer.

by St.Steve on Feb 13, 2012 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Profar

I’m surprised how high he is on lists now. He is an excellent prospect but based on what Jason Parks and a few others wrote it seems people are expecting too much from him. Around 15 seems more appropriate.

by pedrophile on Feb 13, 2012 1:29 PM EST reply actions  

i can understand the Profar ranking

he seems like the type of prospect with an extremely high floor (almost all prospects that do as well as he’s done at that age reach it to the majors and contribute, and to top it off, he’s a SS prospect that projects to stick with plus defense) and still a very high ceiling (though maybe not as high as some prospects with a lot of power)

by blue bulldog on Feb 13, 2012 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Parks has adjusted his views of Profar though

since a year ago. Still, even at 15 he’s a stud prospect and the exact number ranking doesn’t seem that important. He’d still be a top tier guy there.

Some see a glass half empty, some a glass half full. I see a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be. - George Carlin

by t ball on Feb 13, 2012 11:00 PM EST up reply actions  

It is kind of amazing

how far he has risen. Personally I want to see how he does against stronger competition, but I see little reason to doubt his all-around excellent play, plate discipline, intelligence and the glowing scouting reports.

Some see a glass half empty, some a glass half full. I see a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be. - George Carlin

by t ball on Feb 14, 2012 8:59 AM EST up reply actions  

i don't know if he's the 4th best prospect in baseball

because i might have more pitchers in front of him

but i love Profar as a prospect. i agree that he’s the third best position prospect in baseball, behind Trout and Harper.

by blue bulldog on Feb 14, 2012 9:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Machado above Profar?

I really don’t understand how you can do that unless you’re one of the few that thinks Machado is going to stick at SS

Just don't piss her off, otherwise she'll get all Dien Bien Phu up in your Boxer Rebellion - caknuck

btho Iowa State

by MonkeyEpoxy on Feb 14, 2012 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

One of the few?

I haven’t exactly seen a whole lot of people saying they don’t think he will stick there. Simply mentioning the possibility that he may have to move off the position isn’t really the same as saying you don’t think he will stick at the position.

by nixa37 on Feb 14, 2012 2:32 PM EST up reply actions  

if he doesnt stick it isnt because he cant field

it will be because his body became too big and strong – which means his power potential would be even higher. That and he would only move to 3B.

by pedrophile on Feb 14, 2012 4:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

Plus, we have to factor in when he moves. Is it before reaching the show? Or after 6 years in the league?

by siddfynch on Feb 14, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

People that look at Machado and see 3B aren’t really seeing the big picture IMO. There are no doubts about his ability to field the position currently, so unless he encounters some sort of big growth spurt (i.e. “fills out” very quickly) Baltimore will likely keep him at SS for a few years in the bigs.

by guru4u on Feb 15, 2012 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

if he doesn't fill out and end up at 3rd...

you can forget about the plus power. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Machado is all projection. As an amateur I don’t remember anyone speaking about his power as more than average to a bit more and I don’t know what he has done to change that.

I don’t know what people see in him. The power is nothing special and the speed is not there. I guess he could be an above average offensive SS but he doesn’t do anything well. Unless he grows… which makes him a 3B.

by huztler on Feb 16, 2012 9:08 PM EST up reply actions  

He already showed power last year before he injured his knee

Machado isn’t a small guy. He projects for power. The question is how big will he become? While he is 25 or 28 having a little extra size he could still handle SS. But when he gets near 30 if he is 225 or something then he will probably need to move to 3B like with ARod.

by pedrophile on Feb 16, 2012 9:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Did A-Rod really need to move?

He was still an incredible shortstop defensively for Texas. I just thought he initially moved to 3B because of Jeets

Just don't piss her off, otherwise she'll get all Dien Bien Phu up in your Boxer Rebellion - caknuck

btho Iowa State

by MonkeyEpoxy on Feb 16, 2012 9:47 PM EST up reply actions  

You don't know what people see in Machado?

Maybe it’s the .333/.450/.611 line he had in the SAL as an 18 year old before he injured his knee. Oh, and did I mention he’s a SS? Hell, the fact that he held his own in high A during his 18 year old season while playing SS is quite impressive. Throw in the tools that scouts love and I don’t see what there is not to like. He already controls the zone well, he’s shown a lot of power for an 18 year old SS, and he’s got quite a bit of projection left in his bat. Really, what is there not to like?

by nixa37 on Feb 16, 2012 10:13 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

Nixa articulated exactly what I was thinking. Huztler obviously never read a scouting report on Machado. Noone has EVER questioned his power – more just where he projects to wind up on the diamond. I suggest going through the BA archives to their report on Machado before he was drafted. Scouts were DROOLING over the power potential. I don’t know how you could ever say “As an amateur I don’t remember anyone speaking about his power as more than average to a bit more”.

by guru4u on Feb 17, 2012 10:40 AM EST up reply actions  

I have never read that hw has plus power

anywhere except in comments on this site. I have read plenty of scouting reports on him just like the rest of you. Also, when you are using splits from a single season – pre-injury – that is meaningless data. You are talking about less than 100 at bats.

I am saying he is either a SS that may hit 300 with 20 HR tops and 10 SB. That is nothing to get too excited about. That is his ceiling, not even likely to happen. Guys put up numbers similar to that every year and nobody cares. Or… he grows out of SS and sprouts plus power. He is not and should never be compared to A-Rod. A-Rod OPSed over 1.000 at the MLB level at 20 years old and was a historic talent from the day he was drafted. Machado is nothing like that. He may be an all-star but it is far from a lock. Griffeys, J-Uptons and A-Rods don’t need people pointing out what they are capable of through obscure splits. Machado is a fine spec I guess but there is nothing special about him.

by huztler on Feb 22, 2012 12:19 AM EST up reply actions  

I like that you brought up Upton

You know, the guy who already didn’t play SS and actually struggled far more in low A ball as an 18 year old than Machado did at the same age.

Also, when your arguing a SS that you admit may hit .300 with 20 HR is nothing special, it might be time to reevaluate what you think is a special prospect.

by nixa37 on Feb 22, 2012 9:43 AM EST up reply actions  

SSs

who hit .300 with 20 HRs don’t seem that common. I’d say lots of people care about ones that do.

by ol Pete on Feb 22, 2012 9:45 AM EST up reply actions  

sorry to be a downer, but ...

fallacy #1:
less than 100 at bats is meaningless data. By that measure taking 5 or 6 meaningless samples somehow makes a years worth of data meaningfull. 100 at bats is very SSS and should be taken with caution, but is hardly meaningless.

fallacy #2:
comparing to guys like J-Upton when J-Upton struggled a fair bit himself.

fallacy #3:
stating a SS that hits 300 with 20HR and 10SB is something that we shouldn’t get excited about.

fallacy #4:
stating the only way he gains plus power is by outgrowing the position. Plenty of large SS exist in baseball and thrive. Is there any reason why he would have to grow so large in order to gain power that he couldn’t handle SS or does this need to happen only to support your argument?

fallacy #5:
stating no-one outside of this website has mentioned plus power for Machado.
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7516084/mlb-top-100-prospects-2012-nos-1-25
“He has great hip rotation and really extends his arm well through his finish, so if he keeps his weight back a little better, he’ll have above-average to plus power when he matures physically”

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/09/baseballs-top-100-prospects-of-2011/
“We’ll have to see as he matures if he can remain at shortstop, but his quick hands and extension make for a potentially special bat.”

http://sbb.scout.com/2/1086412.html

The Orioles badly need Machado to live up to expectations, and so far things have looked very promising. He’s not an immediate type player and he needs a lot of seasoning in the minors, but it takes watching him for one day to see the combination of athleticism and power up the middle that he brings to the table."

by pedrophile on Feb 22, 2012 10:52 AM EST up reply actions  

That makes sense

Just don't piss her off, otherwise she'll get all Dien Bien Phu up in your Boxer Rebellion - caknuck

btho Iowa State

by MonkeyEpoxy on Feb 14, 2012 7:33 PM EST up reply actions  

this is the same thing with Bogaerts

people get the impression that Bogaerts and Machado are bad defensive shortstops, they are perfectly adequate right now, people are worried about them filling out and not being a SS, which might not even be that bad for Bogaerts as he could be a 30 HR SS or a 40-45 HR 3baseman if he fills out. Machado might hit 30 HRs if he fills out, I would still take the SS for Bogaerts or Machado, but maybe the other outcome isn’t that bad.

by Bososx13 on Feb 14, 2012 9:34 PM EST up reply actions  

lol

R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix

by doublestix on Feb 15, 2012 8:28 PM EST up reply actions  

40-45 HR?

Don’t you think that is a little optimistic?

Big Sexy

Follow KBR and Dewey on Twitter! @KBRandDewey

by King Billy Royal on Feb 15, 2012 8:57 PM EST up reply actions  

So his ceiling is basically the best power hitting 3B ever?

Because the 2 best ever (Matthews and Schmidt) combined for just 6 40 HR seasons in the 30 full seasons they played.

by nixa37 on Feb 15, 2012 10:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Matthews and Schmidt were amazing because they did it in

a low offensive era, they were really like 50 HR hitters, and Bogaerts has a much lower contact rate than them, but if he really fills out, he could hit 40 HRs

by Bososx13 on Feb 16, 2012 6:28 AM EST up reply actions  

I expected someone into stats to note offensive environment

The park adjusted league average SLG for Matthews career was .399 and it was .394 for Schmidt’s. The league average of the NL as a whole last year (to keep the comparisons fair since pitchers hit during their careers as well) was just .391. This isn’t the late 90s or early 00s anymore. The idea that a HR back then is worth 1.1 to 1.2 today has no basis in reality IMO.

by nixa37 on Feb 16, 2012 11:35 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

If I use neutralize stats on BR

to the 2011 AL, Schmidt hit 49 homers in ‘80. Using DTs from Claydavenport.com Schmidt hits 55 homers in ’80. With BR neutralize stats Mathews hits 51 homers in ’59, with Clay’s translations he hits 52 in ’59. They were 50 homer players

by Bososx13 on Feb 16, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Come on now

You’re only looking at their very best seasons when they were both already near 50. When I think of a guy as an “X” HR hitter, personally I’m not talking about his 1 or 2 best seasons, I’m talking about a normal season in his prime. I mean Greg Vaughn had 95 HR over a 2 year span, but that doesn’t make him a 45+ HR guy.

by nixa37 on Feb 16, 2012 7:45 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

yea

in Bogaerts’ best season, I said he might hit 40 homers for his ceiling if he fills out a lot. 45 was too optimistic, but 40 is probably his ceiling.

by Bososx13 on Feb 17, 2012 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Fair enough

Didn’t realize you were talking about just one season. While its still extremely unlikely, it is much more realistic than what I was thinking of.

by nixa37 on Feb 17, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Right

He’d be a different prospect than Profar, perhaps not “better” or “worse”.

Some see a glass half empty, some a glass half full. I see a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be. - George Carlin

by t ball on Feb 14, 2012 9:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Mike Montgomery...

seems to be a big snub in my book. I understand he had a down season, but the skills are still there – and to rank some of these other guys ahead of him seems silly. And I realize the BP team rankings are a group effort, but he was their #1 Royals prospect, a little odd; oh well.

by Rduffiedc on Feb 13, 2012 3:38 PM EST reply actions  

You seem to have BP confused with BA.

Almost all the rankings on BP are product of Kevin Goldstein. He had Montgomery as the Royals #6 Prospect (a 3-Star prospect) and his missing is perfectly in line with the team rankings.

His response to a Montgomery question in the chat was thus:

I like Montgomery plenty, but he hasn’t been really good since the first half of 2010, and that’s a very real concern.

by Ophidian on Feb 13, 2012 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah it is odd....

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 18, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Jarred Cosart being #48 and Jonathan Singleton being at #73 are surprises.

Expected Cosart to be in the 70s or 80s and Singleton to be in the 40s.

It’s also quite interesting how Cosart is ranked higher than Vizcaino, Jarrod Parker, and Trevor May. I’m a big Cosart fan, but I’m not sure I’d rank him over those three, especially Parker and Vizcaino.

Overall, I think the list is good, though.

"Hakeem couldn't kick your ass cuz you were too
close kissin his!"- Sir Charles to Kenny Smith.

by bone31crusher on Feb 13, 2012 3:47 PM EST reply actions  

Pence better be worth it :) Santana could be a real steal too if he can bring down the K%.

by Nikk.m on Feb 13, 2012 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Martin Perez

I am really hoping the tremendous stuff translates into results this year.

by John Black on Feb 13, 2012 5:59 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

This is

the best list I’ve seen so far.

Which doesn’t say much because Law’s was uncharacteristically bad, and none of the other ones are good.

BA will be good as always, but I’m really looking forward to John’s, I like John more than any other site at ranking prospects.

Would have Pomeranz over Banuelos.

by Bososx13 on Feb 14, 2012 9:29 PM EST reply actions  

also

would go Harper, Trout, Moore

by Bososx13 on Feb 14, 2012 9:31 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd be curious

As to why you feel Law’s list was uncharacteristicly bad, other than the fact that there was only one Red Sox player in the top 99 (which is admittedly cherypicking, as both 100 and 101 were Sox player)

by MjwW on Feb 14, 2012 11:02 PM EST up reply actions  

well, they kind of

do have a good system, look at the farm system rankings other than Law’s, every other top 99 has more than one Red Sox. But it was mainly Banuelos ahead of Walker, and Hak-Ju and Vizcaino way too high, Arenado and Bogaerts too low, Matt Davidson too high, I like mason williams, but he’s too high, like D’Arnaud but too high, Perez too high. I know I’m a sox fan, but Bogaerts has comparable power, less strikeouts and a better chance of sticking on left side, short or third than Sano, yet is ranked 34 spots lower

by Bososx13 on Feb 15, 2012 4:01 PM EST up reply actions  

nobody ranks Hak-Ju that high

nobody ranks Banuelos ahead of Walker, almost everyone else ranks Bogaerts in the top 40, I don’t hate the Blue Jays or the Rays really

by Bososx13 on Feb 15, 2012 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Lee

Frankie Piliere put him 20, which is close to Law at 12. John has him as B+, which puts him somewhere between roughly 27 and 72. Mayo puts him at 46, none of the sources I pay attention to have him higher.

So it’s high for sure, but that doesn’t make Klaw wrong. I don’t think it’s fair to say that because one talent avaluator likes him more than consensus, it’s a bad ranking. We’ll see in a couple years, and maybe even longer (at which point it will be forgotten, but anyway).

by MjwW on Feb 15, 2012 10:29 PM EST up reply actions  

As for the Jays and Rays

I don’t think you hate them, I just think you have a little trouble being objective about your team’s favourite players. Which is essentially the nature of sports, so it’s not like it’s a big deal.

It’s why I don’t vote on Jays players in the polls – there’s absolutely no way I can be reasonably objective, because I love the Jays, and because there’s also an info bias in that I know way more about the Jays prospects than other prospects (which in some cases could cause me to be more down on them if it wasn’t good info). Even though it doesn’t affect anthing on the field, it validates our fandom to see the team have more highly ranked players.

by MjwW on Feb 15, 2012 10:32 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree, I'm a little bit of a homer

but I do think Lavarnway and Cecchini are too high and I think Lavarnway and Barnes are too low on most lists, Bogaerts sometimes is too low, but usually should be around the 30 range.

by Bososx13 on Feb 16, 2012 6:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Klaw has always seemed to believe in Vizzy's change

And it’s not bias or whatever excuse you want to use because he drops Teheran and Delgado a lot, and omits borderline guys like Bethancourt and Simmons

Mike Scott was what Willis was talking about.

by JHey1212 on Feb 15, 2012 7:23 PM EST up reply actions  

yea, it's not bias

but I definitely don’t agree with it. Teheran and Delgado are too low

by Bososx13 on Feb 16, 2012 6:31 AM EST up reply actions  

honestly I think Vizzy's underated

and Delgado’s overated, but this is because Vizzy can really control his vicious fastball-curve combo. So I agree with it somewhat though, Teheran and Simmons are both too low.

"Your an idiot" (jrod1142)
"*You're" (swainzy)
From one of the greatest posts of all time

by JHey1212 on Mar 3, 2012 11:49 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm surprised both Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler are ranked that high

"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"

by feslenraster on Feb 20, 2012 7:37 PM EST reply actions  

Yeah

I like Brad Peacock better than Matt Harvey myself, but I don’t feel either of their placements (or Zack Wheeler’s for that matter) border upon egregious.

by Matt0330 on Feb 23, 2012 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Texas Rangers: 2012 Draft List
Small
Minor League Ball Gameday, 5/25 MILB
Me_at_8_small
Minor League Ball Gameday Discussion, MiLB 5/24
Me_at_8_small
Today in Minor League Baseball Discussion, MiLB 5/23
Me_at_8_small
MiLB 5/22

Recent FanPosts

Me_at_8_small
Minor League Ball Gameday Discussion, MiLB 5/26
Small
Minor Leagues Question
Small
Washington Nationals War Room
Small
MiLB Saturday 5/26 "aka Draft Day"
Small
Cubs War Room
Small
Phillies Mock Draft War Room
Small
Cleveland Indians War Room
Small
A's war room
Small
Dodgers War Room
Small
Baltimore War Room

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

March2111_084_small John Sickels

Jeri_avatar_small mssickels

Editors

Small Craig Goldstein

Authors

Headshot_small dougdirt

Mblpglogo_small Matt Garrioch

Small SethSpeaks

Osnation2_small Jordan Tuwiner

Img00006-20101226-1702_small Ray Guilfoyle

Lax-xl_small Marisa Ingemi

Small Marc Hulet

Moderators

Small mrkupe


Site Meter