Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



2007 Cleveland Indians Prospects

2007 Cleveland Indians Prospects

  1. Adam Miller, RHP, Grade A- (proved he was healthy after rough '05)
  2. Chuck Lofgren, LHP, A- (power lefty is developing rapidly, is A- too high?)
  3. Brian Barton, OF, B+ (only negative is age, but I love his tools, skills, statistics, intelligence, and work ethic)
  4. John Drennen, OF, B (will need some time but his bat is promising)
  5. Brad Snyder, OF, B (Jeromy Burnitz Part Two)
  6. Wes Hodges, 3B, B (One of my favorite bats from '06 draft)
  7. Trevor Crowe, OF, B- (good speed, patience makes him a good leadoff guy)
  8. Tony Sipp, LHP, B- (power lefty for the bullpen should be ready soon)
  9. David Huff, LHP, B- (polished finesse lefty should move quickly)
  10. Edward Mujica, RHP, B- (underrated bullpen arm deserves attention)
  11. Max Ramirez, C, B- (I love his bat, but his glove is shaky)
  12. Scott Lewis, LHP, C+ (awesome numbers, but what kind of durability does he have?)
  13. Asdrubal Cabrera, SS, C+ (very young, good glove, still might hit but was rushed to Triple-A)
  14. Tom Mastny, RHP, C+ (not spectacular stuff but his numbers rule)
  15. Matt McBride, C, C+ (good glove but want to see him hit at higher levels)
  16. Generalissimo Ben Francisco, OF, C+ (Solid, does a lot of things well but doesn't get much notice)
  17. Rafael Perez, LHP, C+ (another bullpen lefty with a good arm)
  18. Brian Slocum, RHP, C+ (swingman/fourth starter type)
  19. Jensen Lewis, RHP, C+ (swingman/fourth starter type)
  20. Josh Rodriguez, INF, C+ (another favorite from 2006 draft)
Others of Note: Mike Aubrey, 1B; Jordan Brown, OF; Austin Creps, RHP; Jeremy Guthrie, RHP; Juan Lara, LHP; J.D. Martin, RHP; Ryan Morris, LHP; Joe Ness, RHP; Shawn Nottingham, LHP; Roman Pena, OF; Neil Wagner, RHP; Nick Weglarz, 1B.

The Indians in One Sentence: This system has considerable depth, with two top pitching prospects and many interesting hitters, which is good considering the highly-competitive nature of the American League Central.

The Indians need pitching. Miller will be ready very soon,  and Lofgren could be outstanding if he continues to build on the progress he made last year. After them the pitching depth tails off in terms of impact talent, although there are many potential contributors. The large numbers of solid hitting prospects available gives them some parts to trade if they want to go that route.

ALL GRADES ARE PRELIMINARY. If you hate a grade, feel free to make a case for me to change it, though remember that cases phrased respectfully using logic and facts are more likely to be viewed positively than those featuring insults and invective.

There is a lot of slack in the B-/C+/C range and players may move up and down depending on how my thinking progresses. Feel free to make comments, point out sleepers I may have missed, etc. Note that there is only a limited amount of space in the book, and the max I can do is 35-36 players per team.

And, as always, there is the helpful reminder to Buy My Book, which will lay out reports for all these guys (and more) in detail.

0 recs | Comment 82 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Aubrey
Any hope left for Aubrey?
God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 19, 2006 11:04 AM EST   0 recs

back
His back problems are apparently very bad.

by John Sickels on Dec 19, 2006 11:28 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Aubrey
Too bad, he wins the MVP within a couple of seasons almost every time in Baseball Mogul.

by jaguar2490 on Dec 20, 2006 1:03 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Can I get some Head?
Does Stephen Head have any future with the Tribe? in MLB?  John had him at #4, B+ last year - now he doesn't even get a note.

by cooper7d7 on Dec 19, 2006 11:17 AM EST   0 recs

head
he is in the book. Grade C.

by John Sickels on Dec 19, 2006 11:28 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

BABIP
As was pointed out in the comments section of the Indians' midseason review - Head had a BABIP of around .250, .260.  The league was around .305.  I would like to see more power, 14HRs and 26 2Bs, outta Head, but as you pointed out, the discipline is nice, 55 BBs to 72 Ks.  Was his drop from B+ to C, just a 'luck' thing?

by cooper7d7 on Dec 19, 2006 12:38 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

hmm....
Was the title of your post intentional?

by Rayman on Dec 19, 2006 5:10 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

General question...
When a player has INF listed as their position, does that mean they can play anywhere in the infield? their future is as a utility infielder? or they will likely be moving off their current IF position?

Josh Rodriquez prompted this question, as well as Chris Valaika.

by cooper7d7 on Dec 19, 2006 11:20 AM EST   0 recs

yes
Yes, it means they can play mulitiple positions.

by John Sickels on Dec 19, 2006 11:28 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Thank you!
John - thanks for answering both of my quesions.

by cooper7d7 on Dec 19, 2006 12:34 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Lofgren
Chuck Lofgren gets the same grade as Adam Miller? Not hardly.
Dutin Pedroia .... a poor man's Ronny Cedeno - Theo Epstein

by the pinstripes on Dec 19, 2006 11:26 AM EST   0 recs

lofgren
THink A- is too high? Should be B+?

by John Sickels on Dec 19, 2006 11:27 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I agree that he should be a B+
For a pitcher in the low minors to get an A- I would think he would need to really stand out. For a power lefty, his overall numbers are very good and they are getting better as he is advancing, but I dont think they are standout-type great numbers.

I think he is deserving of a B+ for what he has shown so far.

You gave Patton and Adenhart B+'s and do you think Lofgren is a step above both of them?

Just a couple thoughts.

by grozzy on Dec 19, 2006 11:40 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Lofgren
I honestly don't see a B+ either. I'd go with a solid B. He is not at the same level as Adenhart and certainly not Adam Miller. Lofgren's ceiling is that of a #2 in my opinion.
Dutin Pedroia .... a poor man's Ronny Cedeno - Theo Epstein

by the pinstripes on Dec 19, 2006 1:19 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Lofgren
Lofgren...17-5 in 25 starts at high A ball, with a 2.32 ERA and a 1.16 WHIP, but he's not on the same level as Adenhart.....

What's a guy gotta do?  

And a ceiling as a #2 starter is nothing to be ashamed of....especially depending on who the #1 is.

by Chiefroy on Dec 19, 2006 2:42 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

#2
the #1 isn't anybody.  "projects as a #2 starter" means what kind of pitcher he's going to be.  has nothing to do with the real rotation of the actual team he winds up on.  if you had a team with a rotation of johan santana, roy halladay, chris carpenter, roy oswalt and brandon webb, that wouldn't make brandon webb a #5 starter.  

he might be your #5 starter.  but that's different.  

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2006 2:58 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

re: #2
I think there must be a better descriptor to use than the prototype rotation placement numbers. It seems that there are no more than 10-12 #1s, maybe 25 #2s (but probably less), and loads of 3s, 4s, 5s (and others).  The main difference seems to be intimidation factor - batters know that this #1 is a great pitcher. #2s are just really good. And instead of being expected to win 17-20 games on a good team, they're expected to eclipse 15, with a slightly higher ERA.

In any case we're still only talking about no more than 40 guys in the majors who are legitimate #1s or #2s. And those guys have graduated from prospect status over the course of the last 15-20 years. So in a top 100, fewer than 5 are likely to become a 1 or 2. So if someone legitimately believes Lofgren will reach #2 status and maintain it - then he's absolutely an A-.

by TC Chris on Dec 19, 2006 4:03 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

If Brandon Webb was my #5 starter.....
.....then Chuck Lofgren probably wouldn't make my rotation.  He might be my #6 starter, but that's different.

Liriano's not a #1....or is he?

Elarton pitches on opening day, now Meche is the ace of the staff....Lofgren might make #1 on that team....it's all relative.  Who ARE the #1s....the top starter on each team, or the top 30 pitchers based on ERA, wins, some other stat, or simply someone's opinion?  Is the number 30 too many?  

Separating the true #1's from the #2's or worse is very difficult, even at the major league level.
Sure, we know there are a few GREAT ones, but after those, it's not so simple.  

Deciding that some guy in high A ball will top out as a #2 starter(whatever that may be) seems extremely precognitive, or else someone's just trying to guess....which is what I think "the pinstripes" was doing.  I'll go ahead and guess that Lofgren wins a Cy Young and makes the HOF......while he's still with Cleveland of course.

by Chiefroy on Dec 19, 2006 9:16 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

meche ace
"Elarton pitches on opening day, now Meche is the ace of the staff....Lofgren might make #1 on that team....it's all relative."

no, it's not.  that's kind of my whole point.  see my "#1 / #2 / #3 starter" diary (top of the recent diary list at the moment) for a massive discussion of this topic.  

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2006 9:26 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I see your diary.......
........and you have the "obvious" #1s and then a bunch of question mark pitchers who are maybe 1s or 2s or maybe even lower.  If we're talking top seven as being the criteria for a number #1 starter, then I will have to agree that Lofgren will probably have a ceiling as a #2 starter, if that high.  

But otherwise, if we don't limit it to the "obvious" seven, it still looks pretty hard deciding who's a #1(obvious or not so obvious) or a #2...or #3.  You yourself used a lot of question marks.  There are no definite requirements to make this Top Tier; it's certainly not based on salary.  It seems everyone has an opinion, with no real consensus, except for the few.

If a guy makes it to a #2, then he MAY actually make it to a #1....or already be one.  There is no set of rules for being labeled a #1 starter, except where in the rotation your team pitches you.....you should be better than the guy at #2, but maybe not.  Even if there WERE certain, set standards of a #1 or a #2 starter, it's very unlikely ANYONE can accurately say that Chuck Lofgren, who has only just pitched high A ball and is only 20 years old, will top out as a #2.  It's simply a GUESS.....but a person's gotta right to an opinion.  I just find it ridiculous to make such guesses.

the pinstripes comment that Lofgren was not on the same level as Adenhart was my main gripe, but deciding who's a #1 or #2 is tough enough with major leaguers, much less projecting minor leaguers.  Why not say he has "front of the rotation potential", or is a possible "back of the rotation guy", rather than say "his ceiling is as a #2, imo"?  
This kind of a #2 starter?

#1 or #2?
Mark Prior (pitches like a #1 when he pitches, which is never)
Rich Harden (same basic issue)
Pedro Martinez (same - is it over?)
Daisuke Matsuzaka (is he or isn't he?)
Roger Clemens (does half a season of #1 make you a #2?)
Brandon Webb
Scott Kazmir
John Smoltz
CC Sabathia
Jeremy Bonderman
John Lackey
Barry Zito
Curt Schilling

#1 or #4?
Daniel Cabrera
John Patterson
Bartolo Colon
Oliver Perez
Randy Johnson

#2
Josh Beckett
AJ Burnett
Dan Haren
Bronson Arroyo
Mike Mussina
Jason Schmidt
Aaron Harang
Dontrelle Willis
Brett Myers
Andy Pettitte
Chris Young

baby #2s or baby #1s?
Jered Weaver
Erik Bedard
Scott Olsen
Ervin Santana
Brandon McCarthy
Matt Garza
Jon Papelbon
Jon Lester
Anthony Reyes
Rich Hill

#2 or #3?
Chien-Ming Wang
Kelvim Escobar
Derek Lowe
Brad Penny
Freddy Garcia
Tim Hudson
Mark Buehrle
Kevin Millwood
Javier Vazquez
Zach Duke
Jeff Francis

baby #2s or baby #3s?
Josh Johnson
Chuck James
Tom Gorzelanny

I personally don't know WHAT Lofgren's ceiling is, and won't pretend to know.  Here's hoping he finds a lot of headroom.

by Chiefroy on Dec 19, 2006 11:14 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

sure
obviously there's a lot of blurring between the categories.  pitchers are messy beasts.  but i don't see how it's a satisfying conclusion to say that a pitcher's ceiling is just (vague hand gesture) unknowable.  we profile them as best we can.  will our projections be perfect?  of course not.  you can still compare guys.

please, please stop talking about "where in the rotation your team pitches you".  the entire purpose of my huge diary, in case it wasn't clear, is to kill that line of thinking.  being a #1 or #2 has nothing to do with what other pitchers happen to be on your team.  when evaluating prospects, it is a shorthand expression for how good of a pitcher you are, and that's all.

could lofgren develop into a #1?  sure, anthing's possible.  curt schilling might grow ten feet and add 15 mph to his fastball next year.  we don't know.  it'd make a lot of people suspicious.  but you can't rule it out 100%.  but you can look at lofgren, and look at adenhart, and see how fast they throw, how tall they are, how good their secondary pitches are, what numbers they've put up, and compare all that information to other pitchers from the past, and come to a best judgment about how they project.  that's all john or the rest of us ever do.

oh and lofgren can't touch adenhart.  pwned!

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2006 11:25 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I can say with absolute certainty ...
That Curt Schilling will neither grow 10 feet nor add 15 mph's to his fastball.

As for the above list, Schmidt, Willis, Beckett, and Mussina are all No. 1's. Only in a fairytale world of a $120-million-plus payroll could any of those pitchers be the second best pitcher on staff.

by StickRat on Dec 20, 2006 12:15 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Thanks bud
For keeping your head and clarifying the simple point (to most, I hope) you were making. You might not want to argue with that guy though. .just for your own sanity. That guy just has a cloudy brain and he's trying to cloud ours. Sure it is messy and inexact BUT we DO know what we are talking about when we say a 1 a 2 or 3. In fact, ask me a guy and I'll tell you. BTW it means, OF COURSE, an AVERAGE #1 0r #2 and so on. You know like Mike Mussina was a #1, now he's a #2...Willis is a #1 or #2... Prior is a #1 when healthy, will he be a #3 now?...Wang is a #2, or is he a #1 now?... Cabrera has the potential (some think) to be a #1 but now he is a #4... Gil Mechecould be a solid #3 but has not consistently performed at that level...SEE MAN, it's a LANGUAGE we are speaking buddy! We ARE communicating! Come on in and lets talk okay. Just as soon as you figure it out...lol
casedog

by casejud on Dec 23, 2006 1:27 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Very Agressive Grade
I think its a very aggressive grade in that he certainly has potential to be a stud at higher levels. I think its fine to grade a guy that you particularly like, or have high hopes for, to be graded higher than stats relative to comparable players.

Lofgren certainly could make an A- look like a genius move.

by wildthang on Dec 19, 2006 7:23 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Comparisons
I personally don't think an A- is implausible; there are so many things to like about Lofgren and not all of them show up in the boxscore.

But I think the cross-player comparisons is the biggest issue here.
If a number of similar prospects, such as Troy Patton, are rated B+ then I think you're obliged to explain what sets Lofgren apart from him in the book. You might have very good reasons for that and it would be interesting to read about. This is an even bigger task, however, when describing the two-grade difference between similar guys like Crowe and Ellsbury.

by FI on Dec 19, 2006 10:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Position.
Isn't Crowe a fine defensive LF instead of an excellent defensive CF?  I think that's the difference.  But I have to admit I hardly know everything about Crowe.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 20, 2006 10:14 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

crowe
Crowe's a very good centerfielder - you should have seen him during the playoffs.
He only projects as a leftfielder because the Indians have Sizemore in centerfield already.

by FI on Dec 22, 2006 9:47 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Lofgren just doesnt belong with the other A- guys
I think he should be a B+. Players who have so far been graded an A-:

Adam Miller
Hunter Pence
Cameron Maybin
Andrew Miller
Jay Bruce
Adam Lind
Travis Snyder
Troy Tulowitzki
Justin Upton
Jose Tabata
Matt Garza
Billy Butler
Luke Hochevar

I would take pretty much every singe one of those players over Lofgren, with the possible exception of Snyder... Adenhart stands out to me as well, but there are others...

When I look at this list I dont think Lofgren stands out like a sore thumb or anything, but I would say the players on list are a notch above him. I like Lofgren a lot, but the list above is guys who have been dominant past the low minors, or had extremely high expectations and have so far done nothing to discourage them in short season, etc...  Most of these players are more proven than Lofgren, and Lofgren simply hasn't seperated himself from other, similar guys at his level to the point where he merits inclusion.

by alskor on Dec 19, 2006 11:43 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

john may have a reason
let me suggest that john might have some specific reason for giving him the grade.  they are, after all, his grades.  

he does ask "is this too high" in the writeup, which implies that it's a pretty shaky A-, as A-es go.  

personally i agree that A- seems oddly high for lofgren, and i'm going to be pissed if he proves out the A-, because i traded him two weeks ago.  

but i'll wait for the book to come out and see what it says.  maybe there's a reason.

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2006 11:59 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well
I mean, that's what were doing here though, right?

I just dont think the Lofgren grade stands up to any test of consistency when compared to his other A- players... and also when we look at the B+ guys, who seem to be more worthy of an A-, like Adenhart... I dont want to go case by case, b/c that's really where I would defer to his discretion. I just look at the other A-s and Lofgren seems to be out of place...

Im sure he has a reason for the grade, but he puts them up here for feedback, and isnt beyond changing them before the book comes out... look at the Twinkies ratings.

by alskor on Dec 20, 2006 12:10 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

you've got a point.
you're right.  i just feel like every time john gives somebody an unexpected grade, everybody's all - ok, i don't know what i'm talking about.  

by wily mo on Dec 20, 2006 1:13 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

makeup?
There are a lot of intangibles that people really love about Lofgren. He has shown good poise this year when faced with occasional difficulties. So it may very well be the case that the numbers if his numbers are A- caliber and his 'stuff' is B+ caliber, then the other information about his makeup causes John to lean towards the A- grade.

or maybe it's something else. Just sharing one possibility.

by FI on Dec 22, 2006 9:49 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I'd say B+
I'd be okay with giving him a B+ for me.  I think he deserves credit as he took strides this year, with the positive trend in numbers, but I just think he lacks the top level stuff to be considered in the A range.

by toonsterwu on Dec 20, 2006 6:29 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Lofgren/Drennan
Having seen Lofgren play when he was at Burlington, A- is justified.  I know, it's Appy League ball, but you could see then that Chuck has all the intangibles to go along with the tools.  He may not have the 95+ fastball of Miller (although it's getting close), but Chuck's mental make-up, poise and mound presence is off the charts.  Sometimes we get caught up in the tools and forget about the intangibles, and Lofgren excells in that area.  John, good call on him.

As for Drennan, he has an unbelievably sweet swing and he will be an outstaning hitter in the show in a couple of years.  He will shoot even higher up the charts in the future.

by ChiefWahooVol on Dec 19, 2006 6:21 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Lofgren, B+
If he should get traded to the NL though, he gets an A- because of his bat.

by StickRat on Dec 19, 2006 8:59 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Barton
i love this kid...sounds like a player to me.. Mike Cameron?

by odo31 on Dec 19, 2006 11:33 AM EST   0 recs

Prospect Book
John, when does your book actually ship? BTW, the "Prospect Book" link on the left-hand nav of your Mastersball site goes to a messed up page...

by igreen01 on Dec 19, 2006 11:33 AM EST   0 recs

book
The book will ship the last few days of January or the first couple days of February depending on when it comes back from the printer.

by John Sickels on Dec 19, 2006 12:01 PM EST   0 recs

Drennen
Is a surprise at # 4. I would think Drennen & Crowe would be reversed, as Drennen has had little time to prove himself and was good not great at low A. What do you see in him that merits the ranking? (I really know little about him).

by DocNo on Dec 19, 2006 12:05 PM EST   0 recs

Barton / Drennen / Crowe
What were the final deciding factors on this order for the three outfielders?

by gunkdog on Dec 19, 2006 12:33 PM EST   0 recs

While you're at it...
I'm also curious about Barton/ Drennen/ Snyder/ Crowe.

by ManchildinBeantown on Dec 19, 2006 12:51 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Same here
I'm also interested in why you ordered them as such.

by Rayman on Dec 19, 2006 1:07 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

re
Crowe needs to be a B for sure.......

by rdf8585 on Dec 19, 2006 12:51 PM EST   0 recs

crowe
I absolutely agree.  B- is harsh for an impact lead off guy with 40+ bag speed.

by yoshimi on Dec 19, 2006 4:17 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Some thoughts
I'd give Miller an A, he's one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball. I'd also give Lofgren a B+, as he still needs to prove himself at higher levels. And i'm curious as to why JD Martin didn't crack the top 20?

by Rayman on Dec 19, 2006 1:06 PM EST   0 recs

changes I'd make
Max Ramirez -- down a tick, his glove is apparently brutal, so to me he looks like he might stick as a mediocre DH. I don't think that warrants a B-.

Sipp and Crowe -- both up a notch to B. Sipp maybe even B+. He has dominated at every level, and really does have power stuff. The kid will be in the Cleveland bullpen in 2007. Crowe had figured out AA before the ankle injury slowed him in August. I think he'll show more power than you think.

Drennen hasn't done enough yet to warrant a B so I'd take him down to B- or C+ just to be conservative. Snyder simply isn't showing enough power for me to overlook the massive amout of Ks, so I'd knock him down to C+. Do you really think he'll make contact in the majors?

I also think JD Martin should be in that top 20, at least ahead of Jensen Lewis. Martin is only a year older and he'd already mastered AA (IMO) before the TJ surgery. And it'll be 18 months since the surgery when ST rolls around.

I'm starting to sound like indiansfan so I'll shut up now.

by mrich on Dec 19, 2006 1:12 PM EST   0 recs

Lofgren's numbers
aren't in the same class of dominance as the others guys that get A's; so unless there is some weaponry or intangibles that don't show up in the numbers, it seems like the A- might be a little high.  

by siddfynch on Dec 19, 2006 1:22 PM EST   0 recs

Marte
John, I know Marte moved up, but just out of curiosity, where would he rank amongst this group?  Would he still be a top prospect, or has his slide from favor in the prospect community bumped him down the order?

by ZackAttack on Dec 19, 2006 1:23 PM EST   0 recs

Snyder
John, I'm interested in whether you saw Snyder play last year and what your take is on his struggles.  He came into last year very high, but seemed to take a huge step backward.

by APV on Dec 19, 2006 1:38 PM EST   0 recs

questions
Guys, these are all good questions. But I'm working 12-14 hour days trying to get the book done and I have to concentrate on that right now.

by John Sickels on Dec 19, 2006 1:41 PM EST   0 recs

JD Martin
I echo others who think you have him too low.  He might even be top 10.  Before he was hurt, he had passed the AA soft-tosser test and I hear that now his velocity has picked up a notch.
-Hollister

by dbhollister on Dec 19, 2006 1:45 PM EST   0 recs

Rodney Choy Foo?
Is he still with the Indians' organization?  I saw he looked to have a nice run in Hawaii and made their All-Star team.  If he is still with the Indains is he getting too old to be considered a prospect?  Otherwise, how close was he to making the list?

by acr on Dec 19, 2006 1:49 PM EST   0 recs

Really surprised
I'm shocked that Crowe is rated as low as he is on here.  Every other list I've seen has had him top 3.  Also, big kudos for going outside the box in the lower half, IMO.  You have a lot of players in there that project as major leaguers in a middle relief role (Mastny, Perez, Mujica).  However, I'd switch a few things up.  I was completely off the Snyder bandwagon, then the end of the year gave me just enough hope for him.  His numbers got dramatically better when they put him up in the 1/2 area of the lineup.  I think the grade on him might be too high though.  I'd put Crowe at B and Snyder at B-.  I also think I'd switch Martin and Slocum.  Slocum hasn't really impressed me yet.  He's getting decent results, but he's a lot like a RH Brian Tallet to me.  He gets decent numbers, but I can't figure out how when I watch him.  Martin has had more dominant numbers, when he's been able to stay healthy.  If he stays healthy, I think he projects as more than a swing starter, like Slocum tops out at in my mind.  Thanks for the Tribe list, John.  

by Fundamentals on Dec 19, 2006 1:52 PM EST   0 recs

Barton
I got him in a keeper league...can people discuss him?

he seems like a Mike Cameron to me..

any insight?

by odo31 on Dec 19, 2006 3:02 PM EST   0 recs

Mike Cameron Crazy
Is he more like Chris Young - Mike Cameron or Adam Jones - Mike Cameron?

by cooper7d7 on Dec 19, 2006 3:20 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

i dont knwo
im just looking for someone else's opinion.

by odo31 on Dec 19, 2006 3:51 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Speaking of which,
where would Mike Cameron rate on this list?

by siddfynch on Dec 19, 2006 6:27 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

yeah
every skinny black CFer is compared to Cameron (even when they have little in common).

Cameron- took a long time to develop in the minors, is a great defensive OFer, solid discipline, terrible contact rates, solid power.

Young- Pushed through the minors skipping High A, a very good defensive CFer without Cameron's arm, good discipline (better than Cameron), quickly improving contact rates, very good power.

Jones- Rushed through the minors and made his big league debut at age 20 (when Cameron was in Low A), is a better SS than CF (moved out of necesity), has bad discipline, solid contact rates, emmerging power.

In reality, other than body type, skin color, and athleticism, these guys don't have a whole lot in common with Cameron. Especially unfair is Young being constantly compared to cameron, especially since Cameron won't be half the player Young will turn into

by ScottAZ on Dec 20, 2006 3:56 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Man.
Cameron is extremely underrated, a 25/25 guy in CF with good OBP skills who's played his entire career in pitcher's parks (some of them pretty extreme).  He's never had a peak season where he hit .300/.400/.550 with 40 SBs, but he never had much of a valley, either.  He's got 200 HRs, 250 SBs (at a 78% success rate), and a .342 career OBP, not bad for a plus CF.  I'd bet good money that Young doesn't beat that, just because no matter how talented you are it's hard to match that level for that long.

Seriously, what is it, the low average and Ks?  He's like a lighter-hitting Adam Dunn who actually plays defense at a difficult position.

But I TOTALLY agree with you that the Cameron comps for all these slight black athletes are a bit stupid.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 20, 2006 10:38 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

re
You don't think Chris Young will be better than Cameron? Thats a bet I'd be willing to take. I think Chris Young is about the surest thing in the minors right now. His power, discipline, speed, defense are things that will undoubtedly carry over to the Bigs. Only question with him will be the BA. Will he be like Cameron, hitting in the .240-.255 range most years? Will he be a level above that, hitting .260-.270? Will he even be better?

I do agree that Cameron is highly underated. I have no idea why he has bounced around so much. He is one of the three top defensive CFers in the game, by all accounts is a team leader and a great club house guy, and brings a solid offensive game despite playing in safeco, Shea, and now Qualcom. Torii Hunter has been a allstar and is one of the faces of baseball, but if Cameron played his career in the Metrodome his numbers would dwarf Hunters'. I'm guessing his homers would shoot up to 30-35 per year

by ScottAZ on Dec 21, 2006 10:08 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Surest thing in the minors
I would not say Chris Young is even near the surest thing in the minors, they are these guys named Delmon Young, Alex Gordon, heck even Billy Butler or Andy LaRoche are much surer things than Chris Young.  

by ssjames on Dec 21, 2006 1:09 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

re
Delmon Young is far from a sure thing. I wouldn't be the half-bit surprised to see him not develop into the uber-star everyone is calling. He hasn't shown much power and his plate discipline is bad. Two very good reasons he may be a relative bust.

Andy Laroche a sure thing? You must be joking. He is a very good prospect, but don't get carried away.

Gordon I agree should be a offensive force, as Buttler should in his own right.

by ScottAZ on Dec 22, 2006 12:50 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

where wouldve Rya Goleski ranked?
in the early teens? 12-15 range?
BA ranked him with the best power/best OF arm in the system. but because "Shady Shapiro" hid the injury reports, maybe he might return

by rayver723 on Dec 19, 2006 3:26 PM EST   0 recs

I'm not sure
Goleski is on the list. He would be ranked behind all the outfielders on this list, perhaps even Francisco. That would put him in the 15-20 range. A great DH in a league where pitchers are obliged to throw fastballs.

by DocNo on Dec 19, 2006 3:36 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

high rankings for recent draftees
I've always been curious what leads to such high rankings for several of the recent draftees vs. those prospects who have more minor league experience.  Case in point is Wes Hodges (coming back from injury, no prof. playing experience, etc.) while I like the potential, I cannot see how the rating can be that high right now.  Same thing goes for the Baseball America lists.  Just an observation.

by drjohnston on Dec 19, 2006 4:05 PM EST   0 recs

Is anyone else worried about Indiansfan
The list has been up for 8 hours, and he hasn't commented yet!  I hope all is well, and it is a vacation or a romantic entanglement that is keeping him from posting!

by BIgMax on Dec 19, 2006 5:09 PM EST   0 recs

HOW IN THE ####
Does Trevor Crowe get a B- while Jacoby flippin Ellsbury gets a B+?

The truth lies in between in that both are B grade prospects.

There's NO WAY the separation of grades makes sense. Again, Jacoby hype session in full effect. Check the scouting reports, check the stats.

Besides a small sample size in AA, Crowe has performed just better than Ellsbury every step of the way.

The only thing Ellsbury is better at is defense and Crowe is reportedly a plus defender as well.

I'd also put Crowe up there in the top 4 in the system. Some of the guys ahead of him have very questionable futures.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Dec 19, 2006 5:28 PM EST   0 recs

Hmm...
I definitely agree that Crowe should be a B, but I'm not sure I agree that Ellsbury shouldn't be a B+.  I'll admit in advance that I don't completely understand how the numbers on minorleaguesplits.com are determined, but there is definitely a HUGE difference between Ellsbury's +65/150 and Crowe's -37/150.

by drob320 on Dec 19, 2006 6:43 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

range
I cen't believe people continue to take those numbers so seriously.
The range stats for major leaguers have their own reliability issues, and for minor leaguers they are more of a novelty than anything else right now. While I do believe Ellsbury is a superior outfielder, Crowe seems very strong and I would question the sanity of anyone who really believes Ellsbury makes 100 more outs per season than Crowe.

by FI on Dec 19, 2006 10:13 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Im still shaking my head...
that the Sox actually asked for Crowe, Miller, and Carmona in return for Manny Ramirez...

I dont know how Theo asked that with a straight face.

by alskor on Dec 19, 2006 11:48 PM EST   0 recs

But wait
Not only that, but they wanted the Tribe to pay the bulk of his salary as well.

by Rayman on Dec 20, 2006 9:29 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

That's nothing
They reportedly asked the Dodgers for Billingsley, Kemp and Broxton.  Everybody saw the deal that Washington made with Cinci and I think now every GM is convinced that if Jim Bowden can fleece somebody then they can too.

by ssjames on Dec 20, 2006 5:12 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Overboard
I don't know if they asked for it all but they realistically wanted Kemp and Broxton

by jaguar2490 on Dec 20, 2006 8:56 PM EST to parent up   0 recs