Grade C Prospects

by John Sickels on Nov 12, 2007 1:45 PM EST in News

There are two kinds of Grade C prospects.

Guys close to the majors who project as role players.
Guys a long way from the majors who could turn out to be very good, or not, but that it's too early to tell.

As I stated in the last thread, sometimes I get caught trying to decide who to put in the book if a particular system has a lot of people who could be interesting. I can't put EVEYONE in, it simply isn't practical. Decisions have to be made.

An example: in the Twins system, if it comes down to putting either Mike Macri or Mike Tarsi in the book, but I can't put both, who would you rather see? Macri is a lot closer to the majors and might be a useful utility infielder as soon as 2008. Tarsi is just getting started, a 12th round college pitcher who pitched well in the Appy League but who may, or may not, develop into anything interesting. Both rate as Grade Cs.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I wonder?

Do you take their organizations strengths and weaknesses into account as well? To me Macri is a player who has a decent chance of actually getting some big league at-bats in the near future with the Twins shaky infield situation, while Tarsi may have some upside you could seriously find 25 more pitchers in the system who would have a better case to be in the book.

You said in my comment directed at Garrett Jones that you took fantasy owners into account when including players who are on the 40 man, if you take that into account wouldn't you rather do a write up on a guy who has an outside shot of having 200 MLB plate appearances by the end of the 08 season rather than a guy who has just gotten through the Appy league?

Still I would take both Macri and Tarsi over a Garrett Jones writeup

by Terry Ryan Jr on Nov 12, 2007 2:02 PM EST reply actions

Overall though,

when comparing apples to apples I would rather see a write up on the younger guy, almost every time.

by Terry Ryan Jr on Nov 12, 2007 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

It depends...

...on why you read this site. If you are in a deep prospect/keeper league then the A ball pitcher is of more interest. or if you are here just for the prospect following...

However, if you are in a simulation/fantasy type league that only focuses on MLB players then you care more about the guy who will make a MLB entrance next season. This assumes, of course, that the A ball pitcher will either improve and be included in the book next season, or fall off and not be worthy anyway.

I am in the latter, and thus I care more about the guy who could be in MLB in 2008. Also, in my case, fantasy is not as important as real life contributions that fantasy doesn't count... thus a utility guy has value in my league.

by dbimberg on Nov 12, 2007 2:34 PM EST up reply actions

Writeup

Since I'm just a baseball fan and I'm not into those keeper leagues where people draft anyone above A ball, I think that I'd rather see the guy closer to the bigs. It can be frustrating when a guy gets called up and between all the scouting books, there's very little on him. If Macri has a better chance of contributing for the Twins this year, put him in. If Tarsi turns into anything interesting, I'm sure there will be a spot for him in next years book. Seems to me that 11 pro starts in rookie ball isn't much to go on, even if the kid is 6'8" Lefty and pitched very well.

But that's just my opinion, which doesn't really matter anyway. John's the guy who gets paid the big bucks for this stuff...

Cheers.

I'm proud to have seen #756

by Azantor on Nov 12, 2007 2:31 PM EST reply actions

Tarsi

It's interesting to note that on Aaron Gleeman's adjusted FIP ratings (taking into account leagues and parks), Tarsi had the same FIP as Kevin Slowey (2.40), the IL pitcher of the year.

I rate Tarsi pretty highly considering numbers plus upside.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Nov 12, 2007 2:54 PM EST reply actions

tarsi

What if it is Tarsi or Zach Ward? Which would you rather have in the book?

by John Sickels on Nov 12, 2007 2:56 PM EST reply actions

even for a throw away comment,

this is pretty bad. ward is going to surprise a lot of people.

in 3 years.

when he finally gets an opportunity to start at the major league level after two years of riding the bus between AAA and the MLB bullpen.

ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (link fixed)
variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Nov 12, 2007 4:14 PM EST up reply actions

decision

OK, Tarsi is in. To make room I'm cutting Errol Simonitsch, who I am very doubtful about.

by John Sickels on Nov 12, 2007 3:03 PM EST reply actions

good call

Simonitsch's upside appears to be that of Dave Gassner. I would be surprised if he is still on the Twins 40 man roster when those are set before the Winter Meetings.

I think Zach Ward's "other" (non- W-L record) numbers tell us that he should stay in the book.

by SethSpeaks on Nov 12, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

good call.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Nov 12, 2007 3:38 PM EST up reply actions

Tarsi

Mike Tarsi, no question about it. Good call John.

by Abbath @ Minor League Ball on Nov 12, 2007 4:01 PM EST reply actions

Michael McCardell

his numbers were flat out GAUDY in the APPY league....

I will be watching him close next year.

by hotshotschamp on Nov 12, 2007 6:00 PM EST up reply actions

The Twins...

The Twins have so many intersting players in the lower levels, yet most of the info I can find is just stats, not scouting reports. John, if you do included any of the waves of rookie ball players, please focus on make up, ablity, tools, and possibly organizational options.

The squirrels have become organized...and they're angry!

by maxisagod on Nov 12, 2007 6:03 PM EST reply actions

I think Zach Ward shoul definately stay

he was a recent high-round pick with major league stuff. Plus he has more minor league play to make observations on compared to Tarsi.

Tarsi looks fine and all but a late-round college lefty doing well in the Appy league is a dime a dozen.

by nms on Nov 12, 2007 6:17 PM EST reply actions

ward

Ward is in the book. Already wrote the comment.

by John Sickels on Nov 12, 2007 6:22 PM EST reply actions

good move

ward has a shot i think, 3rd rounder. plus he lives in kannapolis nc, 5 minutes from me. gotta root for the lokes

Curtis Granderson fan

by jrose643 on Nov 12, 2007 9:13 PM EST up reply actions

Include the guy closer to the majors

The guy that is farther away still has plenty of development time and can be included in a future book. If you don't include the guy closer to the bigs and he moves up and makes an impact then you miss the boat on him.

by SBcaptain2 on Nov 12, 2007 7:37 PM EST reply actions

+1

well said. If he does good in A-, he'll be in the book next year. If he flops, no sweat.

Curtis Granderson fan

by jrose643 on Nov 12, 2007 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

The points are valid, but...

Just not very interesting. Reading about guys who, if everything goes right, may get a handful of starts or a couple dozen innings in the majors, over potential aces just sounds.... boring. It probably not that extreme, but very few of these guys will have any value, fantasy wise or for real teams, it just seems like a waste of book space. Give me guys who I can get excited about, who, yes, may crash and burn in A ball, but who one day may warrant a prospect retro where John can say, "I gave him a C in rookie ball because....".

The squirrels have become organized...and they're angry!

by maxisagod on Nov 12, 2007 10:17 PM EST up reply actions

2cents

personally speaking i'd rather have the guy who is closer to the big leagues (only if he has a decent shot at being called up that year). while there are some leagues with really deep farm systems out there, you'd probably need to have at least 300 farm players drafted before C guys with more upside will be considered.

by bk11 on Nov 12, 2007 9:03 PM EST reply actions

Matt Macri

not Mike

"Dying is no big deal. The least of us will manage that. Living is the trick." - Red Smith

by finman on Nov 12, 2007 10:13 PM EST reply actions

Closer to the majors

If the young guy continues to impress he can always make future lists. It seems to me that the argument for the young guy seems to me to be hurry up and put him on the list before he flames out.

I understand peoples fascination with the new hot prospect every year, but IMO the whole point is who is going to make the majors, role player or not. That kid who looks good in A ball would be lucky to ever be a role player in the majors. Looking back on past lists I would rather see more guys who made the majors, than guys who flamed out at AA.

by GoldenSpikes24 on Nov 13, 2007 1:42 AM EST reply actions