New York Yankees Top 20 Prospects for 2008

Humberto Sanchez

Is he done? Last you he was given a B+, but it seems he didnt even get a C+ this year.

#269

by mrmetaa on Dec 17, 2007 1:46 AM EST 0 recs

Tabata

Too high for Tabata. Otherwise looks good.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 17, 2007 1:48 AM EST 0 recs

Considering how spectacular his only minor league season was, I'd have a hard time denying Kennedy an A-. And depending on how much or how long you feel the hamate injury has been suppressing Tabata's power, I think a B+ may be a shade optimistic.

I also think the ebb and flow of Montero-hype will be on the rise again soon enough, and the kid will turn in a monster year. I like Miranda a bit more than you, as well. Next year should be interesting for McAllister--worth watching, but he needs to show something in his age 20 season.

by Yossarian on Dec 17, 2007 2:03 AM EST 0 recs

considering

what Kennedy did in the minors AND majors, he should be an A-.

by Travis G on Dec 17, 2007 2:10 AM EST 0 recs

I'm not sure I see Kennedy as an A-

Sure he did well. But I don't think his stuff plays up that high. B+ sounds pretty good to me.

by Montreal97 on Dec 17, 2007 9:20 AM EST up 0 recs

I dont see Kennedy as an A-

I think John may be a tad generous on the B+.
Look on the scale Hughes is the better pitcher. and I dont think its even debatable. But I dont think Kennedy is all that close to Hughes. Hughes has ace potential. Kennedy a #4 SP potential. Kennedy may have a feel for pitching now. But thats only going to get him so far. Hughes filthy stuff should (will?) dominate hitters in a year or two. U just dont see it. Kennedy doesnt have any pitches that rate near Hughes. So how can they really be that close. John can give him a B+. I think he is more of a B to B- guy.
I respect Johns opinion, and he is right more often than I would ever be. I just think Kennedy is a level or two to high here.

by Maxima231 on Dec 18, 2007 11:21 PM EST up 0 recs

Agree with most of what you say...

and I certainly think Kennedy is getting way overrated.

BUT I do think his ceiling is a little bit higher than a #4 starter.

His stuff really isnt that great.

by alskor on Dec 18, 2007 11:29 PM EST up 0 recs

Response

Generous on a B+?

Dude went from A ball to the majors in one season and pitched well at every level. So I'm assuming the complaint has nothing to do with his statistics.

He's not a flamethrower but he's smart and has plenty of stuff to get by on. Kennedy as a prospect reminds me a lot of Jeff Francis circa 2005, another guy with less-than-awesome stuff but great command. Francis was a Grade A . . .I'll allow that Francis has some additional value being a lefty, and that he didn't have the down year that Kennedy had in his last year of college. Then again, Francis didn't go straight to the majors in one year.

I'm no Yankee fan, but Kennedy is an easy B+ and then some. Hell of a prospect.

by mrkupe on Dec 19, 2007 1:13 AM EST up 0 recs

AJax

Little surprised about Austin Jackson's grade. I know he's only done it one year but I thought he'd get at least a B.

I can see the argument for Kennedy getting an A-, but I buy him as a B+ too.

by Stephcaflowne on Dec 17, 2007 2:29 AM EST 0 recs

Suttle

Didn't think he would be so high. I was surprised that sanchez and melancon were left off too. I like them more than some of the C+ guys you have listed.

by Sidd Finch on Dec 17, 2007 2:51 AM EST 0 recs

Lars vs. Austin

How is Lars Anderson a B+ and Jackson is a B-? It defies all reason

by deltabourne on Dec 17, 2007 3:15 AM EST 0 recs

I have no problem with Lars above Austin

Lars has some rare power potential and has done great so far. If I had the opportunity Id trade Jackson for Lars in a second.

Now Ryan Kalish vs. Austin Jackson... that immediately stuck out to me.

Kalish:
Grade B
20 years old
A- ball
.368/.471/.540
3 HR 18 SB
injury shortened season (23 games in 07, 40 total in MiLB career)
Drafted in 9th round

Jackson:
Grade B-
21 years old
A+ ball
.345/.398/.566
13 HR 32 SB
Drafted in 8th round

Now, dont get me wrong, I believe Kalish is a clean B... I just think Jackson should be a B as well. I would take Kalish over Jackson too, if given the choice but I dont think Kalish is a half a letter grade better... I think theyre very close.

Lars is a beast though... likely an "A-" a year from now, IMHO.

I should point out, again, that Im a Sox fan. I did just comment in the Horne thread earlier today that I thought Jackson is being overrated, too... but I do think he's a B.

by alskor on Dec 17, 2007 3:31 AM EST up 0 recs

How could it defy all reason anyway?

What's not to like about Lars?

Shown good patience(.393 OBP)and projects to be a very powerful hitter(51 XBH in 493MiLB ABs). Lars was supposed to be a stud and has done nothing but validate that notion so far.

Ill tell you whats not to like about Austin Jackson for comparison's sake... he put up a decent rookie ball season and an impressive 67 games in A+ ball this year... but the bulk of his minor league career is a year and a half in the Sally league where he did diddly squat.

Here's his SAL lines:
2006 .258/.338/.344 682 OPS 4HR
2007 .260/.336/.374 710 OPS 3HR

Ugly. I like Jackson a lot too and think he should be a B, but you cant act like there's no questions here. If he puts up a line like one of those two above in AA or AAA this year he's going down to a C and likely lands somewhere in the 15-20 range of NYY prospects. Also, his good line from Tampa this year was somewhat the product of a .395 BABIP. Now, Austin has great speed so he'll have some high BABIPs, but not .395...

by alskor on Dec 17, 2007 3:42 AM EST up 0 recs

i think a big

factor would be that jackson plays CF, and lars is a 1b

the yankees changed jacksons swing at high A, which was the reason for his turnaround

by bmxstreetrider86 on Dec 17, 2007 2:08 PM EST up 0 recs

A-Jax

Here are some of the grade B guys that I would take Austin Jackson ahead of for sure;

Chris Coghlan, 2B, Grade B

Matt Dominguez, 3B, Grade B

Todd Frazier, SS-3B, Grade B+

Devin Mesoraco, C, Grade B

John Mayberry Jr, OF, Grade B

Virtually every other grade B is at least arguable. I have a hard time rating Todd Frazier a B+ and Jackson a B-. Frazier is a 21 y/o that put up good numbers in rookie ball. Jackson is a 20 yo that put up good numbers in A+ ball. I have a hard time believing Frazier's ceiling that much bigger than Jackson's to warrant two levels.

Overall, Jackson K 19.5%, BB 8.7%, HR/AB 38.2, EBH/AB 10.5%, SB 75%. Most of these numbers improved dramatically when he moved up a level, which is obviously huge. His time in the FSL was as good as, if not better than, Cameron Maybin. The final grade depends on his defense and ceiling. Since he's a speedy CF, I assume his defense is pretty good. All I've ever heard about Jackson is tools tools tools. With his breakout this year, if it were me, I'd say A-, but you are tight, so B+:)

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2007 6:20 AM EST 0 recs

Yankees Farm

I think that the Yankees farm system grades higher than you are giving them credit for. A lot of these guys have extreme ceilings. There is also a lot more talent in the system that should be rated with these guys. Humberto Sanchez and Melancon have to be top 20. Montero is at least a B-...His defense has made great strides and his power projects way above average. The Redsox grades are also a bit to high especially Jed Lowry he is a utility guy at best.I also think that there is not that much of a difference in Ellsbury's game and Brett Gardner's game.

by VOIII on Dec 17, 2007 7:38 AM EST 0 recs

wow

Quote: "The Redsox grades are also a bit to high especially Jed Lowry he is a utility guy at best.I also think that there is not that much of a difference in Ellsbury's game and Brett Gardner's game."

When you say stuff like this you come off as fanboyish. Lowrie had a 900 OPS as a switch hitter split between AA and AAA last year and plays SS at least adequate to some teams' scouts out there but was considered a likely plus defender at 2B if he had to move there, yet that's a future utility guy?

Also, I understand saying that Gardner and Ellsbury are closer than many will admit right now (and I actually think he is quite underrated) however, Gardner is likely maxed out right now. He'll never be a high average hitter like jacoby or have any power in his game whatsoever. Also Jacoby has true plus plus type speed where as Brett's is plus, but more in the 30-35 range rather than potential 50 SB seasons from Jacoby.

I'd say that the difference isnt as big as perceived, but there is some significant difference there.

by jspearlj1 on Dec 17, 2007 7:50 AM EST up 0 recs

Gardner v Ellsbury

Ellsbury is clearly a better player (and this is coming from a Yankee fan), but I have to think Gardner could out run him. Ellsbury's very fast, Gardner is ridiculous.

by mpaxisa on Dec 17, 2007 1:33 PM EST up 0 recs

gardner vs. ellsbury in speed:

Gardner: 39 SB split between AA and AAA.
Ellsbury: 50 SB split between AA, AAA and MLB.

I'd also like to see Gardner score on a wild pitch from 2B before proclaiming him faster. Not to say he can't or that one play really should have that much significance, but... it was a freaking amazing display of speed.

Not to say Ellsbury is faster for sure, but I do think they are pretty close to equal.

by jspearlj1 on Dec 17, 2007 1:40 PM EST up 0 recs

Comparison

You can't just look at the raw stats. This is rough, so bare with me

Ellsbury - 552 At bats - .389 OBA
Gardner - 384 At bats - .369 OBA

SBs won't match up for guys with similar speed if they don't get on base a similar number of times.

by ajake57 on Dec 17, 2007 2:02 PM EST up 0 recs

you're right, but that wasn't the point

My point was more that the speed in terms of SB and triples are close enough that I dont think you can classify one over the other, but that they appear equal. Maybe Gardner is faster, but like you said, there is an OBP difference there, so if he's not getting on base as much, he's not using that speed as much either, so any difference that might exist between the two is mitigated by the loss of chances for Gardner.

by jspearlj1 on Dec 17, 2007 2:46 PM EST up 0 recs

Speed

You said: "Also Jacoby has true plus plus type speed where as Brett's is plus, but more in the 30-35 range rather than potential 50 SB seasons from Jacoby."

I don't think anyone is claiming that Gardner is a better prospect than Ellsbury, but in terms of speed, this comment isn't really supported by evidence. You cite SB totals, but as a counting stat, it's misleading. Ajake57 is on the right track, looking at it in terms of rate. Doing some very rough math:
Ellsbury--50SB, 552AB, .389OBA, becomes .23 stolen bases per time on base.
Gardner--39SB, 384AB, .369OBA, becomes .27 stolen bases per time on base.

Even this doesn't tell the whole story, since speed and base stealing ability aren't the same thing. But, since you're talking about stolen bases as evidence of Ellsbury's phenomenal speed, I think you should look again. Even still, Ellsbury is certainly the better prospect. And, yes, I also stopped caring halfway through typing this response.

by Yossarian on Dec 17, 2007 4:23 PM EST up 0 recs

I haven't followed Ellsbury

But I have to admit I have wondered how Gardner is dismissed as a nobody and Ellsbury is the next coming.

by emac2 on Dec 17, 2007 6:32 PM EST up 0 recs

Wow

Lowrie is a utility guy at worst. I'm not as high on Ellsbury as most. I think he comps well to Damon in value, but I also think Damon was hugely overrated by the end of his tenure with the Sox.

This though, just strikes me as empty rhetoric.

I think there's a lot of potential in the Yankees system, but a lot of these guys have some weaknesses or haven't put up two good years in a row.

Or maybe I'm just much more conservative in my prognostics than others.

As for the Sox grades. I think they were a little optimistic. I don't see Lowrie as a grade A-. I think an A- should still be a sure fire all-star with A resevered for true, multiple all-star/difference maker types.

I thought the Kahlish grade was a little higher, but I love the kid so I won't argue with it. :)

by Montreal97 on Dec 17, 2007 9:27 AM EST up 0 recs

Meh

It's just a case of Yankee love meets Red Sox hate.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 17, 2007 10:05 AM EST up 0 recs

As a Yankee and Sox hater. I cant disagree more...

I dont believe John has underated the Yanks. I think some of his grades are more than generous.
Examples. I love Hughes, Joba and Horne. I dont like Jackson and Kennedy. I have posted reasons already why I am not high on Kennedy. Jackson had 1/2 a year of FSL ball with good #s and you want him to be an A player. The first half of 07 he repeated the Sally league and was an average player at best there. Yes, I know he has great tools. So what. So does a carpenter. I want to see the results for more than 258 ABs. Dont be such a homer for your team. Try to be objective. I know you sleep better at night knowing the Yanks have 11 A- or better guys in there system. But it isnt the case. Do you also have a huge Yankee symbol on your hood and back windshield?
And when you say Lowrie is a utility guy. That just makes the rest of us chuckle.

by Maxima231 on Dec 18, 2007 11:29 PM EST up 0 recs

A few surprises

Surprised that Jackson is a B- and not a B; also surprised that Sanchez isn't up there, especially if Brackman is rated that highly. Finally, also a bit surprised that Tabata is ahead of Kennedy and Jackson.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 17, 2007 9:40 AM EST 0 recs

B+1

i'd give jackson a B+, probably a pretty strong one. the years-long scouting pedigree, the tools, the huge breakout including crazy power production in A+, more good power production (although a slightly unsettling reappearance of the strikeout monster) in hawaii, and most of all the fact that there's an explanation for the breakout (apparently they rebuilt his swing mechanics right before he was promoted). i totally buy him, and i'm a red sox fan. i'd have him #2 here easily.

by wily mo on Dec 17, 2007 12:06 PM EST up 0 recs

The breakout occured in 200 AB's

200 ... that's not even half a season of production. He's a guy to watch, but for certain we cannot be overruling his previous numbers in the minors based on 200 AB's. He's a B-/B until he shows that last year's 200 AB's were the norm not the fluke.

by cubsfan2883 on Dec 17, 2007 12:07 PM EST up 0 recs

sure

but if one can give new draftees like moustakas &c a B+ on talent and upside alone, i don't see why one can't also give jackson one on similar grounds now that he's shown some ability to tap into the talent, even in a smallish sample.

by wily mo on Dec 17, 2007 12:14 PM EST up 0 recs

Moustakas

is quite possibly the most overrated prospect in the minor leagues at the moment. I like Porcello and Price, but I'd argue that what Price showed at Vanderbilt is at least as impressive if not more impressive than what Jackson's done in the lower minors.

by cubsfan2883 on Dec 17, 2007 12:26 PM EST up 0 recs

well, ok

but i didn't say, and don't think, that jackson is better than price. i'd probably give price an A-.

by wily mo on Dec 17, 2007 12:31 PM EST up 0 recs

That's fine man

My apologies that you took that out of my post. Basically with the exception of guys like Jarrod Parker and Rick Porcello, one of which I think is top 50 the other probably top 75.. (top 50 B+/ B) , top 75, B/B-) I only use scouting reports as a part of how I evaulate talent. I believe John would agree with me. He probably has access to more scouting data than I have, which could cause a difference in how he grades(making it more precise/accurate) than someone like I; however, that does not make my criticisms or statistical precisions any more valid. If we were to take Albert Pujols first 200 AB's of the 2007 MLB Season you could come away with a very sour taste in your mouth on who Pujols was. The first 200 AB's were not very Pujols like, even if you had a scouting report, you may grade Pujols at a B or B+ level instead of the straight A he deserves.

I know that's a horrible example because Pujols isn't a prospect anymore, but I feel that people take these 200 AB's and try to use them to override 1200 AB's, which is sort of irritating

It leads you to this question.

Which is more relevant, Scouting reports corroborated by 200 AB's or 2 years of minor league data (roughly 1000 AB's).

I'm not going to really lay down on one side of the fence or the other, I just think it's a valid question when evaluating prospects.. How much water do these reports hold if they are wrong over two seasons but appear latently in 200 or so AB's.

I apologize if my clarity was poor or if you were offended by my previous post.

by cubsfan2883 on Dec 17, 2007 2:56 PM EST up 0 recs

hm.

ok. i don't get offended very easily at all, so don't worry about that.

i do appreciate sample size issues. but - you're right, the pujols example is kind of horrible. for two reasons. one is that as you say he's already an established player. it's much more common for 20-year-olds in the minors to make sudden jumps in performance level than it is for major league hitters in their prime to suddenly forget how to hit. the other is that i treat a hot streak and a cold streak different. with a cold streak - i mean, why was pujols so bad early this year? could have been an injury, mechanical problem, who knows. but there must have been some explanation, right?

now with jackson, and a sudden positive change - again, i figure there must be an explanation. because looking at his numbers from the year before, i don't think he was even physically, mechanically capable of having a streak like this by sheer luck. there's no sign of it anywhere in the numbers. he was striking out like a windmill and hitting for no power. then he goes to high-A, suddenly his strikeouts plummet and he starts slugging .650. combine that with the information about how they changed his swing? i don't buy that it's just a fluke. i'm aware of his old bad numbers, but if he put those numbers up with a different swing, to me, they stop being very relevant.

now these are all judgment calls that you have to make. there's always some chance that the call you make is wrong. maybe he loses the swing again, falls back into bad habits, and washes out. could easily happen. but i'm not going to follow some mathematical rule, that 1200 at-bats is always more important than 200 because it's a larger sample size. a computer can do that. if i see a reason to think the 200 are more meaningful than the 1200, i'm going to go ahead and do it, and that's what i'm doing here. sure i'll be wrong sometimes, and have been more than once, but i've also been right.

by wily mo on Dec 17, 2007 3:23 PM EST up 0 recs

Couldnt Jackson have had

an incredibly lucky 200 ABs. Which is why most of us want to see him continue it at AA. If he has 500 ABs in AA and hits .269 with 17 2B, 7 HR and a 35/1135 BB/K ratio, we wont think he is so hot...
And we will all look back at his great 200 FSL ABs and know it was probably an anomoly.
I am just saying what if? .

by Maxima231 on Dec 18, 2007 11:34 PM EST up 0 recs

if

well, then i'm wrong. but there's no riskless prospect.

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2007 12:04 AM EST up 0 recs

Based on what?

by doublestix on Dec 17, 2007 5:02 PM EST up 0 recs

s/m

Sanchez and Melancon are both in the book, but injury pitchers I tend to lower the grades considerably until we see how they recover.

by John Sickels on Dec 17, 2007 10:56 AM EST 0 recs

TJ

For TJ surgery, John? It's such a known commodity now and is a market inefficiency, at least in the mind of the Yankees, that has lead them after the Melancons and Sanchezs and Brackmans of the world.

by b on Dec 17, 2007 8:06 PM EST up 0 recs

Perhaps

But which of those three guys has contributed at the MLB level? Just because something becomes a known commodity doesn't mean that there isn't still an inherent risk.

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Dec 18, 2007 8:36 PM EST up 0 recs

well

they're almost sure things:

Melancon is widely projected as the next Yankees closer. He should be ready (health-wise and prospect-wise) by the end of '08.

Sanchez now projects as a set-up guy due to health concerns in the rotation. If healthy, he should break camp with the Yanks in '08.

Brackman is no known commodity. He is very raw and has little experience pitching at comment. His injury-proneness is no plus. He is definitely a project with ace potential.

--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias) "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve."--Napoleon Hall

by bobbymcnally on Dec 18, 2007 9:24 PM EST up 0 recs

the surgery is a known commodity

Sorry, to be clear, I wasn't talking about the players being a known commodity, but the TJ surgery being a known commodity. The Yankees have made a habit over the past couple of years of actually going after TJ guys while their value is low (Melancon, Sanchez, Brackman) because, one would have to assume, they don't see any long term issues...in other words, it doesn't effect their prospect status in their minds but they are able to acquire them on the cheap. I guess I was therefore asking John if he just wasn't buying into this philosophy.

by b on Dec 21, 2007 1:20 PM EST up 0 recs

Im not sure thats the philosophy

I think its more like: "We know TJ guys are high risked, but we have the money and they can be undervalued so if one out of five works out that's not bad."

I would wager they view it more as high risk/high payoff rather than "they don't see any long term issues" or "it doesn't effect their prospect status in their minds."

It definitely affects their prospect status in the Yankees view... how could it not?

by alskor on Dec 21, 2007 2:26 PM EST up 0 recs

success rate

In '05, Dr. Jobe stated that the success rate for pros was up to 93%, so that's the risk. The recovery regime is well established. This isn't a shoulder injury anymore, it's a bump in the road.

by b on Dec 21, 2007 9:23 PM EST up 0 recs

Im pretty sure

that means the sugery was successful and the tendon was replaced succesfully.

I dont believe it means the pitcher is ready to pitch competitively again. You so have a point though, in that TJ surgery is much better than in the past and most guys do return.

Some even end up throwing harder and taking care of themselves better.

But i dont think the Yankees see it as no risk or anything.

by alskor on Dec 22, 2007 12:44 AM EST up 0 recs

so Dr. Jobe says...

....that 93% of people suffer no loss in their career trajectory because of Tommy John surgery.

and how does he measure that?

actually, let me be more direct: he doesn't measure that.

TJ isn't a career-ender, but it doesn't do justice to the extent if i say you're just "understating it" in terms of what you're suggesting right now.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 22, 2007 5:34 AM EST up 0 recs

misreading what i said

i didn't say "he doesn't measure ANYTHING" -- i said "he doesn't measure THAT."

"that" being "it makes no effect on a player's career trajectory when he undergoes TJ."

and i'm pretty positive he doesn't measure that because -- it's impossible to measure. literally. you cannot provide proof that an injury didn't negatively effect a player's career, particularly an injury that keeps you off the field for a year's time.

what he might be measuring as a SUBSTITUTE that inflates his success ratio is the percentage of people that return to full muscular strength after rehab.

however, given how uncertain it is to measure "returning to where you would have been," since a pitcher changes on his OWN over time even without an injury (and we don't have a singular way to measure what a pitcher "is" anyway -- velocity? ERA? movement on his pitches? you can't measure EVERYTHING), it wouldn't be unjustified for him to choose a standard deviation around whatever measure he chooses. in other words, 93% of players with TJ throw within one standard dev of their old velocity after returning from surgery (or something like that).

so, Dr. Jobe isn't LYING. but you have to learn to read an advertisement better.

and, as i said, it's science-fiction to think that TJ is no more than a "delay" in a pitcher's career, or that only 7% of pitchers suffer a loss in their career outcomes due to the surgery. that isn't the case.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 23, 2007 3:29 PM EST up 0 recs

"proof"

if you'd think rather than speak, you'd do better on this.

how do you go about measuring a lack of change after surgery? how do you prove that somebody's career doesn't change because they spent one year not pitching, at a critical stage of development, and, in the meantime, underwent a major structural change in their arm?

and WHAT do you measure anyway? you can't say, "they would have had an ERA of 3.50 in 2009, and, lo and behold, they do!" because how were you supposed to figure out what they would have done?

i'm not offering "proof" because there ARE no numbers. that's the whole point. the only numbers that do exist don't measure what you want them to -- they measure what Dr. Jobe is telling you.

if you prefer to believe Dr. Jobe's advertisement, that's your prerogative. i couldn't care less about whether i give you "definitive support" about a subject where such information doesn't exist, nor if you continue to buy into someone's pipe dream. but i can promise you -- as good as Tommy John has gotten, and it is a pretty successful surgery at this point, it is not a "minor bump in the road," where all that's lost for 93% of pitchers is time.

if thinking about what someone's else's "definitive support" is actually saying isn't good enough for you, then i guess you'll have to blindly accept Jobe's quoted percentage as "proof." of what, only you can decide.

oh, and i guess i'm sorry for using quotes around paraphrase, meant to illuminate the difference between your implication and my meaning. i guess.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 23, 2007 5:16 PM EST up 0 recs

ferno-boy

hows about this?

instead of asking ME for proof of what Dr. Jobe is saying, why don't you ask the original poster what it is that Dr. Jobe actually said?

it's pretty clear the post is not a direct quote. obviously, the number came from anywhere.

seeing as it's a rock-solid statistical number, it likely came from a journal article, or some other controlled study, where, presumably the criteria by which Dr. Jobe is measuring is spelled out, in detail.

once we know that criteria, we'll BOTH know what Dr. Jobe was actually measuring.

because right now, i don't know. that was the whole point of my post. but, clearly, neither did the original poster, because what i do know is that, as he stated the results, you'd have to believe in magic, since you literally cannot measure what he says Jobe was measuring. without magic, that is.

maybe Jobe found a decent substitute for that information. but my bet is that he didn't, because: 1) why should he?, 2) i'm not sure you can, 3) that number is way too high for me to believe it means what the original poster thinks it does, and 4) it's a number put out there in contexts to reassure people.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 23, 2007 5:28 PM EST up 0 recs

A-Jax

I think he's way too low at B-. This is a guy that was considered the best player in his age group multiple times by BA. He's always been a tools guy that finally started translating that into performance this year. Some of you argue that his performance from years past warrants some restraint - but, IMO, if he had been putting up good numbers since he was drafted he would be A-/A. Instead, I think he is definitely a B+/B guy.

Not to mention, I've read several people who prefer him to Tabata. While that's probably debatable, I definitely don't think that they are a half grade apart. I mean Jackson has superior tools and superior results. I guess Tabata has superior projection. That seems like it should be pretty close.

by Dfarth on Dec 17, 2007 11:14 AM EST 0 recs

Consistency

I'm not going to comment on any individual grade, but it seems that you are being inconsistent with your grading system. I'd love to hear the rationale for some of these grades vs. other grades (higher or lower), providing for the fact that these grades are extremely preliminary. I will be very interesting to see the final grades to see if you've re-examined these to show, IMO, more consistent thought processes.

If anything, it's going to provide for some interesting smackdowns!

by jc3 on Dec 17, 2007 11:14 AM EST 0 recs

grades

Oh, sure I consider input. That's why I put these things out here. The final lists will be different.

Logic and reason work better to convince me than invictive, of course.

by John Sickels on Dec 17, 2007 11:39 AM EST up 0 recs

What

Brackman has just had the same surgery as Sanchez and Melancon,is way behind in the healing process, and has not thrown a pitch in the minor leagues. How can you put him in the top 20 and not the other 2?

Ellsbury and Gardner's speed is comparible. And neither hits for power. I love the Ellsbury kid, but he's definately overrated.

Redsox Fans hate the Yankees much more than Yankee fans hate the Sox.

Lowrie is way way over-rated. As is the Sox farm system after Bucholz

by VOIII on Dec 17, 2007 11:14 AM EST 0 recs

brack

Because Brackman before getting hurt was a better prospect than Sanchez or Melancon were before they got hurt.

by John Sickels on Dec 17, 2007 11:41 AM EST up 0 recs

ellsbury / gardner

so as not to repeat myself...

http://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2007/9/11/21615/9489/11#11

by wily mo on Dec 17, 2007 11:43 AM EST up 0 recs

adding on to that thread

looking again at the gardner/pierre comp that was suggested there, i don't even see that. they're similarly powerless, but i think even pierre is a better hitter (shudder). pierre never hit under .320 in the minors. gardner's never broken .300. that's a real bad sign for this style of player. almost every meaningful hitting prospect needs to break .300 in the minors at least once in a while. i really don't think he's a starting-caliber player at all.

by wily mo on Dec 17, 2007 11:54 AM EST up 0 recs

+1

I don't understand what other Yankee fans see in him.. he's a bench guy to me.

by jc3 on Dec 17, 2007 11:58 AM EST up 0 recs

Much better plate discipline

Gardner is a legit leadoff hitter, Pierre isn't.

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Dec 17, 2007 12:54 PM EST up 0 recs

I would love to drink the homer juice you have VOI

I dont get your posts. I am still thinking John has this right.

by Maxima231 on Dec 18, 2007 11:37 PM EST up 0 recs

I think drinking the "homer juice"

Is what landed so many of those 2000 Yanks on the Mitchell Report. ;)

"...and the only things I've found better than listening to Vin Scully are listening to Keith Jackson and uncut cocaine." (bleedjaxblue)

by drjayphd on Dec 19, 2007 2:49 AM EST up 0 recs

Brett Gardner

forget Ellsbury for a minute, Bourn received a B-, and his stats are virtually identical to Gardner's.

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Dec 17, 2007 11:23 AM EST 0 recs

But

Bourn has more range and a much better arm

by kaisertown on Dec 17, 2007 11:50 AM EST up 0 recs

Furthermore....

Bourne has already shown he can semi-handle major league pitching.

by Lunkwill Fook on Dec 17, 2007 12:08 PM EST up 0 recs

carmen angelini?

Why isn't he listed? Too young?

by knuckleballer on Dec 17, 2007 11:46 AM EST 0 recs

Last year

Last year you rated Dellin Betances a B, I should really buy the book because then I could say something anecdotal about why you rated him a B. He was above average this year at Staten Island statistically speaking, his walk rate was probably the biggest detractor of success.

Why the grade dropping from a B to a B-.. Did you find something scouting wise that would cause you to make this switch?

by cubsfan2883 on Dec 17, 2007 12:09 PM EST 0 recs

betances

I decided that I overrated him a bit at B, plus I'm worried about his health. B- is still a good grade for an NY-P pitcher.

by John Sickels on Dec 17, 2007 12:20 PM EST up 0 recs

yeah

i was huge on betances last year, but that was mainly because of some of the reports that came out of the yankee complex and instructional leagues about how betances already was showing amazing coachability and was already developing plus command and refining both his secondary pitches to sharp points. based on that i thought he was going to come out in low-A and maybe hit tampa by the end of the year and be on the fast track. i still love his potential but the slow progress and elbow tweaks have me backing off quite a bit.

by wily mo on Dec 17, 2007 12:26 PM EST up 0 recs

Thanks

Fair enough. I'm big on research methodology, and how we choose to measure variables.. So it's intriguing to me the how's and the why's things change over time. I still like Betances.. I think he's going to be solid, a B- doesn't change that for me.

I appreciate the feedback

by cubsfan2883 on Dec 17, 2007 2:58 PM EST up 0 recs

Brad Suttle

John, can you explain the Brad Suttle ranking? That seems out of place.

My grievances: (from a Yankee fan)

To me, Ian Kennedy is a straight-up A-. You can't argue with those results, especially at the speed which they occurred. If it weren't for an innings cap, he would have been the Yankee's best choice for 3rd starter in the playoffs.
Austin Jackson is a B, definitely. We're talking about a guy who had a major break out this year, to go along with all the 5 tooliness.
Jesus Montero and Betances are Bs to me because they have monstrous ceilings. I'm not sure if you've heard all the reports about Montero's defense, but they are very encouraging. He'll stick at catcher for the time being. In addition, he's absolutely blowing away the winter leagues right now.

Love:

Austin Romine's spot
All the C+s.

by DownFromNJ on Dec 17, 2007 12:47 PM EST 0 recs

LOL

"Austin Jackson is a B, definitely. We're talking about a guy who had a major break out this year, to go along with all the 5 tooliness."

I love "tooliness." I like to think that means he has great baseball tools, and is a bit of a miserable human being. I think I'm going to have to use that! :)

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Dec 17, 2007 1:12 PM EST up 0 recs

Montero

I have yet to hear a single scout say that Montero can stick at catcher long term. He's only there for trade value and long shot hope right now. His bat has to be huge to stick at 1B, so I dont see how a borderline C+/B- ranking is a knock on him at all. An 834 OPS in the GCL is good, but nothing too remarkable for a future 1B especially considering his sterling 10 LD% that likely shows his BA was a bit fluky sicne he doesn't have the speed to make up for the difference in BABIP.

Not to say he doesn't have tremendous upside, but I fail to see him truly tapping into said upside yet. That C+/B- grade sounds perfect for Montero.

by jspearlj1 on Dec 17, 2007 1:36 PM EST up 0 recs

I've heard the exact opposite on Montero

he's done a very good job throwing out runners in the GCL and winter leagues. Still, does any prospect have more rumors about him than Montero? I suppose he assassinated Trujillo now, too.

Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Login Bar

Network Bar

A Blog About Minor League Baseball, Rookies, and Prospects

New York Yankees Top 20 Prospects for 2008

Comments