Cleveland Indians Top 20 Prospects for 2008
Cleveland Indians Top 20 Prospects for 2008
- Adam Miller, RHP, Grade B (would be A- or B+ if healthy but I don't trust his elbow)
- Chuck Lofgren, LHP, Grade B
- Beau Mills, 3B-1B, Grade B
- Josh Rodriguez, SS, Grade B (an underrated prospect who needs more attention)
- Wes Hodges, 3B, Grade B-
- Brad Snyder, OF, Grade B-
- Jensen Lewis, RHP, Grade B-
- Jared Goedert, 3B, Grade B-
- Trevor Crowe, OF, Grade C+
- Jon Drennan, OF, Grade C+
- Aaron Laffey, LHP, Grade C+
- David Huff, LHP, Grade C+
- Nick Weglarz, OF, Grade C+
- Scott Lewis, LHP, Grade C+
- Matthew McBride, C, Grade C+
- Jordan Brown, 1B, Grade C+
- Paolo Espino, RHP, Grade C+
- Ben Francisco, OF, Grade C+ (I'd love to have him as a fourth OF)
- Adam Davis, 2B, Grade C
- T.J. McFarland, LHP, Grade C
This system has thinned out at the top but still has depth. There is a large number of C+ guys, anyone from 9 through 18 could rank together depending on what you want to emphasize, so don't fret over the exact placement. I'm not a super-huge fan of Beau Mills, and probably rank him a tad lower than other analysts. I think he'll hit for power but I have questions about his other skills and want to see more pro data.
Of course, full statistics and reports on over 1,000 other players will be in the 2008 Baseball Prospect Book, now available for pre-order. Ships the first Monday in February! The Top 50/50 list will be sent out to all orders with a valid email address later this week.
0 recs |
73
comments
Comments
re
- Mills
- Miller
- Laffey
- Welgarz
- Jordan Brown
by rdf8585 on Jan 14, 2008 5:27 PM EST 0 recs
What about Asdrubal Cabrera?
by Sox Puppet on Jan 14, 2008 5:39 PM EST 0 recs
Asdrubal
by jonk1982 on
Jan 16, 2008 4:28 PM EST
up
0 recs
Weglarz
Compare:
Player A playing in lo-A at age 19
.276/.395/.497 (.341 BABIP)
24% K-rate, 16% BB-rate, 15% LD-rate
Player B playing in lo-A at age 19
.289/.386/.443 (.365 BABIP)
21% K-rate, 14% BB-rate, 14% LD-rate
Player C playing in lo-A at age 19
.313/.377/.525 (.407 BABIP)
25% K-rate, 10% BB-rate, 14% LD-rate
In case you're wondering:
Player A: Nicholas Weglarz C+
Player B: Lars Anderson B+
Player C: Travis Snider B+
by mckeeno on Jan 14, 2008 5:45 PM EST 0 recs
Weglarz
by GregJP on
Jan 14, 2008 5:56 PM EST
up
0 recs
Weglarz
His numbers look very interesting, but clearly there is more to a prospect than numbers. That said, I'd like to know more about him. I'll have to look up some scouting reports...
by Jgaztambide on
Jan 14, 2008 6:13 PM EST
up
0 recs
injury
by emil minty on
Jan 14, 2008 10:30 PM EST
up
0 recs
Response
I'm not sure why there's a need to micro-analyze these statistics, as if they're hiding something.
by mrkupe on
Jan 14, 2008 6:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
Weglarz
He's very, very, very easily a B prospect.
His taint has more major league hitting potential than Brad Snyder.
by gogotabata on
Jan 14, 2008 7:12 PM EST
up
0 recs
At this point, I really agree
by sdtribefan on
Jan 14, 2008 9:47 PM EST
up
0 recs
Weglarz scouting reports...
ESPN's David Srinivasan
Highlights: 19 years old, tremendous upside, good walks, needs to improve K's, sturdy frame (6'3", 215), 35 homer threat within the next 2-4 years (may mean someday a 35 homer threat, in the majors in 2-4 years...not sure that sounds right otherwise); broken hamate bone set him back, out all 2006.
Fan's blog, rank #6
Highlights: selected 3rd round in 2005 from high school in Canada, one of only a handful of players to have an OPS over .892 while under 20 years old in the SAL, raw power and an advanced approach at the plate, size and raw power (reportedly up to 240 lbs.), may project to 1B long term, but an average LF.
Also includes video of his swing.
Anyway, read more yourselves. He was raved as the best power hitter to come from Canada in a long time after the 2005 draft...not sure who else that would include, but I'm sure there's some good players there. :)
I was a little surprised at his low ranking here, but I know C+ is some good praise from John. I like Weglarz, power and good walk rate with high K's usually sorts out to a pretty solid player (see Billy Butler, Ryan Howard, Ryan Braun).
by phiago on
Jan 14, 2008 7:38 PM EST
up
0 recs
Weglarz
JAS
by jasvlm on
Jan 14, 2008 8:28 PM EST
up
0 recs
As indiansfan can attest,
by sdtribefan on
Jan 14, 2008 9:55 PM EST
up
0 recs
I think his "being lost" out there is
Hello sdtribefan,
While I think his inexperience and "looking lost" can be overcome, you make a good point about his being "too big" for the position, which could make his range subpar even for LF. That's something that could become a problem down the road and necessitate Weglarz switching positions, either to 1B or DH (Hafner's newly-signed contract will probably not have much length left by the time Weglarz is likely ready, leaving that position as a possibility.)
Just my 2 cents.
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on
Jan 15, 2008 10:30 PM EST
up
0 recs
Canadians
bc
by bluechipper on
Jan 14, 2008 9:49 PM EST
up
0 recs
Canadian Sticks
Morneau
Bay
Martin
Koskie
Stairs
Votto
Puhl
by GregJP on
Jan 14, 2008 10:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
whoa
wait, hold up. those are three different animals you just named. billy butler doesn't strike out. he's a high-average contact hitter with power; that's kind of why everybody loves him so much. loved, i guess, before they moved on to the next flavor about six months ago. but i digress. butler strikes out maybe 15% of his ABs. that's nothing. braun has a normal-slugger K rate, say 20-25%. and howard is a historic windmill, 30-35%, to the point where everybody's shocked he could hack it (no pun intended) in the majors at all.
i don't mean to nitpick, but since the whole point of this discussion is making fine distinctions between various power-hitting prospects, and you throw out something like that, it makes me wonder what's going on.
also, generally speaking, "power and good walk rate with high K's usually sorts out to a pretty solid player" is sort of an unsafe statement. you take 20 of those guys out of low-A, 15 of them you're probably never going to see again, and just because you can point to ryan howard doesn't make it all go away. power + walks + high Ks may be a nice package, but i'll still take power + walks + low Ks any day.
with all of that said, weglarz' K% is actually no higher than snider's and only about 5% higher than larz'. i do think this goes to scouting more so than K rate. i also agree that weglarz is somewhat underrated. he's in my own top 100.
by wily mo on
Jan 14, 2008 9:55 PM EST
up
0 recs
I agree
I guess what I mean is power with good vision is a great thing for him. And power with high k's is fairly normal, so it doesn't scare me. Prospects with great raw power, i.e. Butler, Braun and Howard are rare and power usually tranlates up the ladder pretty well.
Thanks for calling me out, feel free to nitpick, I think we agree for the most part.
by phiago on
Jan 15, 2008 9:35 PM EST
up
0 recs
I agree with your main point, but I think what
Hello wily mo,
I agree that "power + walks + low Ks" is better than "power + walks + high Ks," but like I said, the former is even more rare than the latter, which is pretty rare in its own right, especially when it comes to young teenage prospects like Weglarz.
And that's the advantage prospects like Weglarz have - they're young enough where they have plenty of time to hone that discipline and improve that K rate; the fact that he already has a solid understanding of how to work the count and draw walks can only be seen as a positive foundation to build on in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents - no offense.
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on
Jan 15, 2008 9:53 PM EST
up
0 recs
Leagues?
by ftheyankees on
Jan 15, 2008 3:35 PM EST
up
0 recs
Weglarz
I would easily take Anderson and Snider over him... and its really not close. Those guys both will hit for average and power. They dont have the holes in their swings that Weglarz has. I think Weglarz swing is the reason he gets dropped. He wont be able to get away with what he does now as he reaches the higher levels. AA will be a big test.
Weglarz makes me think Jeromy Burnitz.
by alskor on
Jan 16, 2008 2:48 AM EST
up
0 recs
I think it's too early to imply that
Hello alskor,
No offense, but I think it's too early to say Weglarz will never hit for average like Anderson and Snider are projected to.
Keep in mind that Weglarz comes from Canada, while Anderson hails from California and Snider hails from Washington. While Washington's weather is not as ideal for baseball as California's, I think both of their high school seasons run longer than Canada's by a good margin, so it makes sense that Weglarz wouldn't be as advanced as either Anderson or Snider - he didn't get the number of ABs those guys did. Nor did he face as advanced competition as those two did either, as more ML-caliber players come from the States than from Canada (no offense intended to the Canadians.)
Even so, Weglarz was reported to be able to hit good fastballs even when he was drafted; it was the quality breaking stuff he had not seen at Lakeshore Catholic HS (Stevensville, Ontario, Canada,) and it reportedly gave him major trouble when he was at Rookie-Level Burlington in 2005.
However, from what I've heard, he seems to be making progress in handling breaking stuff, though he still needs to progress in this area, but being that he is only 19-YO (virtually the same baseball age as both Anderson and Snider, in fact,) he has time to improve and reduce or eliminate the holes in his swing.
Also, I've heard 30-40 HR power projected for Weglarz - no offense, but if that's not "plus plus" power, I don't know what is, as I'm not sure any prospect is projected to hit 45-50+ HRs, so in essence, Weglarz is projectd to have "plus plus" power, especially if he continues to refine his approach and not swing at many bad pitches, which he's also made progress on, as shown by his solid .276 BA in the SAL at age 19.
Before the AA test, he needs to refine his approach and continue getting more reps at High-A; I suspect he'll spend most, if not all of 2008 at High-A, as he just turned 20-YO. If he really does well at High-A, he could maybe see some AA time in the second half, especially for the last month of the season in August, but I doubt the Indians will push him any faster than that - they usually will not push a prospect who is young for his league unless he is tearing up the league at an incredible level. Even in that case, I suspect Weglarz will be at High-A through the first half of 2008.
Just my 2 cents - no offense.
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on
Jan 16, 2008 4:50 AM EST
up
0 recs
Weglarz and Laffey
by kschellenger on Jan 14, 2008 6:04 PM EST 0 recs
Yeah, Laffey DOMINATED...
by Sox Puppet on
Jan 14, 2008 6:15 PM EST
up
0 recs
josh rodriguez.
by wily mo on Jan 14, 2008 6:19 PM EST 0 recs
Hodges
by ajake57 on Jan 14, 2008 6:36 PM EST 0 recs
jensen lewis
by jpahk on Jan 14, 2008 6:50 PM EST 0 recs
Lewis
Consensus is that 7th/8th inning guy is his ceiling because of lack of a dominant fastball.
I kind of disagree. I think he has better stuff than Borowki, Jones, and Wickman, and from what I've heard he's got the work ethic to improve. No reason he can't close if given the opportunity.
by GregJP on
Jan 14, 2008 7:25 PM EST
up
0 recs
+1
by sdtribefan on
Jan 14, 2008 9:24 PM EST
up
0 recs
Lewis
by Sox Puppet on
Jan 14, 2008 10:49 PM EST
up
0 recs
"went tj"
by berkowit28 on
Jan 14, 2008 11:31 PM EST
up
0 recs
third pitch
by emil minty on
Jan 14, 2008 10:55 PM EST
up
0 recs
Goedert
by GregJP on
Jan 14, 2008 7:21 PM EST
up
0 recs
Also
by knightgalt on
Jan 14, 2008 8:53 PM EST
up
0 recs
position
by emil minty on
Jan 14, 2008 10:35 PM EST
up
0 recs
Brad Snyder
by killa on Jan 14, 2008 7:54 PM EST 0 recs
Matt Whitney?
I recognize he may have fallen within the cracks since the Nats picked him up in the Rule 5 . . .
by gogotabata on Jan 14, 2008 8:26 PM EST 0 recs
Jeff Stevens really deserves a mention
by Fundamentals on Jan 14, 2008 8:43 PM EST 0 recs
John, I hate to be critical but
by sdtribefan on Jan 14, 2008 9:03 PM EST 0 recs
Top 20 Lists
Also, what I like most about this site is the top 20 prospect lists in review. I found those to be very insightful and just hope they can come back this year as you did not do them this past year.
by FishHead on
Jan 14, 2008 9:28 PM EST
up
0 recs
to be fair
by jpahk on
Jan 14, 2008 10:37 PM EST
up
0 recs
It's also
by gogotabata on
Jan 14, 2008 11:24 PM EST
up
0 recs
Yes
by goalieguy on
Jan 14, 2008 11:35 PM EST
up
0 recs
I am quite familiar with John's book
by sdtribefan on
Jan 15, 2008 7:05 AM EST
up
0 recs
Well
Scouts are wrong at times as well, or every single guy drafted in the first round would be studs, and everyone drafted late in the draft wouldn't even make it a few years in the minors.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with disagreeing with John's assessment on players though, and I like that he puts out his lists from previous years just to show you that he did in fact miss the boat on someone, whether they performed much better or much worse than expected.
A lot of people need to realize though, that the write ups in John's book are the most important thing he provides.
Not the top 20 lists, the 50/50, or even the grading scale.
In his write ups he might give a guy a C+ early on, but then go onto to say if this guy proves his worth at a certain level, or if he improves his strikezone judgement, he has the potential to go much, much higher. He'll also point out sleepers.
In the end, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I don't think John (or anyone else for that matter) expects every single person to agree with him every single time.
Also, just b/c someone made a contribution to the ML team last year, it doesn't guarantee them longterm success either.
by sportznut3081 on
Jan 15, 2008 9:24 AM EST
up
0 recs
You are preaching to the choir, sportznut
I see nothing wrong with subjecting the evaluators to scrutiny for their choices. BTW, the same thing happens to scouts by their employers.
There is no one on God's green earth that will convince me that Brad Snyder belongs at 6th and I am a huge Snyder fan because of personal connections. Ther are at least 30 superior choices than John's 20th choice, Adam Davis. Regardless of what John writes, his subjective placements or grades of Jordan Brown and Nick Weglarz will not stand up to scrutiny when the evaluations of this list is done unless he is bailed out by injury.
"Also, just b/c someone made a contribution to the ML team last year, it doesn't guarantee them longterm success either."
Respect for your sincerity keeps me from commenting about this comment.
by sdtribefan on
Jan 15, 2008 8:50 PM EST
up
0 recs
Feel free to
My point is basically that some players come up from the minors and the team catches lightning in a bottle.
Like for example, on the Tigers last year, they got some very good production from guys like Ryan Raburn and Timo Perez.
There are players who hit the scene every single year, but after that initial good fortune, they fall back to never be heard from again, or at least not at the level they started off at.
Of course for other players coming up midseason or later, that could be just a launching point to a very solid career of 10+ years.
A fast start isn't a given to a solid ML career, just like a poor start isn't a precursor to a crappy player necessarily.
by sportznut3081 on
Jan 15, 2008 8:58 PM EST
up
0 recs
Hi sportznut
Interesting that you should mention the Tigers. I think the difference between the two teams last year was the organizational depth. Cleveland replaced four position players, two starting pitchers, a utility player and three relievers from its opening day lineup last year. Only two, Lofton and Gomez, came from outside the organization. BTW, I also thought the Tigers got some nice production from Jurjens as well but it just doesn't compare. The Tigers better hope they are injury free because the organization is unlikely to provide help this year. The only depth on the roster is a platoon LF, a 3B they cannot get rid of and a slick utility IF. The Indians, on the other hand, have ML ready/near ready replacements at nearly every position. It is possible they may get ML help from as many as eight or nine players from the organization depending on the Indians' needs. So, if players fall back, there are prospects to take his place, just as there was last year.
The concept of vertical integration of the farm system is a concept that hasn't caught on with those who prognosticate the organizational value, probably because it is easier and more fun to rank the prospects. It also takes them off the hook for trying to explain why some prospects are more valuable just because of the position they play. Ever stop to think that LH pitching is nore valuable than RH? Why are C, SS and CF more valuable as prospects than 1B, 2B and LF?
by sdtribefan on
Jan 15, 2008 11:00 PM EST
up
0 recs
Okay
Obviously, with their recent dealings they lack the depth in the organization they once had, but this is a team that in recent years has proven they have the ability to pay for players who drop in the draft, and to find other players later in the draft as well.
I have full confidence they'll do it once again, but I do agree that this year and perhaps next year, they'll be thin in the upper levels of the minors.
As for Inge, if they can't trade him, look for him to play catcher, 3B, and OF. He might even play more IF positions as a supersub, and could approach 350-400 ABs even on a veteran team.
He's never been a trouble maker, and he won't be now. If they can't deal him, I have full confidence he'll move around the field.
Dombrowski is already putting that thought into his head.
Bottom line, is I expect the Indians and Tigers to battle it out for the division again, with the White Sox and Twins remaining formidable foes.
If Santana is dealt, perhaps that will change a bit, depending on who they get.
by sportznut3081 on
Jan 15, 2008 11:44 PM EST
up
0 recs
That's a good idea, sportznut.
Maybe you are right about the pitching stepping up and there is a fill-in starter there. Looks pretty bleak from the 7th on, IMO.
I think Detroit is built for the regular season, much like the Yankees. They will outscore a lot of teams and will compete well if they are healthy. It's the playoffs when you have to play both offense and defense that they will have a tough time, just like the Yankees without their steroids.
by sdtribefan on
Jan 16, 2008 6:13 AM EST
up
0 recs
never
by John Sickels on
Jan 15, 2008 12:04 AM EST
up
0 recs
weglarz comment
Bats: L Throws: L HT: 6-3 WT: 215 DOB: December 16, 1987
A broken hamate cost Nick Weglarz the 2006 season, but he showed no ill effects in '07, posting a +21 percent OPS in the Sally League and showing plus power from the left side. He also has good plate discipline and draws plenty of walks, but his strikeout rate is high and batting average will be a problem against better pitching. Hamate problems often sap the power from young hitters, so it is good to see Weglarz knock 24 homers his first season back. He doesn't offer much except power, but he offers a LOT of it. A breakthrough campaign is possible in '08, so keep an eye on him. Grade C+ but a sleeper.
by John Sickels on Jan 14, 2008 11:02 PM EST 0 recs
weglarz
by John Sickels on Jan 14, 2008 11:03 PM EST 0 recs
HUH?
John, you can say it another million times, and it still won't make sense. I understand your gripe about people complaining that one C+ is ranked 10th and another is 13th, when it's obvious that the number associated with the grade is relatively meaningless, but saying "you can only tell so much from a grade", the device you decided to utilize as your method of comparison, sounds like you're trying to play both sides of the coin. I take no issue with you grading a player a certain way (although like most, I disagree with the Weglarz grade), it's simply your opinion. But suggesting that two players with the same grade shouldn't be viewed as equals is laughable.
by ftheyankees on Jan 15, 2008 3:30 PM EST 0 recs
Well
by aCone419 on
Jan 15, 2008 11:35 PM EST
up
0 recs
a C+ is a C+ is a C+...
by ftheyankees on
Jan 16, 2008 9:54 AM EST
up
0 recs
is a C+ a C+?
the difference between pitchers and hitters, and rookie-ballers versus triple-A players is probably more analogous to that than to your "single class of students" scenario. because a C+ certainly isn't always a C+ to, say, an admissions officer at a school. and it isn't here, either.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jan 16, 2008 11:50 AM EST
up
0 recs
Not following your line of thinking...
I can somewhat understand the difference between hitters and pitchers, because you're technically not comparing apples to apples. But rookie ballers vs AAA players? Lost me there too. Are you saying John's brief write up, where he uses scout speak and occasional stats is where you can better define what separates a C+ from a C+?
Also, if he's continuously explaining his grading system, doesn't that raise a red flag as to it's effectiveness?
by ftheyankees on
Jan 16, 2008 1:20 PM EST
up
0 recs
EE v. creative writing/7th v. 11th
--------
regarding 11th grade versus 7th grade, i'd say there's two things you want to keep in mind.
1) it doesn't reflect the same thing when you fail in 7th grade as when you fail in 11th.
a 7th-grader who fails probably blows off their work and is irresponsible (after all, the underlying work is simple, and the way that it's graded is far from rigorous). an 11th grader who does poorly is more likely to lack scholastic aptitude.
similarly, a rookie baller who isn't a top prospect may not be one because he's yet to figure out how to hit a breaking ball, or hasn't refined his strike-zone judgment. a triple-A player who's a C+ is likely a C+ because he underlying lacks ability to be a top performer in the majors; he receives a C+ simply because he will most likely hold a roster spot on the 25-man in the upcoming seasons, which, in and of itself, makes him at least somewhat valuable. however, he lacks to tools for any future improvement.
2) related to the last point, these grades are about predicting future performance.
a C+ in 7th grade may well predict that someone's not focused enough on school to ever be a top student. but that grade alone wouldn't be a great predictor of whether that kid will ever be able to do, say, quantum physics. what the grade DOES predict is that the kid needs to make improvements in his treatment of school, or that he isn't the first candidate you'd choose to be a future valedictorian.
a C+ in 11th grade says that you've established the range a person will finish in. you can fairly well predict what that person will (and won't) do in college.
in terms of PREDICTIVE ABILITY (what these grades are about -- to everyone but casejud, that is), a rookie baller will have a VERY high range of possible outcomes. some of these outcomes are with much higher ceilings than the triple-A player; some with much lower. the triple-A player has a much more restricted range of potential outcome
essentially, the triple-A player's value comes from his certainty to contribute, but he is punished for his lack of upside. the rookie-baller's value comes from his potential upside, but he is punished for his lack of certainty/high probability of not contributing at all. for this reason, the two grades don't really mean the same thing.
--------
the EE/creative writing analogy was more about pitchers to hitters, which you say you already get, but i'll explain what i meant anyway.
at most schools (those with some grade inflation -- i.e., those without true enforced curves), it is much more difficult to get an A in EE than it is in creative writing (i can tell you that, where i went to school, the mean grade for a creative writing major is an A-, while the average grade in EE is a B- or C+). different departments grade differently.
consequently, when you're applying to graduate or professional schools, admissions departments are looking for different grades from different majors. for instance, being family friends with many of the people who do admissions at my law school, i can tell you that he rails on and on about how UNIMPRESSED he is with people who majored in things like communications or soft psychology and got straight 4.0s (if they had nothing else distinguishing on their records), whereas a 3.6 from engineering or chemistry might be sufficient.
in this case, the analogy isn't about the difficulty, per se. it's about differences in ability to measure the field, and the differential distributions this creates. anyone who follows (and tries projecting) prospects knows how different it is to try to figure out a pitcher's future -- some "bad" ones turn out great and some great ones fail miserably. all in all, your confidence in your own ability to rate is much lower. there are, however, many more "potential" prospects, since a lot more pitchers could be good.
all in all, this means you might want to evaluate them on a different scale than hitters. after all, you don't want to put 40 pitchers ahead of every B-level hitting prospect, because so many of those pitchers will be worthless compared to the low-risk hitters. but, at the same time, a lot of those pitchers have much more potential. it's alright to mix the grades, but it makes just as much sense to say "the grades AREN'T the same, because we're measuring different things."
by bleedjaxblue on
Jan 16, 2008 1:59 PM EST
up
0 recs
points taken...
Your analogies make sense, and I'm sure John would be happy to point to your description of his grading system. I also have no issue separating pitchers and hitters when assigning a grade. That being said, I still think it's a little deep for the average prospect junkie.
by ftheyankees on
Jan 21, 2008 11:51 AM EST
up
0 recs
Some thoughts - part 1!
Sorry I have not been around much lately - been very busy; I probably will not be able to provide complete thoughts on this list right now, but will give some initial thoughts. If I have a chance later on to comment further, I will.
Some initial thoughts to the list:
- I would suggest also going to this link (I hope it

