San Francisco Giants Top 20 Prospects for 2008

by John Sickels on Jan 15, 2008 1:20 PM EST in News

Angel Villalona, 3B, Grade B+
Henry Sosa, RHP, Grade B
Tim Alderson, RHP, Grade B
Madison Bumgarner, LHP, Grade B- (lack of breaking ball is a caution flag for me)
Nate Schierholtz, OF, Grade B-
Nick Noonan, 2B, Grade B-
Clayton Tanner, LHP, Grade B-
Eugenio Velez, UT, Grade B- (I probably like him more than I should but he is fun to watch)
Wendell Fairley, OF, Grade C+ (Grade A tools, Grade D refinement, very risky but possible high reward)
John Bowker, OF, Grade C+ (sleeper bat)
Charlie Culberson, INF, Grade C+
Osiris Matos, RHP, Grade C+
Wilber Bucardo, RHP, Grade C+
Jose Capellan, LHP, Grade C+
Sergio Romo, RHP, Grade C+
Travis Denker, 2B, Grade C+
Emmanuel Burriss, SS, Grade C (I have massive doubts about his bat)
Nick Pereira, RHP, Grade C
Ben Copeland, OF, Grade C
Benjamin Snider, LHP, Grade C

Other guys include Adam Cowart, Andy D'Allessio, Justin Hedrick, Travis Ishikawa, Joseph Martinez, Pat Misch, Paul Oseguera, Danny Otero, Kelvin Pichardo, Kevin Pucetas, Pablo Sandoval, Clay Timpner, Juan Trinidad, and Jackson Williams.

This system has improved. I have to admit I have a lot of doubts about Fairley, who has tools galore but is very unrefined. I'm not sure that the Giants have a very good track record recent helping players like him develop, and he could easily flame out in A-ball. We will see.

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 | Comment 60 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Once again.

I have to question how Villalona is a number 1 prospect for the giants, and Beltre isn't a top 20 for the Rangers. Just no consistancy there.

by sully10x on Jan 15, 2008 1:25 PM EST 0 recs

The easy answer

The Rangers have a much stronger and deeper farm system than the Giants do. That said, I don't think Beltre is considered to be in the same class of prospect as Villalona.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Jan 16, 2008 12:15 AM EST up 0 recs

Well

Beltre may not be considered as good as a prospect (Although both the tools and numbers are there to match Villalona thus far) It still doesn't make sense that 1 could be 1st on on team and the other not TOP TWENTY on another team, unless the Rangers farm system is about 20 times better than the Giants. Face it, there is no consistancy here. Sickels says that the tools are there for Beltre but not the numbers, yet his numbers are just as good as Villalona. If Villalona is number ONE on the Giants, Beltre is top Twenty on the Rangers, simple as that. Many other sites consider Beltre in the top 10 easily, and the majority put him in the top 5. I apprecias John's opinion, but I really would like him to look at this with an open mind and realize it makes little to none sense for both of these players to be rated so differently.

by sully10x on Jan 16, 2008 1:19 AM EST up 0 recs

what a lousy system

their hopes are on 17/18 yr olds in Villalona and their 07 drat which is yrs away.

their best upper level bats Schierholtz/Bowker are B-/C+ guys

and the few "young" players they have at the mlb level are bench types on good teams like frandsen/lewis/correia

so lots of lower minors upside, marginal prospects in upper minors

by rayver723 on Jan 15, 2008 1:40 PM EST 0 recs

don't disagree with the general premise, but

how many systems do you feel have a lot of upper minor upside? I mean, moreso than the average thinning out rate? I can really only come up with a handful of systems, maybe 2 handfuls.

by toonsterwu on Jan 15, 2008 1:49 PM EST up 0 recs

i disagree with the general premise

this isn't a lousy system at all. did you see the white sox "top 10"? or houston's?

this is a normal system. one blue chip guy, some fringe contributors in the high minors, and a bunch of ifs at the lower levels. it's certainly better than what the A's had a month ago.

by jpahk on Jan 15, 2008 3:26 PM EST up 0 recs

Actually

"one blue chip guy, some fringe contributors in the high minors, and a bunch of ifs at the lower levels" is exactly how I would have described the A's system a month ago.

by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2008 5:08 PM EST up 0 recs

sure, as a general description

but comparing the two, the giants have a lot more going for them in the lower levels than the A's did a month ago.

by jpahk on Jan 16, 2008 10:11 AM EST up 0 recs

okay

this isn't the worst system out there, but I do think that it's probably in the lower third.

all that said, my general question to the OP is ... which systems have a lot of upside in the upper minors? i just don't see that many teams with heavy upside in the upper minors.

by toonsterwu on Jan 15, 2008 7:49 PM EST up 0 recs

I agree

Its not a horrible system anymore with the 2007 draft bringing in so many good players. However, there just isn't much in AA and AAA and really High A.

The Giants system right now reminds me of the Cardinals following the 2005 draft. The only good prospect the Cards had was Anthony Reyes and maybe Wainwright(his stock was slipping). They had just drafted Rasmus, Greene, McCormick, Herron, Josh Wilson, Nick Webber, Bryan Anderson and Daryl Jones(your Wendall Fairley clone). The system got a huge boost, but certainly not enough to put it in the top 15 or even top 20 right away.

Toonsterwu,
-the Padres are a team that has a lot of upside in the the upper levels(I consider the upper levels to be AA or AAA). Headley, Huffman, Antonelli, Inman, LeBlanc, Ramos all played at AA.
-Tampa Bay has Longoria, Mason, McGee, Brignac, Davis, Niemann all with some AA or AAA experience.
-Cincinnati has Bruce, Bailey, Votto, Cueto all knocking on the major league door or already played in the majors.
-Boston has Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lowrie, Masterson, Bowden all with AA, AAA or ML experience
-The Cardinals top 4 prospects- Rasmus, Perez, Garcia and Anderson started out 2007 in AA.
-The Yankees have Chamberlain and Kennedy with ML experience and Horne, Gardner, Ohlendorf, Marquez starting out at AAA next year
-The Mets have Martinez, Mulvey, Gomez, Humber in the upper levels.

That's just to name a few. I think if you have at least 3-4 pretty good players in AA or AAA then you can say you've talent in the upper levels.

by UncleBuck44 on Jan 15, 2008 10:14 PM EST up 0 recs

whoa, now.

c'mon. if brett gardner passes for "upside", so does velez.

tampa, granted. cincinnati, red sox, yes. the rest of those lists are big stretches. padres as first example? headley sure. antonelli looks to start up the middle, so that's valuable, but it's not like he's odds-on to hit a ton. the rest of those guys - inman and leblanc are likely to be inning eaters if they're anything. i'm not even sure what ramos you're referring to. and i've never understood this huffman thing. i remember when somebody came on here last year midseason and was all, "is chad huffman the next billy butler?" and i was like, "what? you know he's literally older than butler, right? doesn't that make him the last one, not the next one?"

by wily mo on Jan 16, 2008 12:57 AM EST up 0 recs

Off the top

In the end, everything is subjective and also depends on placement. But these are the organizations that I would consider to have better than the norm in regards to a good number of guys with solid upsides entering 2008(thus, a measure of quantity and quality)

Tampa Bay
Cincinnati
Boston
Florida
Los Angeles Dodgers
Colorado

A lot of teams would be borderline. Coming to mind would Oakland (also depends on if they complete anymore deals), Brewers (I mean, if Parra is in AAA, along with Gamel/LaPorta, if a couple guys develop there's good quantity/quality, even if the system is a bit leaner than in years past), Cardinal (if I don't consider the Mets Mulvey as having high upside, I guess I can't do it for Garcia either), Angels, and a couple others (heck, if Shark develops for the Cubs, along with Veal showing the consistency down the stretch, add in a Ceda/Colvin and if Gallagher is still there, the Cubs are borderline in the discussion frame).

But that's me.

by toonsterwu on Jan 16, 2008 5:55 AM EST up 0 recs

Rangers

They deserve to be here easily?

by sully10x on Jan 16, 2008 1:30 PM EST up 0 recs

Velez

What position is he going to end up at? Or is he going to be a Chone Figgins-type with 5 different gloves?

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Jan 15, 2008 1:41 PM EST 0 recs

Position

Good question about which position Eugenio Velez will wind up at. In truth, he's probably a major league utilityman at best, so one would assume he would wind up playing several positions, with pinch runner being easily his best.

John is the first person I have seen to question Manny Burriss's hitting (which I view as only slightly less questionable than Velez's). I don't like the strikeout-to-walk-to-power ratios of either player.

Velez strikes out WAY too much and walks far too little. Plus, aside from his 14 homers in 2006 as an overaged player at Augusta, he hasn't shown anything approaching double-digit homer power (including just one homer last season). The only hope I see for Eugenio is if his power actually DID develop in 2006 and his wrist injury temporarily caused it to fall back again in 2007.

Burriss's strikeout-to-walk ratio is much better than Velez's, and Manny DID hit .365 in the AZFL after an horrendous 0-for-10 start. And while Manny's flamed out at San Jose (.165 batting average) early in the 2007 season before hitting over .300 in Augusta, his line drive rate was actually higher in San Jose. The difference was that he beat out only one hit in San Jose while beating out over 30% of his infield grounders at Augusta.

So Manny was probably far better at San Jose than it appeared (despite his being said to have suffered from personal problems there). And the great comeback from .000 to .365 in the AZFL was impressive, particularly since he joined the league in progress and easily could have been rusty.

But what just KILLS Manny IMO is that he averaged less than 1.2 bases per hit even while hitting the robust .365 in the AZFL. His career average in organized ball is less than 1.2 bases per hit. The only player I have been able to find with so few bases per hit that made the majors was Jose Vizcaino, who had a long if illustrious career. Jose also was far younger than Manny in the low minors and likely didn't gain as many bases with his feet.

Manny should be able to average 1.2 bases per hit merely with his fine speed. That he hasn't done so tells me that he isn't hitting the ball very hard. That could easily portend an inability to develop at the higher levels of the minors.

To me, 2008 is a key season for Manny. If he can improve his power and show that he is a good hitter not only at High A San Jose but at AA Connecticut, I would again make him a top-10 prospect. If not, I believe he becomes more suspect than prospect. And that's not what the Giants want from a #33 overall draft pick.

by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2008 2:09 PM EST up 0 recs

er..

..I think everyone questions Burriss's bat.

In fact, as a general rule, I think it has been safe to question the bat of every Giants-drafted hitting prospect since Clark and Williams. Every single one has been suspect. Most have turned out to justify that suspicions, despite the occasional major-league regulars the system has produced.

by wcw on Jan 16, 2008 1:22 AM EST up 0 recs

Clark and Williams

And I think that they are the last Top 10 draft picks that the Giants picked who are hitters. Heck, they were both Top 3 picks. You don't get a lot of top 10 picks when your team has generally done well since Clark and Williams made the majors. They have had 6 in total since the two were selected, a total of 21 drafts, obviously two in the past two seasons and another one in 2008.

And you normally don't find a lot of good hitters outside of the Top 10 picks of the draft, the odds drop significantly after that, because the talent is not that obvious or developed yet after the 10th pick.

The last hitter they drafted Top 10 was Calvin Murray in 1992, #7 overall, bad pick but it was a pretty poor draft year, mainly just solid major leaguers were selected after him in the first round, nobody with a career OPS above 800 nor any even average pitcher in that first round, Rick Helling and Ron Villone were the best of that bunch.

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2008 12:52 PM EST up 0 recs

sure, but

While top-10 or -5 is best, other teams find hitters lower -- the Giants just don't. In 2001, they could have had all three of Bobby Crosby, Jeff Mathis and David Wright. In 2003, they could have had any one of Wood, Barton, Saltalamacchia or Jones.

Given that history, I blame the team, not the pick position.

by wcw on Jan 16, 2008 4:00 PM EST up 0 recs

1984

In a rather Orwellian move, the Giants selected outfielder Alan Cockrell of the University of Tennessee with the 9th overall pick. With the 10th pick, the A's selected Mark Magwire out of the University of Southern California.

In defense of the Giants, Magwire is out of the game completely now, while Cockrell is the batting coach of the Rockies after managing only a few major league at bats for the Rockies in 1996.

By the way, I heard that Magwire was a pretty good pitcher for USC. How did he turn out? :)

by sharksrog on Jan 17, 2008 3:57 AM EST up 0 recs

Hmm

No one named Mark Magwire ever made it to the majors with the A's, so he must have been a colossal bust.

by patsfan on Jan 17, 2008 11:10 AM EST up 0 recs

Velez

I watched him do a fine job playing 2B, CF, and LF with the Connecticut Defenders this past summer. With his speed and range he is best utilized in the middle of the diamond.

I know exactly what John is talking about when he says he has fun watching Velez play. He is a good ballplayer and was very exciting to watch. Even though the Defenders had a brutal team this past season, it was still worth it to go to the ballpark and watch Velez play.

by SBcaptain2 on Jan 15, 2008 4:57 PM EST up 0 recs

Park is brutal

It is not just the team that was brutal, it is the park. The park totally kills power and it is probably screwing around with any hitter who has to play there in multiple seasons. The hitters had nearly double the homers on the road as at home. I hope the Giants dump the Defenders and their horrible park after the season, I read that their contract is up then.

To show how uncaring the Defender's management is over this problem, when I asked their GM about the park, he told me that the players should just run faster when they hit a ball into the gap.

To show how bad it is, it is acknowledged that Bowker was the team's best hitter in 2007. Here is his splits for 2007:

Home: .271/.330/.422/.752, 6 HR in 251 AB, 42 AB/HR
Away: .345/.397/.629/1.027, 16 HR in 267 AB, 17 AB/HR

That's what happened to Ishikawa in 2006:

Home: .212/.269/.314/.603, 3 HR in 137 AB, 46 AB/HR
Away: .244/.332/.470/.801, 7 HR in 164 AB, 23 AB/HR

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2008 1:05 PM EST up 0 recs

Dodd Stadium

The park is very tough on hitters, but I understand why nothing has been done about it. The Giants want the Defenders to spend a ton of money to renovate and bring the fences in, but they are unwilling to spend a penny to help. If the Giants want the park changed then they should spend the money to change it. The Giants are not a great draw for people in Connecticut and attendance has suffered since the Defenders left the Yankees and affiliated with the Giants. The affiliation contract is up after this season and I fully expect the Giants and Defenders to part ways.

by SBcaptain2 on Jan 16, 2008 6:03 PM EST up 0 recs

It would be good

It would be good for a player with Eugenio Velez's speed to get his bat on the ball. Eugenio's high strikeout rate is unacceptable and will likely cost him any chance than as a bit player in the majors.

by sharksrog on Jan 17, 2008 3:58 AM EST up 0 recs

er, what?

EV's minor-league K/PA rate is maybe 17%, which is nothing special, but wouldn't bother me at all if it came with a 15% walk rate and a .400+ OBP, or if he had made the majors at 19 instead of at 25.

I expect him to have a tough time as a bit player, too, but not because he hasn't shown Juan Pierre's nice, low K rate in the minors. I worry because he has always been old for his level and he hasn't shown a strong ability to get on base, and a punchless middle infielder with speed has to get on base to be useful.

by wcw on Jan 17, 2008 11:59 AM EST up 0 recs

This is driving me MAD

OK, so Bumgarner has no breaking ball, then he has TWO good curveballs (per Deric McKamey, see transcript of interview at mccoveychronicles.com), then he suddenly loses both of them.
How many 18 year olds have good breaking balls anyway, especially if they were not allowed to throw them by their father?
All said, even if the lack of a breaking ball is all that is holding down Bumgarner's grade, I still can't see him being rated above a B at this juncture.

by baseballjunkie on Jan 15, 2008 2:44 PM EST 0 recs

it's weird

but don't let it ruin your life. bumgarner hasn't actually pitched professionally. this will all sort itself out once he does, right?

by jpahk on Jan 15, 2008 3:24 PM EST up 0 recs

Yeah, you're right, but

I'm not sure why John would mention the lack of a breaking ball being such a caution flag, when another observer actually believes Bumgarner has at least one good breaking ball, if not two. There are plenty of young pitchers who are still in the process of refining their secondary pitches AFTER they reach the majors, and who go on to have fine big league careers.

It seems unfairly harsh to even bring up the breaking ball issue, but perhaps I am reading too much into it.

But, you're right... just gotta wait and see how things develop... not an easy thing to do for a long-suffering fan who bleeds black and orange.

by baseballjunkie on Jan 15, 2008 3:54 PM EST up 0 recs

What about...

Matt Downs? Does he receive any recognition within the "others included" category?

by Sherman Hemsley on Jan 15, 2008 3:13 PM EST 0 recs

Fairely?

When you said:

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that the Giants haven't had a good history developing A) Guys with lots of tools but a troubled past or B) Just plain old developing hitters with a lot of upside?

If you meant A, I can't remember the last time the Giants had a hitter with obvious talents but who had some character problems. Anyone fill me in?

If you meant B, I can agree with you a little more I guess but still the comment struck me as odd.

by xanthan on Jan 15, 2008 3:24 PM EST 0 recs

The last time

Arguably the last time the Giants had a good hitting prospect with possible character issues was when they signed Todd Linden. That one didn't work out too well, but I have much higher hopes for Wendell Fairley, whose swing I like a lot and who has the potential to become a four- or five-tool player.

by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2008 4:55 PM EST up 0 recs

Todd

I had no idea Linden had "character issues". What'd he do?

by xanthan on Jan 15, 2008 4:59 PM EST up 0 recs

Linden

Todd Linden reportedly could be very stubborn about accepting coaching. He transferred from Washington to LSU in college due to being unable to get along with the Washington coach. Just from observing his on field behavior, he seemed very cocky. I attended a game in LA where he yelled at Angel Chavez, a young 2B, who he had a miscommunication with on the field. At the end of the inning, as Linden was coming into the dugout, you could see some of the vets admonishing him about the incident and he just threw up his hands. Not really what you want to see from a guy who's battling to establish himself in the majors and clearly had faults of his own to work on.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 15, 2008 9:15 PM EST up 0 recs

very correct

I met Linden back in 2001 when LSU came to ASU for a weekend series. I have close tied to the ASU program and got to hang around the field during practice. Linden is an azzhole. One of the cockier bastards I have met along the lines of a Pat Burrell

Further, with all the steroid speculation that has been thrown around, I guarentee he was using back at LSU. When he was at UW he was about 6'4", 190 pounds. One year last at LSU he had put on abut 40 pounds of muscle.

by ScottAZ on Jan 16, 2008 9:19 AM EST up 0 recs

Fairley

do we really know that Fairley is that unrefined? The video I saw of him swinging the bat looked like a darn sweet swing to me. Aren't most HS draftees unrefined almost by definition?

I'm a bit worried about possible character/judgement issues, but I'm told the Giants checked those out and were satisfied that he has gained maturity. I'm also a bit concerned that he seemed to be hurt during instructionals, but word is he participated to the extend possible even though he was hurting.

I'm not sure you can say the Giants haven't had much success with this type of player. Truth is, they haven't drafted any HS hitters in recent memory. Tony Torcato and Arturo McDowell come to mind, but that was almost a decade ago. Fred Lewis was considered very raw coming out of college and he's come along about as well as anyone could expect. Nate Schierholtz was drafted out of JC and is probably the youngest hitter drafted recently. He's come along about as well as anyone could expect.

I'm OK with giving Fairley a low grade until we see some results on the field, but I think he may surprise some people with how advanced he is.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 15, 2008 9:01 PM EST up 0 recs

agree

Fairley isn't the typical innercity, multi-sport, 5 tools players. He went to a very affluent high school and gave up football after his junior year to concentrate on baseball. He had all the benefit of games and instruction that you'd expect from any kid from a top level suburbian program.

Something that I haven't seen mentioned here is his arm. In the state semi-finals he started as a pitcher and was clocked in the low 90s

by ScottAZ on Jan 16, 2008 9:22 AM EST up 0 recs

Burris

I can't believe Ian Desmond got a C+ and Burris gets a C. You must really think he isn't going to get past AA or something. Will be interesting to watch him this season because I think it's far to early to give up all hope but we will see.

by jfish26101 on Jan 15, 2008 3:39 PM EST 0 recs

why?

Desmond: hit okay at age 21 in high A, a disappointment after first making it to that level at age 19. Burriss: hit okay at age 22 in A, a disappointment after a decent campaign in short-season low A at age 21. Sound like C+ and straight C bats to me.

Though to be honest, to my mind Burriss's bat might be a C- or below.

by wcw on Jan 16, 2008 1:29 AM EST up 0 recs

Manny

I'm not sure if John is seeing the same flag as I, but when a speedster averages less then 1.2 bases per hit, I worry that he doesn't have nearly enough pop to survive at the higher levels of the minors -- let alone the major leagues.

Can anyone provide even one example of a player as old as Manny who hit for so little power in Class A (and primarily short-season A and low A) and went on to a good major-league career?

Manny could become the first, of course. But the odds would seem to be against it.

by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2008 4:58 PM EST 0 recs

Juan Pierre

I know it may not be the upside you were hoping for but Pierre does have some value to an ML team, even if it isn't close to his salary.

by bushe on Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM EST up 0 recs

Good Point

Juan Pierre would be more valuable as a SS than an OF.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 16, 2008 3:05 PM EST up 0 recs

Juan Pierre

Juan Pierre is a GREAT example of a player who averaged fewer than 1.2 bases per hit in both Class A ball and particularly in AA ball and then went on to a reasonable amount of success at the major league level.

Better yet, Juan was in about the same age bracket as Manny Burriss in Class A. I'm still very worried about Burriss's hitting, but Pierre does indeed offer some hope as a precedent for Manny.

by sharksrog on Jan 17, 2008 4:03 AM EST up 0 recs

Brian Horwitz

I'm not even that much of a Giants fan, although my roommate is at college, so I'm asking both for himself, and myself along the lines of a SIM league or two that I'm in where I have him as a 6th OF.

But anyways, my question is pretaining to Brian Horwitz. Sure, he's 25, but over the past few years all the guy has done is hit, hit, and hit some more.

What is shaping up to be? Just a defensive replacement/Pinch hitter? Granted he doesn't have hardly any pop to his bat, but the guy just knows how to hit (even if they're singles mostly). Plus he hardly ever strikes out.

"...It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."

by metsman128 on Jan 15, 2008 5:12 PM EST 0 recs

I think..

Now, I love his story: NDFA from local school prevails against the odds, always challenges for batting titles and has a nice little campaign in triple-A. That's no mean feat right there.

The problem is that he has zero power and is not a good defender. A weak defender at a corner outfield position who lacks power doesn't have a very bright future.

I sure hope he proves me wrong here, since I love the story. Betting money's agin it, though.

by wcw on Jan 16, 2008 1:34 AM EST up 0 recs

Eh-hmmm

Yet another list with Aldy over MadBum. John, please tell us you didn't do this due just to those 5 IP and/or to spite DrB... ;)

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Jan 15, 2008 6:04 PM EST 0 recs

Alderson and Bumgarner

I'm jus happy to have both of them in the Giants organization. Heck, I'd be happy with either one, but both is just great.

Everybody is acting like Bumgarner is this raw piece of meat,with nothing but a 95 MPH fastball. If you look up his HS stats, he had extremely low walk rates, almost as low as Alderson. One thing that impressed me was how easy his motion looks. He looks like he's just playing catch with the catcher, whereas Alderson puts a lot of effort into his delivery.

Does anyone remember an old Raiders QB named Kenny "Snake" Stabler? That's who Bumgarner reminds me of when I see him throw. Stabler was a world class dart thrower and he threw the football with extreme accuracy just like he was throwing darts at a dartboard. Bumgarner looks like that, just like he's flipping darts.

I think they both have tremendous potential, but are two very different pitchers. I wouldn't sell either one short right now, especially Bumgarner.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 15, 2008 9:25 PM EST up 0 recs

You've come a long way, DrB!

That's pretty good for someone willing to throw themselves down the stairs if the Giants picked Bumgarner. May I ask what changed your mind on him so 180?

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2008 1:15 PM EST up 0 recs

Bumgarner

I still think the Giants missed a great opportunity to improve the hitting in their organization when they passed on Beau Mills and Jason Heyward. I wanted Mills, even if he can only play 1B because I thought he could move through the system rapidly and give some homegrown oomph to the Giants lineup while Cain and Lincecum are still under control.

I've softened on Bumgarner a lot, mainly from watching video and comparing his delivery with Randy Johnson's. Not that I'm predicting a Randy Johnson career for him, but if RJ can throw a slider from that arm slot, I don't see why Bumgarner can't.

In short, I like Bumgarner a lot and rank him one slot above Alderson, but I still would have preferred a hitter, Mills or Heyward at #10 in the draft. IMO, the hitters have just as high a ceiling as Bumgarner and the organization is in bigger need of hitters. Hopefully Fairley, Noonan and Culberson prove all this to be a moot issue.

It looks like the Giants will have another opportunity to take an impact college bat in 2008, but I expect them to take another pitcher.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 16, 2008 1:58 PM EST up 0 recs

Happy to have them too!

I'm happy to have both in our system as well.

I think a lot of people have Alderson above because he can throw breaking pitches well already, giving him a head start over Bumgarner since he famously wasn't allowed by his father to do that in high school.

I would say the opposite, if Bumgarner can basically match what Alderson did with just one pitch, it will be that much easier for him to move up and dominate. It is not like he tried to throw breaking pitches and couldn't, he was just not allowed to use them.

I doubt that he has never thrown any breaking pitches in his life, I have to assume that he just wasn't allowed to in game situations only. If he's like any other kid, I would bet that he threw some breaking pitches when he was practicing or just screwing around with friends.

And if he could throw with such precision with his fastball, wouldn't you think he would be able to something similar with his other pitches, once he start using them more?

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2008 1:17 PM EST up 0 recs

Im just shocked

that this list has been up this wrong and some dope hasnt complained about Villalona "only" being a B+.

I guess I underestimated the Giants fans. Well done, guys.

by alskor on Jan 15, 2008 6:47 PM EST 0 recs

Link

Find one link to any Giants fan complaining about a B+ for Villalona. I happen to think Angel V's ceiling is a lot higher than Carlos Triunfel, but I would rank Triunfel lower than B+ rather than Villalona higher. (Sabean 2009, or whatever his name is, doesn't count).

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 15, 2008 8:48 PM EST up 0 recs

Chill DrB...

I think he was just referring to the post John Sickel had on Villalona where he said he got a lot of Giants fan hate-mail for "low" grading, in their opinion.

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2008 1:19 PM EST up 0 recs

+1

by smittybanton on Jan 16, 2008 10:02 AM EST up 0 recs

Henry Sosa

He obviously made some strides last year.

What does everyone see his ceiling at, and do you see him sticking as a SP, or will he be a potentially dominant closer instead?

Thanks guys.

In Todd Jones (*gulp*) we trust?

by sportznut3081 on Jan 15, 2008 7:48 PM EST 0 recs

Sosa's Ceiling

I would say that a pitcher who sports a mid 90's FB and a sharp breaking ball has a ceiling of L#2 starter at least. The big question is whether he's going to reach it or not. Last year was a breakout season. He'll need to consolidate that with another solid season in 2008. I would think he starts out in San Jose, but would like to see him finish the year no lower than AA to maintain his momentum.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 15, 2008 8:43 PM EST up 0 recs

+1

I agree, particularly since Sosa didn't do that well when promoted to San Jose, leaving the possibility he was just on a good streak while at Augusta and/or left before the league figured him out. Looking at his monthly stats, though, if anything, he was figuring out the batters more, his stats were on an uptrend on a monthly basis with Augusta.

So, yeah, 2008 is the year he proves he got the stuff to keep moving up.

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2008 1:41 PM EST up 0 recs

Rollinger

Just scrolling the stats in the Giants minor league system and Ryan Rollinger had some pretty decent stats. On my trip through Rome and Augusta this season I thought he was one of their top performers...no?

by Madtown Bomber on Jan 16, 2008 12:07 PM EST 0 recs

Ryan Rohlinger

Rohlinger's OPB-BA and IsoP were good, but that .235 BA is a huge red flag for me, especially for a college draftee.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 16, 2008 12:34 PM EST up 0 recs

Interesting List, John

I have to admit I'd have some quibbles. I do think you under-rank Alderson a bit, and MadBum and Schierholtz more than a bit. Schierholtz in particular gets little love from prospect hounds, but I like him a lot. He doesn't walk much, sure, but he makes better contact on most pitches than a lot of guys I see. He was in the running for the PCL batting title through much of the summer. I see him consistently take pitches around the shoetops and turn them into doubles. And I'd rather have a double than a walk any day.

The Matos grade surprises me as well, but as being a bit high. C+ for a guy who for no published reason (and apparently no injury) went from Double-A to Low-A?

Otherwise, thanks for the read!

by BruteSentiment on Jan 16, 2008 2:39 PM EST 0 recs

I dunno

I wouldn't get exercised about the relative ranks of C-level guys. Me, I'd move Matos, Pereira, Copeland, and Snider out and D'Allessio, Misch, Pichardo, and Sandoval in -- but they're all still just C-level guys who probably never do much.

Similarly, Schierholtz is a real prospect, just like Villalona and Noonan -- but like them, he's flawed. They're B-level guys, all with good shots at doing something, but with good reasons (walks, distance from majors, defense) to doubt.

It isn't as though this system has a Jay Bruce in it who didn't make the top 20. These grades are pretty solidly in accordance with how I see these guys.

by wcw on Jan 16, 2008 4:19 PM EST up 0 recs