Oakland Athletics Top 20 for 2008

by mssickels on Jan 2, 2008 1:50 PM EST in News Comment 81 comments

John sent me this to post. He says that the book should be done tomorrow, although we will need a few days to edit and make final grade changes. Almost there!! We will start posting Top 20s at an accellerated pace tomorrow, so hold on!

Oakland Athletics Top 20 Prospects for 2008

All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change.

Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Grade B+
Daric Barton, 1B, Grade B+
Brett Anderson, LHP, Grade B+
Chris Carter, 1B, Grade B+ (an aggressive grade but I LOVE this guy)
James Simmons, RHP, Grade B
Henry Alberto Rodriguez, RHP, Grade B (big-time sleeper, great arm)
Trevor Cahill, RHP, Grade B-
Aaron Cunningham, OF, Grade B-
Corey Brown, OF, Grade B-
Andrew Bailey, RHP, Grade B- (another sleeper with an aggressive grade)
Sean Doolittle, 1B, Grade B-
Javier Herrera, OF, Grade C+ (great tools, but refinement??)
Dan Meyer, LHP, Grade C+
Greg Smith, LHP, Grade C+
Sam Demel, RHP, Grade C+
Andrew Carignan, RHP, Grade C+
Grant Desme, OF, Grade C+
Travis Banwart, RHP, Grade C+
Josh Horton, SS, Grade C+
Jermaine Mitchell, OF, Grade C

Grade C guys interchangeable with some above include Jeff Baisley, Graham Godfrey, Dan Hamblin, Aaron Jenkins, Brad Kilby, Vince Mazzaro, Kevin Melillo, Cliff Pennington, Landon Powell (who could be a Grade B if he could stay healthy), Jason Ray, Richie Robnett, Justin Sellers, and the enigmatic Matt Sulentic.

This system was looking rather dehydrated until the 2007 draft class, which I like a lot, and the blockbuster trade with Arizona.

Again, don't get all pissy about exact placement on this list. The grades are more important than someone being ranked 15th instead of 13th.

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!

0 recs | Comment 81 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

interesting

cahill B- and carter B+ seems odd to me. i might have them both at B, along with cunningham. actually, i might push cunningham to B+, but then, i seem to be his biggest fan.

by jpahk on Jan 2, 2008 1:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Carter/Cunningham

I'm a big Cunningham supporter as well, but even I think Carter has a brighter future. I'm suprised to see John give a 20 yo that projects to start 2008 in A+ such a high grade, although I don't disagree at all.

As for Cunningham, I'd probably rate him a B or a B- (relative to the others on John's list) based on his defense. I've heard the entire spectrum on this, ranging from can handle center or be great in right to mediocre LF at best.

by rwperu34 on Jan 2, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

cahill and rodriguez are worthy of B+ grades

cahill especially is prepping for a huge breakthrough next year in A+ and AA.

ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (new content)

variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Jan 2, 2008 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What has Herrera done to merit a C+?

Between a PED suspension, missing a year due to TJ surgery and then missing large chunks of last year I'd have thought he'd be lucky to get a mention. Yeah, he's got tools but he hasn't done anything with them in 2 years!

by grover on Jan 2, 2008 1:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rodriguez > Cahill???

Please show me one thing that makes you believe Rodriguez is better.

by sully10x on Jan 2, 2008 2:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i think Cahill/Rodriguez could be bumped to B+

eventually with good 08 seasons, but Hrod control issues can determine if he's a SP/reliever long term. if reliever, expect a fast track to the majors, his stuff is joel zumaya like.

i do like the trio of relievers in Demel/Carignan/Ray

they do have a huge group of C+ prospects, depending on health that can be improved

by rayver723 on Jan 2, 2008 2:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

in your opinion,

is dan meyer still a prospect? thanks

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

by bobbymcnally on Jan 2, 2008 2:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not to speak for John, but...

He did give the man a C+. That pretty much indicates that he's still a prospect, but that the luster is gone.

by aCone419 on Jan 2, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Recker

John,

I realize you won't be reading this until much later, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on Anthony Recker. He really seemed to break out at A+ this year, but then he struggled mightily upon his promotion to AA.

Thanks

by aCone419 on Jan 2, 2008 2:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

from what ive read

the huge power is legit
defense needs work
struggled a ton after promotion to AA

he'll likely start back in AA and go from there. but for awhile he was one of the big surprise prospects

with Suzuki in the majors, Poell injured for a good hunk o f 08, and Padrn suspended 50 games...Recker is their highest level catching prospect

by rayver723 on Jan 2, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Barton a B+?

While the power looks limited at this stage in his career for a first basemen, we're still talking about a kid. He may be a defensive liability, but 1B isn't that vital of a position to begin with.

B+ is an excellent grade, but I would not hesitate to put him as one of the top 10 or 15 prospects in all of baseball.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 2, 2008 2:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

umm...

...wouldnt the fact that, as you admit, "1B isn't that vital of a position to begin with" further diminish his relative value?

He's a corner guy - at an unimportant defensive position, and he's not very good over there to boot. Then he doesnt have plus power. How high can you rank a guy like that?

I like Barton, and I think that's about right, but no way do I have him as top 10 or 15 in baseball.

by alskor on Jan 2, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is Barton...

...a younger Conor Jackson in a tougher league and a less offensive environment?

by cooper7d7 on Jan 2, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jackson v. Barton

Jackson played his first season of pro ball as a 21 year old. Barton has played, to this point, his final season of professional baseball as a 21 year old. I ascertain that an 827 OPS as a 21 year old in triple A is far more impressive then a 943 OPS as a 21 year old in low a ball.

Conor Jackson even received an A- grade in 2006.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 2, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Its a point well taken

but I was never a big Conor Jackson fan, either.

Guys who are a pretty sure bet to be roughly league average first basemen can end up putting up some pretty impressive numbers in the minors. Its a fast track to becoming greatly overrated.

I mean, whats the projection here? Youkilis? I hear a lot of Mark Grace comps. Middle of the road 1B, and those two were much better defenders(You in fact coming up at 3B). If he puts up Youk's slash stats and say 15-20 HRs that makes him a slightly above average 1B. What really recommends him is his age, of course...

How can you give a guy an A- grade as a prospect if his ceiling is a B/B+ major leaguer?

by alskor on Jan 2, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A- Prospects

Some A- prospects end up as complete crap. (Marte and Guzman)

If a guy has a 90% chance of being at least Youkilis, he's an A- prospect IMO.

by GregJP on Jan 2, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

don't forget about sowers

or was it lofgren?

ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (new content)

variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Jan 2, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Check it out

So far John has only given out 10 A's or A-'s, so Barton could very well be in the top 15, you'll have to check out his top 50 lists.

FYI...Grade A prospects are the elite. They have a good chance of becoming stars or superstars. Almost all Grade A prospects develop into major league regulars, if injuries or other problems don't intervene. Note that is a major "if" in some cases.

Grade B prospects have a good chance to enjoy successful careers. Some will develop into stars, some will not. Most end up spending several years in the majors, at the very least in a marginal role.

by cooper7d7 on Jan 2, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A Trip down Memory Lane

I recently wrote an article about Kansas City signing Tsao, a move I really like! And I decided to use Sickels 2001 prospect sheet as one of my many references.

So while A's and A-'s are not an easy grade to obtain, look at the players who received an A- in 2001:

Mench, owner of a career 940 minor league OPS. A solid number, but considering the age comparisons, 870 v. 940 is substantial! Also keep in mind that Mench's numbers were greatly due to his playing against younger competition. Barton has always played substantially higher then his age.
Choi, owner of a career 894 minor league OPS. Much of this is now in hindsight, but again, keep in mind the age and level of competition. While Choi is not as off as Mench, he was still a year or two older then Barton.
Kearns, 903 minor league OPS. Very similar in age and statistics to Barton. His 2000 season looks incredible, but keep in mind, that was Kearns repeating a level, something Barton has essentially never done.
Bradley, 802 OPS, probably given this grade because of his tools and fielding. The eye at the plate looks excellent from a toolsy player, but if you are going to give an IF 'A-' to one, why not another?
Burroughs, 831 OPS, although it has dropped recently, his move through the minors, and numbers, do not look far different from Barton. Neither does the explanation.

I'm not disgusted, nor offended by this grade. I am simply curious. I imagine grading has changed, been perfected, etc, but this grade, to me, seems a tad low.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 2, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, You may have Misunderstood me...

By no means am I knocking the grades those players received. Rather, I am stating that a player with similar numbers, yet with youth on his side, is the argument behind why I think he should be rated higher.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 2, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jerry Blevins

What about Jerry Blevins? He didn't show much in the majors, and was a little old for AA, but I would think he would have made the list.

by CubsFan on Jan 2, 2008 2:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What really strikes me...

is how many of the guys on this list are from trades and the 07 draft. Maybe this just speaks well of the 07 draft... but damn, the cupboard sure was bare...

by alskor on Jan 2, 2008 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re: Cahill

Trevor Cahill at 19

105 innings, 40 walks, 117 K's, 3 HR's, 2.73 ERA, .220 BAA. He improved in each of the 4 months he pitched in. He has a pitchers frame at 6'3" 195 and comfortably sits in the low 90's.

I hate to be picky, but the guy is closer to a B+ than B-

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 2, 2008 2:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

interesting

Cahill grade was B- in 07 list too, he should be bumped up

by rayver723 on Jan 2, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two puzzling omissions

Blevins is one-- not even a C for a guy who climbed three levels and pitched in the majors last year? His stuff isn't chopped liver, either-- he's definitely a step above the Ron Floreses of the world. B-/C+?

The other is Alex Arnold Leon, who has a combined 65 Ks in 70 innings in the two Mexican Leagues this year at the age of 18, and an ERA in the mid-2s. (And he's 9-0, so apparently he's lucky as well as good. :p) Those would be good numbers for an 18-year-old in rookie ball, and those leagues are way more difficult than rookie ball. He could shoot through the system a la Street if they keep him as a reliever, but it looks like they're going to try him out as a starter next year. I'd say he warrants at least a B.

by PaulThomas on Jan 2, 2008 2:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Leon

I agree on Leon, I don' t know if it was because he was a more under the radar signing, or if it is because he hasn't played in full season minor league ball yet, but he's been ignored on a lot of the top prospect lists.

He's currently slated to be in A+ Stockton's rotation as a 19 year old and probably deserves a C+ grade until we see more of him.

by fade2night on Jan 2, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He outpitched Demel,

in tougher leagues, with similar stuff, at a younger age. And he has potential to be a starter rather than a reliever. He's got to be a grade (I think 2, hence the B) above him.

(I'm just using Demel because he makes an easy comparison-- no offense meant to him.)

by PaulThomas on Jan 2, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cahill

I agree with the above posters that Cahill is low at a B-. He put up similar and sometimes better numbers then Anderson, Cahill actually induced more ground balls and had slightly more strikeouts per inning then Anderson.

Now I'm not saying he should be rated as highly as Anderson because he doesn't have Anderson's control or ability to work the count, but he's close and defiantly thought of on a higher level then Rodriguez or Simmons.

I think he at least deserves a B grade.

by fade2night on Jan 2, 2008 3:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

gregorio petit

i'm not sure he'll hit much in the majors, but he showed progress in 07 with the bat. is already a great defensive SS/2b in his age 22 season for AA/AAA

by rayver723 on Jan 2, 2008 3:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Horton over Petit is kinda silly. Horton's all of 1.5 years younger and 3 levels below him, and might end up a second baseman.

If Petit can put up a .700 OPS in the majors (which his developing bat seems quite capable of), he'll be an above-average player.

by PaulThomas on Jan 2, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so tired of praising medicore young Latins

The whole A-B-C Latin player is better than X-Y-Z American college player due to a year or two of age is getting pretty tired for me. Horton was a 2007 draftee. He's supposed to instantly be in AA or AAA? Gimmie a break. Petit spent 4 years in professional ball at Single-A or below before splitting time at AA/AAA this year. Latins get started younger.

If you want to tout a legit Latin phenom fine. But a Latin who's OPS'd less than .700 at 4 of his 6 stops in the minors is not automatically better than a college player due just because his age relative to league is "better".

by McLovin on Jan 2, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Carter will be a beast

Reminds me of a young David Ortiz.

by Bravesin07 on Jan 2, 2008 3:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sulentic??????

I loved the guy when he was drafted. A truely great bat. Can you possibly make sense of what has happened to him? Does he have anything left?

by sagecoll on Jan 2, 2008 4:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sulentic is still only 19...

isn't he?

by Terry Ryan Jr on Jan 2, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes 19 or 20

I forget, that being said. After putting up solid numbers in rookie ball, and high praise from hitting scouts,

He put up a line of 175/234/218 (Avg, OBP, Slug) in A ball

and a mediocre 261/362/388 in short season play.

I'm just saying he was in a Anderson, Parmelee, Snider, Cardenasesque class after 06' and is barely a C prospect after 07'

by sagecoll on Jan 2, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice list John

The only grade I could really quibble with is Cahill, I think he's easily a B, and probably a B+ along with Anderson(who I like a lot also). The Carter grade is agressive but I think it makes a lot of sense, I really like the kid's bat and think he could be special. I could see Cunningham as a B like jphak said, I'm a fan of his and think if he can hack it in CF defensively he's potentially an above average player. If he can't play CF, then he should be a solid 4th OF type, one that wouldn't kill you if injuries forced into full time action.

"There are no steroids in baseball. Just players Chuck Norris has breathed on."-chucknorrisfacts.com

by gatling on Jan 2, 2008 4:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Schedule

Any hints as to who comes after the Phils?

by alskor on Jan 2, 2008 4:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

oh my how quickly they fall

I really thought (and many others) that herrera was going to be a. Huge star a couple years back. Also what has happened to robbnet and danny putnam

"our deepest fears are not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fears is that we are powerful beyong measure."

by gashousegang on Jan 2, 2008 6:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My 2 Cents

This list certainly looks better after the Haren trade, doesn't it? I still question whether got more quantity than quality in return, especially in regards to pitching. I'm not as impressed with the 2007 draft as some either.

My suggested changes to the list would be lowering Anderson and Carter to B's and Rodriquez to a C+. Love the arm, but velocity isn't everything. Just ask a Giants fan about Erick Threets. IMO, Anderson's ceiling is limited bumping him down. I don't know much about Carter, but isn't he a first baseman? His bat would have to be pretty special to rate a B+ at this stage of his career.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 2, 2008 8:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You could try to make your bias

slightly less obvious...

Eh. Probably better that you wear it on your sleeve.

As for the players: Anderson is a highly polished young starter who's a virtual certainty (at least by the rather lame standards of pitching prospects) to become an above-average big-league starter; Rodriguez has too high a ceiling not to be somewhere in the B range (and is a starter, while Threets is a reliever).

Carter has so much raw power that he's almost certain to hit 30 HR in a full big league season once he's ready. Guys with that kind of power just don't come along very often. He's basically a DH at this point, but a. guys can improve their fielding, and b. he looks like a pretty good DH...

by PaulThomas on Jan 2, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Back At Ya

To me, a HS draftee in his first full season who projects to "above average" doesn't rate a B+, but that's just me.

Did I say anywhere in my post that Erick Threets was ever a C+ prospect? Rodriguez' numbers just aren't all that impressive. I think people are getting overly enamored by reports of the 100 MPH heater.

Carter is a DH now? then a B+ is definitely to high.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rodriguez

Midwest League batters
hit .214, with 2 homers in 99.2 innings

Venezuelan Winter League, batters hit .209, 1 homer in 44.1 innings

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anderson has a low ceiling?

Since when?

BP calls him a 4 star prospect and BA is calling him a #3 SP as is. John gives him a B+ and he's not even 20 yet. If he adds any velocity as he matures and/or improves his conditioning he could very easily be a #2.

Yours is the only voice saying his ceiling is limited.

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ceiling

First of all, saying a 19 yo has a ceiling as a #3 is faint praise at best. Remember, ceiling is the highest level a prospect is expected to reach, not the most likely.

Secondly, I am confident that I'm not the only one saying Anderson is not a high ceiling prospect. John Manuel, for one, commented in a recent BA chat that I posted in another diary that the A's got more quantity than quality in the draft.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Get real

There are a handful of guys who get tagged as potential #1 SP each year. At this point, Anderson (if he stays healthy, which has next to nothing to do with ceiling) is an easy #3 SP. There are those who think #2, BP for instance rates him higher then Cahill and they give Cahill a ceiling in the 2/3 range.

Anderson's as close to a lock to being a #3 in a big league rotation as you'll find in a 19 year old pitcher. That's nothing to scoff at. And if he shows any improvement in his stuff or command he'll be a no doubt #2.

Anderson does not have the pure stuff to ever be projected as a #1. He's not Miller or Kershaw. But nobody ever thought Maddux or Glavine would be #1's until they up and did it. Heck, even Dan Haren went to Oakland with the label as a mid-rotation SP. You just aren't going to find many scouts willing to call a pitcher with a 90 MPH fastball a potential #1 no matter how well he pitches in A-ball.

As for the quantity vs. quality arguement, need I remind you that Anderson was originally ranked by BA as Arizona's 3rd best prospect? Gonzo was #1. No, Beane didn't get a Bruce or Kershaw but I believe it was Manuel who said Anderson and Gonzalez were going to be in the top 30 of BA's 2008 prospect list. So no, Beane didn't get one of the five best prospects in baseball, but two of the top thirty plus 3 more guys who were in Arizona's Top 10... it's not like Beane picked up a bunch of scabs.

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 2:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BP on Cahill

"BP for instance rates him higher then Cahill and they give Cahill a ceiling in the 2/3 range."

They did?

"Very young and very good, Cahill has plenty of projection, with most scouts comfortable seeing him as a No. 3 or 4 starter, and some going as high as No. 2."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6985

That's not what I take from that sentence.

Here is what Goldstein had on Anderson:

"Anderson instantly becomes the best pitching prospect in the system. He's arguably the most polished teenage pitcher in the minors, and the only one I can think of who already has a plus breaking ball, plus changeup, and plus command. He's also a big left-hander with average velocity and as I recently commented elsewhere, he might not have the star power of some other young arms, but if you could bet on one teenage pitcher reaching the majors and being a regular contributor, Anderson would be your best bet. He'll likely begin the year at High-A Stockton."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6997

"even Dan Haren went to Oakland with the label as a mid-rotation SP"

That's b/c that's what Dan Haren is. A lot of his success was the Coliseum. He's a front of the rotation starter, ill give you that. But he is NOT really an Ace or a #1 pitcher on a good staff. 200 IP and a K/9 of around 7 is really really helpful, but not an Ace. If we adjust Haren's HR rates for a more neutral ballpark He looks a lot like some 2/3 starters... Whats the difference between Haren and James Shields, for instance?

K/9
Haren 7.76
Shields 7.70

BB/9
Haren 2.22
Shields 1.51

H/9
Haren 8.65
Shields 8.46

Yet I dont see anyone going around calling James Shields an Ace. Haren is very good... but overrated. I know you didnt make any real claims about him... just used this comment as a convenient platform. Im getting really sick of the reputation Haren is getting, and hearing about how teams wont be good enough to "get by the Diamondbacks"... a team that should have won around 78 games according to their pyth.

by alskor on Jan 3, 2008 3:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haren is not an Ace

He had a great year in 2007 but 1 year does not an Ace make. He does it again in 2008 then we've got another discussion. But to say Haren is anything less then a #2 after last year is hard to defend. Haren certainly won't be the #1 in AZ, heck I'd pick Webb over Haren every day.

Unless they're in Colorado, then I'd want a 3rd choice. Shields would be nice.

Haren was the best value to be had in the trade market, Santana's the better pitcher but the price tag will be huge.

What did you want me to say about Cahill, he could be a 2/3/4? I can't remember the last guy scouts dubbed a "future #1 SP" if he was pitching in Low-A and had anything less then a mid-90's fastball.

As for Anderson, if we use BA's handy dandy what-it-takes-to-rate-SP guidelines, a #1 SP needs 2 plus pitches (which Goldstein gives Anderson) an average 3rd pitch (88-90 FB, check) plus-plus command (one plus down, one to go) and plus make-up. Goldstein didn't mention Anderson's make-up specifically, but I've yet to see anything negative on that front. Anderson knows how to pitch.

So why don't we see Anderson ranked as a potential #1 SP? He pretty much meets the basic requirements. What he doesn't have is the sexy fastball that makes grown men think of taking up a new career. Anderson is going to have to dominate next year before anyone will dub him a potential #1 even though he probably meets the criteria better then 80% of the future #1's already on the board.

And I'm fine with that.

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 4:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anderson = Jeff Francis type SP?

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 6:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tough to say

Are you asking if Anderson could end a Francis type? Certainly possible. Looking up Francis' old scouting reports from BA (2004 Handbook) I'd say the two pitchers were roughly equal in terms their fastballs, change-ups and commmand/control while at the same level.

Anderson seems to have the higher rated breaking stuff.

In terms of projected ceiling from the A-ball level, I'd say Anderson is/was the higher rated prospect.

Of course, in 2004 Francis put together a wicked season and vaulted up the charts. Anderson hasn't done anything like that yet.

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Projection

Maybe projection depends on context? Anderson probably projects as a #2 or even #1 with the A's. He'd be a #5, at best, with the Giants(Cain/Lincecum/Alderson/Bumgarner>Anderson). He wouldn' project as anything with Boston.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

I don't think that's how scouting services work, they don't rate a guy on where in his team's rotation he'd end up, but what type of pitcher he is considered be overall. If he was in the Giants system, he'd still project the same as he would with the A's, the Red Sox, or the Pirates.

"There are no steroids in baseball. Just players Chuck Norris has breathed on."-chucknorrisfacts.com

by gatling on Jan 3, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

Well, Anderson just seems like a polished soft tossing lefty who will likely end up as a back-of-the-rotation starter if he stays completely healthy. He may end up higher in a rotation like the A's who don't have any front line starters coming along.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree again

I don't see Anderson as a back of the rotation guy at all. Is he going to be an ace? No, not unless he can add some velocity to his fastball probably. He does have a plus breaking ball and plus changeup at age 19, along with plus command. BP says he has average velocity for a LHP, so I don't see too much trouble saying he should be a mid rotation guy as long as he stays healthy. He doesn't have the ceiling of a Bumgarner or Alderson maybe, but he is a pretty safe bet to contribute, at least as far you can feel safe betting on a pitching prospect.

And just to cover all bases, I've been on the Anderson bandwagon for awhile, not just because Billy Beane traded for him.

"There are no steroids in baseball. Just players Chuck Norris has breathed on."-chucknorrisfacts.com

by gatling on Jan 3, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he's a top 30-50 prospect

he could end up a bust for all we know, but currently he's highly regarded as one of the better lefty prospects in the minors

back rotation, maybe youve been reading reports on eveland/smith

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

90 MPH isn't soft-tossing

'tis average (some would say a bit above since he's a lefty but certainly average velocity). Greg Smith has a fastball a tick below Anderson's and is considered your classic soft tossing lefty.

Now maybe we're having a semantical disagreement here. "Back-of-the-rotation" means to me a #4 at best. Everyone (except you) has pegged Anderson a #3 as is, and if he gains anything on his fastball (which may or may not happen) his ceiling will be a #2. There are probably some prospect watchers/scouts who'd be comfortable giving him a #2 ceiling right now but by and large the consensus is a #3.

For a 19 year old with half a season of A-ball under his belt and without a mid-90's heater, this seems perfectly fair to me.

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ceiling

Top prospects (which Anderson is regarded as) do not have ceilings as #3 starters. A ceiling as a #3 means that a guy will probably end up a below-average MLB player. Guys who are predicted as below-average are not top prospects.

A guy's ceiling is the highest level that he could potentially (within reason) reach-- and for Anderson, that's Mulder/Glavine levels, given that both of those guys did more with less.

A ceiling is very different from a prediction. I'm perfectly comfortable with a prediction of Anderson as a #3 starter. (And, conversely, it would be insane to predict a 19-year-old to become Tom Glavine.) Predictions are average end outcomes. Predictions and ceilings converge as players get closer to the majors, but at this point Anderson is still pretty far off.

by PaulThomas on Jan 3, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But that's not what the big boys are saying

Right now, BA is saying mid-rotation SP while BP has him ranked ahead of Cahill (but with the same grade). BP did not specifically say anything about Anderson's ceiling in their review but seem to be settling on Cahill in the 2/3 range. So you could say BP likes Anderson as a #2 but you would technically be putting words in their mouth. I think Anderson can be a #2 but I think BP, BA and the rest get the nod over me.

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've concluded that there's no point

in responding to this crap. DrB is uninterested in facts or actual discussion; he's only interested in puffing up the Giants and denigrating the A's wherever possible.

When you start citing some facts (Like, ANY facts. At all.), I might actually pay attention to what you're saying.

by PaulThomas on Jan 3, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what do you think?

clayton tanner > anderson
henry sosa > rodriguez

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tanner and Sosa vs Anderson and Rodriguez

Tanner=Anderson

Sosa>Rodriguez

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what top 30 prospect list will tanner make?

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Beats Me

Is there some reason why I would know or care?

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re: Tanner

Sorry, but a guy that doesn't crack the Giants less than awesome top 10 or 90 mph doesn't equal arguably a top 50 prospect

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 3, 2008 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Top 50

If we're talking about top 50's in all of baseball, I don't think either Anderson or Tanner should be in anybody's top 50, and probably not top 100 either.

As for the Giants top 10, I believe Tanner would easily make it if the Giants had made the usual single first and second round draft picks in 2007. As it is, at least 4 of their 6 first and supplemental round picks are highly regarded and bumped Tanner down into the second 10.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can tell you're just making this stuff up

Tanner is like Anderson... except with 3 less strikeouts an inning and an extra walk.

Sosa is like Anderson... except right-handed and without the ability to actually throw strikes.

Sosa's fastball is, if he's the guy I'm recalling correctly, junk. It doesn't even make sense to compare him to Rodriguez. It does make some sense to compare either of them to Anderson, but they come off distinctly the worse in that comparison.

by PaulThomas on Jan 3, 2008 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re cahill again

Kiker in Texas got a B despite being worse than Cahill in the same league at the same age

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 2, 2008 8:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

And you'd have a good point - except that the list isn't generated totally by 2006 statistical results. It depends a lot on scouting, especially when we're talking about guys at the lower levels of the minors.

I would take Cahill over Kiker as well, but Kiker looks like a pretty good arm to me and if somebody told me that Kiker is a better prospect than Cahill, I'd find it to be a totally defensible position.

The kid put up a 2.90 ERA at age 19. Any attempt to put a negative spin on his performance relative to any other guy in the same league just isn't going to carry much weight. There's just nothing to complain about here.

by mrkupe on Jan 2, 2008 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re

I'm not knocking Kiker. I would actually look at Kiker's stats and suggest he might be a B+ himself.

But fact is that Cahill was better last year. Sure Kiker is a lefty, but Cahill has better stuff and a better body

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 2, 2008 9:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why, hello there!

I have an irrational love for Travis Banwart. That is all.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 3, 2008 1:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It appears that I forgot to mention something.

Banwart should be shuttled (nay, monorailed) to the top of this and all prospect lists. Anyone who disagrees with me will be declared ignorant, and I will threaten to launch food at you without ever having any intention to actually launch food at you, all through the magic of the interweb.

Oh, and how is monorailed not a word yet? Webster needs to get on that. Godspeed, assorted dictionary and word smith companies.

Anyways, Banwart. God.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 3, 2008 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A fair arguement...

for an obsessive lunatic! ;)

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 2:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wes Bankston?

I know he isn't a great prospect by any means, but I thought he might deserve a mention at the tail end of the list.

by Zabat on Jan 3, 2008 3:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Got waived

and went through at least 4 cellar-dwelling AL teams.

Tends to reduce a guy's prospect status a bit.

by PaulThomas on Jan 3, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well John, are you going back to the

A's drawing board with the Swisher trade, or just addendum?

by theblackpearl on Jan 3, 2008 2:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Check out the CWS Top 20 post...

Gio Gonzalez, LHP, Grade B+ (ranks second on Oakland list)

Fautino De Los Santos, RHP, Grade B+ (ranks third on Oakland list)

Ryan Sweeney, OF, Grade C+ (I don't think his power is going to develop. Ranks 12th on Oakland list)

by cooper7d7 on Jan 4, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Grades

Put me in the camp that thinks Cahill's grade is a little low. But for those who think I am a Beane apologist (I'm looking at you, DrB and Grover), I also think you grades were a little generous with Carter, Simmons, Herrera, and a lot of the grade C guys. As good as Pennington may be with the glove, he has to start hitting at least a little to be considered a prospect. And although Sulentic was highly regarded before '07, and is still very young, it's hard to overstate how bad he hit last year. It was an absolute disaster, and I think he needs to earn his way back onto prospect lists.
That being said, if the A's can find a way to keep their players healthy, I think this system could be a lot stronger next year, with players like Lansford, Italiano, and Powell cracking the top 20.

by ozzman99 on Jan 4, 2008 3:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs