Is this like Mad Libs?!?!?! Let me give it a shot:

OMG how could he rank [Stanton] over [Heyward]. And [AJax] has no place near a top 100. No credibility.

OMG how could he rank [Bromberg] over [Withrow]. And [Profar] has no place near a top 100. No credibility.

Aumont 29, Gose 46, Gillies 50? Andy Oliver at 47 isn’t a Philie, but I think a little high.

I don’t think you have to be opposed to the idea that right minds differ to say this list is a little singular. Have any of those guys even gotten a single write-in vote in the community list votes yet? Nevertheless, always interested in seeing yet another take.

“OMG how could he rank [Starlin Castro] over [Devaris Gordon]. And [A.J. Pollock] has no place near a top 100.”

Actually, this is a really good list, as far as I can tell. I love that he has Jason Castro in the top 30, one spot over Brett Wallace. And I like that he’s not over rating the toolsy low level CF, Tate, Westmoreland, and Hicks, and also that he has them in that order.

I like Starlin Castro a lot. But, I wonder if he and Dominic Brown both aren’t getting slightly over rated for just “looking” toolsy. Ina way, these guys sort of remind me of Joel Guzman, the former failed Dodgers prospect, who looked very toolsy and athletic, but never actually had either plus speed or plus power. Now Guzman also had trouble making contact, which neither of these guys does, and I do think that will mean they both become solid useful big leaguers. I’m just not sold yet on the ceilings some are projecting.

While Starlin Castro and Dominic Brown were two of the more interesting and projectable guys I saw this year, neither had quite the tools or ceiling as Desmond Jennings, who came through the FSL last year. Jennings didn’t have the great numbers yet either when he came through last year, but the plus speed and the power potential were nonetheless clear. For Castro and Brown, the tools were more good all around than real outstanding. They had tools that stand out in high-A ball, but won’t necessarily stand out in MLB.

That sort of makes them more “low floor” guys rather than “high ceiling” guys (though for Brown at least, I think high-ceiling is still possible if the power develops). A realistic projection for both is more like average MLB regular. That said, a guy with high percentage odds of being an average regular is still a top 50 guy. So I’m not disagreeing much here, just pointing out what I think are realistic expectations.

Can’t spend much time reviewing this while at work, but he seems to give his reasoning. I may not agree, but it is really helpful to get a different perspective.

It certainly is an odd list

i feel like he doesnt even know who everyone is. It is interesting to get a real ex scouts opinion, though.

Obviously, prospecting is hard and looking back at past projections is going to humble most of us most of the time. As far as how to evaluate this particular list today, we can only go on the information available at the time. And there doesn’t seem to be a good argument for leaving Matt Moore off a top 100 prospects list. Lists may well be silly, but this guy has invited scrutiny by posting one. The burden of proof is on him, not me.

Some are coming to his defense by saying that more information is good, more perspectives are needed. I’m not sure how much “information” or “perspective” we’re actually getting from a numbered list with 3-4 sentence write-ups of the top 50 only.

I found at least 5 pitchers above him with comparable numbers and ages and people who Withrow was just better then. That stopped around 50, though.

he does make it clear that he simply wants, in turner’s case to see performance before pushing a high school arm higher. I think he said in the chat that he expected to move some of the HS arms up a lot after they get some pro experience.

and his is quite stinky.

You make this argument….

we have seen list after list of top 50 prospect lists littered with 1b like logan morrison, yonder alonso, brett wallace and freddie freeman. when in my opinion these guys,have little or no chance at being in the top 15 at their position.

And yet Alonso, Wallace and Freeman are on his top 50, and Morrison is #51.

Wallace will definitely be a top 15 at his position. Morrison has a chance of being that good.

and he can be a scout and not especially advanced stat savvy, so I wouldn’t think it is automatic that his choices are going to be better than some people on this site. He’d be better at looking at a guy play in a game and say how good he is versus most people here. But once you have read a bunch of reports on a guy from various sources (including scouts) and have his AA or AAA stats as well, well, this particular scout’s professional advantage is lessened. He may not be big on positional value (note how high he has Aumont, who may end up a reliever, and Aumont has upside, but he has him pretty high), or more willing to emphasize tools and ceiling (hence Gose makes his top 50).

isn’t that high. I’ve seen a few times where people said his fb could reach the mid-90’s with good movement (tho he sits in the low-mid 90’s range). No real big delivery issues, a nasty plus curve, a solid slider, and a potential plus change that’s a work in progress. If he develops the change into a plus pitch, and his velocity is still, say 92-94, that’s a potential TOR arm. Maybe not an “ace”, but a potential TOR lefty is hard to find.

Maybe he doesn’t reach that, but the upside seems to be fairly high, with about the only issue being that he didn’t get to AA this past year.

if he develops into something of that nature

Funny, I’ve been sort of arguing just a bit against Castro, and I was skeptical of saying for sure a guy is going to hit .300, but otherwise those projections are pretty close to what I’ve been saying. I used Edwin Encarnacion and Orlando Hudson as reasonable projections even if he doesn’t stay at SS, and Hudson has a career .348 OBP, .778 OPS, and 12 HR per 162GM, and was worth 2.9 WAR last year, while Encarnacion has a career .341 OBP, .790 OPS, and 23 HR per 162GM, and was worth 2.0 WAR in 2008 at only 25 years old (and probably has yet to reach his peak).

I also don’t think Castro stood out for me quite as much amongst the best players in the FSL. He was one of the best players, but didn’t stand out as much as a guy like Dominic Brown, and didn’t really separate himself for me from guys like Ben Revere, or even Kirk Nieuwenhuis. Now, he was a couple of years younger than any of those guys, so you do have to be impressed with how advanced he is at the plate for his age. I think he’s less polished on the defensive end though, which is part of why it’s harder to project exactly where he’ll end up defensively.

On the whole though, I think he is a top 50 guy, and will look about right where he seems to be about to land on the community list in the mid 30s. And if you want to be optimistic, I suppose a .780 OPS at SS is still certainly a possibility there. But I’d still have Dee Gordon higher.

Twins have a bit of depth, but not that much that really excites me there, and Yankees, after the guys they’ve dealt, are no way that high either. The funny thing, I mostly liked his top dozen, not the order I would have, but really the same top dozen. After that, it gets kind of nuts.

Seems really biased based on what the ESPN “experts” who dont follow prospects may say. The Dbacks, Phillies, Royals, Reds, Twins, Cubs, Tigers, Chi Sox(the same team John said was ‘weak, but not dead’… not a good start to a organization rating) and Mets all ahead of the Dodgers? Wow… I think he picked teams with big name prospects(Cubs with Castro/Vitters, Reds with Chapman, Twins with Sano, etc) and went from there… or teams that had been active in the trade market(Philly, Sea, etc)…

Someone who received the BA book said that their top 5 was

1. Tampa
2. Texas
3. Cleveland
4. San Francisco
5. Philadelphia

with the Cubs 15th.