Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects: 100-51
Email
PrintOver at BB we completed the back 50 of our top 100 prospects on Friday and have started on the top 50 this week.
Link: Bullpen Banter Top 100 Prospects
Each prospect on the top 100 has a profile page with some information, stats, video or photos we've taken and a discussion section with thoughts from our authors. We release 5 prospects a day, 5 days a week for a full month counting down from 100 to 1.
Prospects 100-51:
52. Randall Delgado - RHP - ATL
54. Jonathan Singleton - 1B - HOU
56. Nick Castellanos - 3B - DET
58. Arodys Vizcaino - RHP - ATL
59. Cheslor Cuthbert - 3B - KC
60. Will Middlebrooks - 3B - BOS
72. Justin Nicolino - LHP - TOR
76. Tyrell Jenkins - RHP - STL
79. Noah Syndergaard - RHP - TOR
81. Jonathan Schoop - IF - BAL
82. Dellin Betances - RHP - NYY
84. Taylor Guerrieri - RHP - TB
94. Eddie Rosario - 2B/OF - MIN
95. Taylor Jungmann - RHP - MIL
98. Keyvius Sampson - RHP - SD
Thanks, as always for the support. We'll be releasing some positional lists and our individual top 100s once this is done.
95 comments
|
Add comment
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm assuming Simmons didn't make the top 50
Obviously I disagree with his exclusion from the back end of the top 100.
Even though I think the rankings of Delgado and Vizcaino are a bit on the low side, I think their positioning is perfectly reasonable. Delgado’s command still worries me and the relief question with Viz is going to remain for awhile.
by nixa37 on Feb 7, 2026 5:54 PM EST reply actions
Bethancourt is the one that pains me to see excluded
He will be ranked fairly well on my individual list (although not near the heights of a Piliere).
by Jeff Reese on Feb 7, 2026 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
Bethancourt is just such a boom or bust guy
IMO Simmons has almost as much upside with a far greater chance of reaching it and a much higher floor. I just think people are ignoring how raw he was offensively when he was drafted and how much progress he made over the course of about 15 months because they’re placing so much more emphasis on age instead of experience. There aren’t many prospects that could go from junior college to leading a high A league in average in ~15 months.
by nixa37 on Feb 7, 2026 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
He has been a complete surprise with the bat
But that doesn’t mean he will continue to improve offensively. I love the defense, but I’m still not sure his bat will let him be an above-average regular.
Bethancourt’s bat has significantly higher upside, and the defensive tools to be an impact defender.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 7, 2026 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
"I'm still not sure his bat will let him be an above-average regular"
I just don’t think there is any reason to think that. You’re talking about a guy who only needs a line of .280/.335/.340 to be an above average regular. Why don’t you think he can hit at least that well eventually? I mean all indications this offseason have been that scouts love Simmons as a prospect (and Mayo’s rankings actually praised his bat speed).
by nixa37 on Feb 7, 2026 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
I don't dislike him
He could put up something like that, but I’m not sure that he will yet. His value is in his defense, and even with an unexpectedly good showing, I’m not ready to say he’s going to be an above-average regular.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 7, 2026 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
Well I mean I think he could put up much better numbers than that
I mean we’re talking about a guy who was extremely raw offensively with the height and apparently the bat speed to project to hit for some power. Obviously he’s too aggressive at this point, but you’re talking about a guy with less than 850 PA above the juco level, so there’s no reason to think he can’t improve (especially with that elite contact rate).
by nixa37 on Feb 7, 2026 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
…and apparently the bat speed to project to hit for some power.
I don’t really see him hitting for much power or having much in the way of secondary skills in general. Pretty empty average guy but as you say, won’t take much for him to be valuable with that glove. I like him, I just think his ceiling is fairly low even with these attributes. Solid, steady player at a tough position to find that but no real impact potential. More “like” than “love” for me.
Fwiw, I think he came in at 103rd. 105th? Something like that. He’s a fairly close miss on my top 100.
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Feb 7, 2026 9:25 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure why you would already write off the secondary skills
He was incredibly raw offensively when he was drafted and indications from scouts seem to be that the bat has at least some potential. Not sure where the fairly low ceiling comment is coming from. If he can even manage a line like .290/.350/.390, you’re talking about a roughly 4 win SS if the defensive is as good as advertised.
by nixa37 on Feb 7, 2026 9:33 PM EST up reply actions
prospects rankings are a relative thing
i just don’t get the love for Casey Kelly
i feel fairly confident in saying that if the Padres were offered either Randall Delgado or Arodys Vizcaino for Casey Kelly straight up, they’d leap at that offer
by blue bulldog on Feb 7, 2026 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure how you could feel confident in what another person would do
But I like Kelly more than both of them, and I laid out the reasons why in my comment. I still see the makings of a top of the rotation starter with a high floor. Yeah, the results have been middling so far; I care more about what will happen in the future. Other people can certainly disagree, but I’m not going to change my opinion to suit others.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 7, 2026 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
What makes Kelly's ceiling so much higher than Delgado's?
I certainly don’t see that one and I’m not even particularly high on Delgado.
by nixa37 on Feb 7, 2026 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
His delivery (and athleticism) is better suited to mastering his command, and I like his stuff a bit more.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 7, 2026 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
I see no reason to like his stuff more
And I don’t think the slightly increased chance of improving his command makes him a potential top of the rotation starter while Delgado is doomed to nothing more than a middle of the rotation stater.
by nixa37 on Feb 7, 2026 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
I think this point is severly underestimated here
atleticism and delivery is very important for command, of all pitches, and consistency of secondaries IMO.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Based on the number of unathletic and ugly motions that have worked
I think you may be seriously overestimating the importance here. I mean if he currently has those things working for him and he hasn’t figured out his command yet, why is he more likely to improve than someone who could possibly fix his command issues with a slight mechanical adjustment? I’m not saying these factors should be completely ignored, but using them at the total expense of actual performance seems a bit strange to me.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
pitchers rarely have good command to start with
they might throw a lot of strikes and get credited with control though. It’s only through repetition, improved mechanics that pitchers improve their control.
It’s my belief that repetition will help athletic pitchers more than unathletic pitchers. Further, I believe the reason some pitchers have good command with ugly motions is that they are athletic enough to consistently throw with those motions and have solid command.
Do you have any examples of pitchers that have an ugly motion and are unathletic?
Whenever I think of control specialists I think of guys like Buehrle, Maddux, etc. And these are the guys that are winning gold gloves because they are athletic and end up with consistent landing motions due to years of repetition from solid deliveries and athletic motions.
Yeah, there are exceptions. There always will be. But I’m not sure how you can dismiss this as being very relevant.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
We're not really comparing athletic pitchers to unathletic ones in this case
I mean do you really think the difference in athleticism between Kelly and guys like Delgado and Vizcaino is that massive? I won’t disagree that he does have an edge there, but its a rather small one. I just don’t see the edge he may have in athleticism and mechanics makes up for how far he lags behind in actual performance, and again I’m not particularly high on either Delgado or Vizcaino.
Look, I’m not saying it isn’t relevant information that should be considered. I simply think you’re overestimating its importance if you think Kelly’s slight advantage in athleticism and mechanics (I think you guys are getting to caught up in “classic” looking mechanics) more than makes up for the questions about his actual performance on the field.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
I think his advantage in athleticism and mechanics
plus his stuff makes up for the ranking. The results on the field are not that important to me.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
Guess we just disagree then
I don’t see him actually having an advantage in stuff (Delgado’s stuff in his starts at the end of the season was much more impressive than I expected) or in mechanics for that matter (Kelly has more traditional mechanics, not necessarily better mechanics IMO).
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
I mean do you really think the difference in athleticism between Kelly and guys like Delgado and Vizcaino is that massive?
I think its pretty big. Kelly is a crazy good athlete. The issue here is one of body control. Really does make a difference in repeating delivery -→ command and control.
I agree this element might be overstated in general… but its a legit factor and Kelly is one of the more extreme examples and one of the reasons many are so high on him.
Again, I’m not comfortable right now projecting Kelly as a whole lot better than Delgado, though.
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Feb 8, 2026 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
"I feel confident that you like Casey Kelly more than the industry at large"
confidence is just a (admittedly rather vague) verbal representation of the types of odds you’d be willing to give in a wager on your statement
perhaps a different way of phrasing it, would be “I’d be willing to give 2:1 odds that if offered Delgado or Vizcaino for Kelly straight up, Josh Byrnes would complete that trade”. what forms the basis of your confidence, is of course, an entirely different matter.
“Yeah, the results have been middling so far; I care more about what will happen in the future.” 1) I’m “confident” that nearly everyone on this site cares about what will happen in the future. We just all disagree on the best method towards figuring out the future. 2) I’m also “confident” that nearly everyone on this site believes that a prospect’s “results” have a bearing on the future. We just all disagree on the extent.
At the end of the day, the list is yours to rank. Believe it or not, everyone changes their opinions to suit others at some point, it’s just that we all have the ability to choose when and for whom we change our opinions.
I am curious though. How many times have you seen Kelly pitch? What makes you so “confident” that the reasons for his struggles were due to the “Often times he got two strike counts on a batter then would begin to try to make the perfect pitch on the black or try to get the hitter to chase.”
by blue bulldog on Feb 7, 2026 9:03 PM EST up reply actions
I watched him 4 times this year
I’m just relaying my opinion on Casey Kelly and why I think he struggled. You can take it for whatever you consider it to be worth.
I questioned your statement because I don’t see how you could have any basis for that “confidence” other than projecting your own opinion on an MLB GM.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 7, 2026 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
the basis for that "confidence"
was partially from projecting my own opinion…
and partially from the industry at large. Sickels has both Delgado and Vizcaino ranked higher than Kelly. Goldstein definitely has Delgado higher (five-star prospect), and probably has Vizcaino higher as well (both are four-star prospects, but Kelly is really low on the Padres list). BA’s Top 100 won’t come out for a couple of weeks, but considering the Midseason Top 50, Vizcaino and Delgado were both higher than Kelly. Keith Law’s latest ranking, also a Midseason Top 50, had Vizcaino higher (though not Delgado). And pretty much any sabr-oriented analyst is going to have Kelly ranked lower than Delgado and (especially) Vizcaino.
Obviously, industry consensus doesn’t mean that they are definitely right and you are definitely wrong. But I think it’s safe to say that Josh Byrnes’s opinion is far more likely to mirror the industry’s than yours. Especially since the sources I listed above actually have contacts with the organizations developing these prospects.
The other thing I wanted to know, is the basis for your “confidence” in going against both the scouting industry/sabermetric community’s consensus on this particular ranking. If the basis of your confidence stems from opinions derived from watching him four times this year….I have to admit that’s somewhat underwhelming.
by blue bulldog on Feb 7, 2026 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree with a lot there
From what I can gather you seem to feel quite strongly the Kelly ranking is wrong. You feel this way because of:
A) your opinion which you don’t go into any details on
B) the “industry” which really is just analysts and not actual MLB insiders. They may have access to some inside information, how they choose to use it we don’t know.
Your post is very polite but comes off antagonistic. I don’t see you adding anything of your own opinion, rather they are “wrong” because their opinion is different from other analysts.
Do you really think Sickels, Manuel, Goldstein, etc. have seen Kelly as much this year? I highly doubt any of them have seen him as much as Jeff has.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Jeff may have seen him more
Then again I also think Jeff is relying a lot more on his personal opinion than those guys, which leaves him far more susceptible to falling in the trap of anchoring to previous rankings. Because he was so high on Kelly last year (#17 on his personal list), he is more likely to see the positives and miss the negatives when he watches Kelly pitch.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
as opposed to what though?
Personally I would rather base my opinion off someone like Jeff seeing him 4 times over someone like yourself of blue bulldog that may not have seen him pitch this year and rank solely off statistics and other analysts. Who also may not have seen him this year and base their rankings off statistics and maybe an opinion of a scout or other analyst.
I wouldn’t say Jeff’s approach is flawless. But four starts is hardly confirmation bias and do most scouts see a pitcher more than four times in a year?
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Scouts still take into account the opinions of other scouts
And teams certainly take the opinions of a lot of scouts into consideration over any single scout. I wasn’t comparing my opinion to Jeff’s either. I was comparing the opinions of the guys you named who you don’t think saw him as much. Generally I’ll take the essentially consolidated opinions of a bunch of scouts over the opinion of a single guy, especially when that one guy could be falling victim to confirmation bias in this particular case (not a knock of Jeff, it can happen to anyone, and I could be completely wrong).
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
I dont think scouts ever take into account the opinion of other scouts
Piliere even went into that and stated this “consensus” opinion amongst scouts is a big myth. Different scouts view players differently and also catch them on different days, good & bad.
Analysts get information from scouts and also sometimes from management, but that information from management is often biased. I have read where GMs rank players and give that information to BA and they intentionally gave rankings they didn’t believe in - whether to hype a player up or to motivate that player to do better I don’t know.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
You don't think scouts ever talk to each other about a guy?
Now they’re not going to completely change their view or anything, but I certainly think outside opinions come into play at a certain level. I wasn’t trying to say that their is some overall consensus. Not sure what about my comment gave you that impression.
Yes, analysts will obviously get bad information from people at times. You don’t think they take note of these sorts of things and keep them in mind when they hear something else from the same source in the future? Look, I’m not trying to say analysts are perfect, or infallible, or anything like that. I simply disagree with the idea that Jeff’s opinion is automatically more valid simply because he’s watched a particular prospect more than someone like KG or Manuel or Sickels.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
definitely scouts talk
but their talk is usually while they are all watching the same prospect ;)
I don’t think anyone that has watched a prospect X amount of times more than KG/Manuel/Sickels is better. Many people are not capable of distinguishing what makes a prospect good/bad. I think Jeff is one that is capable and if a group of analysts disagree on a prospect I will take the one that has seen the player more.
Confirmation bias does occur. But I tend to listen more to someone that has seen a player a lot. Four times is not a lot, but is a decent amount, and Jeff has also seen Kelly pitch in years past I believe.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Thank you for the kind words
I really appreciate it.
I think the key here is that we’re allowed to disagree on prospects. We’re dealing with significant uncertainty.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 8, 2026 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
Even if I disagree on occasion
I certainly respect the work you guys are doing over at BB. The scouting reports and video are just awesome. Just seems like you guys have a bias against Braves prospects or something ;)
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
what part of their scouting do you disagree on?
Delgado: high effort complicated delivery, quality consistent change, inconsistent curve that needs to improve, inconsistent command
Kelly: smooth and fairly simple delivery, a bit inconsistent change, quality curve, decent command but inconsistent control
Based on Delgado’s delivery and effort plus his 3/4 arm slot it is reasonable to be concerned about him ever having consistent break on his curve. The lower the arm slot the harder to master the curve. Add effort and complicated delivery and we definitely should be concerned.
Based on Kelly’s delivery and present command but lack of control I think it’s reasonable to believe he improves his command. Also, since his change was only a bit inconsistent it’s quite reasonable to think it improves to a quality 3rd pitch. I wouldn’t predict it to be his out pitch, but a solid offering is reasonable.
Looking at both of these scouting reports I would expect Kelly to be 10-15 spots ahead of Delgado. Either they are also giving weight to past results or the people who have seen him more rank him higher and those that haven’t are going more based on the numbers.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
Your scouting report disagrees with most others I've seen
Delgado certainly doesn’t have a high effort complicated delivery IMO. Where are you getting that from? Watch him pitch here. What part of that looks high effort or complicated? Yes, he’s quicker through the front end of the windup, but that’s not relevant to this. That’s just a personal preference thing. If anything, I prefer Delgado because he lands with a stiffer front leg than Kelly, who is still straightening his leg out from foot plant to release.
As for their pitchers, I won’t question you on Kelly, but I do disagree on Delgado. I think you’re underrating his curve, which some actually consider to be the better pitch among his secondaries. His change is a pretty darn good pitch too (significantly better than anything Kelly throws IMO) having produced a 19.3% whiff rate (nearly 40% whiff/swing) in the majors.
Personally, I’m not going to place emphasis on where a guy’s arm slot is. There have been plenty of pitchers that could throw a consistent power curve/slider out of that arm slot. We’re not really talking about a huge breaking over the top curve here. Like I said earlier, we obviously just disagree on the effort and delivery. I’m not sure what you’re seeing that I’m not.
Assuming that Kelly is significantly more likely to improve his change than Delgado is his curve/slider just seems strange to me. I mean Delgado has already had some success with his curve at the MLB level, while Kelly’s didn’t seem to help him a whole lot in AA. Throw in the fact that the change is generally the tougher pitch to master and I just don’t see it. I see Delgado with a third offering that’s already solid, while Kelly is still hoping to get his change to that level.
Yes, looking at your scouting reports, I would probably have Kelly higher too. I’m just not sure where your scouting report is coming from. I mean I’m relatively low on Delgado, and I think your report is incredibly pessimistic towards him.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Im basing it on what Jeff wrote on bullpenbanter
And FWIW since you strongly disagree with the scouting aspect you probably should have wrote the above post instead of the various posts arguing ranking of Delgado vs. Kelly. That post is informative and is something I like to read. The posts that you and blue bulldog wrote before didn’t really add anything. They might be correct, but without reasoning like the above they are not that helpful.
If I interpreted Jeff’s scouting reports incorrectly that’s my fault of course.
btw - that link was helpful. Did you realize they ranked Kelly 4 or 5 spots ahead of Delgado? :)
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
I was kind of vague there
I didn’t mean he was ultra high effort or anything, just that it is closer to that end of the spectrum than simple/easy. The quick tempo that can get out of sync and tendency to fall off the mound (you can see it in that video at times) is what led me to making that comment. Not a major concern, just something I made note of.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 8, 2026 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
Updated it to say "leans towards"
As for the CH/CB, I definitely like the CH more. If you’re looking for a bias, it may be my love of changeups! The CB isn’t a bad pitch, but it isn’t consistent yet from what I’ve seen.
The curve ball takes a back seat to the heavily utilized fastball/change-up combination.
And that sentence is describing pitch usage. He pitches off the FB/CH combination.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 8, 2026 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with this part
And I too am quite partial to changups. In my experience it is by far the most underutilized pitch from youth baseball up through high school and college.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
+1 for me as well
Further with someone like Delgado I’m guessing he will end up throwing a slider or slurve anyways.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
On how he falls of the mound
Honestly that’s more of a function of his arm slot and how he plants than the effort in the delivery. He lands a little closed with a front leg that’s almost stiff. Because no energy is dissipated through straightening the leg (like Kelly) and because he has a lower arm slot (leads to more rotational energy around the center of the body), he’s going to tend to fall off the side. Maybe I’m in the minority, but that’s just not what I’m thinking of when I talk about effort.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
I have seen him fall off to either side
I think it was the change when he fell to the other side but could be mistaken.
Anyways, I think the arm slot might affect it. But my guess is the fast tempo with a fairly agressive motion is more likely the culprit.
Yes, the stiff landing leg has an impact. But it seems like that landing leg isn’t consistently landing in the same spot.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
all fairly small and correctable flaws btw
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
That would make intuitive sense with the change
Because he’s not trying to throw it as hard, he may not be pulling his pitching arm side through like he does on the fastball.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
Also where did you see him fall off to the other side?
Was it online or was it from watching a live game?
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
It was on that link you gave me
I don’t think it was a consistent action though.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 9:48 PM EST up reply actions
Huh
When I watched the only side I saw him fall to was 1B, but maybe I missed it
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
maybe I was drunk lol, or my eyesight is going
by pedrophile on Feb 9, 2026 1:08 AM EST up reply actions
agreed
it appears to be a quick and fairly hard, as in agressive, motion. I wouldn’t classify it as ultra high effort either.
But with that tempo and motion I can see where there would be concern. Also, his landing tends to vary a lot from the short clips I have seen.
He could clean this up but what would it do to the quality of his stuff?
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
I honestly didn't plan on getting into it on Delgado v. Kelly
I’m trying to make an effort not to debate everything Braves related since it rubs some people the wrong way, and like I said in my initial post I don’t really have a problem with Delgado’s ranking. Above this I wasn’t even really trying to argue about Delgado, but more about Kelly (who I may have underrated to a degree) and why I think he may be overrated on this list.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
hey, you know the Braves well so we appreciate the input
IMO I find it very useful when I hear people discuss what they saw/heard from the scouting side. I can look at the numbers myself and make my own inferences. It’s not that I don’t care about the numbers but it’s not like I can’t look them up myself.
And I don’t think Jeff or any others here will mind, in fact I think they appreciate quality input.
Personally, I have seen you discuss Braves prospects a lot. You know them well. It’s only when the discussion is about rankings etc. that it appear you are being a homer. When you get into actual details on why you like or dislike a Braves prospect I don’t think any intelligent poster here can call you a homer.
by pedrophile on Feb 8, 2026 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Forgot to mention inning workload
I do find the fact that Delgado has shown the ability to handle 160+ innings the past 2 seasons without any ill effects to be a pretty big positive in his favor.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
First I want to apologize
My post is probably more rude than you’re making it out to be, and it’s definitely antagonistic. And that’s not really conducive to valuable discussion. Which I apologize about. I will actively try not to be so antagonistic in the future.
I thought people knew my opinion here, but I could be wrong. My opinion is that minor league strikeouts matter the most. Once prospects get to AA/AAA, then I start worrying a little about high walk rates as well. But still, mostly strikeout rates. Then I start corroborating with scouting reports. Guys who get insanely good scouting reports like Teheran get bumped up. Guys who don’t have the scouting reports to back up their strikeouts get bumped down.
The industry matters because the industry is a cheap collection of information. The biggest weakness of scouting reports is sample size. For guys like Klaw and BA, their biggest asset is that they can talk to people who have seen, in compilation, all of Casey Kelly’s starts.
My whole point, is if collections of analysts, with access to/analysis of so much information (both scouting and sabermetric information) are down on Casey Kelly, what is Bullpen Banter’s basis for contending otherwise? This isn’t like, some analysts have Kelly higher than Vizcaino/Delgado, whereas other analysts have Kelly lower than Vizcaino/Delgado. Almost universally, Kelly is lower than Vizcaino/Delgado. I play the probabilities. What is the likelihood that all these guys are wrong (along with the sabermetric community that values strikeouts), and that Bullpen Banter is correct instead? And off the basis of watching four starts?
“Personally I would rather base my opinion off someone like Jeff seeing him 4 times over someone like yourself of blue bulldog that may not have seen him pitch this year and rank solely off statistics and other analysts.”
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. It’s like when you trade stocks. There are people who trade solely on technicals, whereas others trade solely on fundamentals. Just because some fundamental trader who interviewed management four times thinks they have a good idea of the company’s operation, doesn’t actually mean they actually do have a better idea of the company’s future stock price than the technical trader, who has never looked at the company’s operation before. And if all the industry reports on a company are terrible, don’t you think you’d want a stronger justification for why the industry reports are wrong, than an opinion formed off of four interviews with their management?
by blue bulldog on Feb 8, 2026 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
no worries, I felt you had a lot to contribute and preferred you write
posts like you just did. We gain a lot by those posts.
Oh, and I agree on the strikeouts. To a degree. I remember when Verlander came up and the first year or so he wasn’t striking out that many. Analysts started nitpicking his control, command, etc. and didn’t think he would be special. The thing was he was developing a lot and certain aspects of his game stopped him from getting K’s. He tried to make the perfect pitch a lot. I watched all his starts the first two years. Then he would fall behind and throw something down the middle, it was maddening. Also, his change was behind his other pitches and he needed to refine his command.
I’m not saying Kelly will become Verlander. He won’t. And Verlander did it in the minors. But I think Kelly is very very raw to pitching. I believe that his command will improve and so will his secondaries and that he can become a TOR starter. I wouldn’t put big money on this but I would bet on him.
Yeah, the industry has soured and it has relevance. But the industry typically does this. Remember Hanley Ramirez? Almost all in the industry soured on him and yet the reports were the same.
I have to admit being biased towards Kelly. I probably would rank him a few spots higher than Jeff does. But I understand the caution and agree with it.
FWIW fours starts is a lot when you consider the fact Jeff has seen him before this year. That is as much as most scouts would see him.
Oh, and the scoutingthesally.com website seems to like him more than Delgado as well. For whatever value that is worth I’m not sure.
by pedrophile on Feb 9, 2026 1:21 AM EST up reply actions
Just wanted to note that these are aggregate rankings
Kelly is about 5-10 spots higher on the individual list I submitted.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 9, 2026 8:40 AM EST up reply actions
Keith Law seems to disagree with the supposed consensus too
Casey Kelly: 32
Randall Delgado: 98
by Jeff Reese on Feb 9, 2026 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
FWIW he is another that has seen Kelly a lot
His writeup likes his changeup as above average. The main thing I get from the writeup is Kelly was hitting 95-96 regularly (not sitting there) and was throwing too much in the middle of plate. He changed where he was on the rubber and that helped location and late life.
The biggest flaw he saw, and everyone else for that matter, is he doesn’t miss enough bats.
by pedrophile on Feb 9, 2026 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
It's interesting,
because two of the ptichers who most impressed me in their Futures Game appearance were Kelly and Drabek, and Drabek has also struggled to miss bats despite above avg to plus stuff. In both cases it seems like these may be guys who just take a little longer to learn the craft. I’ve watched Homer Bailey struggle similarly, and it wasn’t until this last season, at age 25, that he finally started pitching. Admittedly he was rushed, and has had some health issues impair development, but a lot of it was simply due to the unpredictable timetable for the thrower to pitcher transformation. The good news is that, like those two, now that he has a plan he also has a better than avg arsenal at his disposal.
by charles wallace on Feb 9, 2026 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
i feel like
ppl completely underestimate how difficult it is to “figure out command”/“thrower to pitcher transformation”. those tend to be the big reasons why prospects don’t exhibit elite strikeout rates in the minors. but most of the time, if they can’t figure it out in the minors, they never figure it out.
look at the top pitchers in baseball today. the mass majority of them had elite strikeout rates in the minors. just a quick glance at the Fangraphs’ leaderboard for the past two years, and their Top 30 pitchers (pitchers on the first page). These are the guys who did not have elite strikeout rates in the minors: Halladay, CJ Wilson, Carpenter, Fister, Johnson, Floyd, Buerhle.
Of these guys, the ones with the elite scouting reports to back up success (despite terrible strikeout rates) were only Halladay, Carpenter, and Floyd. Wilson’s career trajectory has been very unique, and Fister/Buerhle pretty much came out of nowhere. To a lesser extent, Josh Johnson came out of nowhere (he was the 80th best prospect in baseball, by BA, for one year, and got a B- prospect ranking by Sickels that year).
So I guess if you think Kelly can be a pitcher like Halladay and Carpenter (who to me, represent pitchers of an entirely different era) then maybe he deserves a high ranking. Personally, I think his upside is as a Gavin Floyd type, who has a career adjusted ERA at basically league average. And I think there’s a high probability Kelly ends up a lot worse than that.
by blue bulldog on Feb 9, 2026 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
another way to look at it
is that 7 of 30 which is almost 25% of the top pitchers did not have elite strikeout rates for whatever reason. That means there is a solid chance a pitcher can become elite without those K’s.
Of course it stands to reason that having the K’s is a very good thing, but not having them is not damning in and of itself.
Further, Kelly’s minor league career is not complete and yet I feel like it is being treated so. You are talking about his minor league K rate and how it portends for his future.
His minor league K rate, so far, has been just average. But he has been known to be pitching to contact which many young pitchers do not do. His GB ratio will attest to that. Scouting reports about his command in the middle of the zone will also attest to it.
Many young pitchers with poor command throw around the edges of the zone. They still get their K’s but also a lot of walks. When they refine their command what changes the most is a reduction in the walks.
Young pitchers like Kelly with poor command that fill the zone don’t get that many walks and don’t get that many K’s. They do tend to give up the HR’s though. When they refine their command what changes the most is an increase in K’s.
I think that is what we saw with Cahill the first half of last year. I believe that is what we will see with Kelly in the minors this year.
by pedrophile on Feb 9, 2026 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
i already stated that above
Klaw is the only one who recently has had Kelly ranked higher than Delgado, and even then, he had Vizcaino higher than Kelly
by blue bulldog on Feb 9, 2026 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
I respect your passion, but...
This is clearly subjective. Jeff has given you his reasons. You don’t have to like them or agree with them. Likewise, you’re entitled to your rationale. We’ll find out whose right in a few years!
Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects for 2012!
- - - - - - - -
You can find my musings at Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@JDSussman
by JD Sussman on Feb 9, 2026 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know that commenting on what MLB execs would do is a productive line of discussion. I can say I would take Kelly if you gave me my choice- and largely for the reasons Jeff described above, although I’m not as high on him as Jeff. I see him as more of a 2/3. Delgado isn’t too far behind, mind you. I just don’t really care for Delgado’s mechanics or arm slot that much and his command is probably always going to be an issue. Still should be a good pitcher, but I’d take Kelly - who I think is very capable of fixing the problems he has. He has shown us that ability in the past, after all.
At the end of the day, the list is yours to rank. Believe it or not, everyone changes their opinions to suit others at some point, it’s just that we all have the ability to choose when and for whom we change our opinions.
What the heck are you talking about?
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Feb 7, 2026 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
nice
I always enjoy the various commentaries. good work.
go long with extenze...i do
by angelsownredsux on Feb 7, 2026 6:23 PM EST reply actions
my main question is how Richards got so high
It seems by all the commentaries that no one was very high on him yet he ended up in the low 40s
go long with extenze...i do
by angelsownredsux on Feb 7, 2026 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
I had the same question when we tabulated!
We submitted our rankings for integration shortly after the end of the season so we could get the rankings out earlier this season. I guess our internal conversations have brought the guys closer to my view.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 7, 2026 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
Who all got rankings
Do all the Bullpen Banter guys rank prospects or are some of you prospect specific?
by peachesnnuts on Feb 8, 2026 2:28 AM EST up reply actions
Steve Fiorindo
Michael Herrick
Jeff Reese
Al Skorupa
JD Sussman
We added Conor Dowley (used to run Mariners Farm Review) about a month ago. He has helped out with the commentary, but came in too late to submit rankings.
by Jeff Reese on Feb 8, 2026 9:52 AM EST up reply actions
Ah
This explains a few things. For example, I was surprised to see Leonys Martin 50 spots higher than Neil Ramirez given that on the team rankings, one had Martin one spot ahead of Ramirez and the other vice-versa, suggesting that they were similarly ranked players. But that represents only 40% of the weight in the Top-100 rankings, then it makes more sense
by MjwW on Feb 8, 2026 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
Without going back and looking at all the individual lists
I’d say my ranking of Richards probably pushed him up the list a good bit. Good walk rate, solid GB%. The K rate left something to be desired no doubt, but it’s also not entirely indicative of his stuff. Richards may well be one of those guys who underperforms his stuff, but there is a #2 starter here if things click and I feel they will.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Feb 7, 2026 9:44 PM EST up reply actions
Was me too, I'm sure
I’ve dropped Richards a bit since then, but I’ve been seeing a little too much focus lately on his weaknesses rather than his strengths. His strengths are considerable - great arm strength and flashes some excellent stuff. Lots of life on his heater. Plenty of swing and miss here when(if) he harnesses his stuff. There’s a lot to like about Richards, he just has a lot of question marks, too. He may not have the polish, command or mechanics to stick with the top few tier guys, but he has a heck of a lot better stuff than some of the guys I’ve seen him listed with recently.
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Feb 7, 2026 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
exactly what I have been preaching.
RIP Nick Adenhart
by miketrout on Feb 7, 2026 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
Starling Marte
Higher up the list or left off completely?
by Woo! on Feb 7, 2026 7:05 PM EST reply actions
he's in the forties
go to the site and see
go long with extenze...i do
by angelsownredsux on Feb 7, 2026 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Personally, I'm a huge fan of his [tools] package...
Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects for 2012!
- - - - - - - -
You can find my musings at Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@JDSussman
by JD Sussman on Feb 7, 2026 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
Heh, based on where the list is right now (down to 41)
you guys are either really high or really low on Mike Olt
Just don't piss her off, otherwise she'll get all Dien Bien Phu up in your Boxer Rebellion - caknuck
btho Iowa State
by MonkeyEpoxy on Feb 7, 2026 7:29 PM EST reply actions
He'll be on there tomorrow
Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects for 2012!
- - - - - - - -
You can find my musings at Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@JDSussman
by JD Sussman on Feb 7, 2026 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
dude spoilers
Just don't piss her off, otherwise she'll get all Dien Bien Phu up in your Boxer Rebellion - caknuck
btho Iowa State
by MonkeyEpoxy on Feb 7, 2026 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
sorry! No more
Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects for 2012!
- - - - - - - -
You can find my musings at Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@JDSussman
by JD Sussman on Feb 7, 2026 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
Great list, have to say i like a lot of things here
Love the inclusion of Heredia at 100, he’s sneaking closer and closer to my top 50 and top 25 pitchers.
Love Arcia over Rosario
Love Delgado over Vizcaino and that they are both around 50 -55 range instead of 30s or 40s.
Love Cecchini over Cowart, except for the difference in the gap between them
Little surprised Rizzo is that far behind Singleton and Alonso
Like Cuthbert at least in the top 75, top 30 bats.
Like the inlcusion of Jed Bradley
Like a lot of the 2nd 50 in general, little suprised Alfaro and Swihart cracked it, they’d be in my 100-125 range…
biggest gripe may be Casey Kelly at 51, i have him in the 90’s range currently and in the high 30’s - 40’s range for pitchers.
great job really looking forward to part II
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 7, 2026 8:07 PM EST reply actions
Side topic
Mason Williams of the Yankees came in at 101 on my list for the top 100 (he may sneak on when its time to do my individual top 100). Just posted a scouting report on him with video and animated gifs: http://bit.ly/wilrNf
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Feb 7, 2026 11:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Nice
Williams is a really intriguing prospect. I could see him flying up lists over the next 12 months.
by nixa37 on Feb 8, 2026 12:01 AM EST up reply actions
Thank you
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Feb 9, 2026 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks
I have him in my top 80, personally, which I was worried was a bit of a homer ranking (and I try to avoid those). But I think he could be a top 20 prospect next year.
by cookiedabookie on Feb 8, 2026 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Feb 9, 2026 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
Keith Law had him at 34
So clearly he’s seeing something different than the rest of us are seeing in Williams (I’d probably have him around 80 as well, FWIW). Perhaps Law sees a significantly more power potential than we are giving Williams credit for.
http://www.yankeeanalysts.com
by lemonjello on Feb 9, 2026 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
I really like Williams swing and power potential
I actually said to Al a few nights ago that I see some Granderson in him. Though, it’s still hard to believe Grady has that kind of power in his frame. When we do our individual lists, he’ll be on mine.
Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects for 2012!
- - - - - - - -
You can find my musings at Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@Bullpen Banter
Twitter:@JDSussman
by JD Sussman on Feb 9, 2026 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Schoop
Maybe I’m too bullish, but I’m thinking he should be about 20-25 slots higher.
by dbreer23 on Feb 8, 2026 12:11 AM EST reply actions
Great job I liked it
I see Garin Cecchini made you top 100 and fairly high. I like him he has a sweet left handed swing and a great idea at the plate.
He’s also the first top prospect I see live, I live in NYC so its hard for me to go to Minor League games. The only problem I have is that he only hit an infield single in the game I was at, the next day he hit a HR and a 2B!!
XandyMan Coming for you!!!!1
by DominicanDandy on Feb 8, 2026 5:55 PM EST reply actions
Dang those Cardinals and their 2nd place WS title!
I wish the Cardinals’ system was not so productive. They have some awesome pitching coming to STL soon with Miller, Martinez, Jenkins and Rosenthal. I wonder how the departure of Dave Duncan will affect the development of their stud pitching prospects. How much influence do you think the major league pitching coach has on the selection and development of pitching prospects, specifically in terms of the Cards but also in the rest of the league?
Visit Blazing Fastball for unusual baseball info, history and prospect rankings.
by AtomicDumpling on Feb 9, 2026 12:52 AM EST reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Start posting on Minor League Ball
- Minor League Ball on Facebook
- Follow @MinorLeagueBall
- Follow Minor League Ball on your Android Device!
- Subscribe to Minor League Ball Stories
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
Oakland's Bizarre Interest In Manny Ramirez And Magglio Ordonez
Jeremy Guthrie Is Better Than You Think
2011 In Extreme Home Runs
More from Baseball Nation >
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
