Overall Prospect Rankings
by devo on Jan 7, 2008 4:07 PM PST
Email
PrintJust a quick GPA of the 24 teams for whom Sickels has released his top 20.
A 4
B 3
C 2
+/- = .33 (ie A- = 3.67, B+ = 3.33)
1 Rays 2.93
2 Rangers 2.80
3 Red Sox 2.78
4 A's 2.78
5 Reds 2.77
6 Braves 2.70
7 Rockies 2.68
8 Cardinals 2.65
9 Yanks 2.63
10 Pads 2.62
11 O's 2.60
12 Marlins 2.60
13 Nats 2.60
14 Dodgers 2.57
15 M's 2.56
16 Halos 2.56
17 Twins 2.55
18 Cubbies 2.52
19 Mets 2.50
20 D-Backs 2.50
21 Gnats 2.47
22 Tribe 2.47
23 Brewers 2.45
24 Royals 2.43
25 Stros 2.42
26 Phils 2.38
27 Rats 2.35
28 Tigers 2.28
29 Jays 2.28
30 ChiSox 2.28
[update] I have incorporated Sickels' grade changes, made subsequent to publishing his original lists. The difference is minimal.
~~
Cards
Gnats
Rays
Rockies
Tribe
The Rays will definitely end up as #1, knocking the A's to #5 (with #s 2-6 pretty comparable).
The Rockies could be up there too. The Giants, Cards, Jays and Tribe likely won't be.
The Rays, Red Sox and Reds have more high end talent than the Rangers, A's or Braves who have deeper systems.
Kevin Goldstein has only put out his rankings for the A's, Sox and Rangers. He seems to actually like the A's prospects quite a bit more than the Red Sox and probably the Rangers as well.
A's: 3 - 5 Stars, 3 - 4 Stars, 9 - 3 Stars
Red Sox: 2 - 5 Stars, 3 - 4 Stars, 4 - 3 Stars
Rangers: 1 - 5 Star, 5 - 4 Stars, 5+ - 3 Stars
I'd say its pretty hard to argue that the A's aren't in the top 5, overall.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What "R" you thinking?
What's with all the "R" teams at the top of the list?
Anyways, once we deal Blanton we'll have totally solidified our position in the top 5.
...and the top 5 of the 2009 draft as well
We are going for all time most exposed
talent for the next rule 5 draft.
...we can do it!
by A s Eh on Jan 8, 2008 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
???
I think the team can find 3 spots on the 40-man roster by next offseason. Unless you're counting Cliff Pennington as "talent," I'm not sure where you're going here.
The real question, whats (w)Rong with the Royals?
If we deal Blanton, I'd say it'd make a pretty strong argument for #2. Adding 2 B prospects would give us a fairly decent lead on the Rangers, based on the GPA system.
Imagine that Street deal...
Crisp doesn't count, but it would add an A- and a B while bumping C+'s off the list...
God, I wish that was actually going to happen. : /
If that went down and Blanton were traded ...
we might be getting to the point where we'd be in the running with the D-Rays. Much less high end talent, but such ridiculous depth ...
And to think, it only cost us
our best pitcher and one of our best hitters to get us there! I'm just kidding, of course.
I was talking with a baseball fan today and I honestly would rather take a shot at having a great young team again than tread water in mediocrity for several seasons and then have to tear everything down.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 7, 2008 4:11 PM PST reply actions
Yeah, me too ...
the amount of talent that we should have coming up between late 2008 and 2010 should be ridiculous.
2010-2013 could have some pretty ridiculous teams.
And it would be nice to
have a team that is looked at as a powerhouse instead of the scrappy team that could.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 7, 2008 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
I second that
Im on board, I can't wait to see the teams of the next five years. This time though Billy, can we keep a few of them??
Eh
Maybe, if Tampa actually starts laying out for their guys in salary arbitration. Keep in mind, though, the '13 Rays will not have any players who had a significant role in this season-- no Kazmir, no Crawford, no Shields, no BJ Upton. We'll see if they can actually graduate enough players. They're like a tank with a hole in the side-- talent keeps leaking out of the system.
Rays
So, why does it appear that the Rays don't have adequate discipline of their players? Or is that a function of the type of players that they obtain? So, there is the character-challenged Josh Hamilton, Elijah Dukes, Delmon Young, and I'm sure there is more.
Then, there is the players that flashed huge potential very early in the careers and then are crap like Jorge Cantu, Jonny Gomes, and Rocco Baldelli... and they seem to obtain these players even: Carlos Pena, Dioner Navarro, Edwin Jackson).
Then, there is the delayed-'development' challenged like Scott Kazmir and BJ Upton (and they received Garza in this vein).
Maybe it is just me, but it seems odd.
I make these comments because I wonder how to model a system so as to best handle such a variety of propect scenarios, which seems pertinent in the overhaul of a farm system. That would be an interesting question to ask a GM... to me...
Scott Kazmir was NOT
delayed-"development" challenged. They got him because Jim Duquette was hoping that a weak push at the playoffs could save his job and becaue of Rick "Victor Zambrano can be fixed in 10 minutes" Peterson. While he was one of the best prospects in MLB, his numbers in the minors at the time of the trade did not scream MLB ready starter.
BJ Upton was delayed because of his D. Even then, he is a starter at the age of 22. Hardly a problem.
Baldelli is INJURED crap. Just like Rich Harden is INJURED crap.
Cantu never flashed "huge potential". Firstly, his D is crap. He is / was a 1b / DH in the making. Seen in that context, even his career season in 2005 is only average.
As for obtaining players who once had huge potential, ala Pena et al, why not? Bad teams can and should take risks on players like that. They aren't going to be jeorpadising a bad team's non-existent playoff bid.
Mis Disculpas
I went off memory in my reply of Rays players. I thought that Kazmir was 25 and had another season (besides his rookie year) thrown in there of like 1.5 WHIP and 1.5 K/BB...
BJ Upton could have been up like 2 years ago if it wasn't for his D. And how can you say D isn't a problem here, but say that Cantu's 28 HR, 40 2B and 117 RBI in his 1st full season isn't huge potential because of his D all at the age of 23.
This still leaves Young, Dukes, Hamilton, and Gomes as references.
Anyway, my question again is: what is the best model/approach to dealing with an immense influx of talented players? I ask because I wonder if there is a difference in the development of players in general of loaded systems versus systems that are average to below average and if so, then does that increase the risk of loaded systems being less efficient in producing high quality players? I mean could it possibly be detrimental if a team hordes their loaded farm system and does not ration them out appropriately... so to speak?
Upton's D is not a problem
Not so for Cantu. Cantu had one fluke season in which he hit like an average 1b. In every other part of his career, he was crap.
Compare Upton's record in the minors with Cantu's record in the minors.
You reference Young AND Garza. They traded Young for Garza.I am not sure what your point is.
Yeah, the DRays have had some prospects not grow up into stars. That happens. They also have had some prospects turn out very well, Kazmir, James Shields, Carl Crawford, Upton.
"I mean could it possibly be detrimental if a team hordes their loaded farm system and does not ration them out appropriately... so to speak?"
What do you mean by "hoarding"? How would a team "ration" out it's prospects? Trade them? That's what the DRays did with the Young + Morlan for Garza + Bartlett trade.
Point
My point is, is that it appears to me that the Rays don't know how to appropriately cultivate their talent. Your point about BJ Upton actually makes my point. You are correct that he was miscast as a 2B/SS and that is my point. Why do they mismanage their system?
You are still glancing over Cantu. And for all you know, this may BJ Upton's best stat season ever, furthermore, was his 2007 season one to where his prospectdom was realized as you say:
They also have had some prospects turn out very well, Kazmir, James Shields, Carl Crawford, Upton.
But back to Cantu, his 'fluke season' was preceded by an apparent 'fluke minor league seaon' of which he hit 22 HR and 33 2B in 368 AB. Further yet to... actually, both of our points, Cantu was a career minor league (over 6 years) SS. If his D was and is so apparently bad, then why was that also so poorly miscast?
My reference to Delmon Young is one similar to Elijah Dukes and Josh Hamilton. It is a character issue that I am referring to and the Rays screwed up with players that they had invested significantly.
As far as having too stacked of a system (if that is really possible), what I mean is, is that during the development of players in a stacked system, then I am simply wondering if there is a higher failure rate of players versus a system that isn't as stacked. My thinking is, is a simple (and maybe really stupid) correlation to the education system: is there a ratio at which the development of players is compromised? Yeah, yeah, I get that the number of players remain constant, but the number of higher (albeit 'very young') quality players are not constant. So, would it be a wise theory to 'prune' the plant so as only the very best may 'bloom' (i.e. the Rays could have 'pruned' Dukes from the system, so that Young could have 'bloomed' at Tampa?)?
I think you may be thinking metaphorically
and applying it literally here.
That being said, I will point out one thing-- the resources of a team's coaching staff are both finite and disproportionately concentrated on the guys at the top of the system. If a team has a AAA roster with 10 top prospects on it, prospects 6-10 probably are not going to receive as much attention as they would in a sparser system in which they were the top players... and thus may appear to underachieve their talent at a higher rate.
In the case of the Rays, I think it's just a conscious decision to ignore makeup concerns in favor of maximizing pure talent. It's just investing in a different flavor of risk. When you're a small-market team, you pick your poison.
I tend to agree Blez...
my biggest concern is that it took a trade of their two best assets to elevate the minor league system. That is not a sustaining model and I truly hope future drafts will be the primary source of enrichening the minor league system, in lieu of trades of highly productive/relatively cheap talent.
by Miggy on Jan 7, 2008 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
The only way...
...this model works is if all the prospects come up at virtually the same time, spend a year or so maturing, and then begin their peak seasons at the same time.
This is why the A's were so good from 1987-1992 (when Canseco, McGuire, Steinbach and others were peaking at the same time, along with late career renaissances from Dave Stewart and Eck) and again during the stretch when the Big Three peaked at the same time, along with Giambi, Miggy and Chavvy.
Six years is a very very small window.
by richwol on Jan 7, 2008 6:41 PM PST up reply actions
Not really ...
there's no way that the prospects (assuming a typical number work out) won't overlap enough to have at least 3 years of peaking together.
Yes, really
It took Miggy three years to become a star, and it wasn't until the year after Giambi left that he did. Hudson, Mulder and Zito all came up within a year of each other and were effective immediately.
Look at the Brewers. With Weeks a bust, Braun and Prince are peaking at the same time --- just as Capuano enters his final two years and Sheets his last. All that great talent, and it looks like the Brewers may have one year to really compete.
by richwol on Jan 7, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions
No, not really ...
obviously if you're talking about a random selection of prospects that came into the organization over a seven year span, they probably won't really arrive at the same time.
If you're talking about a group of prospects who are all at least a year into their professional career and are virtually all either in A+ or AA, there should be a heck of a lot of overlap.
Jason Giambi is like Nick Swisher (minus the great contract and with a bit more talent) would have been to that group.
Weeks is not a bust
Would you say that "Howie Kendrick" is a bust?
Weeks gets on base, hits for power, and is a very good baserunner. Batting average is not everything.
Also, the Brewers have other talent in their system. Yovanni Gallardo is already arguably their best pitcher, since he unlike Sheets, can actually get onto the field.
Corey Hart is already a very good OF, similar offensively, slightly worse D, better baserunning.
JJ Hardy made the all star team. He has OBP problems and platoon problems, but his bat at SS is acceptable.
Mstt LaPorta is tearing up the minors offensively. Given the Brewers overload of positional player talent, he can be traded for a pitcher.
Even if you discount Manny Parra due to his history of injury problems, a core of Prince, Gallardo, Braun, Hart, Weeks, Hardy, LaPorta / player LaPorta was traded for, is a very good young core.
They certainly have more than one year to really compete.
I've thought about this the past few days
My Top 5 would be:
- Rays. Not even close. This is the most talented farm system of the draft era.
- Red Sox. Not a deep system, but there top end prospects are fantastic, and there is enough depth to justify #2.
- A's. Not one elite "can't miss, future superstar" prospect, but a very deep collection of potential stars to go along with a deep group of sleepers and solid future major leaguers.
- Reds. Top end rivals or exceeds the Red Sox, but the depth is very meh to me.
- Yankees. Rangers are close in my mind, but I like the Yankees' pitching prospects quite a bit.
oops
their, not there.
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 7, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions
KG Rankings
Correction
KG has 9 3-stars. He had 7 3-stars in his original posting before his revised version after the Haren trade.
And in lieu of what I seem to understand of possibly trading Blanton, it would seem that he would hold more value at the trading deadline instead of before Opening Day. But obviously, Blanton better garner at least 2 quality prospects if not more than that.
You are correct ...
9 3-stars players ... Herrera and Blevins having fallen off the top-11 but having been awarded 3-stars in the initial article.
Usually I'm opposed to the idea of holding a guy that you want to trade until the deadline. He might have more valuable then, but it's so much harder to actually get deals done.
In Blanton's case, though, it might make more sense, since we by no means need to trade him.
I thot I knew who the "Rats" were at #22,
... but then I saw you have the "Halos" at #12.
Sorry for the confusion ... blame Excel ...
I typed 'Rats -- which should have been much clearer, but it automatically deleted the '.
I like it better my way. ;-)
by The Dogfather on Jan 7, 2008 7:15 PM PST up reply actions
The Reds and more
I should also say that being that I live in Cincinnati (although I haven't seen them all play); the Reds do not have as quality of a system as this revised A's one does. As a comment and a slight sting; Jared Burton does not have rookie status anymore... he, obviously, was a rule V draftee. Matt Maloney is overrated. Considering how rare Sickels hands out an A or A-, then I consider that Votto is overrated. While Cueto has dramatically risen to elite prospect status, I don't believe that he should be rated higher than Bailey... maybe they both should be an A- or maybe they both should be a B+ (I would lean toward the latter). Personally, if Maybin is an A-, then I think they both are B+.
I guess I would also say that even Sickels considers his rankings to be preliminary, but I would at least consider that BA has released their top 20 per minor league... league. The A's had only 5 players in the top 20 per their respective league prior to their two trades. Their two trades added another 5 players in the top 20 per their respective league. So, if you look at it from that perspective in combination with the overall analysis of A's prospects by 'experts', then it is not just an overhaul, but a new system... eh...
I can't remember if it was these boards where someone posited: is this the fastest AND most effective overhaul of a system? And I am of the believe that it is. Sure, many teams have quickly overhauled their franchises, like the Marlins, but I don't believe that any one has been this effective... although, of course, that cannot be determined at the moment... but I believe that it will be.
I just interpret the stats and the experts ...
Goldstein hasn't weighed in and I don't have BA, but what Sickels said is pretty optimistic:
Good Lord.
This system is loaded. You have the top quartet of Bruce/Cueto/Votto/Bailey, but even beyond them there is a good combination of performance guys and projection guys. My initial run through came up with 49 names worth writing about. I have narrowed that down to 39, which is the most I can put into the book. Even that, some of the guys I cut I wish I could put in.
Take heart, Reds fans. You have a lot to look forward to
In addition, a lot of folks believe that Jay Bruce is so ridiculously good that he, alone, pulls their system near the top.
Seriously, check these numbers. In AAA, as a 20-year-old, he hit for + average, ++ power and drew as many walks as you should expect from someone who was that much better than his competition. Hopefully for everyone involved, the Reds OF can stay healthy enough to put off his MLB debut until late 2008, at which point he should run away with the 2009 ROY and be competing for MVPs by 2011.
Jay Bruce
Oh, but first and most excellently, BA provides their top 20 league prospects and top 10 prospects per team for free. BA has tremendous free content. I also recommend checking out Project Prospect (and Scouting Book Prospects for overall prospects).
Sure, I completely agree about Bruce. He is an absolute stud and BA's MiLB player of the year award to him is justified.
The one thing that goes unsaid about he and the Reds is that once he starts in their OF, then their defense is improved.
I think what also biases my opinion against the Reds versus the A's is because of the Reds complete inability to effectively develop pitchers, which seems to be apparent in Homer's development. The Reds have not effectively developed a pitcher in a long time and that has to be considered. Sure, they may have talent, but who is going to cultivate that talent? If it is the Reds, then some serious doubt has to be there.
Don't get me wrong about the Reds, I think that they have a tremendously improved (and top) farm system. I just don't think that it is as good as the A's revamped system.
Votto is an above average 1B, but he is not an A-. Having Bailey and Cueto on top of that is tremendous.
But let's compare to what the A's have: Bruce is significantly above CarGon. Barton is at least the equivalent to Votto. Homer and Cueto are both highly rated and in the upper minor leagues vs. Cahill and Anderson, so the edge again goes to the Reds.
But where I think the A's overcome the Reds is in the next 6+ prospects. Chris Carter, Andrew Bailey, James Simmons, Aaron Cunningham, Henry Rodriguez and Corey Brown is better than Todd Frazier, Devin Mesoraco, Drew Stubbs (who has looked absolutely horrible in the several games that I saw, which has been confirmed by several friends), Matt Maloney, Kyle Lotzkar, and Neftali Soto.
Anyone who's named "Neftali"
comes way too close to being named "Neifi" for him to be a good prospect...
Er, yeah. Anyway... well, the Reds system did succeed with Harang, who was pretty terrible in Oakland, so even though he wasn't technically a "prospect" when they got him, he'd have to be accounted a success story.
The A's definitely have crazy depth ...
they easily beat the Reds in that respect. As you seem to be saying, the Reds are better at the upper levels, though.
How they balance ... I dunno ...
So lets say...
Everything goes right and in 2010 and beyond we have a team thats just as good as 2000-2004 teams. Geo/Anderson becomes Zito/Mulder and DLS/Cahill/Rodriguez/Bailey/Simmons are all what we thought they were. Along with CarGon/Cunningham/Buck/Barton/Suzuki/Carter are all good contributers. We compete for playoffs and WS. Is there a chance we keep it together? Or is it just rinse and repeat? Cause I dont think I could go threw it ever 5-6 years.
I think the key
is that next time around the A's can pick and choose the elite and/or youngest FA's and keep them, instead of only being able to keep a handful of the second-tier guys.
Jason Giambi still won't be re-signed, but Tim Hudson might be.
Thanks for posting this
Amazing to see just how far the A's system has come. Whats great is that we no longer have to exhibit an irrational amount of exuberance over fringe prospects like Windsor and Herrera. Not that I don't like those guys, but I wouldn't be too optimistic if they represented the future of my franchise.
by Sigur Ros on Jan 7, 2008 7:08 PM PST reply actions
Interesting
I think your system is a little biased in favor of the A's though. The difference between an A- and a B, in terms of expected value, is a hell of a lot bigger than the difference betwwen a B and a C+. For example, the A's would gladly trade the Gonzalezes for, say, Kershaw and a C+, though Kershaw and the C+ have a worse combined GPA. The A's can't really be in the top five without a top grade prospect.
FYI, Im still a fan of the list and our trades.
by Nick86 on Jan 7, 2008 11:40 PM PST reply actions
FYI ... to this point, only 4 teams
have a player that has received an "A" grade.
The Rays will certainly be the fifth.
As far as being top 5 without an A prospect, how much are Clayton Kershaw or Joba Chamberlain worth?
The A's have six guys who are B+ or better, the Dodgers and Yankees both have 3 (including Kershaw and Chamberlain).
I don't think anyone in the know would really argue that the Dodgers system is better than the A's and while some would make that argument for the Yankees, in my opinion, they're wrong.
There just aren't enough A prospects around to keep the A's out of the top 5.
That said, I agree that an A prospect is probably underrated in this system.
Also, as I allude to, Goldstein seems to think even higher of the A's system than does Sickels.
Try this on for size, in this system A is worth 5 points, A- is worth 4 and everything else remains the same.
1 Red Sox 2.87
2 Reds 2.87
3 Rangers 2.82
4 A's 2.75
5 Braves 2.73
6 Yanks 2.67
7 Dodgers 2.63
8 O's 2.62
9 Marlins 2.62
10 Pads 2.62
Under the revised method, the Red Sox and Reds take over the top spot and seperate themselves from the pack a bit. The Dodgers also make a big move -- though still finish well behind the A's.
Which Rays player(s)
do you see getting a full A?
Totally spaced him out
He's been penciled in as the starting 3B for so long... easy to forget he's never even played in the majors.
Actually they might pull a Braun on him and hold him back until June. Whether they do or not will be a good gauge on whether they think the team has enough to compete in 2008.
A Couple of things ...
The Blue Jays have been added to the list. They offer Canadians everywhere little reason for optimism.
Also, I ran where the A's would have been before the two trades. They would have received a 2.38, slotting in just ahead of the Phillies at #21.
More reason for optimism than the Maple Leafs...
Talk about a mismanaged franchise.
Yeah
I knew there are very few A's, and probably not a whole lot of A-. And I wasn't trying to argue the Dodgers should be ahead of the A's. They obviously shouldn't be.
But the A's couldn't get Haren for Clay Bucholz and not much else, but were then able to get six (?) B+ to C guys for him. Obviously there's immense value in having a player with a high ceiling and a high probability of reaching it, like Bucholz, compared to a guy like Carlos Gonzalez who has less than a 50-50 chance of becoming an above average major leaguer (not that there's anything wrong with that). I think most prospect evaluators (which im certainly not) value systems that are top heavy, which is why Sickels was only comfortable putting the A's system in the top half of MLB teams.
by Nick86 on Jan 8, 2008 12:02 PM PST reply actions
I'm not disputing the value of top guys ...
What I'm saying is that the math just doesn't work.
Only seven systems even have a an A/A- player in them.
The Reds, Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Pirates, Orioles and Marlins.
The Marlins and Orioles, overall are comparable in talent to the Dodgers. The Pirates are quite a bit worse.
It's just silly to suggest that the A's aren't at least top-10. There are the seven teams with A/A- prospects plus the Rangers and possibly the Braves that one could suggest are ahead of them.
If you agree that the A's system is better than the Dodgers, then presumably you'll agree that they are better than the Marlins, Orioles and Pirates as well.
That leaves three team with A/A- prospects potentially ahead of the A's. The Rangers have the best group, that lacks any A/A- prospects. The A's are either #2 or 3 (the Braves being comparable) -- making the A's either #5 or 6, overall.
And a little thing called "coaching"
Don't you think that our pitching coaches up and down our system have a pretty decent track record of helping to develope these C+ - B+ pitching prospects?
With the right instruction and grooming, there seems to be a better than average chance of this large crop of pitching prospects will be SP's 2 - 5 for us in the coming years.......
if we factor in age, rankings...
the A's would rank near the top in terms of age and prospect rank.
Rank of Average Age of 40 man roster
1 Florida 25.3
2 Oakland 26.4
3 Arizona 26.8
4 Washington 26.9
5 Pittsburgh 27.09 Texas 27.1
14 Seattle 27.5
16 LA Angels 27.8
18 San Francisco 28.2
26 Detroit 29.0
27 NY Mets 29.3
28 St. Louis 29.4
29 Boston 29.5
30 Houston 29.5
The Rangers seem to be the up and coming team that will most likely challenge us in the 3-5 years ahead given their youth and talent.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
