Community Organizational Prospect List - #9
A close race has James Simmons beating Vin Mazzaro out for the #8 spot, so we are off to the #9.
AthleticsNation Top Prospect List:
- Trevor Cahill, RHP
- Brett Anderson, LHP
- Chris Carter, 3B/1B
- Aaron Cunningham, CF
- Gio Gonzalez, LHP
- Adrian Cardenas, SS/2B
- Sean Doolittle, 1B/RF
- James Simmons, RHP
I have decided to drop Dustin Coleman and Jemile Weeks from the list and promote Corey Brown and Arnold Leon to the list of candidates. And several more have been added to the probables.
And whomever had the Top Prospect List by Scout, I believe, if they can post it/send it along, that would be nice to add players in from that.
CANDIDATES:
Pitchers:
Michel Inoa, RHP
Vin Mazzaro, RHP
Brett Hunter, RHP
Fautino De Los Santos, RHP
Henry Rodriguez, RHP
Arnold Leon, RHP
Infielders/Catchers:
Josh Donaldson, C
Nino Leyja, SS
Outfielders:
Rashun Dixon, CF
Corey Brown, CF
POSSIBLES:
Pitchers:
Josh Outman, LHP
Tyson Ross, RHP
Sam Demel, RHP
Andrew Carignan, RHP
Andrew Bailey, RHP
Jared Lansford, RHP
Craig Italiano, RHP
Carlos Hernandez, LHP
Jason Fernandez, RHP
Ryan Webb, RHP
Michael Madsen, RHP
Jamie Richmond, RHP
Jeff Gray, RHP
Travis Banwart, RHP
Ryan Doolittle, RHP
Daniel Thomas, RHP
Ricardo Penalba, RHP
Infield/Catcher:
Jemile Weeks, 2B
Dusty Coleman, SS
Jason Christian, SS
Eric Patterson, IF
Petey Paramore, C
Landon Powell,C
Anthony Recker, C
Jeff Baisley, 3B
Cliff Pennington, SS
Gregorio Petit, SS
Justin Sellers, SS
Franklin Contreras, SS
Outfield:
Matt Sulentic, OF
Jeremy Barfield, OF
Matt Spencer, OF/1B
Grant Desme, OF
Tyreace House, OF
Javier Herrera, OF
Danny Putnam, OF
JD Pruit, OF
Robin Rosario, OF
Chris Berroa, OF
Jose Crisostomo, OF
David Thomas, OF
2 recs |
100 comments
Comments
Hmm
Since it was pretty much only Simmons/Mazzaro in the last poll, doesnt that mean it’s likely that Mazzaro will win here in a landslide? Much like the 1/2 between Anderson/Cahill.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on Nov 29, 2008 8:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Probably - but I'm going to throw in a vote for Donaldson
Mazzaro settles for #10.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 29, 2008 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also voted for Donaldson
A catcher who can hit is more valuable than a guy who might be a back of the rotation starter.
by thejd44 on Nov 29, 2008 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant that
Maybe we should’ve just given it to Mazzaro.
And, unsurprisingly, he’s 52 votes ahead of the next guy.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on Nov 30, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I think I got the formatting right now...
Tell me what you think.
Oh, and if you have more Possibles, plz add them with a link to their stats for me, preferably TheBaseballCube.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 29, 2008 8:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I love all the links
Not so thrilled about TheBaseballCube’s new layout. Did they just change it today?
by ervance on Nov 29, 2008 8:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Inoa
but only because Jemile Weeks got relegated.
Weeks was a high pick who hasn’t done anything to disappoint (besides not being Brett Wallace).
by ervance on Nov 29, 2008 8:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
and having a hip of Broken Steel!
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 29, 2008 8:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't aware
his hip injury was serious. Or are you just exaggerating?
by ervance on Nov 29, 2008 8:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
all I know is that he injured it rounding first at Wrigley at that KK vs Cubs affiliate game
and hasn’t played since.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 29, 2008 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore, as of this writing the statement
“He’ll never play again” is true.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 29, 2008 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cube's Been Weird
Looks like they’ve been updating it all day.
by cwhitman412 on Nov 29, 2008 8:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
yeah I noticed
hopefully they will settle down.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 29, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Donaldson for me.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
by Syphon on Nov 29, 2008 8:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Deep farm system
You know you have a deep far system when there is a very real possibility that Michel Inoa wont even make your team’s top ten.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 29, 2008 9:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He's 16 years old and has never thrown a pitch in the United States
I’m sure he’s awesome and all, but there’s no way he’s one of the top 10 prospects.
by mikev on Nov 29, 2008 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Point is
3 years ago he would have been.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 29, 2008 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt that
I mean, three years ago he was 13.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 29, 2008 10:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously
When talents like Inoa and Henry Rodriguez are bumped out of the top 10 becuase of questions, that’s a good farm system.
by DiegoAsFan on Nov 29, 2008 9:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I went with Donaldson
A catcher with one impressive season gets the vote over a groundball pitcher with one impressive season.
Mazzaro would get my vote next. (although it looks like he’ll win this one anyways.)
by Emmett89 on Nov 29, 2008 9:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's a fair opinion
But I think it’s worth noting that Mazarro’s one impressive season came at a higher level at a younger age. And that Donaldson was impressive on offense for half a season but still has significant questions on defense.
by DiegoAsFan on Nov 29, 2008 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My problem with Mazzaro
is that the only time he’s had success in his minor league career, 22 starts in AA this year, his K rate was pedestrian. That does not translate well to the bigs.
"All your baserunner are belong to Greg Smith" ~ walk off bunt
by Philip Christy on Nov 29, 2008 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Inoa for me
I know he’s all hype, but, man, it’s a lot of hype. He walked away from the Yankees because he thought he could get more money. And he was right. That’s a pretty *&^$ good prospect.
Following him, Mazzaro, Donaldson, Leon, Brown, and then we drop off to another level where I’ll have to ponder a number of choices.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 29, 2008 10:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Seems like a good list
As someone who seems to have better grasp on prospects than me, I was wondering why you don’t consider Jemile Weeks in the next group of prospects?
by DiegoAsFan on Nov 29, 2008 10:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hated that pick at the time
and still do. I thought he was overdrafted by at least 10 spots. Just inexplicable to take him over Aaron Hicks or even Brett Wallace, though I wasn’t a fan of taking Wallace there because the depth chart is clogged with first basemen and he’s not a great defender at third.
It’s still too early to get a read on Weeks’ skills as a player— I’ve learned from Sean Doolittle not to make judgments on anyone based on one partial season— but virtually starting off your pro career with a severe hip injury is not the way to win my affections. If not for that, he’d probably be in that next group somewhere.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 29, 2008 11:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
No amount of reading up on Weeks in terms of stats or scouting reports, or rationalizing the pick, has made me any more happy about it to date- I think “inexplicable” is the perfect word choice.
Obviously the hip injury is a complete groaner after the fact, but prior to that I had absolutely no love for that draft selection.
by still bills kingdom on Nov 30, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't go that far
Because I think it’s quite reasonable that Weeks, at some point, could be a plus defender with a decent bat at either 2B or CF. He certainly has value, and he’d be a top 10 prospect in most systems. It was just a reach pick (and made when it looked like Ellis was gone and before Patterson and Cardenas were in the system).
by thejd44 on Nov 30, 2008 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, not "inexplicable" in terms of desirability in general, but inexplicable
in terms of where the A’s drafted him relative to other players available at that point.
I’m not down on Weeks in terms of his potential, necessarily, but it seemed a really puzzling overdraft- the main rationale I can determine is that the A’s really like him and they were afraid he’d go to somebody else if they didn’t grab him right then and there.
I have another theory, too- I think they might have been considering signability and price-point on him (reasonable considerations) plus organizational need, and they might’ve been considering those things in relation to their intent to spend more on international signings (Inoa, et al) and to spend more on “bonus babies” that they planned to go well over-slot to obtain through later round picks as well. If taking Weeks with their first round pick was part of an overarching plan to maximize use of their financial resources vis-a-vis both the draft and international scouting/signings then I suppose it makes more sense.
by still bills kingdom on Nov 30, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice theory, but Hicks signed almost immediately for slot money
and IIRC Wallace did too. I think both of them were playing pro ball before Weeks was.
If their second choice guy was Casey Kelly, that theory would make more sense…
The only real explanation for taking Weeks is that for whatever reason the A’s thought he was much better than anyone else did. He certainly wasn’t going to be around when they picked for the second round.
It’s odd. I really liked the A’s draft this year except for the Weeks pick— getting Ross in the 2nd round was a steal, Paramore looks like good value for a third rounder, Christian looks like GREAT value for a fifth rounder, they took some interesting juco guys like House and Barfield, and the Berroa/Hunter/Dixon/Leyja/Coleman overslot group was excellent. It’s just irritating that the first-rounder is going to come in #15 on this list instead of #5 (which is where I’d put Aaron Hicks if they’d taken him).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Weeks
Hicks was the A’s 1st choice, but as a pitcher. When he told the A’s he wanted to play in the field they moved on. Weeks was the most advanced college level-MI in the draft and the A’s focused on position, not talent level, when they picked 12th.
At least, that’s the basic story.
As for when he signed, keep in mind that Miami was in the College WS and he told the A’s that he didn’t want to talk about a contract while his team was still playing… don’t fault him for that. He signed shortly after the CWS.
And I still say the A’s should have drafted Wallace and kept him at 3B.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Nov 30, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm with you on Wallace- even though the reports seemed to
indicate he won’t stick at 3B. Obviously if the Rangers had passed on Smoak then I’d have wanted the A’s to take him again and see if they could sign him this time… but they didn’t get the opportunity to do that.
And PT- I’m with you on the draft- overall it was a really good one in my opinion, and I was pleased as punch (really good, laced with more than a little something extra punch) that they finally went over-slot to sign all the guys you listed.
I just felt disappointed by Weeks as the first-rounder, but both your explanations make sense and it’s not like he’s not a talented guy. I hope he lives up to his potential and then some, hip issues notwithstanding, and makes Beane and Co. look like geniuses ultimately.
by still bills kingdom on Nov 30, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you consider Brown a better prospect than Dixon or even Leyja?
by thejd44 on Nov 29, 2008 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Warts or no, he's a better athlete than Leyja
and a lot closer to a finished product than Dixon, who managed the difficult feat of actually striking out more often than Brown did (proportionally) this season.
Add that to the fact that he’s produced above the rookie level, and he has to go in front of those guys. Yeah, he was pants (as the British would say) in Hawaii, but that can’t weigh that heavily.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 29, 2008 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair answer
You consider Brown better than Dixon for the same reason I considered a few others better prospects than Dixon. The problem is I just don’t think Brown is very good. He reminds me way too much of Joe Borchard, although Borchard was already killing AA during his age 22 season.
by thejd44 on Nov 30, 2008 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Striking out as much as he did at his age in high A = big trouble
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on Nov 30, 2008 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for Inoa as well
essentially for the same reason, the hype. I recall someone saying he was a “once in a generation” type of player. I anticipated being ripped apart and was quite pleased with myself to find PT already had drawn a line in the sand.
Paul – regarding last week’s discussion about older (generation) pitchers throwing high 90’s…Do you think it’s possible they physically could but simply didn’t because of the strain put on their arms by pitching an enormous amount of innings?
Also, could the lower K rates be attributed to the style of play in certain eras? For example batters choking up on the bat for contact rather than trying to destroy the ball? Granted that example really only covers Walter Johnson’s era, and not as much Grove’s.
Just wondering and wasn’t sure where else to put this.
99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod
by Scottbass on Nov 30, 2008 1:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think there were people who were physically capable of throwing high-90s, yes
but that’s like saying there were people who were physically capable of being 4 inches taller than they were. Which is true— the average individual height has increased a LOT in the last century, mostly due to better nutrition.
Short of someone travelling back in time to 1900 and giving those guys lessons when they were kids on biomechanics and healthy eating, no, I don’t think there was any way they were going to throw high-90s.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
salb918 is VERY interested in your analysis, and any tips
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I probably worded that poorly.
I meant do you think people did throw that hard, just didn’t with any kind of regularity because of the factors listed.
I think your second paragraph answered my question. Thanks.
99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod
by Scottbass on Nov 30, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Inoa for me as well- I'm going with ceiling, and his is as high, or higher,
than anybody left on the list it seems- with fairly unanimous scouting to support that notion.
by still bills kingdom on Nov 30, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, if you're tall wouldn't your ceiling be lower?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's just closer to your head
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 30, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, I see
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well, with the bonus he got I'm sure his ceilings are higher than mine,
and probably higher than most anybody else’s current ceilings we’re listing here, too. :)
by still bills kingdom on Nov 30, 2008 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
$4 Million in the Bay Area will buy you a 2 room shack in Richmond.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 30, 2008 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...OK, want a 1-room shack in Richmond?
Just 1.5million and it’s yours.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
does it have outdoor plumbing?
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 1, 2008 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The whole thing is outdoors
Roof cost extra.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 1, 2008 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well at least it never rains
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 1, 2008 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Another appeal:
Can anyone who still has the earlier prospect lists recommended unrec them? There isn’t any reason to clog the recommended section with old threads that aren’t being used for discussion anymore.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 12:03 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Agreed, PT - I don't have the power to
unrec for others or I would.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Putnam, Patterson, Outman and others on the tester list?
I realize there are rookie limits, but I’ve always considered a player a prospect until he reaches the majors. I’d have a lot of trouble voting for these guys. Since they are major league players now.
But I’m probably alone in this.
by Emmett89 on Nov 30, 2008 2:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I consider a player a prospect
as long as they are Rookie Eligable.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 30, 2008 2:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Putnam is 26, and Patterson turns 26 in April
Neither guy should be on a prospect list.
by thejd44 on Nov 30, 2008 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since both are rookie eligible
both should be on the prospect list. It’s up to the AN community to decide as to how good these prospects are. A 26 year-old still on this list probably won’t be any better than a AAAA player, but still might contribute to the A’s in the future. Do you think Ziegler should have been excluded from last year’s (hypothetical) list because of his age?
In the case of Patterson, I rank him fairly highly as a prospect because he has a very good chance of having a decent MLB career. He won’t be a superstar, but he’ll have value to the A’s.
by ervance on Nov 30, 2008 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he'd have more value to the A's if he
could put his bat roughly where the ball is at about the time the ball is crossing the plate.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
If a guy is eligible, he’s eligible. I know Landon Powell is still hanging on somewhere in my top 30, granted at the back end…
Now, Putnam might get Rule 5ed, which is a different problem, but I doubt we’ll get to the Rule 5 guys before the actual draft takes place (Dec. 11).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This means that Chris Gissel is still a prospect
No, sorry, don’t like that.
If you’re 26 and you still qualify as a rookie, you’re not a “prospect” anymore. You might eventually become a useful major leaguer, but you lose prospect status.
by thejd44 on Nov 30, 2008 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, he's still a prospect
Being a prospect doesn’t mean you don’t suck…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ziegler would not have appeared anywhere on my prospect list before 2008
Because 28-year-old relievers with little to no major league experience are not prospects. I love Ziggy, but “prospect” would not have been the word to use for him before the 2008 season.
by thejd44 on Nov 30, 2008 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I had him as a top 30 guy IIRC
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am tempted to call this already
Mazzaro has a 30% lead over Donaldson, with 49% of the vote.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 30, 2008 2:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
What percentage of the precincts have reported?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a problem with the voting booths in the lower east side so we won't have a all reporting in until later.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Nov 30, 2008 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
DEWEY NAMED #9 PROSPECT
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a sewage flood is slowing down the counting.
oh wait that was Multnomah County (Portland) in Oregon on election night. I kid you not
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Nov 30, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That really stinks!
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Nov 30, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nino Leyja
15th round pick and not a bonus baby. 180 good ABs in the fricken AZL. He’s not the 25th best prospect in the A’s system, let alone the 9th.
Not sure people are really understanding just how impressive Jemile Weeks was in college. He didn’t go 12th in a loaded draft by accident.
by AgitationStation on Nov 30, 2008 3:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Leyja was a bonus baby
And Weeks went 12th because the A’s liked Hicks as a pitcher and he told them he wanted to play in the OF.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Nov 30, 2008 3:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Leyja got seventh round money
It was about 1/20th what Weeks got ftr. Leyja wasn’t a Dixon or Coleman getting bought out of college. He was a guy without options that the colleges did not want.
If the A’s hadn’t picked Weeks he would have gone in the next few picks. Weeks’ combination of tools and performance record far surpasses any remaining A’s prospect (granting that Hunter and Dixon may have him strictly on tools, of course, those two have better tools than most of the A’s MLB roster…sfw).
by AgitationStation on Nov 30, 2008 4:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's quite possible that Weeks wouldn't have been taken till the 20-25 range
by thejd44 on Nov 30, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Until the info leaked that the A's were going to take him,
just about every mock I saw had him going like 27th.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BA's mid-May mock draft didn't include Weeks in the top 30
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Nov 30, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't need to give a guy a million bucks to call him a bonus baby
He signed for an over-slot bonus of $110K.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Nov 30, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you on Weeks
but I suppose his season-ending hip injury takes a bit of luster off his shine. Still, he deserves to be in the poll now along with Outman and soon Jason Christian.
by ervance on Nov 30, 2008 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Two players who would drop because of injuries are Weeks and DLS. Of course DLS could have been closer to the top.
Hopefully both players get healthy and are able to play at the same level as before. I do understand that Weeks had a hip injury but it is still a big injury that could affect his future just like DLS’s injury.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Nov 30, 2008 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you checked out Corey Brown's college #s?
As long as we’re playing that game.
And if we’re talking tools, I’d say Brown wins that debate in a walk.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But after those college #s
Corey Brown has disappointed with his high Ks.
Weeks had great college #s and hasn’t given us any reason (besides perhaps being injury prone) to doubt that he’ll continue to put up excellent numbers. Brown, on the other hand, has not lived up to expectations yet.
by ervance on Nov 30, 2008 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brown had high Ks in college too
That, along with the makeup questions surrounding him from his HS days, is what caused him to drop to 57th in the first place.
From a production standpoint, Brown’s been absolutely fine— OBP in the .350 range, SLG over .500, HRs, great SB/CS ratio, and sticking in center. The problem is that he has a major leading indicator of future production problems, namely striking out so much. Unfortunately, serious hip injuries are also a leading indicator of future production problems.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still voted Dixon
A centerfielder with outstanding tools who can slug .525 at any level at age 17 is just really, really intriguing to me.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on Nov 30, 2008 12:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ours is a lost cause this round
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Nov 30, 2008 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree. I voted Dixon.
Just because the rock hasn’t been polished yet doesn’t mean it can’t be a gigantic diamond.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 30, 2008 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But it doesn't mean that the coal is ready to become a diamond yet
it might burn out, after all.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Nov 30, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is true
I’m not disputing that, but when you’re making a top prospect list, their upside has to play a part in it, and when the guy doesn’t have very many stats to work with, you’re talking about mostly upside and not much stats. Let’s put it this way…if every player in our minor league system hit their ceiling, Rashun Dixon would be the second-best player on the team after Michel Inoa. I can’t see how neither of them make the top ten prospects in the system. Upside has to count for something, even if it’s years away. A prospect list does NOT include how close that player is to the big leagues, IMO.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 30, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody can use their own criteria for prospect lists
but the ones I prefer use a combination of upside and the probability of achieving such ceiling. Guys in the low minors usually have a lower chance of achieving their potential and are thus, on average, rated lower than more advanced prospects (with similar upsides).
The best prospect would be one with a high ceiling who produced in AA or AAA and is banging on the door to the Majors. So much can happen between Rookie ball and AA-AAA to derail a promising career that not including how close a player is to the majors would be a mistake.
by ervance on Nov 30, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Everybody can use their own criteria"?
You’re being way too nice. I mean, sure, you can “use your own criteria,” but you’re going to come up with a terrible list if you don’t evaluate a player’s level of play at all.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be a great list
Can eat most olives in a single sitting:
1. Everidge
2. Rogowski
3. Carter
4. Larry Davis
5. Eveland
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 30, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was using my own criteria
Fucked up another joke by not explaining the context. Good job, me.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 30, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your list is also inaccurate
since Larry Davis would almost certainly eat Rogowski before Carter could be considered.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See? See?
How anyone could omit Landon Powell from any list that has to do with eating is beyond me.
Kids these days. Sheesh.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2008 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well now that Jeremy Brown has retired...
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Dec 1, 2008 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I purposefully did not put them in any kind of order
Larry Davis would’ve eaten all of them
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Dec 1, 2008 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm calling Ohio for Mazzaro, but it's still too early to tell on Indiana
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 30, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















