BA's 2009 Top 100 Prospects List

[cgilmo]

heyward isn't a base stealer either.

He did swipe 15 in 2008, so maybe 30 is a stretch, but I dont think 15 or 20 would be out of the question. And again, I said if they reached their maximum possible potential.

Any good athlete with instincts can take 15 in low a. Take it from a guy who has seen many of those steals at low A from him. They were on instinct. Pitchers not holding runners, he ran. Catcher has a dud arm, he ran.

 

[All The Hype]

Here's my question to them about Porcello's ranking:

Q: Ryan from Indianapolis asks:
I was expecting to see Rick Porcello in the top 5. Any insight as to why he didn't even break the top 20?
A:

John Manuel: My reasoning is the low strikeout rate and the fact he emphasizes the slider in his repertoire, over the curve. The slider is more of a groundball pitch than a strikeout pitch, and essentially it sounds like Porcello could evolve into a real good sinker-slider pitcher, not a power pitching strikeout guy. Best-case scenario there, I suppose, would be a Roy Halladay kind of guy, and if he's Halladay, then we're too low on him obviously. I got a Jon Garland comp on Porcello this year; if he's Jon Garland, then we might be high on him at 21. I bet he's better than Garland but not a multi-Cy Young type like Halladay. He's not looking like Josh Beckett, though, he doesn't have Beckett's strikeout breaking ball, and that's the comp that got him a Beckett contract. He's very good, but that's why maybe we've tempered our enthusiasm on him as compared to last year.

 

[All The Hype]

I fixed that for you.

>

So you don't think that Porcello and Heyward are comparable players, or at least as comparable as a pitcher and hitter can be?

 

[NECpilgrims8]

Here's my question to them about Porcello's ranking:

Q: Ryan from Indianapolis asks:
I was expecting to see Rick Porcello in the top 5. Any insight as to why he didn't even break the top 20?
A:

John Manuel: My reasoning is the low strikeout rate and the fact he emphasizes the slider in his repertoire, over the curve. The slider is more of a groundball pitch than a strikeout pitch, and essentially it sounds like Porcello could evolve into a real good sinker-slider pitcher, not a power pitching strikeout guy. Best-case scenario there, I suppose, would be a Roy Halladay kind of guy, and if he's Halladay, then we're too low on him obviously. I got a Jon Garland comp on Porcello this year; if he's Jon Garland, then we might be high on him at 21. I bet he's better than Garland but not a multi-Cy Young type like Halladay. He's not looking like Josh Beckett, though, he doesn't have Beckett's strikeout breaking ball, and that's the comp that got him a Beckett contract. He's very good, but that's why maybe we've tempered our enthusiasm on him as compared to last year.

OH NOES!

SELL SELL SELL!

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

Ahh, Sid. If only you had been real you'd have made Mark Fidrych look like a stuffed collar.

I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

 

[Jaypers]

I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

For the record, the six BA staffers who compiled this list aren't scouts either. Much of their expertise comes from word of mouth from true scouts, as well as organizational figures.

 

[cgilmo]

Ahh, Sid. If only you had been real you'd have made Mark Fidrych look like a stuffed collar.

I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

somewhere around.... oh i'd say....

0 scouting

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

For the record, the six BA staffers who compiled this list aren't scouts either. Much of their expertise comes from word of mouth from true scouts, as well as organizational figures.

I understand that, but unless guys on here are seriously holding out on us I doubt there are that many connections to scouts that are strong enough to get the candor on a prospect that the BA guys get. Could be wrong, though.

Craig

 

[ru4scuba]

I understand that, but unless guys on here are seriously holding out on us I doubt there are that many connections to scouts that are strong enough to get the candor on a prospect that the BA guys get. Could be wrong, though.

Craig

I helped an A's scout this weekend

 

[All The Hype]

No one on here is claiming that they are a scout, we are simply having a conversation/debate about who we would have liked to see higher or lower on the list.

 

[muchuckwagon]

I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players?

I asked the same question 100 times back in the day on the BMB....and got a reply maybe only once. What a joke.

I find it very humorous when members defend their prospects with such vigor and mock player rankings but they have not seen a single player on the list throw a pitch or swing a bat. Laughable....

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

I understand that, but unless guys on here are seriously holding out on us I doubt there are that many connections to scouts that are strong enough to get the candor on a prospect that the BA guys get. Could be wrong, though.

Craig

I helped an A's scout this weekend

Good. If you're helping them, they'll never get back on top!

Craig

 

[Jaypers]

[quote="Craig - 21hawk":1iqdeiuc] I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

For the record, the six BA staffers who compiled this list aren't scouts either. Much of their expertise comes from word of mouth from true scouts, as well as organizational figures.

I understand that, but unless guys on here are seriously holding out on us I doubt there are that many connections to scouts that are strong enough to get the candor on a prospect that the BA guys get. Could be wrong, though.

Craig[/quote:1iqdeiuc]

That's where the internet comes in handy. Savvy prospectors read online scouting reports from numerous different sources, as well as doing research on their favorite players' stats, and formulate their own opinions from there. It's pretty much the next best thing to attending games, especially if time and money are issues.

 

[All The Hype]

[quote="Craig - 21hawk":32uobsm0] I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

For the record, the six BA staffers who compiled this list aren't scouts either. Much of their expertise comes from word of mouth from true scouts, as well as organizational figures.

I understand that, but unless guys on here are seriously holding out on us I doubt there are that many connections to scouts that are strong enough to get the candor on a prospect that the BA guys get. Could be wrong, though.

Craig

That's where the internet comes in handy. Savvy prospectors read online scouting reports from numerous different sources, as well as doing research on their favorite players' stats, and formulate their own opinions from there. It's pretty much the next best thing to attending games, especially if time and money are issues.[/quote:32uobsm0]

And after doing this, some of us like to debate about those players. It's not like every person on here who is making a claim that someone should be higher or lower has absolutely zero knowledge of the player. The claims are simply based on as much information as we have from the internet or other sources, as Jaypers has stated here. Again, no one is claiming that they are a scout, but at the same time, it's not like people are completely clueless about what they are talking about.

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

No one on here is claiming that they are a scout, we are simply having a conversation/debate about who we would have liked to see higher or lower on the list.

But that's my question, what is your basis of knowledge to get into such a heated disagreement?

I just don't see how you can get such an intractible disagreement about who is going to make the better major leaguer between Porcello and Baumgartner (for example) based purely on stats. Can you make money with cards with that info? Sure, but that isn't the point of the BA list.

Craig

 

[jlvjr16]

I am really happy to see Trevor Cahill ranked so high. Too bad I sold his chrome autos last year. I did make a decent profit but now I am left wondering if I could have sold them for more $$$. I think I have at least one more Cahill chrome auto.

 

[brouthercard]

Did I miss Michael Burgess?
I thought his power was worthy enough to be in the top 100...

Only one Nat made it - Zimmermann.

They flat out admitted there was a bias against the NATS this year.

It's ALL Esmailyn's fault!!! :x :x :x

 

[Jaypers]

Q: Matt from South Florida asks:
What three players lower on the list(past 50) would you see as sleepers that could jump into the top 20? Dominguez, Viciedo, Jennings?

A: John Manuel: Jennings is a great pick because his fall was mostly due to health. If he's healthy and shows the same tools, combined with plate discipline, that he showed pre-injury, he'll rocket back up the list.

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

[quote="Craig - 21hawk":208l33il] I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

For the record, the six BA staffers who compiled this list aren't scouts either. Much of their expertise comes from word of mouth from true scouts, as well as organizational figures.

I understand that, but unless guys on here are seriously holding out on us I doubt there are that many connections to scouts that are strong enough to get the candor on a prospect that the BA guys get. Could be wrong, though.

Craig

That's where the internet comes in handy. Savvy prospectors read online scouting reports from numerous different sources, as well as doing research on their favorite players' stats, and formulate their own opinions from there. It's pretty much the next best thing to attending games, especially if time and money are issues.[/quote:208l33il]

I get that, and I don't question your "prospecting" knowledge, but I assume you would agree that whether a particular player is likely a good investment from a cardboard perspective differs from whether that player will be a good major leaguer (sure they often overlap, but not always).

Anywho, back to your regularly scheduled who is the 23rd best prospect debate.

Craig

 

[thefasterblade]

Someone please explain to me all the chances Colby Rasmus really had? He fell out of graces with TLR last spring as he and the Rasmus family felt like he wasn't be given his due chance. His dad was popping off on message boards about the organization, Dave Duncan and TLR.

Just because he was drafted in the same draft as Tulo, Zimmerman, Braun, Gordon, Upton, Maybin and Bruce doesn't mean hes supposed to hit the majors at the same time. Most of those hitters had played college ball previous to being drafted. Upton was the overall number 1 pick that year and crowned the next Griffey. His performance has been mixed so far. Maybin only saw a cup of coffee as the Tigers were in need of an OF during a playoff push. He later came up again with the Marlins, but is still raw. The Reds had to deal Josh Hamilton to make way for Jay Bruce. Bruce came out the gate flying and later piled up all the Ks that people were weary about.

All these guys are still young and other than Braun none of them have truly materialized yet. Tulo and Zimmerman need to put their injuries behind them still and show that they are corner stones of their franchises.