My Top 50 midseason Prospect List

[jlecates]

[quote="mwashuc06":892hnhq0]

5) Manny Machado- Maybe end up being more a sure thing than Harper due to polish.

Agreed 100 percent.

I like the list, although I disagree with the Pomeranz assessment.

Where did this idea that Machado has more "polish" than Harper come from?

He goes to the shoe store more often

:lol: :lol:

But in all seriousness-to Shay's and mwash-how exactly does Machado have more polish?

He has a much better chance of reaching his ceiling than Harper...[/quote:892hnhq0]
To me, that comment is completely false. I like both Machado and Harper quite a bit, and to be honest this whole notion where it seems they have to be pitted against one another is absurd. That being said, Machado has far more questions surrounding him than Harper. Machado has great discipline, strike zone awareness, and ability to make contact; so no one will dispute his hit tool. However, than you have to take into account the unknowns surrounding his future power, position, and speed. Harper's biggest question (because let's face it the makeup issues are blown way out of proportion due to the level of coverage he receives) is how well his pure hit tool will play at higher levels (i.e. will he hit .290 or .250) because he is probably going to have some substantial strikeout totals. To me it's simple math: they are both 5-tool players where Machado has more questions surrounding 3 of his tools versus 1 of Harper's (maybe two as Harper will slow down as he fills out, but I still see him as no less then average speed).

 

[markakis8]

Pomeranz a closer? ::facepalm::

You lost me right there, and your list is not legit.

of course he lost you, you have a 10 black ref sterling auto in your sig ::facepalm::

 

[Firebirds11]

Nice list.

I love the ranking on Castellanos. He's hitting .425 in his last 10 games with 8 out of 10 being multi-hit games. He also hasn't struck out his last 4 games, something that he badly needed to cut down on.

 

[All The Hype]

[quote="mwashuc06":a9ii3deu]

5) Manny Machado- Maybe end up being more a sure thing than Harper due to polish.

Agreed 100 percent.

I like the list, although I disagree with the Pomeranz assessment.

Where did this idea that Machado has more "polish" than Harper come from?

He goes to the shoe store more often

:lol: :lol:

But in all seriousness-to Shay's and mwash-how exactly does Machado have more polish?

He has a much better chance of reaching his ceiling than Harper...[/quote:a9ii3deu]


I still disagree with you wholeheartedly about this.

If Machado really is better or more polished than Harper, then why wasn't Machado the "Chosen One"? And why didn't he go #1 overall above Harper? It's one thing to have an opinion on a message board as most of us do, but it's another thing entirely when every team and scout in baseball agree pretty unanimously that Harper is the superior player and prospect.

 

[shayscards79]

Haha, I am not "against" Harper as most of you think. I think Harper's going to be a star. I prefer Machado because think he has better plate discipline at this point.

I only unanimously agree with the fact Harper has more power. And yeah, harper has out peformed Machado, no thanks to the injury and him falling flat after coming back. But I believe his production before getting hurt is glimpse of the future at any level he plays at. For all intents and purposes.. I don't see how Harper can really top that.. maybe HR wise.

 

[ctbinvestments]

Haha, I am not "against" Harper as most of you think. I think Harper's going to be a star. I prefer Machado because think he has better plate discipline at this point.

I only unanimously agree with the fact Harper has more power. And yeah, harper has out peformed Machado, no thanks to the injury and him falling flat after coming back. But I believe his production before getting hurt is glimpse of the future at any level he plays at. For all intents and purposes.. I don't see how Harper can really top that.. maybe HR wise.

Just my two cents on this topic. For the record I think both players will be hobby studs and good for mlb. I think at this point I'm more impressed by Machado for a coupe of reasons. Machado played against high schoolers last year while Harper was dominating low College league. Machado had to adjust to the level of competition where I think Harper pretty much is just facing competition about the same as he did at Nevada CC last year. Also, Machado has played excellent defense which is rare for such a young SS with only 7 errors in 38 games. Profar is considered all world defensively and he's got 11 in 55 games so Machado will probably have about the same thru 55 games. Most other SS's in the SAL are well into double digits in errors regardless of their age. I'm not discounting what Harper has done or is doing but we all know he had more power than anyone else in the SAL. I'm suprised by Harper's speed thus far and to tell you the truth having seen them both play in person...there isnt much difference in their strikezone judgement. You have to realize that Harper gets EVERY pitchers best pitch while Machado is just another hitter in a pitchers eyes. They want to strikeout Harper more than anyone else they pitch against. To summarize my thoughts. I guess Harper is doing what i expected him to do after playing against 18-21 yr olds last year and Machado is suprising me a little on his success so quickly. Throw in the fact Harpers value compared to Machados in the Hobby...I would be passing on Harper and buying Machado at current prices.

 

[chompsmcgee]

Nice list! Thanks for sharing.

Also, I completely agree with your ranking of Goldschmidt. People in the hobby are too caught up in his minor league stats (or deeply invested in him). There are concerns about the bat speed and some scouts think he's merely a mistake-pitch hitter and a platoon bat.

To compare him to Stanton is ludicrous. For one, Goldy will be damn near 24 if he hits 40 homers this year. Stanton was 18 when he hit 39 homers.

Think about that for a second.

Goldschmidt has mashed everywhere he has been.

So, he went to college can't really devalue him for that.

He has, indeed, mashed everywhere. Not devaluing him because of college but because of his flaws. We'll see what he's made of when he faces tougher competition. There are legitimate reasons to be cautiously optimistic.

 

[hail2thevictors]

[quote="shayscards79":165qfjx2][quote="mwashuc06":165qfjx2]

5) Manny Machado- Maybe end up being more a sure thing than Harper due to polish.

Agreed 100 percent.

I like the list, although I disagree with the Pomeranz assessment.

Where did this idea that Machado has more "polish" than Harper come from?

He goes to the shoe store more often

:lol: :lol:

But in all seriousness-to Shay's and mwash-how exactly does Machado have more polish?

He has a much better chance of reaching his ceiling than Harper...[/quote:165qfjx2]

This is just plain wrong....that is talking out of your butt like usual.[/quote:165qfjx2]

I would have to agree.

It's hard for me to put any stock into someone commenting on Harper/Machado, when they have said numerous times that "Machado will be a better player". Obviously that is a bold statement, so now mwash is going to refer to that every time he can, because he doesn't want to be wrong. Everyone has probably done something like it, just out of being stubborn and wanting to be right in the end.

When I think of polish, I think of a guy being ready to play at the next level-whether that is High A, AA, AAA, or the big leagues. This may not be the exact definition, but I think everyone has a little different understanding of the term. Either way, to say that Machado is more polished than Harper is just silly.

 

[chompsmcgee]

So, I'm not sure why you even brought the HOF into this discussion. Goldschmidt could be a darn good player, and never sniff the HOF.

because those that do the prospecting are not into "darn good" players. the hobby isnt too keen on them either.

All exaggerating aside, come on man.

Prospectors are into making money. I am a prospector, and I am definitely into "darn good" players. If I could only prospect future HOF's, well that would be a pretty short list of players. I understand, the traditional collectors hate prospectors-it's like the older brother getting ticked because the younger brother gets more attention. I don't care for people talking about collecting 90's inserts-but with that said, I understand there are different people on here.

For prospectors, it doesn't matter how great a player is 3, 4, or 10 years down the road. It matters how much hype a guy gets, how well he debuts, etc-people don't prospect by hanging onto a guys cards until he retires.

Well said. It's all about the hype.

 

[chompsmcgee]

It's funny how almost all the posts in this thread start out, "Great read. But I'm really just replying to tell you your ranking on player X is so wrong and here's why..."

It's one guy's opinion, you should just thank the OP for sharing it with us instead of just giving your opinion on why your opinion is better.

It's a good list and yes, it's fun to discuss differences of opinion. But don't try to disguise your criticism by throwing in "great list" to begin your post only to follow with reasons why you don't like the list. How about reasons why you did like it?

 

[phillyfan0417]

It's funny how almost all the posts in this thread start out, "Great read. But I'm really just replying to tell you your ranking on player X is so wrong and here's why..."

It's one guy's opinion, you should just thank the OP for sharing it with us instead of just giving your opinion on why your opinion is better.

It's a good list and yes, it's fun to discuss differences of opinion. But don't try to disguise your criticism by throwing in "great list" to begin your post only to follow with reasons why you don't like the list. How about reasons why you did like it?

Sorry but I disagree. People who put together lists and people have issues with only a couple of players are doing a VERY good job. i would hope the OP appreciates people can have a difference in opinion and discuss those disagreements. It's pointless to have a list that doesnt have discussion.

 

[ebechols]

I'm quite happy with the assessment of Matt Moore. He pitched the first no-hitter in Montgomery Biscuits history last week, and I have seen him pitch on several occasions. His fastball hits 98mph occasionally, and his curve is devastating. His spot on the Southern League All Star team is well deserved. I just hope that I get to see him play through the rest of the season before they pull him up to AAA.

 

[chompsmcgee]

It's funny how almost all the posts in this thread start out, "Great read. But I'm really just replying to tell you your ranking on player X is so wrong and here's why..."

It's one guy's opinion, you should just thank the OP for sharing it with us instead of just giving your opinion on why your opinion is better.

It's a good list and yes, it's fun to discuss differences of opinion. But don't try to disguise your criticism by throwing in "great list" to begin your post only to follow with reasons why you don't like the list. How about reasons why you did like it?

Sorry but I disagree. People who put together lists and people have issues with only a couple of players are doing a VERY good job. i would hope the OP appreciates people can have a difference in opinion and discuss those disagreements. It's pointless to have a list that doesnt have discussion.

Nobody said not to have the discussion. However, I'm fairly sure the OP didn't post this to see exactly how wrong everyone thinks he is. When people nitpick something apart you put time and effort into it's hard to see many positives out of that. I don't think it's inferred that when people criticize your work it means you are doing a very good job, as you stated.

Let's say you are an amateur painter and you spent time crafting a nice piece of art. Then you share it at a museum, but when people see your work they say, "nice painting, but it would be so much better if you drew the sun wearing sunglasses. And how can you draw a picture without putting happy little trees everywhere?"

To those critics they should simply respond: where is your painting?