My Top 50 Prospects

[elmalo]

How many of these guys have you actually seen play?

~ Because if the answer is none, you have absolutely no right to express your opinions. ~

I was just curious.

 

[bear0555]

I like this list more than any other I have read. I really don't understand why someone won't rank someone like harper number one due to lack of experience when he's supposedly that good. I also agree ackley is overrated, expect big things from jarrod parker, and believe hosmer only began tapping into his power potential last year.

 

[tm decomposer]

http://thisonesfornick.com/2011/01/28/t ... s-for-201/

I posted my list on my blog. I'd appreciate a view or two since I'm trying to get my name out there. I do realize I forgot Michael Pineda. He'd fit in the 20-25 range.

 

[All The Hype]

I like this list more than any other I have read. I really don't understand why someone won't rank someone like harper number one due to lack of experience when he's supposedly that good. I also agree ackley is overrated, expect big things from jarrod parker, and believe hosmer only began tapping into his power potential last year.

Yeah I'm actually very surprised that Harper doesn't appear to be a unanimous #1 overall. The one thing I still can't get out of my head is that ESPN's coverage of the draft was talking about how one team's GM said Harper was a lock for 500 homeruns with the power he has. This isn't just some idiot talking out his ass, it's a Major League team's general manager. Obviously we don't want to jump to any outrageous conclusions, but how can a player like that not be #1 overall? Oh, and he also has a plus arm and good glove and athleticism to go with the plus plus power. He's a super prospect, no one else in the Minors has potential like he does.

 

[Wes]

Good list.

I think Hellickson is too high but I'm lower on him than most. I'd also have Chapman higher but I'm likely in the minority on that as well. I'd have the pitchers at 12-17 all lower. I'm also higher on Matzek, Flores and Gary Sanchez. Although I wouldn't move Sanchez up too much - as you said much remains to be seen with him. Tony Sanchez doesn't crack the top 75 on my list.

I'll be writing up a top 50 myself, one my fantasy league drafts - can't risk losing my sleepers!

Thanks!

 

[ChicagoCubsWS]

http://thisonesfornick.com/2011/01/28/this-ones-for-nick-top-50-prospects-for-201/

I posted my list on my blog. I'd appreciate a view or two since I'm trying to get my name out there. I do realize I forgot Michael Pineda. He'd fit in the 20-25 range.

No Brett Jackson = FAIL.

 

[tm decomposer]

http://thisonesfornick.com/2011/01/28/this-ones-for-nick-top-50-prospects-for-201/

I posted my list on my blog. I'd appreciate a view or two since I'm trying to get my name out there. I do realize I forgot Michael Pineda. He'd fit in the 20-25 range.

No Brett Jackson = FAIL.

I'm in the process of re-constructing it. I forgot a couple of names that I needed to mention.

 

[All The Hype]

Good list.

I think Hellickson is too high but I'm lower on him than most. I'd also have Chapman higher but I'm likely in the minority on that as well. I'd have the pitchers at 12-17 all lower. I'm also higher on Matzek, Flores and Gary Sanchez. Although I wouldn't move Sanchez up too much - as you said much remains to be seen with him. Tony Sanchez doesn't crack the top 75 on my list.

I'll be writing up a top 50 myself, one my fantasy league drafts - can't risk losing my sleepers!

Thanks!

I moved Chapman around quite a bit before finally landing him at 11. He has incredible stuff, but ultimately the fact that he will remain a reliever (at least for the time being) led me to dropping him out of the top 10. I still think the Reds should groom him as a starter, as that would maximize his value IMO.

I'll look forward to checking out your list if you're willing to share it. Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[Wes]

Good list.

I think Hellickson is too high but I'm lower on him than most. I'd also have Chapman higher but I'm likely in the minority on that as well. I'd have the pitchers at 12-17 all lower. I'm also higher on Matzek, Flores and Gary Sanchez. Although I wouldn't move Sanchez up too much - as you said much remains to be seen with him. Tony Sanchez doesn't crack the top 75 on my list.

I'll be writing up a top 50 myself, one my fantasy league drafts - can't risk losing my sleepers!

Thanks!

I moved Chapman around quite a bit before finally landing him at 11. He has incredible stuff, but ultimately the fact that he will remain a reliever (at least for the time being) led me to dropping him out of the top 10. I still think the Reds should groom him as a starter, as that would maximize his value IMO.

I'll look forward to checking out your list if you're willing to share it. Thanks for the thoughts.

That's true about Chapman. I base my personal lists on an imaginary draft, so if all these players were available what order would they be taken in, rather than factoring in their actual role with their teams. A little different way that leads to a little different results. I too think Chapman should be groomed as a starter.

 

[ballerskrip]

Yeah too low on Ackley. I read yesterday hes gained 9 pounds of muscle this offseason, should add some pop!

I am very open to Ackley, just would like to see some power or some better average considering his "plus" hit tool only landed him a .267 composite average in the Minors last year. Granted, he was playing Triple-A for part of the year, but I just had a hard time ranking him higher with a .267 average from a guy whose best tool is hitting ability.

It's not that I don't believe he'll figure it out, it's just that there were other prospects who are very projectable AND had much better seasons.

I agree with this 100%. The kid might be a stud, but I just don't understand where all of the love comes from. He is SUPPOSEDLY this hitting superstar, yet he didn't hit in his first full professionjal campaign. So, why should he be a top 10 prospect?

I would love to have someone give me a real explanation on this.

skrip

 

[beefycheddar]

Yeah too low on Ackley. I read yesterday hes gained 9 pounds of muscle this offseason, should add some pop!

I am very open to Ackley, just would like to see some power or some better average considering his "plus" hit tool only landed him a .267 composite average in the Minors last year. Granted, he was playing Triple-A for part of the year, but I just had a hard time ranking him higher with a .267 average from a guy whose best tool is hitting ability.

It's not that I don't believe he'll figure it out, it's just that there were other prospects who are very projectable AND had much better seasons.

I agree with this 100%. The kid might be a stud, but I just don't understand where all of the love comes from. He is SUPPOSEDLY this hitting superstar, yet he didn't hit in his first full professionjal campaign. So, why should he be a top 10 prospect?

I would love to have someone give me a real explanation on this.

skrip

He also hit .424 in the Arizona Fall League. He won MVP of the League. He started poor, and hit .304 from May on. That would be something that would justify the love.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... b&c_id=mlb

 

[All The Hype]

Good list.

I think Hellickson is too high but I'm lower on him than most. I'd also have Chapman higher but I'm likely in the minority on that as well. I'd have the pitchers at 12-17 all lower. I'm also higher on Matzek, Flores and Gary Sanchez. Although I wouldn't move Sanchez up too much - as you said much remains to be seen with him. Tony Sanchez doesn't crack the top 75 on my list.

I'll be writing up a top 50 myself, one my fantasy league drafts - can't risk losing my sleepers!

Thanks!

I moved Chapman around quite a bit before finally landing him at 11. He has incredible stuff, but ultimately the fact that he will remain a reliever (at least for the time being) led me to dropping him out of the top 10. I still think the Reds should groom him as a starter, as that would maximize his value IMO.

I'll look forward to checking out your list if you're willing to share it. Thanks for the thoughts.

That's true about Chapman. I base my personal lists on an imaginary draft, so if all these players were available what order would they be taken in, rather than factoring in their actual role with their teams. A little different way that leads to a little different results. I too think Chapman should be groomed as a starter.

Ah nice, that's a cool way to think about it actually. That would definitely change the order a bit.

 

[All The Hype]

Yeah too low on Ackley. I read yesterday hes gained 9 pounds of muscle this offseason, should add some pop!

I am very open to Ackley, just would like to see some power or some better average considering his "plus" hit tool only landed him a .267 composite average in the Minors last year. Granted, he was playing Triple-A for part of the year, but I just had a hard time ranking him higher with a .267 average from a guy whose best tool is hitting ability.

It's not that I don't believe he'll figure it out, it's just that there were other prospects who are very projectable AND had much better seasons.

I agree with this 100%. The kid might be a stud, but I just don't understand where all of the love comes from. He is SUPPOSEDLY this hitting superstar, yet he didn't hit in his first full professionjal campaign. So, why should he be a top 10 prospect?

I would love to have someone give me a real explanation on this.

skrip

He also hit .424 in the Arizona Fall League. He won MVP of the League. He started poor, and hit .304 from May on. That would be something that would justify the love.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... b&c_id=mlb

The AFL numbers were pretty staggering and were actually one of the reasons why I changed my opinion of him a bit.

Aside from that, I still think that hitting .304 does not make him worthy of the Top 10. Not that .304 is anything to scoff at, but we're talking about the top 10 in all of baseball. Lots of guys hit better than .304 and also hit for way more power (which Ackley did not). Obviously there's some projection taken into consideration, but the season he posted in 2010 hurts rather than helps his standing as a prospect in relation to others.

 

[aminors]

oh yeah and I love where you have ackley. He is never going to have power and hasnt hit for great avg yet. No way hes top 10 for me.

I agree with this, and it seems there is only a small group of people on this board who aren't aboard the Ackley bandwagon because of their investments. I'm not saying there's no room for growth, but there comes a time where a player just has to start reaching his potential to be taken seriously.

That being said, if he does reach his potential, he will be a stud.

 

[beefycheddar]

oh yeah and I love where you have ackley. He is never going to have power and hasnt hit for great avg yet. No way hes top 10 for me.

I agree with this, and it seems there is only a small group of people on this board who aren't aboard the Ackley bandwagon because of their investments. I'm not saying there's no room for growth, but there comes a time where a player just has to start reaching his potential to be taken seriously.

That being said, if he does reach his potential, he will be a stud.

I own zero cards of Ackley, and he demolished the AFL. He started slow, and rebounded as the year went on. His rankings from scouts saying he was one of the most advanced college bats in years when he was drafted was why I think he could be a good player. Not just because he had a poor April and May. You don't need 40 home runs at 2B to be huge, look at Pedroia.

 

[aminors]

oh yeah and I love where you have ackley. He is never going to have power and hasnt hit for great avg yet. No way hes top 10 for me.

I agree with this, and it seems there is only a small group of people on this board who aren't aboard the Ackley bandwagon because of their investments. I'm not saying there's no room for growth, but there comes a time where a player just has to start reaching his potential to be taken seriously.

That being said, if he does reach his potential, he will be a stud.

I own zero cards of Ackley, and he demolished the AFL. He started slow, and rebounded as the year went on. His rankings from scouts saying he was one of the most advanced college bats in years when he was drafted was why I think he could be a good player. Not just because he had a poor April and May. You don't need 40 home runs at 2B to be huge, look at Pedroia.

I haven't had a good look at his AFL stats, I guess the high prices just kinda made me skeptical. Still think he needs to have a full season of hitting well with regularity before I'm a full-on believer, not just a blah summer in the minors then a great AFL year. Similar to Manny Machado.

 

[beefycheddar]

oh yeah and I love where you have ackley. He is never going to have power and hasnt hit for great avg yet. No way hes top 10 for me.

I agree with this, and it seems there is only a small group of people on this board who aren't aboard the Ackley bandwagon because of their investments. I'm not saying there's no room for growth, but there comes a time where a player just has to start reaching his potential to be taken seriously.

That being said, if he does reach his potential, he will be a stud.

I own zero cards of Ackley, and he demolished the AFL. He started slow, and rebounded as the year went on. His rankings from scouts saying he was one of the most advanced college bats in years when he was drafted was why I think he could be a good player. Not just because he had a poor April and May. You don't need 40 home runs at 2B to be huge, look at Pedroia.

I haven't had a good look at his AFL stats, I guess the high prices just kinda made me skeptical. Still think he needs to have a full season of hitting well with regularity before I'm a full-on believer, not just a blah summer in the minors then a great AFL year. Similar to Manny Machado.

I posted this earlier, he hit over .300 from May till the end of season, and then hit .424 in the AFL. That isn't a blah season I'd say.