Baseball America’s Top 100 prospect list out

DMZ · February 22, 2006 at 10:24 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Not a whole lot of analysis on each one: if you want that, you’ve got to check out each team’s Top 10. Still, an interesting read.

Jeff Clement is the highest Mariner, at 33
Adam Jones is 64
Kenji Johjima is 66 (I have no idea why he’d rank that low)

… and that’s it.

Comments

29 Responses to “Baseball America’s Top 100 prospect list out”

  1. joser on February 22nd, 2006 10:36 pm

    The Angels have 3 in the top 50, including two shortstops both expected to reach the bigs next year. Obviously something has to give there, but assuming they don’t squander it all on a silly trade (like a certain fielding-impaired Red Sox RF) they’re set to do some serious reloading. The A’s are the team to beat this year, and Texas is stacked with young talent and still improving. The M’s not only didn’t make up any ground this offseason, they’re going to have to work harder next offseason just to tread water. Sigh.

  2. Typical Idiot Fan on February 23rd, 2006 1:59 am

    John Lester – 22; John Papelbon – 37

    BA doesn’t agree with you, Dave.

  3. rlharr on February 23rd, 2006 6:31 am

    Wow, the Dbacks are loaded.

    Jeff Clement as our top prospect – I find having a catcher as top prospect scary, between the short careers and high injury risk. I wonder if it wouldn’t be smarter given a catcher like Mauer or, we hope, Clement to really restrict their catching time and use them mainly at DH or 1B. Give them enough time behind the plate to keep the rust off their skills, but hopefully little enough to prolong their careers and, maybe more importantly, keep them fresh for the postseason.

    Maybe just start them at catcher against top tier pitchers to get an extra bat in the lineup (by replacing the presumably poor hitting regular catcher). And, of course, every postseason game.

  4. Adam S on February 23rd, 2006 7:20 am

    As I read it, Johjima is low because the list is based on long term value. While some of the 22-year-old top prospect have 10-12 very good seasons in them, Johjima only has 5-7, if that.

  5. Tek Jansen on February 23rd, 2006 7:25 am

    To make myself feel better as an M’s fan, I console myself with the thought that the M’s have two or three young players (Felix, Lopez, and maybe YuBet) would might have made the list had Seattle’s misfortunes not necessitated calling up so many young players.

  6. tgf on February 23rd, 2006 9:02 am

    I think BA, like a lot of the “stats” community used to do, underrates the importance of defense. If Billy Butler and Daric Barton are already in the 1B/DH camp, they are going to have to hit a lot more than the Clements or Johjimas of the world (or even Adam Jones if he ends up being above average in center) to have the same value. In that sense, all three of the M’s on the list might be underrated IMO.

  7. DMZ on February 23rd, 2006 9:09 am

    I’d add that frequently players in the minor leagues have scouting reputations unjustified by their actual ability, because they’re being compared to others who aren’t major league. The number of minor leaguers described as Gold Glove level defenders is immense, and unrealistic.

  8. Dave on February 23rd, 2006 9:19 am

    John Lester – 22; John Papelbon – 37

    BA doesn’t agree with you, Dave.

    Actually, they do. It’s crazy Boston fans who don’t agree with me.

  9. Evan on February 23rd, 2006 10:19 am

    Some of that analysis is pretty entertaining. Like this comment about Chuck James:

    “I don’t want to face that guy no more. It’s that changeup. He threw me a 2-0 changeup and I thought I broke my bat on my back.”
    –No. 1 prospect Delmon Young

  10. JI on February 23rd, 2006 10:54 am

    3 huh? That puts us right below the theoretical 3.33% per team avg. Not exactly disastorus, but not particularly encouraging either.

    Hey, maybe if we get lucky, Balentin win turn into Russ Branyan in 4 years…

  11. Celadus on February 23rd, 2006 10:57 am

    When were those comments made? Valentine referring to Jojima as a “kid” is kind of like calling Betty White a “chlorine”.

  12. Evan on February 23rd, 2006 11:10 am

    Valentine’s the sort of guy who calls every ballplayer who isn’t Julio Franco “kid”.

  13. robbbbbb on February 23rd, 2006 11:19 am

    So does this end up being an open prospect thread, then? Can we ask Dave questions about Mariner minor leaguers? (Feel free to delete this one if it’s too off-topic.)

    Particularly, I’m curious about Tui and Foppert. Any news on those two, who seem to be the most interesting guys that aren’t on the BA top 100 list.

    Also, Dave’s talked about the Mariners’ improved scouting network and drafts. I think that’s a great thing, but BA’s top 100 prospect list doesn’t seem to bear that out. I’m curious as to where you think the discrepancy is. Is the new Mariner system strength still in the low minors, and so unrecognized by BA? Or have we had some prospects not pan out in the last six months to a year?

  14. ConorGlassey on February 23rd, 2006 11:20 am

    Can anyone explain to me how Dustin Pedroia is BP’s #11 prospect and he’s ranked #77 by BA? How can there be that much of a difference in opinion on a guy?

  15. Dave on February 23rd, 2006 11:38 am

    This is a nice kick-in-the-pants for me to update the Future Forty, too.

    So does this end up being an open prospect thread, then? Can we ask Dave questions about Mariner minor leaguers? (Feel free to delete this one if it’s too off-topic.)

    Fire away.

    Particularly, I’m curious about Tui and Foppert. Any news on those two, who seem to be the most interesting guys that aren’t on the BA top 100 list.

    Actually, I’d say Asdrubal Cabrera’s the most interesting non-Top 100 guy in the M’s system. He and Tui are close, but I think Tui ends up in RF, so I’ll take Cabrera right now.

    Foppert’s saying all the right things, arm feels as good as it has in years, yada yada yada. Let’s see how his velocity and movement looks before we get real excited. When he was going right, he was 95+. If he’s 88-92, his command and secondary stuff isn’t good enough to get by. While velocity can be overrated for some pitchers (hello Matt Thornton), it’ll be a big indicator for what to expect from Foppert.

    Also, Dave’s talked about the Mariners’ improved scouting network and drafts. I think that’s a great thing, but BA’s top 100 prospect list doesn’t seem to bear that out.

    Patience is a virtue. We’ve only had Fontaine running the draft for two years. It’s pretty rare to see guys jump into the Top 100 that quickly unless they’re really high picks, such as Clement. The organizational depth is significantly improved over where it was several years ago. A top 100 prospects in baseball list isn’t really a good way to evaluate organizational depth, though, so you won’t see it there.

    Can anyone explain to me how Dustin Pedroia is BP’s #11 prospect and he’s ranked #77 by BA? How can there be that much of a difference in opinion on a guy?

    It’s a risk/reward argument. BA has repeatedly stated that they feel like their purpose in ranking prospects is to help shine a light on the future stars of the game, while at the same time, incorporating the likelyhood that a player may reach that ceiling in their rankings.

    BP’s philosophy is much more risk averse. BP prefers ready-now players, and will trade upside for alleviation in risk. They see Pedroia as being a major league average second baseman right now, and that bumps him way up the list based on their criteria. It’s the same reason they had Jeremy Reed (incorrectly) ranked as the #2 prospect after the 2004 season.

    If you ask Nate Silver or Jim Callis what they expect from Pedroia during his career, you’ll get very similar answers. But because BP is all about risk aversion (see TNSTAPP), they rank low risk, low reward players a lot higher than BA does.

  16. Grizz on February 23rd, 2006 11:57 am

    Conor, Nate Silver has posted a series over at BP on that subject, including discussions specifically on Pedroia. Unfortunately, it appears you need to be a BP subscriber to access the articles, so no link.

    Dave, with a few months of the offseason to gain perspective, have your expectations for any particular prospect significantly increased or decreased? Have you heard anything from the M’s organization on valuing prospects that has surprised you?

  17. Dave on February 23rd, 2006 12:26 pm

    Dave, with a few months of the offseason to gain perspective, have your expectations for any particular prospect significantly increased or decreased? Have you heard anything from the M’s organization on valuing prospects that has surprised you?

    There’s a pretty good chance that I’ve missed the ball, at least somewhat, on Emiliano Fruto. I’ve had too many people I respect tell me how good he looked when they saw him to write him off the way I have. I still look at him and see a guy who has some control issues and the upside of a middle reliever, but he’s probably better than I’ve given him credit for.

    And yea, a couple of the folks in the org. that i’ve talked to have said a lot more good things about Robert Rohrbaugh than I expected. When you see the M’s draft another lefty with average stuff who gets by with command and changing speeds, its easy to just toss them into the pile with the 842 others that they’ve tried to develop the past couple of years. But Rohrbaugh has fans in the organization who are convinced he’s in a different class than Livingston, Nottingham, Oldham, etc…

    I’ll be keeping a closer eye on him than I would have.

  18. westfried on February 23rd, 2006 12:42 pm

    JL (10):
    Perhaps the number of prospects isn’t the best way to look at it. As you point out, the difference between 3 and 3.33 is minimal – you’d expect some teams to have 3, some to have 5, a few to have 2, etc.

    What’s interesting to me is the distribution – if this were purely random, I’d expect 3 per organization, and distributed evenly. Ie, every team gets a 1-33, a 34-66, and a 67-99. To me, the perfectly “average” system, then, would have prospects 17, 50, and 83.

    The M’s have 33, 64, and 66. So, they’re on the low-end for their top-third and middle-third, and high on their bottom-third. Or something like that.

    On the other hand, the Diamondbacks have 4 in the top-20, and 2 more in the top 32. So, 6 prospects above the Mariners’ “best”, which makes them look pretty darn good in comparison. Or, looking at the Angels, I’d rather have 2 top-12 than 5 in the 80-100 range…

    It’s all subjective, and Dave’s right to preach patience, but it is a bit glum that the M’s seem on the low end of the top prospects list.

    Adding Felix and Lopez to the mythical M’s list helps, but then, I wouldn’t count JohJima (or Betancourt last year) as “Prospects”. Or, to be more precise, not a part of the farm system (ie, calling up YuBet did not “empty” the M’s system, since he was never really a product of it…)

  19. Tod on February 23rd, 2006 1:05 pm

    Dave, what about Justin Thomas? From last year’s draft, he’s my biggest concern. Obviously it’s early to write him off, and I trust Fontaine generally, but it’s hard for me to see what Seattle saw in him to pick him there. I’m not writing him off, but I’m curious to know what attracted Seattle to him in the first instance. There is obviously something, but I can’t guess what it is. Also, any draft and follows you’re following this year? Thanks.

  20. Smegmalicious on February 23rd, 2006 1:13 pm

    It kinda seems like we have our top prospects already playing. Jeremy Reed, Morse, Yu-Bet, Jopez, Putz, Soriano and Felix. I guess Putz and Soriano has been up long enough that he’s not a ‘prospect’ but there’s a lot of youth on out team. With all of those guys on the big club it doesn’t surprise me that we have thinner prospects in the minors.

    I was going to ask Dave if he thought there were any guys in the minors that would come up and have an impact on the big club, but then after thinking about it a second I realized that we’re probably already seeing all of those guys.

  21. Typical Idiot Fan on February 23rd, 2006 1:22 pm

    Actually, they do. It’s crazy Boston fans who don’t agree with me.

    I thought you said that “every team” has someone like Lester / Papelbon in their system, meaning that they’re not special or unique at all. BA has them rated the 22nd and 37th prospects in all of baseball. Don’t you think maybe you undervalued them a tad?

    And let me clarify, I don’t think you were doing it because you don’t necessarily care for Lester or Papelbon, but that you were perhaps valuing Jeremy Reed a bit higher then you should have. Disclaimer: I’m a huge Reed supporter, but if he pans out to something resembling Johnny Damon numbers, would that really be as useful to the Mariners as a potential #2-#3 starter?

    Maybe it’s just me, but I’d rather have pitching, despite the attrition rate of arms.

  22. robbbbbb on February 23rd, 2006 1:36 pm

    Cool. Thanks for the answers, Dave.

    So who’s not currently on the Future Forty (I love the Future Forty by the way) that’s likely to work his way onto the list?

  23. Grant on February 23rd, 2006 1:44 pm

    Dave, what do you think of Stephen Kahn? He seemed like the pitcher with the most upside for last years draft. What’s that scouting report on his stuff, and is there any word on whether he’ll be starting or relieveing this coming year?

  24. Dave on February 23rd, 2006 2:01 pm

    I thought you said that “every team” has someone like Lester / Papelbon in their system, meaning that they’re not special or unique at all. BA has them rated the 22nd and 37th prospects in all of baseball. Don’t you think maybe you undervalued them a tad?

    No. Lester’s a second tier pitching prospect, Papelbon’s a little lower than that, and neither one is “special”, which was my entire point. As much as I support BA, I think their ambition in turning prospect ranking into a tradition has done a lot to hinder the understanding of prospect evaluation.

    On a list like BA’s Top 100, when you’re splitting hairs to satisfiy a numerical slot, you’re creating distinctions where there aren’t any, and people take those distinctions and run with them. For intensive purposes, there’s very little difference between the #22 prospect in baseball and the #50 prospect in baseball, and there’s even less difference between #52 and #97.

    It’s why I veered the Future Forty away from lists and into groups. Because that’s really the best we can do. We simply don’t have enough information to really ascertain whether Lester is 2.48 percent better than Scott Olsen or if Papelbon is 3.74 percent worse than Homer Bailey or whatever. We just can’t be that precise, because there are so many things that we don’t understand (injuries being the big one).

    So, no, I don’t think I’m undervaluing Lester and Papelbon at all. I think Boston fans are interpreting a list to mean a lot more than it should. My entire initial point was that Lester and Papelbon aren’t significantly different than any other year’s good pitching prospects, and the history of good pitching prospects is so terrible that trading quality young position players for one is almost always foolish.

    The only way to justify trading Reed for Lester or Papelbon would be if they were in the Liriano/Billingsley/Verlander class. At that point, the reward probably outweighs the risk. But they aren’t that kind of prospect. They really aren’t.

  25. JI on February 23rd, 2006 3:34 pm

    #18 it’d be interesting to see where we rank be low spot #100. It’s nice to have a couple of potential regulars in the minors.

    Correct me if I am wrong (which I almost surely will be), but the last two position players the M’s developed (Cruz, Varitek) played 2 months, and nil time (respectively) for Seattle. Our system as was mentioned, is much better off that it was pre-2004.

    On the bright side, we could thoeretically see the light as early as next season if the next Gm does a diligent job in replacing Piniero, Meche, and Moyer. (With Zito?… Schmidt?… it’s way too early too tell if they’re worth the risk/reward they offer).

  26. BelaXadux on February 23rd, 2006 9:05 pm

    It’s interesting that the org guys are so high on Fruto, yeah. His numbers don’t suggest he’s anyone to keep an eye on, not even as much as Carvajal, who should be able to help right now. So Dave, do you get the sense that Fruto will have about the same level of talent as, say, Julio Mateo (a fairly useful guy), or higher than that?

    I’m a big fan of Asdrubal the lad, also: good athleticism, quick bat, and both young and young for his leagues. This year will tell us a lot about where his isolated power will actually slot in. He’ll never be a big HR guy, but I’m hoping he takes a solid step forward there. He’s not on anybody’s charts yet, but I see him in _somebody’s_ middle infield in a couple of years.

  27. BelaXadux on February 23rd, 2006 9:13 pm

    I’m a big fan of BA’s consistent support and close attention of minor league and college baseball. That said, I’ve never been too keen on their prospect rankings, least of all the Top 100, and for exactly the reasons you point out, Dave. They stress ready-now, low risk guys with the result that their high number guys tend to become a lot of league average, competent players but who are not necessarily good enough to build a team around. And the rank-order nature of their listings implies discrete talent differentials which are very hard to justify, even illusory just as you say. I’ve appreciated your different approach at the Future Forty for just that reason.

    Regarding the Ms prospect count, also, I wouldn’t include Johjima at all in the BA list; to me, he’s a _major-league_ free agent, not a prospect. On the other hand, YuBet surely should count somewhere in terms of the organizations developmental record: he was signed as an amateur, and assigned to a minor-league squad; he just is older than many similar acquisitions, and was advanced very rapidly.

  28. DMZ on February 23rd, 2006 10:25 pm

    They stress ready-now, low risk guys with the result that their high number guys tend to become a lot of league average, competent players but who are not necessarily good enough to build a team around.

    Baseball America? That’s really the opposite of BA’s ranking philosophy.

  29. bmanuw on February 24th, 2006 12:43 pm

    Can anyone tell me when Jeff Clement is going to actually play?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.