Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Minor League Prospects

Minor League Prospects - Baseball America's Top Ten

Yu need to forget the other distractions today and Yu need to consider Baseball America's top ten, released today. The top ten isn't very surprising, except for Asher Wojciechowski who sneaks in at number ten.

BA's full top ten, with Batters Box equivalent noted beside it, are:

1. Travis d'Arnaud (1)

2. Anthony Gose (4)

3. Jake Marisnick (2)

4. Daniel Norris (8)

5. Justin Nicolino (7)

6. Aaron Sanchez (13)

7. Noah Syndergaard (5)

8. Deck McGuire (10)

9. Drew Hutchison (3)

10. Asher Wojciechowski (22)

We all know that BA values tools so seeing Gose at number 2 is not a surprise. Similarly BA values the recent draft so Norris at number 4 is expected. Drew Hutchison ranked more lowly than last years draftees, mainly becuase his ceiling is less than Nicolino, etc. Hutchison, on the other hand, is already in AA and is more likely to reach the major leagues.

Other than Wojciechowki, BA still loves Aaron Sanchez who didn't have as good a season as Syndergaard or Nicolino but is still right with them in BA's opinion.

Batters Box had Nestor Molina, Chris Hawkins and Adeiny Hechavarria in our top ten.

Some comments:

D'Arnaud is better offensively and defensively than Arencibia

Sanchez improved his command after his promotion to Vancouver.

The Wojciechowski ranking isn't supported by any specific scouting remarks

In general the detailed scouting reports provide little that hasn't been reported here. I was expecting comments from scouts or other managers, or even Blue Jay field personnel but the write-ups are very generic this year.

BA notes who else they like from the 2011 draft:

The Blue Jays had eight choices in the top three rounds last June, and hauled in their best current pitching prospect (Daniel Norris), three more quality arms (Kevin Comer, Joe Musgrove, John Stilson) and a pair of intriguing bats (Dwight Smith Jr., Jacob Anderson). They also gave sandwich-round money to a couple of later-round position players, second baseman Christian Lopes and third baseman Matt Dean.

From the chat:

Nestor Molina would have been outside the top ten.

Reports are good on Hechavarria's bat but he needs to see it before he will rank him higher.

AJ Jimenez just missed the top ten.

Says Hutchison's command has got him into the top ten but he still needs to improve his "stuff" to be a successful major league starter.

Chris Hawkins is in the 20-30 range.

Jays system is top 5, but probably not the top system due to a lack of premium prospects. The Jays have great depth but not top, top prospects.

Cardona would rate in the middle of the top 30.

BA hears that the Jays are not sold on Griffin Murphy as a starter.

Chad Jenkins could be a big league innings eater.

Posted by Gerry on Monday, December 19 2011 @ 12:38 PM EST.

Minor League Prospects - Baseball America's Top Ten | 40 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

85bluejay - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 01:30 PM EST (#249205) #

What stands out is that the top 10 is made up entirely of players acquired since AA became GM only 2 years ago, guys I can get excited about because of upside potential and the quality of guys who are not on the list - Next year this top 10 should be even more impressive as the 2010/2011 selections get more playing time, not to mention the high upside IFA.

I would be very reluctant to give up any of the top 7 guys unless a really good upside talent is coming back - those are the type of prospects you need to compete in the AL east - I would not give up any of the top 7 in a deal for Gio - has to a Pineda/Latos/Stanton type.

uglyone - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 01:33 PM EST (#249206) #

I agree with the current ranking of Gose over Marisnick. Despite Jake's big year, Gose was two levels up at the same age and performing quite well. But it's very close.

As for the pitching prospects, I think it's a total crapshoot. You could literally rank any of those top-6 pitching prospects in any order and nobody could really complain, IMO.

Thomas - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 01:45 PM EST (#249210) #

Two years ago the system's top prospect was Chad Jenkins.

He's still in the system and, considering his scouting reports, he hasn't under-performed.

Ducey - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 01:57 PM EST (#249213) #

What stands out is that the top 10 is made up entirely of players acquired since AA became GM only 2 years ago

Close. Marisnick was a JP draftee in the 3rd round of 2009.

85bluejay - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 02:00 PM EST (#249214) #

My apologies to JP as I think both Marnisick & hutchinson were part of the 2009 draft -

John Northey - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 02:18 PM EST (#249217) #

Always an interesting listing. To see some old BA lists go to http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2007/26983.html as it lists their top 100 from 1990 to 2007.

In 1990 the top 10 for MLB was...
1. Steve Avery, lhp, Braves
2. Ben McDonald, rhp, Orioles
3. John Olerud, 1b/lhp, Blue Jays
4. Juan Gonzalez, of, Rangers
5. Sandy Alomar Jr., c, Indians
6. Kiki Jones, rhp, Dodgers
7. Todd Zeile, c, Cardinals
8. Eric Anthony, of, Astros
9. Greg Vaughn, of, Brewers
10. Jose Offerman, ss, Dodgers

Other notables from back then...
12. Delino DeShields, 2b, Expos
17. Marquis Grissom, of, Expos
35. Mel Rojas, rhp, Expos
42. Larry Walker, of, Expos
49. Glenallen Hill, of, Blue Jays
51. Alex Sanchez, rhp, Blue Jays
62. Wilfredo Cordero, ss, Expos
69. Howard Farmer, rhp, Expos
75. Derek Bell, of, Blue Jays
76. Maurice Vaughn, 1b, Red Sox
77. Bernie Williams, of, Yankees
100. Reid Cornelius, Expos

Boy the Expos were seen to have a great system back then - 7 in the top 100 (26 teams then) The Jays had 4, 1 near HOF (Olerud), 2 who had moments (Hill, Bell) and 1 flop (Sanchez). Found it interesting that Derek Bell was seen as just a bit better than Mo Vaughn and Bernie Williams.

See this as a reminder that, no matter how good your system is there will be flops.

Mike D - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 02:29 PM EST (#249220) #

I have literally never heard of Kiki Jones. Mind you, I had no internet access in 1990.

Adrock - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 02:37 PM EST (#249221) #

Obviously, sir, you did not collect Score baseball cards in 1991.

For whatever reason, Kiki Jones was one of my favourites from that era, along with Ricky Jordan and Tom Gordon.

One out of three ain't bad...

Jonny German - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 02:39 PM EST (#249222) #

Kiki Jones is a nice example of the downside of the BA approach - kid had pitched 60 professional innings as a 19-year-old in Rookie ball when they declared him to be the sixth-best prospect in all of baseball. It appears that he got hurt in 1990. For his career he only pitched 14 innings above A ball.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=jones-004kei

On a related note, Daniel Norris as the current best prospect in the Jays system seems to me a huge gamble.

Jonny German - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 02:41 PM EST (#249224) #

That should read "best pitching prospect", of course.

92-93 - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 02:59 PM EST (#249227) #

I very much agree with the concept of putting the Jays top offensive prospects before any of the arms. I understand why prospect rankings combine pitchers & hitters but I think ultimately a site like BB is best served with 2 different rankings for arms & bats. I would have absolutely no idea how to choose between Justin Nicolino and Chris Hawkins, for example.

pubster - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 03:26 PM EST (#249234) #

I also think seperating pitchers and position players would be a good idea.

Just out of curiousity, who would you guys rather have in your organization right now? A guy like McGuire/Hutchinson, or somebody like Drabek?

John Northey - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 03:45 PM EST (#249236) #

Hard to say ... stuff or results ... generally I'd go with stuff due to events like Roy Halladay and Rickey Romero where the results didn't appear to be there but the stuff sure was.

As they say, you can't teach natural talent.

Geoff - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 04:41 PM EST (#249245) #

As they say, you can't teach natural talent.

Rubbish, I say. You can teach anyone who wants to learn. Those naturally talented know-it-alls should open their minds.

Roy Halladay was finally broken, by Mel Queen.

Now, you probably meant that you can't teach those who are hopelessly ungifted to be great. That seems to define the fate of who is destined to succeed or not. The guy who throws really hard with movement is destined to succeed? There are guys who didn't have that who succeeded. They used other tools. There can be an infinite number of possible abilities a player can have to succeed, many of which any one scout may be clueless about.

And what are the abilities or talents that fall under the category of "not natural"? I wish I understood what distinguishes natural talent from other forms of talent. Are they talents that didn't develop by coaching? If you show a player how to throw a cut fastball, and he throws the best cut fastball you've ever seen, is he a natural or did he acquire a non-natural talent? Same if you teach a player a better method to steal bases, or pick off runners, or hit doubles than the practice he had been using.

Mike Green - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 04:52 PM EST (#249246) #

The best player on BA's 1990 list, when all was said and done, was #42- Larry Walker. One never knows.

When I attempt to evaluate pitchers, I look at hard tools and skills (stuff, control, and the lesser ones such as fielding ability), soft skills (command and composure) and performance. There is no one thing that is of predominant importance. For instance, I would not think highly of a pitcher who had very good stuff and very poor control and so-so performance. Nor would I think highly of a pitcher with totally mundane stuff, good control and excellent performance.

Richard S.S. - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 05:03 PM EST (#249251) #

Compare two equal pitching prospects, a LHP will always be ranked higher. LHP of any competence, even the slightest, will have long careers. For Daniel Norris to be our Top Pitching Prospect is not a surprise to me. I am glad the signing deadline is now mid-July (13th in 2012).

Spifficus - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 05:04 PM EST (#249252) #

Rubbish, I say. You can teach anyone who wants to learn.

I'm sure Shawn Marcum would love to learn how to make his fastball tick up to 97, but I consider that rather unlikely.

John Northey - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 05:04 PM EST (#249253) #

Another interesting name missing in 1990 was David Justice who would win rookie of the year for the NL the following season after a September call-up in 1989 (Sept call-ups do not disqualify guys - checked Vernon Wells who made the list 4 times just to be sure).

The #1 overalls are interesting too. These should have a higher success rate than #1 draft picks as these guys (normally) have had some time in the minors to 'weed out' some of them.

You get...
Steve Avery, lhp, Braves, Todd Van Poppel, rhp, Athletics, Brien Taylor, lhp, Yankees, Chipper Jones, ss, Braves, Cliff Floyd, 1b, Expos, Alex Rodriguez, ss, Mariners, Andruw Jones, of, Braves (twice), Ben Grieve, of, Athletics, J.D. Drew, of, Cardinals, Rick Ankiel, lhp, Cardinals, Josh Hamilton, of, Devil Rays, Josh Beckett, rhp, Marlins, Mark Teixeira, 3b, Rangers, Joe Mauer c, Twins (twice), Delmon Young, of, Devil Rays, and (to match the big threads) Daisuke Matsuzaka, rhp, Red Sox.

ComebyDeanChance - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 06:39 PM EST (#249268) #

What's nice to see is that the top two have at least been to AA. It wasn't long ago that the Jays 'top' prospects were the ones most recently drafted and thus untested.

I'd put Syndergaard where Marisnick is (#3) and drop Marisnick down to the last third. Otherwise, looks about right and an improving list.

Mike Green - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 08:43 PM EST (#249292) #

I don't know how I would compare Syndergaard with Marisnick, but I do know that I would rank Syndergaard ahead of Sanchez without much thought. The only way to have Sanchez ahead of Syndergaard is to attach very little weight to control issues, and to treat stuff as the only important thing (not that Syndergaard's stuff is a problem). That seems to me to be a silly position.

Spifficus - Monday, December 19 2011 @ 10:09 PM EST (#249313) #

At that level, the how is far more important than the what. If scouts see reasons to not be as concerned about the control (such as finding a rhythim with mechanical tweaks that eventually came together, or the struggles were with, say, a changeup, but it was developing as expected), then that'll mitigate the numbers. Pitch projection and progression with the pitches will count for a lot, and so on. Not sure what the factors here were, but I wouldn't call it silly out of hand.

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 08:48 AM EST (#249383) #

OK, silly is a poor choice of words. It reflects poor analysis. For developmental purposes, scouts believe (with some justification) that control issues at lower levels can be addressed. That is true. It may be that Sanchez has a slightly higher upside than Syndergaard (if absolutely everything goes right for him). However, Syndergaard has a much greater chance of ever pitching in the major leagues and a much greater chance of being a very fine major league starter. What this kind of ranking reflects is merely the hopes and dreams of scouts.

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 09:29 AM EST (#249391) #

I don't think there's much to choose between Norris, Sanchez, Nicolino and Syndergaard. I'd put Nicolino and Syndergaard a bit before Norris and Sanchez, but I wouldn't want to put too much stock in a short season of results. Scouting is still the most important evaluation tool for teenagers. And they're all pretty similar from that perspective.

PeteMoss - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 09:59 AM EST (#249397) #

This is an interesting article on Grantland.com, arguing that prospects are now overrated and trading them is the new market inefficiency (cites the recent Jays/Sox trade as an example)

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7370324/the-mlb-prospect-bubble

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:02 AM EST (#249398) #

Sanchez has walked 43 in 79 innings over two years. He has a control issue. It might be fixable, but it is a significant problem.

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:16 AM EST (#249401) #

79 innings is a very small sample size. That's my point. He's 19. Syndergaard and Nicolino get a small advantage due to this small sample of results.

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:28 AM EST (#249405) #

That's where we differ. 43 walks for a pitcher in 79 innings does not reflect a sample size issue (as 10 homers or 62 strikeouts or an ERA of 5.36 might). A pitcher does not walk batters at that rate for that many innings by dint of bad luck. It is a certifiable problem, and my understanding is that the scouts agree that it is. The scouts remain confident that the problem can be fixed, but the ranking confuses developmental confidence with cold-hearted analysis.

It's a similar thing to Gose/Marisnick, but in that case, Gose has been working through his issues at a much higher developmental level than Marisnick, so the comparative ranking is much more difficult.

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:36 AM EST (#249413) #

I guess the scouts remain just about as confident in the control problems being fixed as they do about Syndergaard developing secondary pitches...resulting in a similar ranking from a scouting perspective, which I would weight slightly to Syndergaard based on a results in rookie ball.

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:03 AM EST (#249423) #

In BB's top 10, Syndergaard is described as having an above-average curve and a change-up that was (according to Jim Callis) the best of the 2010 draftees, in addition to the high nineties-low 100s fastball. Maybe that description of Syndergaard's secondary stuff is far off. I don't know. What I do know is that Sanchez has been described as having a control problem and the numbers bear that out. And usually, the big no. on the gun from Syndergaard impresses the scouting-first crowd.

Syndergaard has been throwing mostly fastballs, which is a good thing in light of his age. The club has probably had him working more on the change than on the curve because of his age. That too is a good thing.

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:30 AM EST (#249435) #

Well something doesn't mesh then. Because a 19 year old, 6'7" hoss from Texas with a "plus-plus" fastball, excellent fastball command, plus curve and the best changeup in his level would be the best prospect in baseball.

(BA was saying the fastball was plus, and maybe better than that.)

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:31 AM EST (#249437) #

(Sorry - "above-average" curve and best change-up in his draft class.)

ayjackson - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:36 AM EST (#249440) #

From BA:

He uses his height to get good downhill plane on his fastball and it rides in on righthanders, consistently inducing weak contact. He has a power curveball with nice shape and plus potential, but he tends to overthrow it. His changeup sits in the mid-80s with sink and has good separation in velocity from his heater.

That's Syndergaard. I'm not arguing that Sanchez earned a higher ranking (again, I'd have Syndergaard higher), just that results for 18-19 year-olds shouldn't be over-weighted. The BA writer seems to imply that Sanchez has better present stuff, while both of the pitchers have very projectable stuff.

Lugnut Fan - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 03:45 PM EST (#249491) #

Hi Mike,

I had a chance to see Syndergaard throw only once mind you and I had a chance to talk to him once. What I will say is this. His fastball is explosive. He hit 104 on the Lansing gun when I saw him and consistently hit 100. That means that in reality he was throwing between 95 and 98. He did not throw very many secondary pitches at all. His change up looked very good and sat about 85 if my memory serves me correctly. He only threw two curveballs that I remember. He had awesome break on one, but unfortunatlely, he only threw it 50 feet or so. He mentioned the one time I talked to him that he was working on his arm slot and release point with the curve ball as he is kind of inconsistent. He told me the curveball is rather new for him because as you would expect from a kid with an arm like that, he didn't need it for success in high school. He is working on his release point and arm angle with the curve ball this offseason and we will see how that translates here in the spring.

Mylegacy - Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:41 PM EST (#249544) #

On the question of "stuff' vs "results." The younger they are the less "results" mean - for instance take Henderson Alvarez - his early results were pathetic - I remember after one early year a Jay's "official" having to say (something) like "despite his results we still think he could be special."

"Results" really only matter after a guy is making the most of his tools - then - can he get the job done. Til his tools are totally formed - results mean almost nothing.

bpoz - Wednesday, December 21 2011 @ 09:46 AM EST (#249562) #

Thanks Lugnut Fan & Mylegacy on the prospect tidbits.

So -5 mph on the Lansing gun.

Mylegacy, well said on the stuff vs results. Morrow & Cecil would be excellent test subjects on this philosophy.

I have been meaning to mention that IMO Jenkins is a pitcher that we have not yet seen in his best form. I start by asking "how smart is he?". Based on his interview & the Pete Walker interview, I got the impression that he is a thinker ie in A ball those hackers can hurt you, Walker...he has to learn to expand the strike zone. So if he can throw that sinker which is supposed to be outstanding, as well as a mixture of 3-4 more pitches that he is perfecting, then once the learning process is complete then we will see better results. He also has the size to be a durable pitcher.

melondough - Thursday, December 22 2011 @ 12:08 AM EST (#249626) #

Found this Jays prospect summary very informative, specifically the write up summary shown after the rankings. After reading it I can't help but dream of one pitching stud coming up after another. Not to mention 3 postion players that have a chance of being elite level talents (you know who they are). I would really prefer if AA did not move too many of the top 10 from the linked list below in trades unless its for elite level player (not Gonzalez but maybe Prado+Jurgins). Free agency is my hope for this team to make themselves better for now.

http://www.bullpenbanter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=510:toronto-blue-jays-2012-top-15-prospects&catid=18:articles&Itemid=11

melondough - Thursday, December 29 2011 @ 01:28 PM EST (#249860) #

Oops I guess I should have posted my last post here....

Today John Sickels released the White Sox Top 10 Prospects. Ranked #1 was Nestor Molina who he ranked as a B+. In his words...

"Acquired from the Blue Jays for Sergio Santos, and immediately became Chicago's first or second-best prospect. I think he can remain a starter."

So far Sickels has released 23 team prospect reports. The seven remaining are Athletics, Indians, Yankees, Cubs, Giants, Reds, & Rockies.

Some of my observations so far are shown below (I have adjusted teams for the Nestor Molina, Cahil, Latos, and Gio Gonzalez deals).

- There are 8 "A" ranked prospects who are Profar(Tex), Trout(Angles), Machado(Orioles), Miiler(Cardinals), Teheren(Braves), Bauer(Dbacks), Cole(Pirates), & Harper (Nats)

- There are 11 "A-" ranked prospects who are Starling/Myers(both Royals), Walker/Hultzen(both Mariners), Bundy(Orioles), Turner (Tigers), Parker (A's), Skaggs/Bradley(both Dbacks), Rendon (Nats),& Tallion(Pirates)

- There are 41+ "B+" ranked prospects with the Jays leading the way with 7(excluding Nestor Molina), followed by the Padres with 6(still need to add the prospects they received from the Reds once Sickels releases the Reds list), Cardinals with 4, and Braves with 3. No other team has more than 2 so far

- So far only 5 of the 23 teams have all of their listed prospects ranked as "C+" or higher. This means the rest of the prospects that were not highlighted individually in the Sickels ranking may also be C+ ranked. These five teams are the Jays, Red Sox, Rays, Rangers, & Padres

I gave each prospect a score as follows (like a school grading system):

A: 0.85

A-: 0.82

B+: 0.75

B-: 0.72

C+: 0.68

C: 0.65

Using this formula I rank the top 5 systems (from the 23 listed so far) as follows:

1) San Diego Padres (after the Latos deal)

2) Toronto Blue Jays

3) St. Louis Cardinals

4) Atlanta Braves

5) Texas Rangers

6) K.C Royals

7) Boston Red Sox

8 ) Arizona Diamondbacks

9) Seattle Mariners

10) Tampa Bay Rays

The grading scores I used may be a bit simplistic but it still should give a pretty good idea of each team�s prospect ranking.

hypobole - Thursday, December 29 2011 @ 03:34 PM EST (#249867) #

melondough, I don't think you can grade prospects the way you did. An A prospect is probably worth 10 C prospects. You graded them incrementally, should be exponentially. No?

bpoz - Friday, December 30 2011 @ 01:58 PM EST (#249893) #

A,B & C prospect rankings are interesting.

I joined Batter's Box April 2010, and have enjoyed it. But I don't know how to navigate the archives.

Alex Rios will be 31 years old in Feb 2012. I missed everything about him.
I am guessing he was an A. 1st round pick, moved up the system well, went to the All Star game & did well. So signing him long term made sense.

I had high hopes for him. I missed the vote if there was one on trading him for Tim L. I would have voted no. I also believed that he was gliding gracefully rather than not running hard.

He & A Hill declined. The 2012 team has many position players with that high upside, IMO even after a great year or 2 a team does not seem to be safe from this type of disappointment.

Minor League Prospects - Baseball America's Top Ten | 40 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.