We spend hours ranking the top 30 prospects in every organization for our Prospect Handbook (Haven't ordered yours yet? Why not?). Then we spend a few more hours ranking the Top 100 Prospects in the game. And because that's not enough, we spend our spare time chatting about it online.
We thought you, the Baseball America reader, might be interested in reading our ramblings. They give a little more insight into how the final list comes together. Five people put together 150 lists, and we compile the results of those and massage it to come up with our final top 100.
Four of the five people who contributed to this year's list: Will Lingo, Jim Callis, John Manuel and Josh Boyd, participated in this chat. Editor in chief Allan Simpson was the fifth voter. Please note that the screen names below have been changed to protect the innocent. So if you find someone online with these handles, it's not us.
|
WLingo:
|
so no. 1 is sometimes a tough call. but as good as bj upton is, this seemed like a slam dunk for joe mauer. any doubts about this guy?
|
|
JManuel:
|
Not from here.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
None at all, about either actually.
|
|
JCallis:
|
No doubts, but I did consider B.J. Upton for No. 1. I'm still not convinced that Mauer will have a lot of power, though I do believe he'll do just fine in that regard in a few years.
|
|
JManuel:
|
It's amazing how far Upton has come offensively since the questions about the bat before the draft.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
From a historical perspective, I've heard some question it only because high school catching, but Joe Mauer is just a different guy, a special player.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Agreed. There are always exceptions to every rule.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Josh, your stuff on him from the AFL with the power projections really opened my eyes on his offensive potential.
|
|
JManuel:
|
talking about Upton
|
|
WLingo:
|
yeah, our top five were pretty solid. the top three would have been unanimous except for me voting delmon young a couple notches down, and that was just a hedge. he sounded great this fall
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I considered Upton, as well.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I don't think we've ever been that unanimous before. Not even sure No. 1 has been unanimous.
|
|
WLingo:
|
no, even though upton obviously deserved (and got) consideration, it's hard to match what mauer offers
|
|
JBoyd:
|
And I asked several of our best inside sources and Mauer was unanimous with them as well.
|
|
JCallis:
|
And he's proven it at a slightly higher level, too.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Has a team ever had Nos. 2 and 3?
|
|
JCallis:
|
I'll look that up while we chat on.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i think so. can't come up with it off the top of my head. or at least a team has had guys near the top
|
|
JBoyd:
|
A premium catcher and premium shortstop, not bad choices. How split were scouts on Hamilton vs. Patterson a couple years ago?
|
|
WLingo:
|
that seemed like a bigger split
|
|
WLingo:
|
but jim did the legwork on that
|
|
JCallis:
|
Pretty even, actually. It was 50-50, really.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
The people I talked with seemed to give Mauer the edge because he is a catcher, as much as any reason. Upton might have a higher ceiling and I don't even know if that's a reach.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I have the results...
|
|
JCallis:
|
J.D. Drew and Rick Ankiel (Cardinals) were 1-2 in 1999, Paul Konerko and Adrian Beltre (Dodgers) were 2-3 in 1998.
|
|
JManuel:
|
damn, it happened in back-to-back years
|
|
JCallis:
|
Only other instances of a team with two guys in the top five were ugly: Alex Gonzalez and Carlos Delgado (Blue Jays) 4-5 in 1994, Ruben Rivera (ugh) and Derek Jeter (Yankees) 2-4 in 1995.
|
|
JCallis:
|
This is a family chat, John!
|
|
JManuel:
|
in my family, we talk like that
|
|
WLingo:
|
oh well, we'll hope this one works out better
|
|
JManuel:
|
they were absolutely the right choices at the time
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Did anyone ever think Alex Gonzalez had Upton type potential?
|
|
JCallis:
|
If I recall, the thought was that he'd be a great glove guy with 20-plus HR pop when that still meant something.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Well, Upton has five legitmate plus tools, maybe plus-plus with some 80s in there.
|
|
JManuel:
|
how much have Jeter-Nomar-A-Rod changed the position, though? I mean, we were projecting 25 HRs "maybe" for A-Rod back then
|
|
JCallis:
|
There aren't too many guys like those three or Tejada. They're still special. I meant that 20 HR used to be a pretty decent year.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
That's why I almost went with him over Mauer, who has 80 defense, 80 arm, 80 accuracy and probably an 80 future bat.
|
|
JManuel:
|
absolutely. I'm saying that Gonzalez was a legit guy
|
|
JManuel:
|
before those guys, he'd have been considered a success at this time, wouldn't he?
|
|
JCallis:
|
He's had a long career. Not real great with the bat, though.
|
|
JManuel:
|
true enough
|
|
WLingo:
|
how about zack greinke? he was great last year, but how good is he really gonna be?
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Well, what are everyone's thoughts on having a guy like Young at No. 3 without any regular season ABs?
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Sorry, two at a time.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I think we all like him a lot, and I do, though in the back of my mind I still wonder how many guys are really great without a dominant pitch. I'm not sure Greinke has a dominant pitch.
|
|
WLingo:
|
that's why i hedged on young, though only a bit. his bat just seems too good to wait on
|
|
WLingo:
|
i agree on the greinke point.
|
|
JManuel:
|
So do I; we like him, but the pitchers ahead of him have bigger stuff.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I'm fine with Young at No. 3. The guy should rake. He wasn't fazed at all by the AFL, where the pitching is never great but still was a lot better than he had seen.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Right, not that the AFL is a good indicator, but for a high school kid to step in there and rake is unreal.
|
|
JCallis:
|
The best-case with a Greinke type is Greg Maddux, but how many guys besides Maddux have there been like that.
|
|
WLingo:
|
right; i mean my "hedge" was to put him at no. 5. so i'm really no different
|
|
JCallis:
|
We'll mock you next year.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i think jeremy reed could be similar. will he do what he did in 2003 every year?
|
|
JCallis:
|
I say no on Jeremy Reed.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I like the guy, respect his hitting ability, but that .400 average in Double-A is going to get him overrated temporarily.
|
|
JCallis:
|
We still don't know if he's a long-term CF, if he's going to hit more than 15 HR, if he can steal bases at a productive rate.
|
|
WLingo:
|
me too. and i thought i would have him lower than anyone else and had him highest. i hate it when that happens!
|
|
JManuel:
|
His track record with the bat has been very steady, though. His offensive potential was depressed at Long Beach State.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I agree with Jim on Greinke--but Greinke is so smart on the mound and he has the arm strength to throw 95, I thought he was one of the toughest guys to rank accurately.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Masked by a big ballpark.
|
|
JCallis:
|
And I'll bet he doesn't hit .373 every year.
|
|
JManuel:
|
No, he won't. Your point is a good one, he'll be temporarily overrated.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Good bet.
|
|
JCallis:
|
One thing that gets me a little, and again, I'm nitpicking Greinke here, is that I like top pitching prospects to miss bats. And Greinke missed a good number, but not a ton.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
It's interesting how Reed when from underrated to overrated.
|
|
WLingo:
|
speaking of tough to rank, how about casey kotchman. great hitter, injuries won't stay away
|
|
JCallis:
|
But how many of those injuries are chronic, and how many were bad luck? I think most have been the latter, and I'm not real worried.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Sounds like he's lost some weight in the offseason and came to camp in top shape.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i hope you're right, but i am worried.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I'm not worried at all. Nothing stops him from hitting.
|
|
JManuel:
|
In spite of all that inactivity, which could get his swing out of whack, he's just raked everywhere. Pretty amazing.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
He's developing power, despite missing time.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
He has maybe the best plate discipline in the game and plus makeup.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
For me, the injuries only kept him out of my top 10.
|
|
JManuel:
|
A healthy Kotchman vs. Prince Fielder . . . hmmm
|
|
WLingo:
|
we know you love your angels; we have 4 in the top 33, i think
|
|
JCallis:
|
Prince doesn't have a pretty body, but he has game-changing power. I would have still put him ahead of a truly healthy Kotchman.
|
|
WLingo:
|
that brings up an interesting point of prospect rating, at least the way we do it: overrating the organizations you compile the top 10/30 for. do y'all do anything to try to avoid that?
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Prince is in pretty damn good shape and I think we have to give him credit for that.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Agreed on Prince. I think on the organizations we do personally, you just have to be cognizant of that.
|
|
JCallis:
|
It's worse, I think, when we're ranking the actual organizations.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
You don't think the difference of Kotchman's potential gold glove defense, plate discipline and pure hitting approach wins out?
|
|
WLingo:
|
that's true. with five people doing top 150 lists, if you're a little off on a guy the other votes take care of it.
|
|
JCallis:
|
If Prince hits 45-50 homers, which is asking a lot, you can have Kotchman with his 30-35 homers doing all that other stuff.
|
|
JCallis:
|
And Prince will be walking 100-plus times a year, not that Kotchman won't.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
really?
|
|
JManuel:
|
Fielder keeping his weight under control has been a pretty impressive feat. Remember the picture we had of him at age 14?
|
|
JCallis:
|
It's not like Prince is going to be hitting .250.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I agree. I think it's a good debate, and I don't think Justin Morneau is far behind.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Pretty gutsy pick for the Brewers, considering the risk with that body and lack of position.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Very gutsy, especially given Fielder's body at the time.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Josh, I think you're right on Morneau.
|
|
WLingo:
|
ok, if you couldn't have one of those guys, how about loney, stokes, gonzalez, nelson--a group that was kinda bunched a notch below that first group
|
|
JCallis:
|
One of five Canadians on the list.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Morneau is probably the worst defensive first baseman of the group, not that that matters.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I could see Loney jumping up next year. He was challenged aggressively in high Class A this year, and his wrist wasn't right.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I think I ranked Loney the lowest originally, but I think I'd rank him the highest now
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I really like Loney and Nelson out of that group.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Of the second group, you mean?
|
|
WLingo:
|
wrist problems have been a problem for several of these guys
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Stokes was obviously affected by his wrist problem but contact will always be an issue.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I'm a big Nelson fan, another bad wrist. Stokes and Gonzalez had bad wrists, too, but I worry about Stokes' plate discipline and Gonzalez' power.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
His back and wrist problems are more of a concern than Kotchman's hammy, FOR ME.
|
|
WLingo:
|
yeah, how much power do we think gonzalez is going to have. that's a big question
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Gonzalez' lack of athleticism is a concern for many scouts, he's just a slow body.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I was surprised the Brewers rushed Nelson up to Huntsville last year despite his injury.
|
|
JManuel:
|
So many Brewers on the list . . . very impressive. I like all their guys on here.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Hardy-Weeks combo kind of blows their old future--Ron Belliard-Bill Hall, or their present, Keith Ginter-Royce Clayton--out of the water
|
|
JCallis:
|
Agree on the Brewers. Even guys like Corey Hart, Ben Hendrickson, Dave Krynzel, Jorge de la Rosa and Lou Palmisano, who missed the list, are pretty impressive.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Jack Z has done pretty well for himself over there.
|
|
WLingo:
|
yeah, one of the ways to see the strength of an organization is the top 100, but another is guys you looked at for the top 150 and even beyond. the brewers, indians and twins all had a lot of guys to look at. dodgers and angels too.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Then there's the Phillies, with two guys in the Top 25 and no one else even really considered.
|
|
WLingo:
|
right. or the cardinals. hawksworth and wainwright and pray for rain
|
|
JBoyd:
|
How about the Jays?
|
|
JCallis:
|
Allan, who couldn't be with us, liked Ryan Howard some, but there's a big dropoff after him, too.
|
|
JCallis:
|
You know, I ranked the Blue Jays eighth when we ranked organizations and I can't for the life of me figure out why I ranked them that low.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Because there are seven teams better?
|
|
JManuel:
|
so much depth in Toronto as well, though their '03 draft figures into their top 30 pretty highly
|
|
WLingo:
|
i don't love their college guys
|
|
JCallis:
|
I think I'd put them in my top five if I did it again today.
|
|
JCallis:
|
That's the interesting point, that so many of their best guys were signed at high school age, starting with Alexis Rios, Dustin McGowan and Guillermo Quiroz, their three best guys.
|
|
JManuel:
|
what's not to like about Aaron Hill?
|
|
JBoyd:
|
If we just ranked orgs based on their ceiling potential, impact potential, the Jays top three would have them in the top three overall, don't you think?
|
|
JCallis:
|
Blend, blend, blend! Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells and Carlos Delgado seem to have done OK.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Or Gabe Gross, or David Bush?
|
|
JCallis:
|
I don't mind those college guys John is mentioning at all. As for Josh, the Brewers (Weeks, Fielder, Hardy) would be up there.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i don't see them as impact players.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Mets with Matsui, Kazmir, Wright.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Dodgers and Angels, too.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Yep.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I thought the Angels group of top five prospects might be the strongest, but you have to love Jenks to say that.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I think all three have a chance to be impact guys, but the irony of course is what Jim mention re: Rios, Quiroz and McGowan.
|
|
WLingo:
|
and that's a whole other chat
|
|
JBoyd:
|
(yes! i got in the first Jenkity Jenks comment)
|
|
JCallis:
|
I'm not with you on Jenks.
|
|
JManuel:
|
That Angels group is very impressive. Ervin Santana is a pretty damn good fourth guy.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Not a huge difference between Ervin Santana and an Edwin Jackson, for me.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
john, are you counting the "for me's"?
|
|
JManuel:
|
not too much of a difference stuff-wise, it would seem.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I can!
|
|
JBoyd:
|
A lot of similarities and Santana's slider is better.
|
|
WLingo:
|
how bout the opposite? on pure depth, who's the best? the indians are interesting in that they lack a lot of the high-ceiling guys past sizemore, but i love their depth
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I'm not sure that Ervin couldn't have done what Edwin did in the majors if the Angels gave him the same opportunity.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Sounds like Edwin's fastball command is slightly more advanced, though.
|
|
JCallis:
|
They're deep but they lag behind some other clubs for me because I don't see an impact guy beyond Grady Sizemore. I'll take impact guys over depth.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I think you're right John.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Hard to believe Edwin was the No. 3 starter on his high school team.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I don't know if it showed through in the way I ranked guys, but I did try to give a nudge upward to pitchers with good fastball command who also had big league stuff.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
There is a lot of value, tradeable commodities or whatever to an organization with that kind of depth, but in the long run, those impact guys are going to make the difference
|
|
JCallis:
|
Makes a lot of sense.
|
|
WLingo:
|
right. in fact, the best use of depth probably is to make good trades. i think good clubs do that.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I think what's really amazing about Cleveland is it graduated so many guys from last year's list to the majors, and they're still very deep.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Who were some of the guys you may have ranked lower because of that John?
|
|
JCallis:
|
Bobby Jenks!
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Bastard
|
|
JManuel:
|
Jenks is one, also Guthrie because he caught so much of the plate in Triple-A and didn't adjust.
|
|
WLingo:
|
here's a guy john and josh can argue about: kris honel. ranked 50+ spots apart
|
|
JCallis:
|
I don't know what to make of Guthrie, and I think I ranked him lower than everyone at No. 81.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Honel and Macay McBride (who didn't make the list) I did the same thing:
|
|
JManuel:
|
they've shown less velo than in HS, but they've learned to pitch without the velo.
|
|
JManuel:
|
if it comes back (and I guess what I have read made me think it can) they'll be that much better for it
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Good point John, and both have outstanding breaking balls.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Honel's frame would indicate that he should add velocity, too. He's five inches taller than McBride, who is a lefty. And of course, you don't have to be tall to be good.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I may have been light on them, but I think McBride ends up in the pen, where he can be really effective and I think neither is more than a No. 3 starter
|
|
JCallis:
|
And that brings up a good point, actually two.
|
|
JManuel:
|
McBride's delivery is the key to his velo; if he stays high in his delivery he's 90-93, and I think he'll be a very solid starter in Atlanta.
|
|
JCallis:
|
1. When we call someone a No. 3 starter, that doesn't mean we don't like him. A good No. 3 starter is a pretty good big leaguer.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Excellent point
|
|
JBoyd:
|
oh, man, I get so many e-mails telling me I'm a hater when i call someone a no. 3 starter
|
|
JCallis:
|
2. The Top 100 isn't 100 superstars or 100 all-stars. When you get into the 40s, we're essentially tabbing guys who most likely will have long careers but not be great.
|
|
WLingo:
|
right. jim, i know you and i have talked about this many times over the years: getting a plain ol' big leaguer is a pretty good accomplishment
|
|
JCallis:
|
Me too. Don't call someone a No. 3 starter in a chat.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
a championship no. 3 is an ace on most clubs
|
|
WLingo:
|
after you've done these lists for a few years, you start not being that excited about guys around 40 or 50. not that you think they'll fail, but you can see ways that they could
|
|
JManuel:
|
Jim, what's the big difference between McBride, Blackley and Burnett?
|
|
WLingo:
|
isn't blackley's stuff the best out of that group?
|
|
JManuel:
|
Not to be so McBride-centric, but not according to our Handbook
|
|
JManuel:
|
Blackley's done it at a higher level the best of the three, so I'd rank him the highest, but there's not a huge difference.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Blackley is more solid across the board, added velo late in the year to get up to average.
|
|
JCallis:
|
His best pitch is a changeup, as is Burnett's, and Burnett has less fastball.
|
|
JCallis:
|
McBride's slider is the best hard pitch, and he potentially should have the most velo.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Again, I like Blackley best, but McBride's 87-91, good slider, and a change that's gotten pretty good.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I like McBride, too, wouldn't surprise me if he pitches his way back on the list next year.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I think I'm going to top my Pick Up Stix 91 visits of 2003 in 2004.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
do you think we can give some insight on how exactly we come to our conclusions
|
|
WLingo:
|
ok, how bout mike hinckley? would he rank higher if he didn't pitch in the expos system?
|
|
JManuel:
|
I'd like to pick up Will's point about guys in the 40s and 50s and not getting too excited about them
|
|
WLingo:
|
ok, we can go back to that
|
|
JManuel:
|
For me (to quote Josh), the guys most interesting in the second half were 2003 draft guys.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Maybe part of it is they haven't had enough time to screw up yet, but I like a lot of those guys, like Ian Stewart.
|
|
WLingo:
|
easy to love the guys who haven't had a chance to fail yet
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I missed something...
|
|
JManuel:
|
Ryan Harvey is another one that I'm excited to see over a full season.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i said: after you've done these lists for a few years, you start not being that excited about guys around 40 or 50. not that you think they'll fail, but you can see ways that they could
|
|
JBoyd:
|
what about guys in the 40-50s?
|
|
JCallis:
|
Those guys, John, haven't had a chance to fail, but we also don't go overboard on them until they play some.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I get beyond the 50 before I get to that point
|
|
JCallis:
|
My comment was on the draft guys.
|
|
JCallis:
|
With Ryan Harvey, I'd like to see what he does in low Class A when his knee is 100 percent.
|
|
WLingo:
|
right. i think that's about where it was for me too. after that, sometimes it's hard to separate guys
|
|
JManuel:
|
Right, it's a reason to not have them in the top 50, but it's good to have them on the list.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Do you tend to go more for ceiling or safe at that point?
|
|
WLingo:
|
i mean, khalil greene vs. lastings milledge. that's a tough call. and almost not comparable
|
|
JManuel:
|
It's apples and oranges sometimes ranking them compared to, say, Kelly Shoppach, or Joel Hanrahan for example
|
|
JManuel:
|
Or No. 100 Jason Lane.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i think we're all on the same wavelength here
|
|
JCallis:
|
I always try to balance the two. I do give extra credit if a guy is young for his league, or if he's accomplished more at a higher level.
|
|
JCallis:
|
John Danks has a better chance to make a difference than Khalil Greene, but Greene is a much safer bet at this point.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I do too, I guess I really try to make a point to get guys up the list that I have a good feeling about.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
That sounds kind of obvious, though.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Down here, starting pitchers are either really young or they could be moved to the bullpen.
|
|
WLingo:
|
how about scott olsen? he had one of the widest disparities of votes on the list
|
|
JManuel:
|
Josh, obviously you're very high on Olsen, and some of us don't have quite the same high ceiling on him.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I love that group of lefties: Olsen, Hinckley and justin Jones
|
|
JCallis:
|
I can see the ceiling, but he's more risky than a lot of guys on this list.
|
|
JManuel:
|
that's a guy I guess where fastball command had me rank him lower, I want to see him do it over a whole seaosn.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Hinckley is one of the most underrated guys on the Top 100 in terms of public recognition.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Well, moreso on Olsen, I watched him 2-3 times last year, and I've seen Kazmir, Hamels, and Olsen's stuff is comparable.
|
|
JManuel:
|
But his stuff, and Hinckley's too, sounds better than Blackley and Burnett that we talked about
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I don't see how Olsen's fastball command is a problem.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Burnett gets credit for succeeding in Double-A, which is a big dividing line. But his ceiling isn't as high as Olsen's, not real close.
|
|
JManuel:
|
no, it's not close
|
|
JManuel:
|
Berardino writes that his command came around in the second half of the season. He averaged almost 4 BB/9 IP
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Yeah, throw Blackley and Burnett, and even Parra into that discussion
|
|
JManuel:
|
So maybe it's just command, not FB command, but his walk rate is what separates him from that group you compare him to
|
|
JManuel:
|
Kazmir-Hamels-Miller.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Well, his command isn't quite as good as Hamels', but I don't think it's a concern
|
|
JManuel:
|
Right, very high ceiling, could be as good as those guys, but I didn't rank him as high because that's a high walk rate.
|
|
WLingo:
|
how bout matt moses? we spent quite a bit of time talking about him in our top 100 meeting.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Olsen is definitely the rawest of that group of lefties, but there isn't any reason to think he won't improve it since he's a loose, athletic lefty with a good delivery
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Man, I'm either going to look really good or really dumb next year.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I like Matt Moses. I ranked him toward the bottom of the Top 100, didn't want to go much higher until we see him in a full season. He was a late first-round pick, and No. 81 is a nice spot for him.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I think you'll look really good. I'm not hating on Scott Olsen. I just tempered my enthusiasm.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Josh should comment on Moses.
|
|
JManuel:
|
That was an interesting decision though, comparing him to other drafted guys like Markakis, Aubrey and Milledge.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
A couple of things influenced me on Moses...
|
|
WLingo:
|
yeah, how long does draft status matter? really just the first year, i guess.
|
|
WLingo:
|
hank blalock bat!
|
|
JBoyd:
|
The Hank Blalock comparisons were big for me, both pure hitters, strong bodies, baseball rats, and outstanding makeup for Moses especially.
|
|
JManuel:
|
damn!
|
|
JManuel:
|
Taking a chance on a high school guy like Moses makes more sense because the bat will play. I'd rather take a chance on him
|
|
WLingo:
|
you sold me, i know that
|
|
JManuel:
|
rather than a guy with big tools elsewhere but questions on the bat, like Chris Lubanski, but we ranked Lubanski higher.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Ryan Harvey is the other guy that I think I should've ranked higher.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Milledge is kind of a different case, an all-around athlete who we don't know for sure he'll hit. I like our order on Aubrey, Moses, Markakis.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
And I think the reason was because Moses sort of was a late-emerging first rounder
|
|
JCallis:
|
Aubrey is similar to Moses, mostly a bat, was highly regarded and did very well right away in low Class A. Markakis was a two-way guy in junior college, but better regarded as a pitcher.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Harvey it's hard to say. He swung and missed a lot in the Arizona League, but that could have just been because of his lack of playing time because of the knee injury throughout the year. Having him at No. 65 is a pretty big
|
|
JCallis:
|
statement.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
true
|
|
WLingo:
|
toward the end of the list you also get injury questions, which we touched on earlier with some of the hitters but is a bigger question with pitchers. mike jones and francisco rosario jump to mind.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I ranked Lubanski lower than anyone (No. 97). Great tools, but he had a ton of whiffs and didn't even steal at a good rate in the Arizona League.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Matt Cain, too.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I'm almost higher on Rosario there because he's already had the Tommy John surgery, whereas Jones may still need it.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Cain could move up this list next year as fast as Olsen.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
tommy john surgery just isn't as big of a red flag as it used to be
|
|
JCallis:
|
This is obvious, but we're basically saying we really, really like those guys and are taking a chance on them.
|
|
WLingo:
|
they say no on jones, but you're right. hate to have that hanging over your head. hope jones is healthy this year
|
|
JBoyd:
|
i questioned leaving chin hui tsao as the Rockies No. 1 a couple years ago, but he came back at 100 percent.
|
|
JManuel:
|
When does Tommy John just become a preventive procedure for some clubs? I mean, it's so prevalent.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i wish tsao wasn't pitching for the rockies. speaking of switching places with edwin jackson, i bet he wishes he could
|
|
JManuel:
|
And the track rate of successful recoveries is solid and seems to keep getting better. I'm exaggerating of course, but it doesn't scare me away.
|
|
WLingo:
|
you'd almost like to send your guys to a college where they could have tj and redshirt a year
|
|
JCallis:
|
The Cardinals should endow that college.
|
|
JCallis:
|
OK, everyone confess. Who's the guy you know you rated too high but just couldn't help yourself.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Mine is Freddy Sanchez, who I think is going to be a solid hitter for a while at second base. Not an all-star, but close to it.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Anybody who really went backwards from last year?
|
|
JCallis:
|
Confess, Josh!
|
|
WLingo:
|
yeah, the guy who you knew wouldn't get on but you tried your best anyway.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I put Jenks right where he should be!
|
|
JManuel:
|
yeah!
|
|
JCallis:
|
I'll nominate Colt Griffin for Josh.
|
|
WLingo:
|
josh and i tried our best to get matt riley on...
|
|
JCallis:
|
Ryan Madson for Will.
|
|
JManuel:
|
McBride is my obvious one, but I also could put Dan Johnson in this category. I just think he'll mash.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Colt is a good one.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i don't know what that was.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i hate when you look back over your votes and say what?!?
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I was a little surprised I was the only to rank Colt in the top 150
|
|
WLingo:
|
my real one would be joe borchard. i put him at no. 100 even though i knew he had no chance
|
|
JCallis:
|
McBride is legit, and Johnson could mash. I'm looking at John's list and the first guy I don't care for much Jason Bourgeois, and he's No. 111 on John's list.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
ooof.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I just don't think Colt is ever going to put it all together. He's made a little progress, but not a ton.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Maybe Nippert for me
|
|
JCallis:
|
107 K, 97 BB for Colt in 150 IP, just not overpowering despite his raw ability.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i think joe borchard is the hitting equivalent to colt
|
|
JCallis:
|
You're right.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
It's a deep, deep projection on Colt.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
how about Ryan Wagner? discuss.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
tawk amongst yourselves
|
|
WLingo:
|
josh talked about how he had 17 more new pitches and had added velocity and got me so excited i ranked him too high.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I believe Wagner ranks fifth among 2003 draftees
|
|
JCallis:
|
I ranked him right around where he came out, at No. 46
|
|
JManuel:
|
And Josh ranked him the lowest!
|
|
WLingo:
|
i know. after that, i asked him to look for another job.
|
|
JCallis:
|
His slider is one of the best pitches in the game and he has a plus fastball. We're talking future closer here, maybe in 2004.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
lol
|
|
JManuel:
|
Josh, you used to bring up a big point here about saying he's "just" a closer
|
|
JCallis:
|
Will ranked him 16th, Josh 75th, kind of balanced out nicely.
|
|
JManuel:
|
He's not just a closer, he profiles as a championship closer
|
|
JCallis:
|
Exactly. That's why I don't have a problem where he is.
|
|
JManuel:
|
and these days, teams don't win w/out a power closer with filthy stuff.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Marlins?
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I ranked Wagner No. 1 in a bad Reds organization, just think it's interesting how a guy who was a virtual unknown heading into last spring is now a top 50 prospect
|
|
JManuel:
|
Urbina's got pretty filthy stuff
|
|
JBoyd:
|
not saying that he's not
|
|
JManuel:
|
he's just a weird guy
|
|
JCallis:
|
No, he doesn't!
|
|
JBoyd:
|
he doesn't have filthy stuff?
|
|
JBoyd:
|
and he has that pencil thin beard
|
|
JCallis:
|
No. He throws hard but straight.
|
|
JManuel:
|
if he isn't filthy now, he was very very filthy with the Expos, and he's certainly practiced at closing
|
|
JBoyd:
|
should we discuss the players we added at the end?
|
|
WLingo:
|
ok. since we're getting into bracketology mode in basketball, who were the last three in and first three out?
|
|
JManuel:
|
We killed the Reds . . . Claussen and Encarnacion
|
|
JManuel:
|
Did we end up with Bullington at No. 99?
|
|
WLingo:
|
encarnacion was interesting because he had consistent, solid support, but no one really loved him. we all just kinda liked him a little bit
|
|
JCallis:
|
97 on Bryan.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
A nice, solid starter and a too high of a risk bat in the Reds guys.
|
|
JManuel:
|
damn. . . would have been some symmetry to have had Bullington at 99 and Upton at 2. The Pirates have made some mistakes.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Their owner wanted college picks and he got Bullington over Upton and Paul Maholm over Jeff Allison.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Oof.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Who's going to jump from No. 44 into the top 10-20 next year.
|
|
WLingo:
|
hawksworth!
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Ed Creech needs to remind people he was hired to make the decisions.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Decisions on the draft should not come from the top down
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I think Lubanski will also leap up to the top 25-30 range.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Have you not read "Moneyball," John? Idiot!
|
|
JCallis:
|
I'm not as convinced on Lubanski.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Anyone think Moneyball influenced us?
|
|
WLingo:
|
not directly. but i think john's love of college players had some influence. again, though, with five people ranking it smooths things out a lot.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Yeah, not for me, either.
|
|
WLingo:
|
we still love tools. you need to perform, but you got to have tools.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Only two college players in the Top 25 (Weeks, Reed) and only 12, I think in the Top 75. I believe 13 of the last 25 were collegians.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Not that anyone out there expects Baseball America to be affected by that.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I like performance probably a little more than anyone here, but you have to have tools. Blend, blend, blend. "Moneyball" didn't affect me.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Wow, that's a statement
|
|
WLingo:
|
nor should it be. look at our lists over the years.
|
|
JCallis:
|
It's weird, on the lack of college guys, because I'd probably opt for more college guys (60-40) in a draft. But the game's brightest talents are predominantly from high school.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Based on the research I did last year, college and high school picks provide roughly they same percentage of stars.
|
|
JCallis:
|
But you can't put Gabe Gross, who I like, ahead of Casey Kotchman.
|
|
JCallis:
|
whom I like--want to sound erudite.
|
|
JManuel:
|
I don't understand, Jim, how that story, which was very thoroughly researched, didn't make a dent in all the moneyball talk
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Where's Nick Swisher?
|
|
JCallis:
|
People believe what they want to believe.
|
|
WLingo:
|
so like you say, do your scouting, do your homework, pick the guy that comes out on top. don't worry about whether he's a high school or college player
|
|
JCallis:
|
There are advantages to college players. They're a little cheaper and they get there a little quicker. But you can't ignore high school guys. Blend, blend, blend.
|
|
WLingo:
|
right. you're allowed to draft both
|
|
WLingo:
|
last i checked
|
|
JManuel:
|
Not scouting an entire segment of talent seems so absurd . . . I don't understand how that can even be advanced as a theory
|
|
JBoyd:
|
And prospects like Greg Miller blow the tradeable commodity argument out of the water.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Polished prep bats like Josh Barfield or Ian Stewart can do the same thing
|
|
JCallis:
|
The Dodgers have more tradable commodities than the A's.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
Yes, though the A's wouldn't have been able to sign seven of the best talents available where they were picking
|
|
JCallis:
|
They could have found seven better talents.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Overdrafts are just a waste of money
|
|
JBoyd:
|
for the most part.
|
|
JCallis:
|
Let's everyone, real quick, mention who they voted at No. 150. Five of us do Top 150 lists, then we merge them together and argue for a while to produce the Top 100.
|
|
JCallis:
|
I had Ryan Doumit, c, Pirates.
|
|
JManuel:
|
Brandon League, rhp, Blue Jays
|
|
JBoyd:
|
I had Bryan Bullington, rhp, Pittsburgh Uptons.
|
|
WLingo:
|
i had francisco rosario, who actually made the list.
|
|
JBoyd:
|
errrr, Pirates
|
|
JCallis:
|
Allan had Russ Adams, ss, Blue Jays.
|
|
JCallis:
|
That wasn't very exciting to run down that list.
|
|
WLingo:
|
oh well
|
|
JBoyd:
|
good try
|
|
WLingo:
|
i guess it could be interesting that three of the guys are blue jays. but not really
|
|
JManuel:
|
just a deep organization
|
|
JBoyd:
|
oh not really
|
