Keith Law/Scouts Inc. Prospects Ranking

The Red Sox have seven----7----guys on it.  Including Bucholz at no. 2.  My a$$

And, remember that at least one of those "low reward" pitchers out of college was Jeremy Guthrie, who now looks like a good pick!!

Hello JPFrost,

I too am amazed that so many analysts are ripping the Indians' farm system - I think there's more high-ceiling talent at the lower levels than there has been in the last several seasons, especially with guys like Espino, Gomez, Rondon, De La Cruz, Morris, Jones, etc.  

In fact, outside of Jared Goedert, who torched the SAL, virtually every other major contributor on that Captains' squad this past season was a projectable prospect with good potential and younger or equal to age relative to league.  That's why I agree with you in the sense that I think the system as a whole is in better shape than it was last season.

Granted, top prospects Miller, Lofgren, and Crowe all faltered for different reasons, but something that many farm system analysts and prospect watchers seem to forget, a good farm system is made up of more than 2-3 great prospects and little else behind them.  After all, 2-3 superstars alone are not going to win you a WS - if that were the case, then the Giants should have won at least one WS, right, being that Bonds was considered the greatest or one of the greatest offensive players in the game, yet he was mostly neutralized because the rest of the offense couldn't make the opposing pitching staffs pay when they walked him.  This goes to show that one or two great prospects alone is not going to make you a WS-caliber team; you need more than that to truly be a great team that can compete for a WS title.

While I wouldn't mind the Indians taking a few more chances on high-ceiling picks, I think the Indians are a little gun-shy after what happened to them in the 2001 Draft, when Denham, Dittler, Martin, and Foley were drafted.  Out of them, 3 definitely didn't make it with the Indians, and the fourth one (Martin) is running out of time and recently had TJ surgery, clouding his chances even more.  

Arguably, the Indians' recent approach in the first-round has actually netted more in terms of pitching than those four did - Sowers and even Guthrie provided more contributions to the Indians than those four have to this point (and Martin's really the only one who can even up those odds for the 4 HS '01 picks now.)

Regarding Heyward and Mills, Heyward put up great numbers at age 17 in the GCL, but he's still at least 2-3 years away, perhaps even 4 years away. and those numbers were in the GCL, in just 43 ABs, so I wouldn't anoint him a superstar yet.  Besides that, Mills is younger than most college draftees, arguably has a higher ceiling than most college draftees, and should start the year in High-A at age 21, possibly getting up here within 2-3 years.  Combine that with the fact that he may now stay at 3B, and his prospect ranking shoots up considerably.  Overall, I don't think it was a bad choice - Marte is looking more and more like a bust, there's questions about Hodges' health and ability to withstand injuries, and Goedert is getting a try-out at 2B, with fair results to this point.  Plus, he too had injury problems in 2007 (something I think some analysts didn't take enough into account when they didn't rank him in BA's Top 30 - it took Goedert a while to overcome that shoulder injury, but slugged around 1.000 in his final month at High-A if I remember correctly, plus seemed solid enough to stay at 2B - if he can stay healthy and show continued improvement at 2B, he probably could become one of the better 2B prospects in the Minors by this time next season.)  

Adding a quality prospect like Mills, who may become a solid defender at 3B, only adds to the depth of this system, which also gives the Indians more options to trade one of them (Mills, Hodges, Goedert) if they feel the right deal comes up, and while some of us might have wanted them to use that depth to trade for someone like Haren, at least it gives the Indians the option to make a deal for the future without breaking up our ML club to do it.  

Just my 2 cents - no offense.

All in all it's the end product on the field that counts, whether we drafted 'em, traded for 'em or picked 'em up as FA.  In the end it all resulted in 96 wins, a trip to the ALCS and a chance to win it all.

Hello macasson,

I'm surprised Law rated Lofgren's breaking ball so poorly - I think his breaking ball or changeup was considered to be Lofgren's best pitch from other sources I've read.  I haven't had a chance to read about Law, but I've only heard about Law for the past season or two, and from the stuff I have read, I'm not sure how much stock I put into his "rankings" at this point.  Plus, he even says

"and his breaking ball isn't going to be good enough for him to start in the majors (unless it improves, that is). "

To me, it seems Law isn't as experienced as Goldstein or Sickels in terms of evaluating prospects - I don't recall them making a comment like that about a young pitcher that implies he has little chance to improve his breaking ball.  I could see it if Lofgren was 25-YO, but he just turned 22-YO, and it was his first stint at AA.  I think it's a big assumption to presume that Lofgren can't improve his breaking ball, which is the idea I got from reading his comment, along with the implied idea that Lofgren should be written off as a starting prospect.  Again, if Lofgren was older and had been stuck in AA or AAA for 2-3 seasons, I could see making a comment like that, but for someone who just spent his first season at AA at age 21?  I think the comment is off-base in my opinion, which makes me question how knowledgeable Law is when it comes to grading prospects, especially to more established names like Sickels and Goldstein, guys I've heard about for the last 5-10 years.  

At any rate, it's still too early to give up on Lofgren as a starter, and as Lastoria mentions in his list on TheClevelandFan (I think I have the right site,) I think the expectations were a bit high for Lofgren in the sense that he was expected to duplicate or even exceed those numbers from High-A.  AA is usually the test that takes a little while to master because it's quite a jump from High-A in terms of the level of competition and the quality of the opposition you face.  Plus, Lofgren was 21-YO, which is considered young for AA, so while Lofgren's numbers weren't as good as we would have liked, it's not like he's finished as a prospect or a starting prospect - far from it in my opinion.

I do hope though that the Indians send him back to AA to start 2008 - I don't think he's ready to start regularly at AAA yet.  From some sources I've read, they seem to imply that the Indians are seriously considering promoting him to AAA; I'd rather be cautious and have him repeat AA to improve his consistency and command, as well as his ability to go deeper into ballgames on a consistent basis.  Besides, as of right now, there are several options ahead of Lofgren for the ML rotation (that could change at any moment, of course,) so it's not like Lofgren would be a ML-call-up until September in all likelihood anyway.  I don't think there's any real need to rush him, so I'd prefer they let him stay at Akron through the first half of this season, then promote him to AAA if his performance dictates it.

Gee, I remember the Manny's and Thome's - and Albert/Joey's for that matter - progression through the minors differently.

Thome was a thirteenth round pick who showed some promise - but just some - early in his rise through the minors.  But as I remember it he didn't walk much, struck out a lot, and had questionable defensive skills.  Then we injured his wrist and his hitting fell off.  There was a great deal of hand wringing about him - even after he was brought up to the big club.  I don't think anyone viewed him as a sure-fire major league starter early in his minor league career.

And Manny has always been Manny - a loopy, hitting savant free of any social skills.  The question wasn't whether he could hit big league pitching the question was: can he stay outta jail long enough to make it to the Big Show?  

And Joey/Albert was considered uncontrollable while in Colorado Springs.  He was combative with the coaches and I don't mean that he would just argue with them.  He was a physically threatening presence in the clubhouse to both his teammates and coaches.  Plus, as I recall, he slumped badly while at Colorado Springs which lead to a deterioration in his behavior leading to more doubts about his continued rise in the system.

This prospect identification and development is tricky business as recent events show.  Let's have a show of hands for all of us who saw Fausto as a sure bet to make the roster last year, let alone be one of the top five pitchers in all of baseball.  And here we're talking about a guy who had been through the system and at least got to compete against major league talent.  I was positive that Barfield would be at least adequate at second base - positive.  And we all saw how that turned out.  The list of surprises is endless.

To quote Joe Posnanski, nobody knows nothing.  

and like someone mentioned about joba - you can 'cheat' in the draft by having more money to throw at it, so you can't just lump all draft selections together and see who got the best prospects.

This certainly supports some of the comments above that a way of reducing risk is to target the more 'projectable' player, i.e. the player with less variance between his 'ceiling' and 'floor'.  The question is:  has this produced successful drafts?  As a group, we've disagreed a bit.  Jay - in a thread over the summer - argued that the drafts have been successful, producing Garko and netting Barfield, among others (add J. Lewis now).  Law and some analysts see the draft as a, shall we say, weakness of the Indians.  APV and afh4 are attempting an analysis of this (which we're looking forward to).

What's more, comments critical of this strategy re the draft, I think, have been quite open about praising the Indians' ability to acquire talent through other avenues, where the variance (or cost or ability to recruit) is more favorable.  So, yes, the full picture of the Indians' ability to acquire young/cheap talent is very positive and represents the prime reason for their current success on the field.  Still, the question that we seem to be going back-and-forth about is can their drafting strategy be improved?  Does it need to be improved?  Is it efficient?  Might they have more young/impact/core players with a different drafting strategy?

Ah well, I'm just a passive consumer.  Clearly the front office has a wonderful handle on talent acquisition, but to the (casual?) observer success in the draft seems to be at a lower level than other means.  Or maybe not.  Whatever.  Pitchers and catchers, two weeks from today.  

In all seriousness, even if we HAVE drafted badly, why should we be made to feel guilty about it? Would "good" drafts have put us over the top this past year? Puhleease. Would "good" drafts have given us a better core going into 2010? Oh wait, we're already solid. He makes claims of our model not working in the long-run, but what the heck does that even mean? Beyond 2010? 2015? Keith Law will probably be telling us he saw this coming when we sink below .500 in 2018.

The difference in drafting that seems to be such a major issue might give you a nice extra piece or two over the period of half a decade, but to make it this big of a deal with regards to our club? C'mon now Keith. Don't subscribe to the country-wide fad of trying to be the first to find major flaws in Shap's plan. If a team is struggling for success and you're looking for reasons, then yes attack their drafting all you want. But making our drafting success a federal case just strengthens our resolve. Go Tribe.

Hello kwoog,

No offense, but virtually every ML team could ask "what if?" if they had to do the draft all over again, knowing which players would turn out and which wouldn't.  That's part of the challenge of knowing which players to draft and which should be passed on.

However, going through some of those names you mentioned, I don't think many have lived up to the hype to this point.

For instance, just to name a few:

Milledge - just was traded to the Nationals; has great tools, but there's questions about his attitude and work ethic, as well as his getting into trouble for making an "offensive rap album."  In addition, I think there are questions about his power - by most draft experts I've read, I think they would have thought he'd be either a superstar or just a level or two below it by now - he's not even a solid regular to this point.

Drew - with his family history and contract demands (I think Boras was representing him if I remembered correctly,) I can see why many teams, including the Indians, would pass on him.  

Personally, I don't think he'll be as good as they are projecting offensively - I don't think he'll be a 25-30 HR guy.  He's solid enough defensively at SS, though I don't know if he's GC-caliber like Ozzie, Omar, or Yuniesky Betancourt.

Again, ask yourself, would you rather have Drew instead of Peralta now and Cabrera later?  Peralta has a better bat than Drew right now, and at best, Drew's offense MIGHT equal Peralta's one day (though I suspect Drew's offense won't be as good,) Cabrera's defense at SS, based on his defensive play at 2B in the Majors and his SS play in the Minors, could probably match Drew's right now, and could be even better than that once he starts playing over there.

Offensively, Drew probably will hit a few more HRs than Cabrera will (though I think Cabrera could hit 10-15 HRs once he becomes established,) but Cabrera might be more of a prototypical #2 hitter than Drew will likely become.  I can't blame the Indians for not drafting Drew - with the "concerns" surrounding J.D. and the failure of Tim, I don't think I would have chanced drafting Stephen either, as there were some concerns about his work ethic and the way he approached the game as well, just like his brother J.D.  That and his bonus demands helped to knock him down on the draft board, which enabled Arizona to grab him, even though they didn't pick until #15 in the first round.

Bailey - unlike what many prospect analysts I read thought, Bailey has NOT burst onto the ML scene, due to problems commanding his breaking stuff.  Regardless of how "electric" his fastball is, that alone will not allow him to be a frontline starter - a dominant reliever, maybe even a solid to dominant closer, perhaps, but not a frontline starter.  And right now, his command of his breaking stuff falls behind Hughes, Gallardo, and even Adam Miller, who I think is a more complete pitching prospect at this point.  Adam knows how to go after hitters and attack them with both power and offspeed (partly due to the fact he injured his elbow back in 2005 - he lost the velocity on his fastball, forcing him to improve the quality and his trust in his offspeed stuff.)

Also, I've heard some reports that Bailey can be a bit "stubborn" at times when it comes to attacking hitters - the Reds seem to want him to develop that offspeed stuff more, but whether it's due to not trusting his offspeed stuff or just feeling he doesn't have to use it, he keeps going back to his fastball, which is not having the same effect on ML hitters as it did on Minor League hitters.  His higher-than-ideal BB rate certainly also hinders his ace potential at the ML level as well, and so far, he has not been able to compensate for that, so personally, I don't think the Indians made a mistake by not drafting him, not to this point.

In fact, for all the concerns about Sowers to this point, he's had a longer period of success at the ML level than Bailey has to this point, and while Bailey's power stuff may enable him to perform better than Sowers someday, that's far from a given with Bailey's lack of command, high BB rate, and stubbornness to develop and trust his offspeed stuff.  Without those elements, Bailey likely won't be the frontline starter he was projected to be, and might not even remain in the rotation long-term.

Plus, Sowers was considered the "safe" pick in that early part of the 2004 Draft; all the rest had question marks, including Bailey, who was considered young and also had some questions about makeup due to the fact he made a comment along the lines of baseball being just a game and that he has other interests - something along those lines.  Combine that with the fact that they had just selected many HS pitching prospects in the 2001 Draft Denham, Dittler, Martin, Foley,) and they were progressing at a relatively slow pace (one level every two years for the most part,) and that too probably influenced the Indians to go with the consensus "safe, lower ceiling, but most likely to contribute" college draftee Sowers.

Conor Jackson - I remember at one time that I was hoping the Indians would acquire him.  However, one of his main weaknesses was lack of HR power, though he compensated with a very high BA in the Minors.  So far in the Majors, he hasn't hit .300 (though has been in the neighborhood,) and his OPS is just a bit over 800 in two seasons - not quite the production you'd expect or like out of a 1B.  I'm not sure about his defense - I've heard it's good, but at other times, I've heard it's okay, so I'm not sure what to think about that.  

Overall, he probably has turned out as expected, moreless, but ask yourself - would you prefer Jackson or Garko (the 78th pick overall in the 2003 Draft - I bet there's a few teams that regret not picking him, as he's already an upgrade over some teams' current 1B options) over at 1B?  Plus, I see some similarities between Jackson and 1B/OF prospect Jordan Brown, so overall, I can't really fault the Indians for not taking Jackson, a player they DID draft in the 31st-Rd. of the 2000 Draft, but did not sign.

Fields - he has some early Minor League troubles in terms of his K rate, and they are still a bit of a concern, as evidenced by his 35 BB/125 K in 373 ML ABs in 2007.  Plus, he just turned 25-YO, so he's not all that young - similar to Garko in some ways, though Garko has a much better handle of the strike zone.  Fields may hit for more power, but Garko can hit for the better average, and I haven't heard Fields being the defender Crede is at 3B.  Combine that with the fact that Fields was a 2-way sports star and many of those types of prospects don't seem to often make it in MLB, and I can see why the Indians passed on him.

Hughes - yes, you could say the Indians missed on him (as did 21 other ML teams, as the Yankees picked Hughes 23rd in the 1st-Rd. of the 2004 Draft,) but like I said, virtually every ML team has done that at one time or another.  There were 19 teams that passed on C.C. Sabathia in the 1998 draft as we picked him 20th - I bet those 19 teams regret doing that now, as Sabathia has become a bonafide ace.  Hughes has a chance to become one, but hasn't reached that point yet.

The point is, there's no way to know ahead of time which prospects will turn out and which ones won't.  That's part of the challenge of drafting - you take all the information you have available from your area scouts and evaluators and utilize that to make the best decisions possible.  

Another difference with the MLB Draft from the other major sports drafts, most organizations will not draft by need - they'll pick the best available player, regardless of position, even if they have a considerable amount of quality prospects playing at that position - they'll worry about dealing with that logjam later.

I'm sure the Indians and other teams look back at their past drafts and try to determine what they could have done better with those drafts so that they don't make comparable mistakes in future drafts, but the main point is, missing on certain picks happens to ALL teams, not just the Indians.  

Based on where they are right now as a ML team and the current state of the farm system (better than most analysts think in my opinion,) I don't think the Indians have done that poor of drafting compared to other ML teams - there were solid to strong reasons for drafting as they did.  Some of their wise, according to draft evaluators, picks at the time they were drafted haven't panned out as expected, due to injury, ineffectiveness, etc., but EVERY ML team deals with that, as much or moreso than the Indians have, so personally, I don't think their drafting has been a "pretty sizable failure," no offense.

Just my 2 cents.  :-)

For each of those guys, how many teams in total took someone who (so far) has been less valuable?  Of course you will find in most cases that the Indians were merely one of a dozen or more teams that "missed."

You can't let this bother you, just rest secure in the knowledge that Gregorio Rosario is going to be a star.