BA's Indians top 10 prospects
Interesting list -- Santana no. 1, which is somewhat expected, but Rivero, De La Cruz and Brantley cracking the top 10 is a surprise to me. Also, Chisenhall and Weglarz were higher than I expected. The biggest top 10 MIA is Hodges. After ranking 4th last year, he completely fell out of it this year, though it shouldn't be because of performance. Perhaps BA has some concerns about his ability to stay at 3rd, thus reducing his value. I guess Rondon just fell short of the top 10, but I'm sure he's in the top 15.
I was also surprised by their 2012 lineup with Peralta playing 2nd base. If he's able to do that, then I wonder if the Tribe FO will try it.
If you look at the top 10 and consider which guys are behind them, then it's obvious how deep the farm system is. We may not have the sexiest top 5 or anything, but we can compete with anyone as far as our top 15/top 20 goes.
7 months ago
JP_Frost
76 comments
0 recs |
Comments
The 2012 projected lineup omits Asdrubal Cabrera and Hector Rondon from the rotation.
by Roger Dorn on
Nov 19, 2008 11:36 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
He played CF for the GCL Tribe this year. DSL last year, I believe.
by mcrose on
Nov 19, 2008 11:46 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
apparently he’s a 19-year old LF’er in the GCL. He put up a .706 OPS there, hitting .299 with solid plate discipline (17/28 BB/K). He was in the system last year as well, but he seems to lack power — just 14 XBH in 389 AB’s.
by JP_Frost on
Nov 19, 2008 11:46 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He played CF mostly, flanked by Kevin Rucker and Bo Greenwell. Raw teenage athletes – of the three I’d peg Greenwell most likely to make the Lake County roster next year, the other two to MV.
by mcrose on
Nov 19, 2008 12:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As far as BA goes, I don’t think that’s a bad list. I’ve been putting together a list and while my order is different, I’ve got 8 of those guys in the top 10. And the two who aren’t (Chisenhall and De La Cruz), are #11 and #12 on my list. I’d add Rondon and Scott Lewis (who might not count by BA standards) into the bottom half of the top 10. My only other complaint is that they’ve got Huff too low. You can make a credible argument he’s our #1 prospect.
by APV on
Nov 19, 2008 11:52 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, but Mills 5th?
I’d kind of forgotten about Carlos Rivero. Do we start him in Akron next year?
by fleerdon on
Nov 20, 2008 12:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why not Mills fifth? We don’t have that many elite prospects, and the scouts love the guy. I think he get bonus points for being a big-leaguer’s kid, there’s an assumption that he won’t be rattled or have makeup issues — although, like Barfield, he could still just suck.
Rivero seems like a lock for Akron, but I won’t be surprised if he struggles for a year. Then again, he kind of went nuts at the plate in the second half, so maybe he’s just ready to pop.
by Jay on
Nov 20, 2008 5:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting list, Huff being so low, Hodges and Rondon being omitted… I think this is mainly due to the fact that our farm system has both depth and quality at this point, which makes a top 10 actually kind of hard to decide on. For example, I think you could easily make a top 10 that omits Chisenhall, not because of his lack of ceiling, but because there are ten other guys that could still be ranked ahead of him on projection and track record.
But I don’t think BA has ever published a top 10 for any team ever that doesn’t include their last first round pick – its kinda part of their mission statement almost. And you have to wonder what depth the analysis reaches when they put JP at 2B in ’12.
Anybody got an online subscription to BA? I’d be interested in a brief paraphrase of some of their scouting reports – particularly Chiz and De La (Soul).
by mcrose on
Nov 19, 2008 11:56 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, Jhonny at 2b seemed a bit odd.
by cclemens31 on
Nov 19, 2008 1:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i think it seems more odd than asdrubal at nowhere.
by Brick. on
Nov 19, 2008 1:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In any case it’s probably not exactly as odd.
by Logodaedalus on
Nov 19, 2008 6:05 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
has anyone here every actually considered peralta at second? this one’s new by me.
One of these days... bang, zoom, straight to the moon...
by mixmasterasia on
Nov 19, 2008 2:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Back when he and BP were splitting SS duty at Buffalo it seemed pretty obvious (to me at least)that based on physical gifts alone, the preferred setup would be BP at short, JP at 2B. If they didn’t give him a try then, I doubt they ever will.
The only reason I could come up with is that Jhonny seems to have a lot of trouble laying flat out for a ball, and that’s something a 2B is supposed to do routinely.
Of course, its s’posed to be in the bag of tricks for every infield position, but for some reason it seems the 2B guy has dirt on his chest more often than other positions.
by mcrose on
Nov 19, 2008 2:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It seems of all the defensive infield positions, 2B is the place which least fits Peralta’s skills. He’s good around the ball, has a very good arm, but limited range. At least on the left side of the field his arm strength gets used. Given the role of the 1B, 2B would seem to maximize his deficiencies in range and minimize the value of his arm strength.
by APV on
Nov 19, 2008 2:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
True. But from another perspective its also true that if you’re looking at total infield defense, you might come up with scenarios where your best defender with the most range ends up at SS.
But of all possible cases, having JP at second base four years hence is wayyyy down the long tail of the probability curve.
by mcrose on
Nov 19, 2008 4:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I had talked about it last year. I agree with APV’s comments, although I think he would be as good at 2B as he would at SS. The main thing is that it isn’t necessarily much of a net gain to swap him and Asdrubal on the diamond, especially with a ton of lefties in the rotation.
by Jay on
Nov 19, 2008 3:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chisenhall: Expected to move to third base. Will likely have the bat for it, probably not enough tools to play second.
de la Cruz: Still growing into his body, needs some mechanical adjustments, how fast he makes them will determine how fast he moves. Changeup shows promise.
In the chat, Ben Badler says both Rondon and Hodges were close to making the top 10. Hodges left out because of a likely position change and Rondon because he is wary of right-handed starters without a breaking ball.
by TonyH on
Nov 19, 2008 3:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I hope the FO doesn’t move Chisenhall off SS yet. If he can stay in the middle infield he’s a lot more valuable prospect. Unless they think he can be a very good defender at 3B, I don’t like the switch.
by APV on
Nov 19, 2008 3:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i don’t want him to move to 3b from SS because it will drive terry pluto crazy.
by Brick. on
Nov 19, 2008 3:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They tend to challenge guys to play at their most challenging position, but as we all know, if a guy isn’t a total magician at shortstop, then we all have to put up with a decade of mostly mindless babble about the “need” to shift him to the left or right.
by Jay on
Nov 19, 2008 3:52 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Omar would have made that play.
"...leading the league in most offensive categories. Including nose hairs."
by sarcasmdave on
Nov 19, 2008 3:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks! I had always thought Hodges was solid avg at third until this year – I seem to recall his being voted best defensive 3B by managers in the Carolina league at one point – but he seems to have a real problem there. Not only at Akron, he’s been a butcher in the AFL, judging by the errors this fall.
Hard to imagine him not being handed the 3B job at Columbus though…
by mcrose on
Nov 19, 2008 3:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh, he’ll get the gig in Columbus, but that’s the last time he doesn’t have to win a job the hard way.
by Jay on
Nov 20, 2008 5:14 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Position change for Hodges? From 3b to where?
by woodsmeister on
Nov 19, 2008 4:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Moved to another team, but probably not this year, unless you include him in a trade for a SP or Peralta moves to 3rd.
Of course there’s the chance we just move him over to first, but I get the feeling that LaPorta will wind up at there.
I really do think Hodges puts us in an interesting position. If he doesn’t fit into the organizations plan for the future I think you’d like to trade him now while his stock is high.
by world dictator on
Nov 19, 2008 6:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
First base. But the Indians thought that about Kouzmanoff, too.
by Jay on
Nov 20, 2008 5:14 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
they’re wrong on huff
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Nov 19, 2008 12:30 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I also have Huff higher in my own list, but no higher than 5th or 6th. I still feel that Adam Miller has more upside and could play a big role in the future.
by JP_Frost on
Nov 19, 2008 12:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
really? i mean, really?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Nov 19, 2008 4:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yes, really. This is no means a knock on Huff’s performance, but it’s easy to see that Adam Miller has more upside. Huff’s ceiling is a #2 starter at best, though #3 is more likely, while Miller has ace potential. Obviously injuries have knocked him down on this list, but I think BA has valued him just right. Cole Hamels had the same issues in the minors, but turned out to be a pretty good pitched I’d say and there’s reason to believe that Miller can still end up in the rotation. Not next year, but if he stays healthy in 09, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him as a starter in 2010.
by JP_Frost on
Nov 19, 2008 5:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have to agree here, if we are going with BA’s ceiling evaluation. Miller prior to injuries was a top 10 prospect in all of baseball based on both the numbers and the scouting perspective.
by Roger Dorn on
Nov 19, 2008 6:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But he may not always be a relief pitcher.
The other way to look at it is to compare his situation to Kerry Wood’s. Wood, like a few others we could name, ended up a reliever not because he wasn’t effective as a starter — he certainly was — but because he couldn’t stay healthy as a starter. It may be that Miller essentially is going through the same transformation, but the difference is, Miller used up exactly zero days of service time (and only one option year) before making that switch.
So maybe it’s time to cut bait on the idea of Miller being an Indians starter, ever. What’s our consolation prize? Just maybe, six or seven seasons of a reliever throwing 96 mph heat with very good movement and control, at ages 24 to 30. Sounds pretty damned good, right? Right. Just maybe.
by Jay on
Nov 21, 2008 11:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wood and Miller should discuss this similarity whilst whiling away the hours before they have to warm up during games this coming season.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Nov 22, 2008 12:06 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
rec
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Nov 22, 2008 1:46 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Didn’t the Front Office say they were moving him to the bullpen this year to limit his innings?
by world dictator on
Nov 22, 2008 11:18 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hello WD,
I think so because Miller has had several seasons now where he hasn’t pitched a high number of innings, so it’s likely they’re concerned he could injure something if he takes on a full season’s workload, especially if he is called up to the Indians and is depended upon for a playoff run.
That’s likely the reason why they decided to shift him to the bullpen for this season – the Indians need relief help NOW (especially if he has a power arm like Miller does), plus this will hopefully keep Miller healthy to the point where he can pitch over the course of a full season. If he can do that, it keeps their options open to shifting back to the rotation for 2010.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on
Nov 24, 2008 10:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Here are three numbers Huff put up this year, all of which I really like, all of which I think suggest he’s going to be a good major league pitcher:
25% K/PA
5% BB/PA
50% GB%
by APV on
Nov 19, 2008 4:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You guys should realize, the BA rankings are (a) heavily influenced by chatter within the Indians organization, and (b) heavily weighted toward high-ceiling guys. Most of the chatter around here reflects a more econometric view, valuing guys who are getting it done closer to the majors, which is the basis both of my PTM articles and of BP’s “PECOTA on the prospects” pieces, and it ultimately has influenced Kevin Goldstein’s thinking as well. As a result, the BA rankings which were once the standard and basically the only game in town have become something of an outlier in terms of how to think about prospects.
That 2012 lineup is pretty dumb, though. Lee and Peralta are not and are not likely to be under contract to the Indians in 2012, and you’ll have to pry Asdrubal from Shapiro’s cold, dead hands. I think it’s 50/50 that they literally just put the wrong name in the 2B slot.
by Jay on
Nov 19, 2008 1:32 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
given that, I think this list highlights how much talent the Indians now have in the high minors. At least 8 of these 10 guys will likely begin next year at AA or AAA
by APV on
Nov 19, 2008 1:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I remember Jim Callis saying somewhere that their methodology is largely ceiling-based. I mean, KDLC deserves his due after the year he had, but it’s hard to suggest, even at this point, that he’ll ever amount to David Huff.
by xrickx on
Nov 19, 2008 2:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh, I don’t think it’s that hard to suggest. The real difference is that David Huff is already David Huff right now, and he has a 100% chance of “ever” amounting to David Huff.
by Jay on
Nov 19, 2008 3:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the ceiling point is appropriate. But I’m not sure if their judgement of ceiling is that great. Consider our favorite gnome (Pedroia). Scouts saw him as a middling major leaguer at best. Despite my disdain for Pedroia, he has shown quite a different ceiling this year.
by oxforddave on
Nov 20, 2008 12:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Of course his ceiling is high. All ceilings seem high to a gnome.
by FredOx on
Nov 20, 2008 12:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
8 recs
I imagine, however, that there are literally thousands of guys projected to be middling major leaguers at best who were, in fact, middling major leaguers at best. As well, Pedroia’s peak could be rather shortlived, and the distance from an impact second baseman to an irritating tweener is surprisingly short.
by Jay on
Nov 20, 2008 6:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I am shocked that Hector Rondon is not higher than KDLC. Rondon is 6 months older and had a great year a level higher.
There must be some big time chatter about KDLC’s stuff.
by afh4 on
Nov 19, 2008 2:09 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
They must’ve given him Huff’s lefty bonus points as well.
by afh4 on
Nov 19, 2008 2:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
all that this discussion does is stoke my (hopefully irrational) fear that KDLC is left off the 40 man and is pounced on in the Rule 5 draft this year.
by millionairesrow on
Nov 19, 2008 3:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lastoria’s latest is that KDLC is exempt from this year’s draft since he signed in December, after the 2004 signing period. I think he’s right.
by Jay on
Nov 19, 2008 3:51 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This sounds like cause for a Marte partay
by Roger Dorn on
Nov 19, 2008 3:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs

What? Oh, wrong picture.
I just wanted to post it again.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Nov 19, 2008 4:09 PM EST
up
reply
actions
2 recs
Lonnie Chisenhall: $600,000 cheaper than Dan Denham.
by fleerdon on
Nov 19, 2008 4:29 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Jim Callis chat has a lot of good stuff, particularly in the top half. He thinks the system much improved and is high on Miller as future closer:
by mcrose on
Nov 20, 2008 8:04 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
that wasn’t bad.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on
Nov 20, 2008 2:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks for the link. Because it includes this guy:
Pete, Cincy, OH: I keep hearing the Yankkees want to sign 2 free agent pitchers. Adding Wang, Chamberlain & Hughes makes 5. If Pettite and Mussina come back, that makes 7. Kennedy would make 8. what gives?
I quit. I just quit.
by fleerdon on
Nov 20, 2008 8:18 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ve never read any of the annual prospect books. What do you guys recommend out of BP, Bill James, Hardball Times, etc.?
by cleveland teamer on
Nov 20, 2008 9:57 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t think many of them are really prospect books per se. Unless they come out with more than just their regular annuals.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Nov 20, 2008 10:18 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I was thinking the annuals had some prospect coverage. Either way, which of the annuals are most worthwhile in general, not just for prospect info?
by cleveland teamer on
Nov 20, 2008 10:35 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well I only read BP and the BJH on a regular basis but that’s more for fantasy purposes than anything. I understand the THT annual has some very worthwhile stuff in there if you enjoy analytical essays (I keep meaning to get a copy). The Bill James Handbook doesn’t mention anything about prospects, and I imagine his Fielding Bible doesn’t either. BP has a top 100 prospect list and has some blurbs on high minors guys but I wouldn’t really call it in depth. I don’t know if they have a prospect book.
The Handbook is all numbers mostly. If you enjoy occasional snark in your analysis than BP is for you.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Nov 20, 2008 10:49 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The only legit book, that I know of, completely about prospects is the BA Prospect Handbook. The others might deal with some prospects but aren’t focused on it.
John Sickels also puts out a book but, like thumper, I’ll choose to not say anything at all.
by afh4 on
Nov 20, 2008 12:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Kevin Goldstein’s stuff on BP.com is pretty good. He does a top 11 list, complete with scouting reports, for every organization. He also does a top 100 and organizational rankings. His columns are usually behind the pay wall, but I think its almost worth the subscription alone.
by ClarkM on
Nov 20, 2008 12:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree that KG’s work at BP is a better value for the money than any one prospect book. I do think the big BA handbook is worthwhile, though.
by Jay on
Nov 20, 2008 6:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs














