My Top 30 Prospects For 2011

by mcrose on Jan 24, 2011 10:17 PM EST

It's early in the new year, the season for top prospect lists as we wait for pitchers and catchers to report. Tony Lastoria has started his top 50, and while I certainly appreciate his going that deep, I'll limit mine to a more manageable top 30. I think this is a FanPost and not a Shot. Here it is:

Top 30

1 - Alex White (best starting pitcher prospect, great first year)
2 - Lonnie Chisenhall (on track for 2012)
3 - Jason Kipnis ("I'm lovin second base!")
4 - Drew Pomeranz (pretty much where White was last year)
5 - Jason Knapp (highest ceiling starting pitcher, needs innings to prove it)
6 - Nick Weglarz (perennial)
7 - Joe Gardner (Masterson who gets lefties out)
8 - Levon Washington (pure potential, did great in limited AB's)
9 - Chun-Hsiu Chen (breakout year at catcher)
10 - Giovanny Urshela (great glove, carried the MV team at 18)

11 - Nick Hagadone (wanna put him lower, destined for the pen)
12 - Tony Wolters (consensus great pick and surprise sign)
13 - Scott Barnes (best lefty starter)
14 - Giovanni Soto (great numbers, good trade)
15 - Matt Packer (the biggest surprise, 2cnd in era in all minors)
16 - TJ House (still solid and a level ahead of his age)
17 - Hector Rondon (injured/recovering former top tens coming up)
18 - Kelvin de la Cruz (natch)
19 - Alexander Perez (my fave)
20 - Bryce Stowell (highest ceiling reliever)

21 - Felix Sterling (biggest reach on the list, but 17 yrs old)
22 - Rob Bryson (biggest payoff for CC?)
23 - Austin Adams (true sleeper, great arm)
24 - Corey Burns (Doug Jones anyone? chk his #'s)
25 - Josh Judy (pass for last year, getting his nasty back)
26 - Vinnie Pestano (again, #'s. Good MLB short stint)
27 - Zach Putnam (like Judy, nasty when healthy)
28 - Paulo Espino (he keeps performing in every role)
29 - Jared Goedert (yeah, well. AAA home runs count)
30 - Jess Todd (Chris Perez Lite)

Back end of the list is heavy on relievers, which is perhaps the biggest mlb depth in the system, but hey, they don't even sit in the dugout. Left off Kyle Blair, #4 pick last year who many scouts rated highly, but I haven't seen or read anything about him after the draft.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Abreu should be on here somewhere

by stuart dean on Jan 25, 2011 7:43 AM EST reply actions

Last year Abreu had 130 Ks and just 20 BBs in 435 plate appearances (29.9% and 4.6%). Until those numbers improve he doesn’t need to be on any list.

by APV on Jan 25, 2011 9:12 AM EST up reply actions

He was in the middle of my top 30 last year, but he had a truly horrible 2010. He’s got the Cerrano curse – until he learns to hit a Carolina League curveball, he won’t be on anyone’s depth chart.

If something does click, he could climb quickly, but even his power disappeared last year, and that was what made him a prospect.

by mcrose on Jan 25, 2011 9:50 AM EST up reply actions

I sit corrected

by stuart dean on Jan 25, 2011 12:39 PM EST up reply actions

I think Bryson should be around 11. He’s ready to contribute and a lote more valuable than a guy like, say, Packer.

Packer is the new Huff, I fear. If there’s so little interest from scouts, with those kind of numbers, then, to coin a dumb phrase, where there’s no smoke, there’s no fire.

by afh4 on Jan 25, 2011 5:55 PM EST reply actions

Yeah, Bryson could very well jump over the course of the year, but I pegged him that low because 1, I have a hard time putting any relievers that high that haven’t shown dominance at the upper levels (he has only 20 AA innings), and 2, he’s part of the recovery cohort, like Judy, Putnam, De La that were really just feeling their way back to form much of last year.

Packer showed something when he jumped from low-A to Akron and held his own, in his first full pro year. Not sure its fair to compare him to Huff in terms of scouting reports – Huff was a well scouted #1 pick, Packer an unknown 32nd rounder. Do I expect him to repeat or even improve in 2011? Not really – but it would be less of a surprise than his performance in 2010.

by mcrose on Jan 25, 2011 8:07 PM EST up reply actions

Scouts had a lot of chances to see Packer last year and yet nobody seems to be on him. I’m just saying, that’s not a good sign for a LHP who doesn’t get strikeouts in bunches.

by afh4 on Jan 25, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions

Point taken, but I say ride it till it fails. Maybe Packer will take the slight as a challenge. There is no disputing how fantastic his performance was last year.

by APV on Jan 25, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions

A little Packer convo from the Tribe Top 10 chat at BA. Moderator was asked about Packer’s ceiling:

Ben Badler: Probably a 4/5 starter who could get a crack at the rotation late next year or 2012, but he’s surprised so many scouts to this point that I wouldn’t want to cap his ceiling. He’s athletic, has great control, keep the ball on the ground and his stuff is probably better than most people think. He’ll sit 88-91 with heavy sink, touch a tick or two higher and has a 50-to-60 grade changeup. His breaking stuff is a little short but he could be a steal for the Indians.

by mcrose on Jan 25, 2011 9:01 PM EST up reply actions

On Packer, do scouts legitimately not like him, or just a lack of guys positive reports? He spent most of the year as a 22 year old in low A, with only 5 starts in AA. I would think even scouts need to see more of him at the upper levels before they can make a judgement on him.

by 7foot3 on Jan 25, 2011 9:03 PM EST up reply actions

In addition to mcrose’s comment above, here is what Kevin Goldstein said in response to a question from me on his top 11 list:

I like Packer, but his best qualities are a changeup and the ability to throw strikes. I just think he’ll have a very hard time putting up his kind of numbers at the upper levels.

by APV on Jan 25, 2011 9:05 PM EST up reply actions

I’ll also add, regardless of what scouts see, Packer’s numbers suggest he’ll be an above-average GB-guy at the big league level (+50%). As a lefty with good control, that might be enough to stick in the back end of the rotation. The question would seem to be how effectively he can get a few swings and misses with his other stuff.

by APV on Jan 25, 2011 9:07 PM EST up reply actions

More likely, enough to get him 10-15 cups of coffee as a big-league reliever. But hey, we can dream.

by Jay on Jan 26, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions

People can surprise sometimes. Herrmann managed to log 44+ innings last year when his only real ability seems to be an ability to throw a straight fastball for a strike. Although he also unexpectedly started cranking it up to 95mph when he got the big league level.

by APV on Jan 26, 2011 11:01 AM EST up reply actions

Now there’s a guy that did not show on any lists! Altho to be fair, he started hitting mid-90’s at AAA as soon as was converted to reliever. That’s why he got the call.

by mcrose on Jan 26, 2011 9:38 PM EST up reply actions

Not trying to be a jerk, but I have trouble figuring out how his numbers can suggest anything independent of the scouting. I’ll be happy to eat crow if there’s a bunch of guys that the numbers were right on with scouting reports this dull but my recollection is that most the time when I see a backend projection out of these kind of number’s, or a guy who’s stuff is described as so pedestrian, I’m hearing about a guy that’s going to need a lot of luck in the majors. Huff’s the poster boy for this, obviously,

I mean, he might stick as a 4/5? And his stuff doesn’t really fit in a bullpen? I have trouble seeing much value there.

by afh4 on Jan 26, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions

Off the top of my head, Fausto comes to mind. He got some attention following his 2003 season in LC (#76 in BA, B grade by Sickels), but didn’t get much coverage as he advanced through the system after that (no top 100 BA rankings, C+/C+ from Sickels). He was viewed at the lower levels as a control specialist with poor swing and miss abilities – his breakout 2003 featured a 5.0 K/9, but a 0.8 BB/9.

by APV on Jan 26, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, but Fausto throws hard.

And, in the pre-2005 BA list, Fausto was top 10 in the system, a system at least as good as today’s. He was also top 10 in the pre-2006 list. Packer doesn’t appear to even be in top 20, maybe not top 30.

I just don’t think it’s comparable. Scouts liked Carmona early, plus he’s an int’l signing, plus he’s always (to my knowledge) thrown hard. Just ever being in a top 100 says his stuff was respected in ways that Packer’s is not, I’d think.

by afh4 on Jan 26, 2011 12:58 PM EST up reply actions

I agree … Fausto is a freak and always was. Pure stuff is a real factor.

by Jay on Jan 26, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions

Just looked at Sickel’s 2011 list:

21) Matt Packer, LHP, Grade C+: Could rank a lot higher, had a great year.

link to list

Has him 2 slots higher than Bryson, amid a slew of C+ prospects.

by mcrose on Jan 26, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions

I realize I’m coming off like a jerk who won’t consider other viewpoints; I’m just trying to offer the contrarian viewpoint. That said, my understanding is that Sickel is not well-respected within the scouting industry at this point.

by afh4 on Jan 26, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t think Sickels actually ever sees most of these guys pitch…which can’t help his reputation.

I also don’t think you are coming off as a jerk at all. For all the reasons you mention, had I produced some kind of an ordinal or tiered ranking after my prospect series, Packer would not have been at or even near the top, despite posting what was probably the most impressive line this season by an Indians starting pitcher. But I also think things can play out in ways that are surprising. First, I think GB-pitchers tend to get undervalued by scouts, despite evidence that GB-rates translate pretty well from the minors to majors, and groundballs are a pretty good thing to get as a major league pitcher. And second, let it ride until it fails. It is hard to expect a pitcher to try to do things better when he is already getting great results. As his fastball becomes a liability, let’s see if he can figure out how, through pitch-sequencing, deception, or added movement/velocity, to make it better.

by APV on Jan 26, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions

And second, let it ride until it fails.

We’re off different minds about this. I think being able to determine if a player isn’t very valuable, even when his stat line might say otherwise, A) insulates me from the wasted time and frustration of following and being disappointed, B) helps me gain a clearer picture of what the Indians future might be.

Of course, anything can happen with a player. See Cliff Lee. But, for the most part, I’m just as well off forgetting Matt Packer exists as I am thinking, “And there’s that one guy, Packer, with the low ERA-maybe he’s a piece going forward…” If I do that with Packer, I might as well do with nearly every pitcher in the minors.

Though, to be fair, I’m probably not so bearish on Packer taht I want to forget he exists.

by afh4 on Jan 26, 2011 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

I’m just as well off forgetting Matt Packer exists

You know when he racks up 22 strikeouts and just 2 walks in his first 3 starts in Akron, you are going to start live-blogging his starts

by APV on Jan 26, 2011 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

And as long as we are going for contrarian viewpoints, how about this one. All these comparisons to Huff as an example of your typical soft tossing lefty are false. Huff’s problem isn’t his stuff, which is actually comparable to many decent major league pitchers, it is his poor utilization of the tools he has. Huff needs to learn how to pitch.

by APV on Jan 26, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe Huff has become a prototype of the overachiever that scouts don’t rave about and is doomed to failure in the majors, a caricature to such an extent, that now guys like packer are being underestimated since he doesn’t have much ‘scout cred?’ Or is there really a documented history of players without scout followings always tanking in the end?

In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).

by V-Mart Shopper on Jan 26, 2011 10:59 PM EST up reply actions

The onus is on people touting a guy that no one else likes. That guy is Packer. How can he be underestimated? No one estimates him.

by afh4 on Jan 26, 2011 11:11 PM EST up reply actions

Packer is not a reaction to Huff. Packer is a reaction to hundreds of Huffs.

by Jay on Jan 27, 2011 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

Don’t sweat it. Part of my purpose and pleasure in making a list like this is to have some guys ranked higher than you might see them elsewhere, to draw attention to what they’ve done “under the radar” so to speak.

I’m not a scout, and I haven’t seen many of the guys on my list play. But I follow the minor league teams closely, and chose the list based on that, what I read, and also with an eye to putting guys on it that may not have gotten much attention, but whose actual performance leads me to put them in the same conversation as other guys who’ve gotten more attention.

For example, Urshela is not ranked with Tony Wolters in any list I know of, but at the same age, he performed very well at a level higher than pretty much any HS draftee last year. Because of that, his body type and already advanced defensive tools, I rank him higher.

As far as Packer goes, I put him at 15, solidly outside the top 10, but high enuf to draw attention to his performance.

by mcrose on Jan 26, 2011 7:16 PM EST up reply actions