Indians 2012 top 15 Prospects & Discussion
Jeff Reese and I took a look at the Indians system over at Bullpen Banter. Outside of Lindor (who probably isn't getting the attention he deserves!) the picture is not a pretty one, though I'm sure you guys are aware of that. if you're interested in hearing some of our thoughts on the org. and learning about some of the younger international kids it might be worth a look. Thanks for reading - Al Skorupa
6 months ago
alskor
40 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I would actually argue it kind of is in this case.
Our top 100’s won’t be revealed until January, but Lindor will rank in my top 30-35 overall I think. Remembering that a number of teams have multiple prospects in the top 35, Lindor would be the best prospect in a decent amount of systems. He’s the real deal and over the next year you’ll be hearing a whole lot of praise thrown his way. He has a solid chance to be an impact, franchise SS. The problems with this system are basically everything except the 18 years and 2 week old top prospect.
Interesting that both of you agree on the names that go into your top 15s, but not in the same order.
I agree that the farm is depleted at this particular moment, but a half-season of actual games can do a lot to change fortunes in either direction. The question really should be, how much faith do we have in the org to make timely acquisitions of acquire new talent by all means?
I really hope LeVon shows us something.
It certainly is depleted—at least it’s for good reasons, though. Chisenhall and Kipnis were consensus top prospects and now they’re assumed starters. That’s how it’s supposed to work, right? I realize this drum has probably been beat enough, though.
by afh4 on Nov 29, 2011 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Chisenhall and Kipnis were consensus top prospects and now they’re assumed starters. That’s how it’s supposed to work, right?
Ideally, they’re supposed to be replaced by other top prospects.
Interesting that both of you agree on the names that go into your top 15s, but not in the same order.
Heh… did not notice that! We exchange about 40-60 names when we start the process. I complete my list out to the 30’s in any case and I think Jeff does the same (though we don’t agonize over the later placements like we do the top 15). I think this is the first time we’ve had the same composition in a top 15. We usually disagree more!
LeVon – the issues go back a while. He had questions going into last year’s draft as well… his stock was down slightly from when Tampa took him… and I’m not sure it ever really bounced back as much as people were betting on it doing so. The good news is he has a decent shot to be a useful major leaguer with his speed and defense even if the bat doesn’t really come around.
Yeah, I was wondering that, too. In addition to Aguilar, I think you could make a case for Chun Chen, Chen-Chang Lee, or Zach Putnam in the top 15. Maybe Austin Adams, also.
by ken from alexandria on Nov 29, 2011 8:42 AM EST up reply actions
Goldstein tweeted the other day that Chen’s defense is a total non-starter. If that’s the case, he’s not really much of a prospect.
I hear that he’s been training with Garko though…
by stuart dean on Nov 29, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Aguilar – He’s already a 1B/DH and I don’t think he has the bat to star there. He’s pretty heavy and is a bat only type (or will be by his mid 20s). He had an impressive stretch in the Midwest League and the AFL & is doing well in Venezuela right now. It was a good full season debut, but he wasn’t young for the level, he struck out A LOT & I worry that the holes in his swing will be exploited more as he approaches the majors (AA will be a big test for him). Ultimately, this just isnt my type of prospect (corner guy/bottom of the defensive spectrum, strikeout problems). Aguilar has to keep mashing to stay on the radar but he’s very much a prospect to watch.
Chun-Hsiu Chen – Reports on his defense I got were pretty dismissive of his ability to stay behind the plate. He ended up right next to Aguilar. Out of position players off this list Bryson Myles and Tyler Holt just missed and then Chen and Aguilar followed them (separated by pitchers – but again, you could probably shuffle these a little & I wouldn’t quibble, as I didn’t give the micro placement of each guy the attention of those above in the top 15).
Chen Lee – Interesting pitcher, but I think his size and stuff fit best in middle relief.
Zach Putnam – Like him better than Lee, but again, I think we’re talking quality reliever in the non-Relief Ace category. Had him 20th.
Austin Adams – 19th on my list. He’s pretty interesting as he was an off the radar NAIA kid who hasn’t been pitching full time long… so still kind of growing into his tools a little even at 24 years old. I wonder if his mechanics, size and lack of a third pitch might fit better in the pen, where his power arsenal could play up.
Thanks for elaborating. Kind of discouraging, really.
by ken from alexandria on Nov 29, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
As I said before, the quality (or lack thereof) in the system right now reflects both good and bad things. On the good side, we graduated a lot of talent into the majors last year. On the bad side, the highly touted (and expensive) 2010 draft flopped in a big way this past season.
The Ubaldo trade obviously did a lot of damage, too.
Really three pronged problem-
a) Graduations (Chiz, Kipnis…)
b) Trades (Pomeranz, White, Gardner…)
c) Stagnation/Stock down (Washington, Weglarz…)
It would be easy to view this through a results based lens and put the onus on the front office, but I’m a fan (in general) of the way the Indians do things.
Another point is that this coming season is going to be a critical one for the Indians minor league system. The young international prospects have the chance to really emerge…or not. The 2011 draft needs to do better in their full-season debuts than the 2010 crop. And the 2010 crop needs to redeem themselves. These three factors mean the Indians system could look anywhere between “great” and “totally devoid of talent” a year from now.
Not every system spent a record amount on the 2010 draft to nearly universal praise…only to see most of those guys really struggle. Not every team has a significant gap in talent between the A-ball and MLB level. And not every organization put on quite as much of a show as Cleveland did in the rookie-leagues this year.
If 2010/2011 don’t pan out, we could be looking at a dark ages that would make us look wistfully back on the days that Trevor Crowe was on our Baseball Americas list.
I’m just ignoring all of their debuts under the (probably misguided) pretense that they’re all young enough that they could punt a year. I expect one of Wolters, Bartolone, Lavisky, Washington, Holt, etc to turn into an asset by the end of this year.
Wolters and Lavisky are both solid prospects already...
Not sure what you mean by “turn into an asset by the end of this year” but they definitely need a good amount of time in the minors still.
Those guys have little to no value as assets right now. You could trade Wolters for another lottery ticket, and that’s about it. Becoming an asset, for me, means having actual value on a market. That doesn’t mean being a major leaguer or even a top prospect, just something of legitimate and significant value.
If by “solid prospects” you mean that their goal is to have been solid prospects, sure.
If by “solid prospects” you mean that they have a good chance to have major league careers … no.
If it was the second definition there wouldn’t be very many "solid prospects" in the game at all.
They’re both talented players who have things to learn and adjustments to make. They have the natural raw talent and tools to be good big leaguers – but they need to turn those tools into skills and hone their craft.
I think you’re reaching. In fact, most prospect analysts are in the habit of reaching, from Baseball America on down.
Whether they “have the natural raw talent and tools to be good big leaguers” is in fact very much in doubt. It isn’t necessarily about skills and craft, it’s also about health and drive.
The larger point, however, and the point where you are differing with afh4, is that prospects who do not have a signfiicant chance of being valuable in the major leagues are not valuable, by definition.
You can call them “solid prospects” until you’re blue in the face, but the definition of “solid prospects” is a little subjective and a lot beside the point.
That's fine if you want to use the term that way
…but be aware that’s not how most people use it. In fact, that’s certainly not how anyone in the industry I’ve ever talked to has used the term “solid prospect.”
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a professional talent evaluator who would agree with you that Wolters or Lavisky are not “solid prospects.” Not that its a term of art.
The larger point, however, and the point where you are differing with afh4, is that prospects who do not have a signfiicant chance of being valuable in the major leagues are not valuable, by definition.
Prospects can have value outside of their chances of being a big leaguer. The quality of big leaguer they project as (eg ceiling) is often more important than the bare chance of being valuable in some way. Prospects are also fungible assets that can be used in trades. Further, if you’re Director of Minor League Operations you sometimes need bodies to fill out affiliate rosters and “org. guys” have value in that sense, too. For the people who do this job this is no insignificant problem.
In fact, that’s certainly not how anyone in the industry I’ve ever talked to has used the term "solid prospect."
Funny, I thought we were talking about bloggers.
In any event, to the extent “solid prospects” as you define it are confused for significant assets … this is the very reason why some talent evaluators are failures as executives.
Let’s rewind the tape back to the original comment:
I expect one of Wolters, Bartolone, Lavisky, Washington, Holt, etc to turn into an asset by the end of this year.
Obviously, what Andrew means here by “an asset” is “an asset of more than marginal value.” And the way we measure value here is in terms of major league value, because that is the whole point of a farm system. Not to generate “solid prospects.”
There are two ways that a prospect can be an asset. First, based on his projected value as a big-league player, taking into account all the considerable risks and hurdles that may come along before any value is accrued.
The second way, however, is the for a prospect’s upside (as you intimate) to be tantalizing enough to another club that they will trade a player of immediate big-league value for that prospect.
Very few prospects meet the first standard at any given moment; it’s a harsh standard, which is not to say that we shouldn’t face up to it when discussing prospects.
But the point here isn’t that nobody on Andrew’s list meets the first criteria, but that as of this moment, they don’t meet the second standard either.
But they are “solid prospects,” I guess, based on “what people in the industry say.”
by Jay on Dec 5, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Bit of a weird list. Seems like it was generated from a pure pre-draft perspective for the non-Latin players, paying little attention to actual performance. I agree the strength in the system is in A ball now, but Lavisky and Washington had very bad first years and showed absolutely no improvement over the course. Wolters did ok, but has much to prove as well.
Hagadone brings up the rear of the list, but he actually had a great year after converting to relief, and has a good shot at having a solid ML career starting as soon as 2012. I would rank him a lot higher, as well as Barnes, who performed very well too and is already a better ML profile than the “soft tossing” lefties that dotted our top 10 in recent years.
Also ignores Giovanni Soto, and CC Lee, both easy additions to top 15 if not top 10 based on multiple year performance, and older 2010’s like Bryson Miles, Jake Lowery and Jordan Smith, all with better than expected debut performances at MV.
by mcrose on Dec 1, 2011 2:14 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
We follow and watch amateurs.
They weren’t non-entities before they became pro ballplayers. They even played in wooden bat leagues or showcases like the ACG or PG. I catch a lot of Cape Cod League games, for example. I see many of those same players I saw in June, July last year in the NYPL (short season A ball) the next year. In fact, there were guys I saw on the Cape who signed and I saw them as pros a month later. The Cape may be MORE difficult and a better frame for seeing the players if anything. They’re the same prospects and what they did before they signed is significant. Their life didnt begin with the MLB draft… It is harder for the average fan to follow, but I assure you we (and teams) have very good ideas of what a player is before they’re pros.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Bryce Harper’s triple against Halladay keys Nats win, Dodgers roar back
- Heather Nabozny of Tigers, Nicole Sherry of Orioles: Women groundskeepers in MLB
- 10 notable team reps for MLB’s upcoming draft
- Rays’ gladiator helmets: Fernando Rodney, Joel Peralta do as Romans do (VIDEO)
- Rickie Weeks forgets number of outs, passes up chance for inning-ending double play (VIDEO)
