Top 360 Prospect by Baseball Instinct

[Stotle]

Really? I'm not sure how much it would take to satisfy hoosers' thoughts.

1. Machado, Schoop, Bundy perform well.

2. Add a top 4 talent in the next draft.

3. Add one highly rated Int'l player...say it's Soler or a Inoa/Sano type.

4. Trade Jones and net one really nice prospect like Salcedo.

In theory, you're looking at 5-6 top 100 guys if things don't blow up in our face, without considering the rest.

Assuming the standard number of pops and flame outs throughout the rest of the system, that sounds like the definition of a fringe top 10 system to me. 5-6 highly rated guys followed by many unprovens with limited upside, but a couple still with good upside.

Maybe we're splitting hairs. The difference between the #10 system and the #15 system is probably pretty miniscule. I could also see us not satisfying 1-4 above and still being in the 20's, or hitting the jackpot on 1-4 and a guy like Delmonico/Esposito/Bridwell/Hoes/Lino and being in the 5-8 range. I concede in advance that the odds of the latter happening are quite small.

Assuming Baltimore is in the 18-30ish range right now, the question to ask is whether it's reasonable that growth in the current crop and the addition of a top 5 draft pick, will be enough to leapfrog around a third of the league. Keep in mind there will be 22-32 supplemental picks between rounds 1 and 2, none of which will belong to Baltimore. Also, keep in mind that while the addition of a hypothetical top international prospect (from a "hype" standpoint) would look good, (1) Baltimore hasn't done this at all, outside of the Veloz signing (which was moderately high profile, and only consumated after he failed a performance enhancer test and saw his pricetag plummet), and (2) it is still addition of lower-level talent with years worth of development ahead of him and many potential pitfalls along the way.

It would be great if Baltimore could revamp its amateur acquisition and MiL development. I just think it's lofty to think this transformation might take place in the span of a year.

It's possible that happens, but I think it is highly unlikely.

[mweb]

Really? I'm not sure how much it would take to satisfy hoosers' thoughts.

1. Machado, Schoop, Bundy perform well.

2. Add a top 4 talent in the next draft.

3. Add one highly rated Int'l player...say it's Soler or a Inoa/Sano type.

4. Trade Jones and net one really nice prospect like Salcedo.

In theory, you're looking at 5-6 top 100 guys if things don't blow up in our face, without considering the rest.

Assuming the standard number of pops and flame outs throughout the rest of the system, that sounds like the definition of a fringe top 10 system to me. 5-6 highly rated guys followed by many unprovens with limited upside, but a couple still with good upside.

Maybe we're splitting hairs. The difference between the #10 system and the #15 system is probably pretty miniscule. I could also see us not satisfying 1-4 above and still being in the 20's, or hitting the jackpot on 1-4 and a guy like Delmonico/Esposito/Bridwell/Hoes/Lino and being in the 5-8 range. I concede in advance that the odds of the latter happening are quite small.

Some good points. It is conceivable that even without a trade the O's will have 4 top 30 prospects next year, with 2-3 of them being in the top 15. With some solid growth elsewhere, that would look pretty good. The system would be elite at the top and have better depth than it currently does.

[Frobby]

Assuming Baltimore is in the 18-30ish range right now, the question to ask is whether it's reasonable that growth in the current crop and the addition of a top 5 draft pick, will be enough to leapfrog around a third of the league. Keep in mind there will be 22-32 supplemental picks between rounds 1 and 2, none of which will belong to Baltimore. Also, keep in mind that while the addition of a hypothetical top international prospect (from a "hype" standpoint) would look good, (1) Baltimore hasn't done this at all, outside of the Veloz signing (which was moderately high profile, and only consumated after he failed a performance enhancer test and saw his pricetag plummet), and (2) it is still addition of lower-level talent with years worth of development ahead of him and many potential pitfalls along the way.

It would be great if Baltimore could revamp its amateur acquisition and MiL development. I just think it's lofty to think this transformation might take place in the span of a year.

It's possible that happens, but I think it is highly unlikely.

One thing to keep in mind is that it isn't likely that anyone significant graduates from our system in 2012. We may gain a few spots merely by having other systems that are ahead of us graduate some of their better prospects, whereas all ours stay in the system.

[Stotle]

One thing to keep in mind is that it isn't likely that anyone significant graduates from our system in 2012. We may gain a few spots merely by having other systems that are ahead of us graduate some of their better prospects, whereas all ours stay in the system.

Oh, I definitely agree the O's should be better by benefit of not graduating prospects. But history tells us that some prospects are likely to improve, some to regress, and some to stay on trajectory. Assuming Baltimore is around the 20th best system in baseball right now, I don't see a ten spot jump as particularly realistic. Hey, I hope I'm wrong. Seeing a bunch of low-minors prospects progress with little setback would be huge.

[LookinUp]

Oh, I definitely agree the O's should be better by benefit of not graduating prospects. But history tells us that some prospects are likely to improve, some to regress, and some to stay on trajectory. Assuming Baltimore is around the 20th best system in baseball right now, I don't see a ten spot jump as particularly realistic. Hey, I hope I'm wrong. Seeing a bunch of low-minors prospects progress with little setback would be huge.

Damn it Stotle, aren't we due?

It sure would be nice if our real upside guys all progress. Imagine our system if Machado, Bundy, and Schoop keep it up. If Demonico shows he really is the best high school bat in these parts in a long time. If Hoes puts in a full season where he's healthy and has developed doubles+ power. If Bridwell matures and Lino as well.

Dare to dream, I guess.

The only thing you really discounted that I'd take issue with is the Int'l thing. I think this is a DD focus at this point, and it's more likely than not that we start to really hit up that market. Will it result in a Sano type? I'd say the chances are less than 50/50, but much better than this time in August, for example.

[Stotle]

Damn it Stotle, aren't we due?

It sure would be nice if our real upside guys all progress. Imagine our system if Machado, Bundy, and Schoop keep it up. If Demonico shows he really is the best high school bat in these parts in a long time. If Hoes puts in a full season where he's healthy and has developed doubles+ power. If Bridwell matures and Lino as well.

Dare to dream, I guess.

The only thing you really discounted that I'd take issue with is the Int'l thing. I think this is a DD focus at this point, and it's more likely than not that we start to really hit up that market. Will it result in a Sano type? I'd say the chances are less than 50/50, but much better than this time in August, for example.

Unfortunately, there are two parts to the equation. 1) Baltimore needs to show a willingness to go after the big international fish, and 2) the big international fish have to have an interest in Baltimore -- an organization that hasn't shown much focus on acquiring and developing latin american talent.

With the new spending limits in place, the "bidding war" aspect of poaching int'l free agents sort of goes away. That means prospects will be choosing more between comparable offers, making the reputation of the organization arguably more important than in the past (where a former non-player in the int'l game could essentially buy its way into respectability).

[Tony-OH]

Thanks, Tony. Aside from your work with them, is there any other reason to pay particular attention to the site? I clicked around it some but couldn't find any info on the authors. There are so many prospects sites sprouting up that it's sometimes tough to figure out who is aggregating and who is actually looking at the players. Their top 360 writeups are really bare-bones, though I guess it would be a lot of work to give in depth reports on 360 minor leaguers.

I honestly don't know whether they see guys or not, but I'm guessing they are probably more on the collection of information side since they came to me about the Orioles prospects. I don't think anyone is truly scouting players throughout the minors on all 30 teams for any site. You are more apt to find guys scouting one organization like I do or you have guys trying to see as many as they can, but can not truly see all 30 organizations well enough to really give an in-depth opinion. Personally, I think it's smart to take several opinions and all the information you get it and put it into the evaluations.

[Stotle]

I honestly don't know whether they see guys or not, but I'm guessing they are probably more on the collection of information side since they came to me about the Orioles prospects. I don't think anyone is truly scouting players throughout the minors on all 30 teams for any site. You are more apt to find guys scouting one organization like I do or you have guys trying to see as many as they can, but can not truly see all 30 organizations well enough to really give an in-depth opinion. Personally, I think it's smart to take several opinions and all the information you get it and put it into the evaluations.

I agree. Also, I think I saw they had various videos on their site, so someone is out seeing something, regardless of where they pull the info for the write-ups.

[Frobby]

Updating this, they have named prospects 121-360:

168. Delmonico

191. Hoes

213. Davis

239. Esposito

317. Lino

337. Klein

Probably only Bundy, Machado and Schoop in the top 120. That would give 9 prospects in the top 360 -- the average team would have 12.

Meanwhile, here is what our AL East competitors have right now:

Rays (3 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

133. Vettlesson

136. Torres

155. Mahtook

160. Colome

218. Guyer

222. Archer

243. Romero

253. Brett

280. Beckham

285. Hernandez

296. Goeddel

305. Sale

343. Bortnick

344. Ames

Jays (3 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

130. McGuire

132. Syndergaard

137. Nicolino

138. Norris

144. Gose

166. Santos

181. Cordona

183. Hechevarria

205. Wojchiechowski

287. Jiminez

300. Anderson

Yankees (6 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

152. Murphy

177. Santana

227. Warren

234. Heathcott

252. Austin

254. Culver

327. Romine

335. Stoneburner

Red Sox (7 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

203. Owens

223. Iglesias

231. Swihart

242. Jacobs

268. Brentz

318. Coyle

[Stotle]

Updating this, they have named prospects 121-360:

168. Delmonico

191. Hoes

213. Davis

239. Esposito

317. Lino

337. Klein

Probably only Bundy, Machado and Schoop in the top 120. That would give 9 prospects in the top 360 -- the average team would have 12.

Meanwhile, here is what our AL East competitors have right now:

Rays (3 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

133. Vettlesson

136. Torres

155. Mahtook

160. Colome

218. Guyer

222. Archer

243. Romero

253. Brett

280. Beckham

285. Hernandez

296. Goeddel

305. Sale

343. Bortnick

344. Ames

Jays (3 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

130. McGuire

132. Syndergaard

137. Nicolino

138. Norris

144. Gose

166. Santos

181. Cordona

183. Hechevarria

205. Wojchiechowski

287. Jiminez

300. Anderson

Yankees (6 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

152. Murphy

177. Santana

227. Warren

234. Heathcott

252. Austin

254. Culver

327. Romine

335. Stoneburner

Red Sox (7 players on BA's top 10 not yet listed here)

203. Owens

223. Iglesias

231. Swihart

242. Jacobs

268. Brentz

318. Coyle

I think this is a nice exercise and general framework to discuss orgs. That said, it seems that if this site is relying on specialty sites to rank certain organizations (such as Tony with the O's), it complicates the idea that the authors can take these reports from others and rank prospects from different organizations against each other.

That is, if Tony says he sees prospect A as a potential above-average regular at third base, and Blogger Red Sox says he sees prospect B as a potential all-star at third base, I'm not sure how the authors reconcile the different standards, skill in evaluation, etc. when trying to compare prospects they aren't familiar with.

Again, it's nice as a broadly stroked "who should I know in the different organizations". But I'm uncomfortable with assigning any significant value to the rankigns themselves.

[Frobby]

I think this is a nice exercise and general framework to discuss orgs. That said, it seems that if this site is relying on specialty sites to rank certain organizations (such as Tony with the O's), it complicates the idea that the authors can take these reports from others and rank prospects from different organizations against each other.

That is, if Tony says he sees prospect A as a potential above-average regular at third base, and Blogger Red Sox says he sees prospect B as a potential all-star at third base, I'm not sure how the authors reconcile the different standards, skill in evaluation, etc. when trying to compare prospects they aren't familiar with.

Again, it's nice as a broadly stroked "who should I know in the different organizations". But I'm uncomfortable with assigning any significant value to the rankigns themselves.

It would be interesting to compare these with John Sickels' grade ratings or Kevin Goldstein's star ratings and see how they stack up. Maybe I will look at that this weekend.

[Stotle]

It would be interesting to compare these with John Sickels' grade ratings or Kevin Goldstein's star ratings and see how they stack up. Maybe I will look at that this weekend.

If you find the time to do that, note when each team's list came out. Might help to show if Sickels/BaseballInstinct/Goldstein/etc. maybe rely on other lists when making their own.

One of the big problem with the explosion of unaccredited evaluative sites is that it creates a sort of echo chamber, where all these pop-up sites are relying on the same sources for their info.

It's really a tough situation once you start talking about aggregating and not necessarily revealing if there are any non-sourced references being used.

Just my opinion.

[Lucky Jim]

I think this is a nice exercise and general framework to discuss orgs. That said, it seems that if this site is relying on specialty sites to rank certain organizations (such as Tony with the O's), it complicates the idea that the authors can take these reports from others and rank prospects from different organizations against each other.

That is, if Tony says he sees prospect A as a potential above-average regular at third base, and Blogger Red Sox says he sees prospect B as a potential all-star at third base, I'm not sure how the authors reconcile the different standards, skill in evaluation, etc. when trying to compare prospects they aren't familiar with.

Again, it's nice as a broadly stroked "who should I know in the different organizations". But I'm uncomfortable with assigning any significant value to the rankigns themselves.

It's a good snapshot of the "universe" of prospects, but you need a much more highly-powered telescope to start really figuring out what those celestial bodies within it are. #ilikeanalogies

[Stotle]

It's a good snapshot of the "universe" of prospects, but you need a much more highly-powered telescope to start really figuring out what those celestial bodies within it are. #ilikeanalogies

Exactly. And when assigning comparative value to the level of detail that allows you to rank out 300+ prospects, you really need a fairly intimate knowledge of either 1) the prospects themselves, or 2) your sources of info for the prospects. In honesty, once your down that far in the rankings, the order isn't particularly important.

I'm not knocking the effort, and I have respect for anyone that puts their opinion out there. I'm just a big fan of transparency and am generally unwilling to spend time and effort to consider a work product if I don't have any way of reaching any conclusions about the quality of the source. I can look at Tony's list and assign an internal value to his opinion because I'm familiar with his work/opinions. I don't know how to interpret someone else's interpretation of Tony's valuations of O's prospects as compared to someone else's valuations of Braves prospects.

[Frobby]

If you find the time to do that, note when each team's list came out. Might help to show if Sickels/BaseballInstinct/Goldstein/etc. maybe rely on other lists when making their own.

One of the big problem with the explosion of unaccredited evaluative sites is that it creates a sort of echo chamber, where all these pop-up sites are relying on the same sources for their info.

It's really a tough situation once you start talking about aggregating and not necessarily revealing if there are any non-sourced references being used.

Just my opinion.

I took a look at Sickels' (before reading your post). I would say generally they line up pretty well with this. For example, the Jays have four prospects in the 130-138 range (McGuire, Syndergaard, Nicolino and Norris) on BI's list, and he gives all four of those players a B+. But the Rays have two players in that range (Vettleson and Torres), and Sickels gives them a B- and a B, respectively. He also seems to like the players listed by BI for the Red Sox better than the listed players for the Yankees. For him, the Yankee players I listed include 2 B-, 5 C+ (including Murphy, who BI rated at 152)and a C, whereas the Sox guys include a B (Jacobs, ranked all the way down at 242 by BI) and the rest are all B-.

I think any way you slice it, it's pretty clear that we have the thinnest minor league talent in the division. Per Sickels:

C+ or above: O's 18, Yanks 18, Sox 25, Jays 25, Rays 25

B- or above: O's 6, Yanks 9, Sox 16, Jays 17, Rays 14

B or above: O's 3, Yanks 5, Sox 6, Jays 9, Rays 6

The O's have the strongest top 2 of the AL East teams but the depth is sorely lacking. But we knew that.