Top 360 Prospect by Baseball Instinct

[Stotle]

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.

And really, once you're down to C+ prospects sheer numbers don't matter much (though I gladly concede that all C+ prospects are not necessarily created equal).

[Frobby]

Updating this again now that they are finished:

9. Bundy

16. Machado

76. Schoop

96. Bridwell

168. Delmonico

191. Hoes

213. Davis

239. Esposito

317. Lino

337. Klein

I didn't expect to find Bridwell in the Top 100, so we did a little better than I previously thought.

Here is what our AL East competitors have:

Rays (17; 3 in top 100)

2. Moore

64. Guerrieri

70. Lee

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 (14; 3 in top 100)

21. Marisnick

47. D'Arnaud

95. Hutchison

130. McGuire

132. Syndergaard

137. Nicolino

138. Norris

144. Gose

166. Santos

181. Cordona

183. Hechevarria

205. Wojchiechowski

287. Jiminez

300. Anderson

Yankees (14; 6 in top 100)

5. Montero

41. Banuelos

56. Betances

74. Sanchez

78. Bichette

83. Williams

152. Murphy

177. Santana

227. Warren

234. Heathcott

252. Austin

254. Culver

327. Romine

335. Stoneburner

Red Sox (12; 5 in top 100)

34. Bogaerts

37. Cecchini

51. Barnes

59. Middlebrooks

87. Lavarnway

119. Ranaudo

203. Owens

223. Iglesias

231. Swihart

242. Jacobs

268. Brentz

318. Coyle

[Stotle]

Updating this again now that they are finished:

9. Bundy

16. Machado

76. Schoop

96. Bridwell

168. Delmonico

191. Hoes

213. Davis

239. Esposito

317. Lino

337. Klein

I didn't expect to find Bridwell in the Top 100, so we did a little better than I previously thought.

Here is what our AL East competitors have:

Rays (17; 3 in top 100)

2. Moore

64. Guerrieri

70. Lee

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 (13; 2 in top 100)

47. D'Arnaud

95. Hutchison

130. McGuire

132. Syndergaard

137. Nicolino

138. Norris

144. Gose

166. Santos

181. Cordona

183. Hechevarria

205. Wojchiechowski

287. Jiminez

300. Anderson

Yankees (14; 6 in top 100)

5. Montero

41. Banuelos

56. Betances

74. Sanchez

78. Bichette

83. Williams

152. Murphy

177. Santana

227. Warren

234. Heathcott

252. Austin

254. Culver

327. Romine

335. Stoneburner

Red Sox (12; 5 in top 100)

34. Bogaerts

37. Cecchini

51. Barnes

59. Middlebrooks

87. Lavarnway

119. Ranaudo

203. Owens

223. Iglesias

231. Swihart

242. Jacobs

268. Brentz

318. Coyle

The Red Sox list makes little sense me, and I'm surprised to see they have Tampa and Toronto prospects rated so low. Toronto and Tampa in particular, I can say there is at least one ML org that strongly disagrees with their take on the quality of those systems.

[allstar1579]

The Red Sox list makes little sense me, and I'm surprised to see they have Tampa and Toronto prospects rated so low. Toronto and Tampa in particular, I can say there is at least one ML org that strongly disagrees with their take on the quality of those systems.

Yeah I'm with you, I almost thought they transposed the Red Sox list for a minute there. Seems a little over excited for the Yankees guys, and I agree about TOR and TB.

[Oriolidae85]

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).

Do you believe the O's front office additions help alleviate some of the O's current reputation? Their veteran presence in the scouting (Domestic & International) industry should bode well for the them improving their international image, IMO (as a guessing O's fan.)

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.

Do you believe this offseason's MLB depth moves by DD partially make up for this? The O's just signed two more MiL additions + W. Eyre:

I've heard that the Orioles also signed pitcher Ross Wolf to a minor league contract with a spring training invite. The Orioles traded Wolf to the Athletics for Jake Fox on June 22, 2010.

One more minor league signing: left-hander Ryan Edell, who went 5-1 with a 3.50 ERA in 12 starts at Double-A Reading and 5-5 with a 3.27 ERA in 17 games (10 starts) with Triple-A Lehigh Valley. The Indians drafted him in the eighth round in 2005.

Have to think that DD flips a piece or two to add quality near ready MLB prospects around the all-star break, if not this offseason (Guthrie, Jones, Reynolds...) Cespedes, Solar and others seem to be good economic risks given the market; their lack of international reputation/presence; and lack of MLB ready prospects. Is Solar's value at 18(ish) going to be impacted with the new CBA (on the Int'l caps?)

[Stotle]

Do you believe the O's front office additions help alleviate some of the O's current reputation? Their veteran presence in the scouting (Domestic & International) industry should bode well for the them improving their international image, IMO (as a guessing O's fan.)

I think familiar faces are always a good thing. It is also helpful to have a strong Latin American presence throughout the Minor League system, and current Latin American MLers.

[Frobby]

The Red Sox list makes little sense me, and I'm surprised to see they have Tampa and Toronto prospects rated so low. Toronto and Tampa in particular, I can say there is at least one ML org that strongly disagrees with their take on the quality of those systems.

Yeah I'm with you, I almost thought they transposed the Red Sox list for a minute there. Seems a little over excited for the Yankees guys, and I agree about TOR and TB.

I definitely got the impression that they were a bit high on the Yankees and low on the Red Sox. It also seemed like Toronto's top-end guys got undersold a bit. To me, I was looking at it more from a macro point of view -- based on this list, every team in our division has an above average farm system, that is deeper than ours. Of course, we knew that, this is just further evidence of that fact.

I was happy that they are so high on Bridwell.

[Stotle]

I definitely got the impression that they were a bit high on the Yankees and low on the Red Sox. It also seemed like Toronto's top-end guys got undersold a bit. To me, I was looking at it more from a macro point of view -- based on this list, every team in our division has an above average farm system, that is deeper than ours. Of course, we knew that, this is just further evidence of that fact.

I was happy that they are so high on Bridwell.

I had dinner a few weeks back with an area scout that covers Tampa and Toronto in the Appy League (dual summer coverage between Appy and amateur stuff, depending on what's going on in his region). He gushed about TOR/TAM Appy teams, and said both systems overall were "packed" with kids you'd be happy to get a hold of. After talking about a number of the those kids in details, I'd be shocked if there were 100 to 200 better prospects in baseball than some of these kids.

Re: Bridwell, it's always nice to see good things written. There is enough in these write-ups to make me suspicious that these authors have any particular eye for evaluating, but I certain applaud the effort and believe that people who are willing to put in the time to learn the craft eventually will. Based on what I've read, I don't think this site is something I'd site as authority for any player evaluation, but I'd be interested to check back in with them after they have a few more years of working on it. It might just be a case of over-reaching, but especially with some of the kids I am very familiar with, it seems like the site has old info, or info that has been published in other national media sites that is just incorrect.

[Frobby]

I had dinner a few weeks back with an area scout that covers Tampa and Toronto in the Appy League (dual summer coverage between Appy and amateur stuff, depending on what's going on in his region). He gushed about TOR/TAM Appy teams, and said both systems overall were "packed" with kids you'd be happy to get a hold of. After talking about a number of the those kids in details, I'd be shocked if there were 100 to 200 better prospects in baseball than some of these kids.

According to BA, Tampa had 7 prospects in the Appy League top 20, and Toronto had 3. None of those were ranked in the top 3 in the league, though, so I guess I don't find it that surprising that they would not be on a top 100 list.

4. Syndergaard (Jays)*

6. Vettleson*

7. Hager

9. Rivero

10. Brett*

11. Hawkins (Jays)

12. Sanchez Jays)

13. Sale*

15. O'Conner

16. Ames*

* Ranked in the BI 360. Syndergaard was 132 and Vettleson was 133.

I am not vouching for BI, just compiling information from their site that is relevant to the Orioles and the AL East.

[Stotle]

According to BA, Tampa had 7 prospects in the Appy League top 20, and Toronto had 3. None of those were ranked in the top 3 in the league, though, so I guess I don't find it that surprising that they would not be on a top 100 list.

4. Syndergaard (Jays)*

6. Vettleson*

7. Hager

9. Rivero

10. Brett*

11. Hawkins (Jays)

12. Sanchez Jays)

13. Sale*

15. O'Conner

16. Ames*

* Ranked in the BI 360. Syndergaard was 132 and Vettleson was 133.

I am not vouching for BI, just compiling information from their site that is relevant to the Orioles and the AL East.

That's unconvincing support, Frobby, in many ways.

Look, I'm not out to torpedo these guys. I've said my piece. Take it or leave it -- no matter to me either way.

EDIT -- FYI, someone at Baseball America involved in the Top 100 ranking process said he estimates 6-8 Blue Jays in the Top 100; 2-4 Rays; 3-5 Red Sox.

And if there are 230 some prospects in baseball better than Blake Swihart then I deserve to have my stopwatch, gun, pencil and camera dropped in a burlap sack and smacked over my head 230 times.

[Frobby]

That's unconvincing support, Frobby, in many ways.

Look, I'm not out to torpedo these guys. I've said my piece. Take it or leave it -- no matter to me either way.

I am not following what you are saying. I'm not trying to "convince" anybody of anything, nor am I "supporting" any particular position. This thread, which I did not start, is about who BI ranks in their top 360. I'm merely compiling some information from their list. I'm not saying whether their list is a good one or not. Obviously, you don't find them to be a very credible source. Fine, I don't really have any basis to agree or disagree with that. I wouldn't know where Blake Swihart should be ranked. He could walk down the hall of my law office right now and I'd have no idea who he was. And if he brought a catcher with him and started warming up right outside my door, I wouldn't be able to tell if his stuff was major league quality or not. And if you said to me right now, "Frobby, Swihart's not even a pitcher," I wouldn't know if you were correcting me or just giving me a hard time. I have never, ever, pretended that I know the first thing about who these prospects are and how highly regarded they should be. Nor do I know if Keith Law is more credible that Kevin Goldstein, or whether Will Lingo knows more than Jim Callis, or whether you know more than John Sickels. So I certainly have no opinion on the validity of the BI list.

[Stotle]

I am not following what you are saying. I'm not trying to "convince" anybody of anything, nor am I "supporting" any particular position. This thread, which I did not start, is about who BI ranks in their top 360. I'm merely compiling some information from their list. I'm not saying whether their list is a good one or not. Obviously, you don't find them to be a very credible source. Fine, I don't really have any basis to agree or disagree with that. I wouldn't know where Blake Swihart should be ranked. He could walk down the hall of my law office right now and I'd have no idea who he was. And if he brought a catcher with him and started warming up right outside my door, I wouldn't be able to tell if his stuff was major league quality or not. And if you said to me right now, "Frobby, Swihart's not even a pitcher," I wouldn't know if you were correcting me or just giving me a hard time. I have never, ever, pretended that I know the first thing about who these prospects are and how highly regarded they should be. Nor do I know if Keith Law is more credible that Kevin Goldstein, or whether Will Lingo knows more than Jim Callis, or whether you know more than John Sickels. So I certainly have no opinion on the validity of the BI list.

I'm saying:

According to BA, Tampa had 7 prospects in the Appy League top 20, and Toronto had 3. None of those were ranked in the top 3 in the league, though, so I guess I don't find it that surprising that they would not be on a top 100 list.

is support (albeit passive support, I guess?) for the list. If you had another reason for posting this, let me know. Seems like a pretty direct counter to my post regarding an area scout covering that specific league...

My separate point was that I think your thinking as relates to BA's Top 20 list for the Appy is flawed as evidence that it would "not be surprising" to see certain of these players outside of a top 100 (and my quick check w/BA indicates that BA disagrees with your interpretation of their list, as well).

I know you are not claiming to be an expert. I think the rankings (and some of the write-ups I read) from the quoted site indicates that they probably are not experts either.

[Frobby]

I'm saying:

is support (albeit passive support, I guess?) for the list. If you had another reason for posting this, let me know. Seems like a pretty direct counter to my post regarding an area scout covering that specific league...

My separate point was that I think your thinking as relates to BA's Top 20 list for the Appy is flawed as evidence that it would "not be surprising" to see certain of these players outside of a top 100 (and my quick check w/BA indicates that BA disagrees with your interpretation of their list, as well).

No, I wasn't intending to debate you on the overall validity of BI's list, just provide some information comparing what BA said to what BI said (just as I gave some information about what Sickels said earlier in the thread). The fact that BI included in its top 360 only 5 of the 10 Jays and Rays Appy League prospects who BA ranked in the Appy League top 20, obviously speaks to the fact that BI omitted some players that BA holds in high regard. And the fact that the Rays and Jays (especially the Rays) have 10 of the BA top 20 in that league, supports what your colleague told you about their talent in the Appy.

As to my comment that the fact that none of the Jays or Rays' Appy league players was in the BA top 3 for the league was a reason I didn't find it surprising that none of those players was in the BI top 100, I really was just referring to getting a sense of who BA might think was a top 100 player, not the overall validity of BI's rankings, if that makes sense. My logic was that BA does top 20's for a lot of leagues, and if you assumed the top 3 for each league were in the Top 100, that would fill up a lot of the slots, and I suspected that a lot of the remaining slots would be filled by players closer to the majors than the Appy League who were surer bets than the younger guys. Having thought about it some more, and now that I've done some math, my logic probably was a little off. BA does a Top 20 for 17 different leagues. Obviously, not all leagues have equal talent, or even an equal number of teams, but that means it would be pretty common for the 6th-ranked prospect in a league to still be in the overall Top 100, though it wouldn't be a shock if they were omitted. And based on what you have been told by your source at BA, I'll accept that my initial assumptions about giving some preference to more seasoned talent may be proven incorrect.

So tell me now -- is Swihart a pitcher, a position player, or a country-western singer?

[Stotle]

No, I wasn't intending to debate you on the overall validity of BI's list, just provide some information comparing what BA said to what BI said (just as I gave some information about what Sickels said earlier in the thread). The fact that BI included in its top 360 only 5 of the 10 Jays and Rays Appy League prospects who BA ranked in the Appy League top 20, obviously speaks to the fact that BI omitted some players that BA holds in high regard. And the fact that the Rays and Jays (especially the Rays) have 10 of the BA top 20 in that league, supports what your colleague told you about their talent in the Appy.

As to my comment that the fact that none of the Jays or Rays' Appy league players was in the BA top 3 for the league was a reason I didn't find it surprising that none of those players was in the BI top 100, I really was just referring to getting a sense of who BA might think was a top 100 player, not the overall validity of BI's rankings, if that makes sense. My logic was that BA does top 20's for a lot of leagues, and if you assumed the top 3 for each league were in the Top 100, that would fill up a lot of the slots, and I suspected that a lot of the remaining slots would be filled by players closer to the majors than the Appy League who were surer bets than the younger guys. Having thought about it some more, and now that I've done some math, my logic probably was a little off. BA does a Top 20 for 17 different leagues. Obviously, not all leagues have equal talent, or even an equal number of teams, but that means it would be pretty common for the 6th-ranked prospect in a league to still be in the overall Top 100, though it wouldn't be a shock if they were omitted. And based on what you have been told by your source at BA, I'll accept that my initial assumptions about giving some preference to more seasoned talent may be proven incorrect.

So tell me now -- is Swihart a pitcher, a position player, or a country-western singer?

I understand. Honestly, I wasn't trying to be TOO confrontational. And I mean it when I say that I applaud the effort that goes into making an accessible site and providing video and general info about a lot of players. I guess I just see a lot of internet writers who are eager to be viewed as the next "expert", but in doing so end up taking short cuts by relying the second-hand write-ups of others rather than either viewing players themselves or going directly to the people that are viewing the players (coaches, scouts, etc.). I fully admit it causes me to be overly suspicious, and in certain instances overly-critical, of sites when they are cited as sources.

In any event, I apologize for giving you a hard time. It was not because I took issue with you -- I understand you are just summarizing info that's being presented.

Swihart is a studly catcher. Callis describes him as a Buster Posey starter kit. My write-up from last April below (I think there is a hangout piece on him, too). Video here.

GRADING OUT:

Now (Future)

Hit: 30 (60)

Power: 25 (50/55)

Arm: 65/70 (70)

Defense: 30/35 (55/60)

Speed: 50 (45/50)

Feel: 45/50 (60)

Overall Future Potential: 59

Physical Description:

Good catcher's frame. Even build that projects to fill-in to solid strength throughout. Lean and athletic with agility.

Defense:

Behind the plate, Swihart is currently a capable receiver with the smooth actions, athleticism and body control to develop into a very good receiver. His footwork and transfer are generally clean, though like even the best high schoolers he will benefit from continued repetitions and clean-up through pro instruction. His arm is his calling card, with fringe-plus-plus strength, good accuracy and clean carry. Sub-2.0 pop times are not irregular and, with a slightly cleaner transfer, he could see that drop to consistent sub-1.9. Swihart has the athleticism to easily hold down an outfield corner, and could also handle a switch to third base or even second.

Bat:

Swihart brings to the plate comfort from each batter's box, good bat speed and the hand/eye coordination required to produce consistent hard contact. He will add strength in the coming years, and as he does he should see a more complete transfer of energy from his swing to the ball at contact. Even now, with some noise and occasional loosey-goosey in his swing, the ball jumps when he squares. He shows balance at the plate, as well as patience, and has seen some growth in his approach -- including working the count effectively against solid arms and dialing his cuts up and down in varying counts.

Discussion:

The Texas Longhorns commit is a rare switch-hitting backstop with "now" skills and a fair amount of projection remaining. Additionally, his athleticism provides for useful back-up plans at lf/rf/3b/2b should he run into any issues at all as a catcher at the next level. There is little to dislike with Swihart, though any situation requiring projection (and his future strength is what will ultimately turn his bat from solid to potentially special) carries risk. He easily profiles as one of the top positional prep players in the draft class and may have the most interesting blend of skills of any player not named "Bubba". He should go early on Day 1 and could be the first high schooler off the board.

Projected position: Above-average catcher on 1st division team

Suggested draft slot: Early-1st Round

[Frobby]

Swihart is a studly catcher. Callis describes him as a Buster Posey starter kit. My write-up from last April below (I think there is a hangout piece on him, too). Video here.

Good thing I asked!