Orioles prospect ratings by Sickels

[TakebackOPACY]

OK, I've done 8 teams thus far. Here are the results using my original scale. I will vary the scale later. Please note that I'm counting all the grade Cs.

Oakland 88 (note that they picked up 13 points from the Swisher trade)

Seattle 72.5

Orioles 72

Arizona 67

Phillies 59

Brewers 59

Pirates 57

White Sox 48.5

It looks pretty darn good thus far. I find it interesting that we have a stronger system by this rating system than Arizona and basically the same strength as Seattle.

And I haven't looked at the Brewers closely. But for the O's to be that far ahead of a notoriously strong system, I guess some pretty strong prospects lost 'prospect status' this year. For the O's, I think Burres was the only one.

[Lucky Jim]

Tyler Henson isn't in the top 20 and not even in the honorable mention. This list needs some major work as does all of Sickels' lists this season. Did anybody see that he only ranked Adam Jones a B+ and then overrated Jed Lowrie by giving him an A- ?!?!

He's got issues with Jones's strike zone judgment/discipline. As such, I think his assessment is fair (though he's admitted it's borderline.) Apparently he corrected Jones to an A-, too.

As for Lowrie, he admitted he was factoring in some "instinct" on his part.

Otherwise, the lists seem fine to me.

[Frobby]

The other day I posted the following summary of the first 20 teams Sickels had rated:

So far, only 4 players have rated an A grade: Jay Bruce, Joba Chamberlain, Clay Buckholtz and Clayton Kershaw. Another 6 rated an A-: Johnny Cueto, Joey Votto, Jed Lowrie, Jacoby Ellsbury, Adam Jones and Andy LaRoche. That's the top 10 of the 400 he's rated so far.

B+ or higher: A's 6, Reds 5, Mariners 5, Rangers 5, Red Sox 4, Braves 4.

B or higher: Rangers 11, Braves 10, A's 8, Red Sox 8, Reds 7, Marlins 7, Cubs 6, Mets 6, Angels 6, Padres 6

B- or higher: A's 13, Rangers 13, Red Sox 12, Braves 11, Reds 11

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57113

So there is mixed praise for the Orioles here:

1. A- for Wieters is high praise indeed. That puts him in the top 15 or so prospects in all of baseball.

2. 2 players of B+ or higher is on the low side, especially considering one of them was not in our system last year, but was recently acquired.

3. 4 players grade B or higher is very pedestrian.

4. 11 players B- is very good, only 3 of the first 20 teams had done better.

So what you have here is a system with pretty decent depth, but not a lot of high ceiling guys. Pretty much what others have been saying.

[Lucky Jim]

The other day I posted the following summary of the first 20 teams Sickels had rated:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57113

So there is mixed praise for the Orioles here:

1. A- for Wieters is high praise indeed. That puts him in the top 15 or so prospects in all of baseball.

2. 2 players if B+ or higher is on the low side, especially considering one of them was not in our system last year, but was recently acquired.

3. 4 players grade B or higher is very pedestrian.

4. 11 players B- is very good, only 3 of the first 20 teams had done better.

So what you have here is a system with pretty decent depth, but not a lot of high ceiling guys. Pretty much what others have been saying.

Exactly right. And it's really the more advanced, high-ceiling players that gives a system "value." Where the risk is balanced by the imminence of their contribution. That said, I wouldn't be surprised for some of the O's B- players to be B+ players by this time next year: Erbe (okay, C+), Arrieta, Rowell, for instance. But also Spoon, perhaps Snyder.

Truly, our highest ceiling players had down years. And Reimold was hurt. So...

...a little correction may be in order. And we added some value via the Houston trade.

[tywright]

He's got issues with Jones's strike zone judgment/discipline. As such, I think his assessment is fair (though he's admitted it's borderline.)

As for Lowrie, he admitted he was factoring in some "instinct" on his part.

Otherwise, the lists seem fine to me.

Yet he gives McCutchen an A- after hitting .258 in AA? Sickels is too inconsistent for me.

[Lucky Jim]

Yet he gives McCutchen an A- after hitting .258 in AA? Sickels is too inconsistent for me.

He played all year at AA at 20. There's no wiggle room?

[tywright]

He played all year at AA at 20. There's no wiggle room?

Sure you can let him slide, but Adam Jones was 20 in AAA in 2006. He had a .829 OPS in 2006 and then improved to a .968 OPS this year.

[Lucky Jim]

Sure you can let him slide, but Adam Jones was 20 in AAA in 2006. He had a .829 OPS in 2006 and then improved to a .968 OPS this year.

Fair enough - I've not watched either in person, so I don't know where to begin making distinctions.

I think that Sickels thinks Jones is very good, but worries about the 3:1 K/BB ratio. McCutchen, while he didn't perform quite as well, is only 2:1. He may be putting too much stock in this, but I think that's his logic.

[tywright]

Fair enough - I've not watched either in person, so I don't know where to begin making distinctions.

I think that Sickels thinks Jones is very good, but worries about the 3:1 K/BB ratio. McCutchen, while he didn't perform quite as well, is only 2:1. He may be putting too much stock in this, but I think that's his logic.

He did re-rank Jones and gave him an A- after hearing it from his regulars.

McCutchen did fair well in the AFL, so that could be why he's an A-. But I still think he needs to put up at least 300+ ABs with a .290+ BA together in AA to earn an A-. He's a top 25 prospect in my book, but not a top 15 (A- and better).

Still, by forgetting Henson that really irritates me.

[tywright]

Nats ahead of us?! Sickels was pretty high on Maxwell, Smoker and Lannan. Maxwell is ranked higher than Reimold.

[Boy Howdy]

OK, I lied. I finished the teams he has done. He has done 24 teams and we rank 12th right now. Of course, there are three teams just 0.5 points ahead of us so we're essentially as high as 9th. This is w/o any new trades. We could really end up looking good if these trades go down.

So far, I'm pretty happy with what I see. I will add the other 6 teams as he posts them on the board.

Great work vatech!

The remaining teams are the:

Blue Jays

Indians

Rays

Cardinals

Giants

Rockies

The Rays will surely be near the top, but it will be interesting to see how it shakes out at the end.

[justD]

Nats ahead of us?! Sickels was pretty high on Maxwell, Smoker and Lannan. Maxwell is ranked higher than Reimold.

I saw Maxwell in Arizona in late October -- and have been "telling all my friends" about him ever since During the Rising Stars game, I found myself saying, "Who *is* this guy?" I believe Nationals fans are going to really enjoy watching him play.

[justD]

OK, I lied. I finished the teams he has done. He has done 24 teams and we rank 12th right now. Of course, there are three teams just 0.5 points ahead of us so we're essentially as high as 9th. This is w/o any new trades. We could really end up looking good if these trades go down...

Said it in your rep, but I'll say it again here - really good stuff, thank you so much!

[oriolescrew]

What is the purpose of this "grading" system?? In my opinion these grades are really out of whack...Wieters has yet to play a minor league game, yet he is rated an A-, Rowell had a so-so year and is rated a B, Tripp had a great year, lead the team and was MLPOY..and is rated a C?? Are you sure you guys know baseball?? Opinions are like elbows...everyone has one or two....(including me).

[Lucky Jim]

What is the purpose of this "grading" system?? In my opinion these grades are really out of whack...Wieters has yet to play a minor league game, yet he is rated an A-, Rowell had a so-so year and is rated a B, Tripp had a great year, lead the team and was MLPOY..and is rated a C?? Are you sure you guys know baseball?? Opinions are like elbows...everyone has one or two....(including me).

Yes - we should definitely remove age and league level from the equation when we evaluate our young talent. It's a revolutionary thought.

In other words: you're aware that Rowell was three and a half years younger than Tripp, and at the same level, right?