Who will be the #17 and #18 prospects?

[DirtyBird]

Hall and Stowers - I have them 17 and 14

[LookinUp]

31 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I went Hall and Stowers, though Tony’s comments on Hall in the Hernaiz thread show me that he’s not that high on Hall.   
 

All in all, I’m pleased to see ten plausible names here.   The bottom part of our top 30 is quite strong compared to just about any year I can remember.   

Honestly, the only name I don't like here is Tate, and even he has a case to be a middle relief arm this year. Bannon and McKenna don't really excite me either, but one could be a utility guy or even a starter for us this year (Bannon) and McKenna has enough D value to carry the bat a bit. He'll need to hit better to convince me though.

[WalkWithElias]

I don’t know how much upside Stauffer has vs just having unknowns. There is a difference between having upside and us just not having time to see warts. That said, he’s one guy I’m very excited to track next year and find out what we have. 
 

I’m going Hall/Stowers here because I can’t believe a player drafted as high as Stowers doesn’t belong in our Top 20, even if it’s the deepest list we’ve had in years and he’s a relatively high floor/low ceiling prospect. 
 

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s Bannon/McKenna though since both have big seasons to their names in recent years. I don’t think their prospect shine has completed eroded. 

[ChuckS]

I think Hall is being underrated here even at 17.  Stowers must have some impressive tools because he wasn't very impressive in Aberdeen.  

[Ruzious]

3 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I'm kind of surprised Stauffer and Fenter are getting no love, tbh. Fenter's old for his level, but both had really nice years. I guess it's just too early since they're probably not going to end up ML starters.

Fenter will be eligible to collect Social Security soon.     Even if he makes it, what are we talking about - a middlin relief specialist?  

I was wrong with Bannon & McKenna at 15 & 16, so I might as well be wrong with them at 17 &18.  

 

[Luke-OH]

5 hours ago, Big Mac said:

I'm surprised Zimmermann has not been an option yet.  I'll go with Bannon and McKenna here.  I think Tony and Luke will have McKenna rated higher than Stowers because McKenna has less risk, similar to ranking Wells above Rom. 

I’m the risk adverse prospect guy, Tony goes with more of who you’d hate to lose from the org, so that definitely favors ceiling. 

 

4 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I'm kind of surprised Stauffer and Fenter are getting no love, tbh. Fenter's old for his level, but both had really nice years. I guess it's just too early since they're probably not going to end up ML starters.

So you all know I’ve been on Stauffer from the jump. Big Stauffer fan. But the thing about Stauffer is that he’s Kremer with a better changeup, little less curveball without the present command or the stamina to carry a starter’s workload. So while that could be very promising, it also carries lots of relief risk. 

[sportsfan8703]

I’m going with the two former 2nd round picks, Hall and Stowers.

Hall had too good of a year in Delmarva to drop much lower. Even if the strikeouts and only being able to play 2B are big concerns. Could Hall eventually move to CF if need be?  Hall had 33 SB and a good amount of XBH as well.

Stowers was a seasoned bat from Stanford that didn’t lower his stock at Aberdeen.  

Bannon and McKenna are meh to me.  People are down on Tate, but where he is now is might be the ceiling for the other guys on the list.