Who will be #26-#30 prospects?

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, DirtyBird said:

So, a bad pick, and we gave him full slot bonus

Way too early for that. I'd give him more of an incomplete. I like him more than our #30 I can tell you that! 

[DirtyBird]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

Way too early for that. I'd give him more of an incomplete. I like him more than our #30 I can tell you that! 

Oh, I guess that gives away the answer.

[weams]

5 hours ago, weams said:

Who finishes it out? 

Obviously 26 through 30. 

[ChosenOne21]

2 hours ago, DirtyBird said:

Oh, I guess that gives away the answer.

It basically does if you've been paying attention

[ChuckS]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

He just missed on mine as well. 4th outfielder comp without a lot of pro stats to back it up one way or the other. Long swing without the power of Stowers but similar swing problems. 

Five home runs and nine doubles for Watson in 116 pro at bats isn't too shabby.  Stowers had only six home runs in 204 at bats.

Both players seem to have contact issues, so I figured Watson's elite speed and CF defensive capabilities might put him ahead of Stowers or at least not far behind given that they were drafted within ten picks of each other. 

[weams]

3 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

Five home runs and nine doubles for Watson in 116 pro at bats isn't too shabby.  Stowers had only six home runs in 204 at bats.

Both players seem to have contact issues, so I figured Watson's elite speed and CF defensive capabilities might put him ahead of Stowers or at least not far behind given that they were drafted within ten picks of each other. 

I like them both! I am willing to be patient. 

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, ChuckS said:

Five home runs and nine doubles for Watson in 116 pro at bats isn't too shabby.  Stowers had only six home runs in 204 at bats.

Both players seem to have contact issues, so I figured Watson's elite speed and CF defensive capabilities might put him ahead of Stowers or at least not far behind given that they were drafted within ten picks of each other. 

Watson could end up better than Stowers, but we liked the tools a bit better overall with Stowers overall. Both have a lot of work to do on their swings but I won't argue too much of one over the other because I got a preliminary look at both. We'll see what adjustments they make this offseason and next spring and have a better feeling next year.

[Luke-OH]

1 hour ago, ChuckS said:

Five home runs and nine doubles for Watson in 116 pro at bats isn't too shabby.  Stowers had only six home runs in 204 at bats.

Both players seem to have contact issues, so I figured Watson's elite speed and CF defensive capabilities might put him ahead of Stowers or at least not far behind given that they were drafted within ten picks of each other. 

It's future 60 raw vs future 50 raw. Watson admittedly looked better the little bit I saw from him in his debut. But most of my context on Watson is from college, where I saw 60+ ABs. Long swing and a slasher type game that doesn't play as well in pro ball. He did put the ball in the air a lot more in his brief debut. That'll be something to watch going forward, if it's a real profile change, that would help. 

[sportsfan8703]

I like where the system has come, but this is where you really see the lack of international signings. For a team that’s had 3 years picking in the top half of the draft, 3 comp balance picks, and a firesale, we should have more “ceiling” at the bottom of this list. 

Great job by Tony and Luke for giving it to us straight and not hyping our favorite “underrated” prospects too much. 

Top 30’s are great and all, and I’m surely not asking the guys to do more, but the deep systems have a lot of “Prado” types knocking on the top 30 door. 

[Luke-OH]

6 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I like where the system has come, but this is where you really see the lack of international signings. For a team that’s had 3 years picking in the top half of the draft, 3 comp balance picks, and a firesale, we should have more “ceiling” at the bottom of this list. 

Great job by Tony and Luke for giving it to us straight and not hyping our favorite “underrated” prospects too much. 

Top 30’s are great and all, and I’m surely not asking the guys to do more, but the deep systems have a lot of “Prado” types knocking on the top 30 door. 

Thanks!

I am kind of agnostic on the DSL guys in the sense I don't know enough about them yet to really compare them to the others in the system. There are a few DSL guys that may deserve inclusion on talent, but without eyes or contacts there, it's wait and see for me. I try and know my limitations. 

[sportsfan8703]

Initial thoughts were Who the heck is McLarty?  I did some research. 20 year old. 2019 JC drafted. 20 IP in Aberdeen. 

Somebody’s really been getting their money’s worth out of milb tv.   

I appreciate it. 

[Frobby]

50 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Initial thoughts were Who the heck is McLarty?  I did some research. 20 year old. 2019 JC drafted. 20 IP in Aberdeen. 

Somebody’s really been getting their money’s worth out of milb tv.   

I appreciate it. 

The main thing to know about McLarty was he was the first pitcher we drafted in 2019 (though in the 8th round).

[Luke-OH]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Initial thoughts were Who the heck is McLarty?  I did some research. 20 year old. 2019 JC drafted. 20 IP in Aberdeen. 

Somebody’s really been getting their money’s worth out of milb tv.   

I appreciate it. 

DI college and I watched him pitch in college some as well on ESPN+

That’s all I’ll say for now.

 

[Frobby]

Got another one right!

On 11/19/2019 at 11:33 AM, Frobby said:

Tough call.    The only one I’m sure is wrong is no. 4.     No way Craport, Sparks or Bishop are in the top 30 this year.   The others are all plausible.    I chose no. 3 because it has both Tate and Sedlock, who’ve each been listed a ton up to now.    5 is identical to 3 but in a different order; I more or less flipped a coin between those choices.  

[7Mo]

@Tony-OH @Luke-OH Any comment about Johnny Rizer, .308 combined in 63 games with 15 doubles. 

Obviously it's a very small sample size.