Perfect Game's Top 100

[QBsILLEST1]

This is a top 100 prospect list, but I am pretty surprised by a few rankings here. Notably, Springer being #3, Purke listed at #7 and Bundy being rated the top prep arm, ahead of Archie Bradley and Norris who I like more than the other 2. Can't believe Sonny Gray is so low either.....

I think it is worth it to note, notice how many of these top prospects went undrafted when coming out of HS. Just goes to show you how much can change in a couple of years....

http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=5048

[Stotle]

Looks like a reasonable follow list. Good that they've dropped Harrison down. I think some HSers are a little low, but most of the names I've noted and spoken to folks about are on here. The actual order means very little, but I think they are certainly in the ballpark with what pro scouts are seeing and noting.

[Skywalker76]

Not sure if you can draw any conclusion from this but I found it interesting that none of the previously drafted players had been the drafted by the O's!

[Stotle]

Not sure if you can draw any conclusion from this but I found it interesting that none of the previously drafted players had been the drafted by the O's!

I think you can absolutely draw conclusions from seeing the caliber of unsigned players (this list is too small a sample size to be indicative of anything, I think), and I know of a number of pro evaluators that feel the same way. But you certainly won't get much support around this board for that stance.

The wide majority of posters here who have sounded off on the topic have said that it doesn't matter that you identified talented players if you didn't sign them...

[QBsILLEST1]

I think you can absolutely draw conclusions from seeing the caliber of unsigned players (this list is too small a sample size to be indicative of anything, I think), and I know of a number of pro evaluators that feel the same way. But you certainly won't get much support around this board for that stance.

The wide majority of posters here who have sounded off on the topic have said that it doesn't matter that you identified talented players if you didn't sign them...

I disagree with the majority, and have from the start that it says something to be able to identify talent that is yet to breakout, or not a consensus talent. Signing them is one thing, but has nothing really to do with identifying that talent. It'd be interesting to see how Bobby Bundy would have done in college and where he would be projected at in this upcoming draft had he not signed. Kevin Brady has done OK, but from my memory was used in relief, but has upped his stock, just not to the 1st round.

[SrMeowMeow]

Well, the idea is that how much you spend on a player is a more precise barometer of how you value them than just the fact that you draft them at all. If you pay a first round bonus for a 15th round pick, that shows that you value him as a first round talent. If you draft a 15th rounder, offer them slightly above slot, they don't sign, and go on to become a consensus top 10 pick out of college, that shows that you valued him as an interesting flyer in a late round, nothing more.

Put another way, say the O's drafted Stephen Strasburg out of highschool in the tenth round, offered him slot money, and he didn't sign. Do we credit the O's scouting for picking him in the first place, when the amount they offered him makes it completely clear that they didn't expect him to be anywhere near the prospect he became?

[Stotle]

Well, the idea is that how much you spend on a player is a more precise barometer of how you value them than just the fact that you draft them at all. If you pay a first round bonus for a 15th round pick, that shows that you value him as a first round talent. If you draft a 15th rounder, offer them slightly above slot, they don't sign, and go on to become a consensus top 10 pick out of college, that shows that you valued him as an interesting flyer in a late round, nothing more.

Put another way, say the O's drafted Stephen Strasburg out of highschool in the tenth round, offered him slot money, and he didn't sign. Do we credit the O's scouting for picking him in the first place, when the amount they offered him makes it completely clear that they didn't expect him to be anywhere near the prospect he became?

Interesting considerations. Keep in mind that bonuses have to be largely anchored by "now" status. So in your example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to credit BAL for drafting Strasburg and only offering slot money, as there was little reason on the surface to think Strasburg would develop as well as he did. Why would BAL offer well over slot to an overweight HSer with mid-80s fastball that crept into the upper-80s on occasion?