John Manuel: The Return

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 17, 2005 10:11 AM PST in News

John Manuel, the co-editor-in-chief of Baseball America, has once again been gracious enough to agree to a short interview with Stephen Shelby. Less than two weeks ago, John answered some questions about Giants prospects who were recently added to the Giants 40-man roster. Baseball America's annual ranking of the Giants top ten prospects was published Friday on its website. With several publication deadlines looming, John was particularly busy. Accordingly, Stephen pared his original lengthy list of questions to those he felt were the most relevant to ask before the top ten list is revealed. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for some of the other questions at a later day.

SS: It strikes me that one challenging issue for you this year in ranking the Giants prospects will be how to rate the relief pitchers, particularly Jeremy Accardo, Scott Munter and Jack Taschner who have accumulated a fair amount of service time already. They have proven themselves against major league competition, but middle relievers individually play a relatively marginal role in the game. How do you rate middle relief prospects in general? Generally speaking does a pitcher need to profile as a starter or a closer to make a top 10 prospects list?

JM: That is a tough one, that's a great challenge with ranking prospects. If I think a guy has a chance to be an impact reliever--a durable 100-innings middle guy, or a closer--he's got a chance to be a top-10 guy. It's pretty impossible to predict the former, and also hard to find the latter. Most guys who are great big league closers were starters in the minors; the Huston Streets and Chad Corderos are rare, although seemingly a growing trend. Accardo has the highest ceiling of the aforementioned trio, but is he more certain to close than Brian Wilson, or even Craig Whitaker, who I think can be an impact reliever? I don't know; that's up in the air. Taschner has to do it for more than one year for me to be a top 10 guy; I'm just a little skeptical of him still. Munter is what he is, an extreme groundball guy who probably will never close, and I rated him accordingly. All three are in the top 30, however.

SS: The difficulty in rating middle relievers seems somewhat similar to the difficulty of contrasting (a) players who have relatively low ceilings but are very close to the majors and (b) players who have higher ceilings but are much further from the majors. The Giants top two infield prospects may be Marcus Sanders and Kevin Frandsen, and they provide a concrete example of this. I anticipate that many fans will insist on ranking Frandsen considerably higher than you do. How do you respond to them?

JM: Well, I blew it on Frandsen last year, let's start with that. He should have been in my 21-30 range, as I originally had him, and I talked myself out of it for some reason. But comparing him and Marcus Sanders . . . let's go tool by tool. Hitting: Sanders has a better chance to hit .300+ in the major leagues and has shown more patience, albeit at lower levels. Sanders has shown more power when healthy, but I'll call that a push. Defense, edge to Frandsen. Speed, big edge Sanders. Arm, edge to Frandsen. So it's 2-2, one push, Sanders is younger and wins the most important tool--the bat. So for me, Sanders is the better prospect. I didn't mean to get all Nick Bakay on you but it comes down to tools, and both have performed, though Frandsen's performance does mean more because he did it at higher levels. I certainly believe Sanders has the highest ceiling, and that usually gets you ranked higher by just about anyone who does this for a living.

SS: A year ago I was quite forward with offering my best guess how you would rank the Giants top ten prospects. This year I feel more reluctant to do so, and so I have saved it for my final question. I feel decently confident about the top five, but pretty uncertain after that. Just to be on the record, here is my guess for this year:

RHP Matt Cain
SS/2B Marcus Sanders
RHP Merkin Valdez
LF/DH Eddy Martinez-Esteve
CF/LF Fred Lewis
3B Pablo Sandoval
RHP Jeremy Accardo
RHP Brian Wilson
1B Travis Ishikawa
RF/LF Nate Schierholtz

Any comments on this list? Based upon what I currently know--and the search for more information is why I and others so value the information you provide in the annual Baseball America Prospect Handbook--I had a tough time convincing myself that Sandoval is really that far ahead of Ben Copeland and Daniel Griffin. Nor am I sure that Ishikawa and Schierholtz belong on this list any more than Dan Ortmeier, Craig Whitaker, Jonathan Sanchez and Kevin Frandsen. Is there currently that much difference between the Giants 6th best prospect and their 15th best prospect?

JM: No, there is not that much different between, for me, No. 2 and on, frankly. Every Giants prospect after Matt Cain has warts. My list is different from yours, pretty different actually, but if you went 2-15, not that different, which proves your point. I can't quite go there on Sandoval in the top 10 yet; he's pretty unconventional. If he still caught, he'd be top 10 easy. Dan Ortmeier was the toughest guy for me to leave out of the top 10, but I did. And I'm a bigger Jonathan Sanchez and Craig Whitaker believer than you are. Whitaker . . . he might ruin my ranking reputation, if I have one left. Either him or Travis Ishikawa. I'll add one other thing, ranking the Giants' system was harder this year than ever because of the parity of players. I think I have a more informed take on it than most, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be more correct on it.

But it's a fun organization to do because they have interesting players with good backgrounds, some unconventional guys. And I always enjoy visting with people in the organization, most of all Jack Hiatt. He's a great guy to sit and talk baseball with. Those interviews are the best part of the job, because I think we all agree that if you're a baseball fan, one thing that's great about baseball is talking about it, debating it, and Jack is great for that. One more tangent: look for Merkin Valdez' hair with his top 10 picture, great stuff, our photog caught Merkin in an off-field moment apparently.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Depth

I'm trying to figure out of the fact that our #'s 2-15 are pretty much equal is a good or bad thing. Either it means that we have an extraordinarily large group of grade B prospects, some of whom will develop into good major league players, or it means that we're a one prospect organization. I'm buying the first explanation, but I'm hopelessly biased.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 17, 2005 2:54 PM PST reply actions

no separation

John did seem to indicate in the chat yesterday that he saw more of a break between Sanders/EME and Ishikawa/Valdez than he seems to imply here.

If you look back at the list of top ten prospects from last year, none of them really had a breakout year where they exceeded expectations. EME broke out for half a season. Outside the top ten, Marcus Sanders had a similar first half. I think you could say that those two improved their stock enough to show that they are just ahead of the pack. But then you just have this huge peloton. A lot of the Giants prospects who had breakout seasons--Brian Wilson, Jeremy Accardo, Jack Taschner, Pablo Sandoval, Kevin Frandsen--came from outside the top twenty prospects.

Meanwhile, how many of the Giants prospects were fairly noticable disappointments this past year? Not many. Pat Misch and Alfredo Simon disappointed, but they are probably still top 30 prospects. John Bowker was also disappointing, but I am not sure he dropped out of the top 30 either. Brian Buscher was quite disappointing, and is probably out of the top 40 now. Arguably the next biggest disappointments were Fred Lewis, Craig Whitaker and David Aardsma; arguably they still remain top ten prospects.

This is pretty arbitrary, but if you looked only at an organization's 11-30 prospects, would the Giants be one of the better systems out there?

by steve S on Dec 17, 2005 3:24 PM PST up reply actions

11-30

I believe so. Starting from BA's top 10, 11-30 would include an awful lot of very good players including Ortmeier, Sandoval, Wilson, Accardo, Taschner, Coutlangus, Kelyn Acosta, Minicozzi, Michael Mooney, Copeland, Griffin, and of course, the phenoms Martis and Joaquin. Bill Sadler, Jesus Reina and Justin Hedrick are no slouches and they probably fall between #20-30. Beyond #30, you get into a whole pack of pitchers from short season ball some of whom could break out next year. Nieto, Romo, Pereira, Gomez, Lussier. We still haven't touched guys like Burres, Begg, Misch, and Sadowski who are marginal prospects at best, but it's not out of the question that they could be some major league team's 5'th starter or long reliever someday. Where do you put Ariel Nunez and Antoan Richardson? Heck, I'm desperately trying to find a place for Justin Knoedler in my top 50 and a lot of folks are projecting him to be our backup catcher in 2006!

I think our farm system is extraordinarily deep. The question I have is maybe it would be better to have a shallow system with 3-5 Matt Çain level blue chippers at the top and then nobody?

I was kind of expecting a big shakeout in 2005, but like you said, they all kind of bunched up together instead. Maybe 2006 will be the shakeout year? Which ones will break out and which ones will crash and burn? Should be a most interesting year of prospect watching.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 17, 2005 3:51 PM PST up reply actions

where

Do you really think Sadler is that much of a better prospect than Misch? Given Misch's potential value as a starter, I just don't see that much difference in their overall value.

I'm not sure I would put Minicozzi in the same group as Mooney, Copeland and Griffin. I want a better report on him. He may not be a middle infielder, and he may have just had a hot bat for one month of the short NWL season.

It seems to me that John Manuel does not seem very impressed with Justin Hedrick. (Oh, maybe I shouldn't say that since Justin may be reading.) I don't know what it means, but Hedrick's stats have always looked better than the scouting report BA has offered or not offered on him.

I did think it was interesting that the name Josue Gomez came up more than once in the chat. I infer from that that Gomez was the 4th best prospect on the AZL team last year. I don't see much in Ariel Nunez and Antoan Richardson until they do something in full-season ball (or maybe the NWL for Nunez). Why did Nunez have almost no XBH?

If we assume (maybe incorrectly) that the Giants sign another catcher, I think it might be best for Knoedler to go to Connecticut next year, with Eliezer Alfonzo and Yamid Haad in Fresno.

Maybe I should sit down and make a chart of where I currently project Giants farmhands to be assigned next spring. I've been thinking about it but haven't done it.

To answer your question about blue chipper versus a plethora of B grade prospects, I'll ask a question? Let's assume that Chad Billingsley and Matt Cain are equal and that Billingsley played for an AL team (so we are not talking about intradivision trades, or even intraleague trades). Would you trade Travis Ishikawa, Jonathan Sanchez, Fred Lewis, Craig Whitaker and Dan Ortmeier for Billingsley? I think that approximates what you are asking.

by steve S on Dec 17, 2005 5:46 PM PST up reply actions

Re: where

Thanks for the great interview. Unfortunately I would trade those 5 for Billingsley. I would certainly trade those 5 for Cain if he were in a different organizaion. It seems to me there are so few sure things, you almost have to go with the player who is close to making an immediate impact.

by BleacherEd on Dec 17, 2005 6:38 PM PST up reply actions

Jumping in...

I would trade the above for a position player prospect. In the past, a player like Adam Dunn, Joe Mauer, or Hank Blalock. In the present, someone like Brandon Wood, Delmon Young, or BJ Upton.

Keep me the heck away from pitchers, even if they are as exciting as Billingsley. The position players can always disappoint -- three years ago I couldn't have imagined Blalock being anything less than a yearly MVP candidate -- but we all know about the pitchers.

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 19, 2005 5:39 PM PST up reply actions

Re: 11-30

Can't agree with you guys on that one. I suspect that BA's organization list this year will include the Giant's around #20 or so, and I don't think it gets better by lopping off the Top 10, it gets much worse. As you both know, John Sickels site recently had a poll for the worst minor league system and the Giants made the short list. While i thought that a bit harsh, it didn't seem as much of a stretch as saying that they're one of the better ones. I'm sadly starting to mentally prepare for a return to the 70s in terms of getting sand kicked in our faces by the Dodgers.

by Roger on Dec 19, 2005 5:07 AM PST up reply actions

Lopping Off

Yes, a trade like that would lop off half of our top 10, but in our case the next 10 are pretty much just as good as the 5 we traded. In return, we get one of the elite pitching prospects in all of baseball. Billingsley is right up there with Felix, Liriano and Cain.

Subtracting those 5 and adding Billiingsley would upgrade our overall system.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 19, 2005 6:25 AM PST up reply actions

20th...ish

I agree that the Giants will rank around #20 this year. Just looking back at the other 15 NL teams, here is how I would compare their top 10's:

Better than Giants (9): Braves, Marlins, Mets, Brewers, Pirates, Cubs, D'backs, Dodgers, Rockies
Worse than Giants (6): Phillies, Nationals, Reds, Astros, Cardinals, Padres
(Note: The Mets without Petit should possibly change categories.)

My point, though, was that if you take away the Giants top 10's, you also take away every other team's top 10's. But then I just don't know enough about the other organizations to make any comparisons. My feel is that if you compared organizations' 11-40 top prospects, the Giants might rank more in the 11-15 range.

I guess another way of saying that is that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best prospects in the Giants organizations are not as good as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best prospects in most other organizations. However, their 11th-15th best prospects compare more favorably.

by steve S on Dec 19, 2005 12:59 PM PST up reply actions

Re: 20th...ish

I guess I'd agree that for the vast majority of organizations (outside of LA, LA, and Arizona) anybody outside of the Top 10 is a fringe prospect with little chance of carving out much of a career (or too young to know about yet). And consequently, SF could be said to be in a wash with about 27 or so other organizations. I'd disagree that that's the same as saying they're better than others, though.

Of course, it's incredibly rare that any organization would have as many as 10 players in their minor league system who ever go on to become major league starters so it's possibly a mute point. Here's a question: when's the last time the Giants had 4 future major league starters (not necessarily for them but for anybody) in their system at one time? I would guess 20 years.

by Roger on Dec 19, 2005 2:24 PM PST up reply actions

4 starters

I am not sure what your definition of a "starter" is when we start talking about pitchers. Does it include the 5th pitcher in the rotation? Does it include the top two relievers?

Heading into the 2003 season, the Giants system had Matt Cain and Noah Lowry. It also had Brad Hennessey, Jerome Williams, Francisco Liriano and Clay Hensley--all of whom may be the 5th starters for their teams this year.

I am not sure I would quite count Kevin Correia, Jesse Foppert or Kurt Ainsworth as "starters." Would Joe Nathan, who had missed almost three full major league seasons, still count as part of the farm system at that point? (He was drafted by the Giants, but he had too much MLB experience to qualify as a prospect.)

by steve S on Dec 19, 2005 3:48 PM PST up reply actions

Re: 4 starters

I'm hoping that two or three years ago will eventually turn out to include 5 major league starters, but I don't think it does yet. Cain and Lowry I think we can count, maybe Hensley (although I think he'll be a bullpenner) maybe Hennessy or Correia (time will tell) and probably Liriano (although Liriano was mostly on the IR by the time Cain came along so it's hard to count them both together) and Williams (I wasn't thinking of him being in the minors still then but you're right) and if we're lucky Ishikawa.

I'll tell you what I was thinking of when I said 20 years ago: I think Robby Thompson, Dan Gladden, Terry Mulholland, and Kirt Manwaring may have all coincided with Will Clark. I'm not sure about that, though, because Gladden might have already been in the majors when Clark was drafted (I think he only spent half a season in the minors). In which case, you can possibly include Chris Brown with that group, although despite his tenure as a major league starter was mighty short-lived and only for a pretty terrible Giants team.

by Roger on Dec 20, 2005 5:25 AM PST up reply actions

I am suprised...

that you would rank our system so low. From a very cursory viewing of Sickel's top 20 review of each system, I thought that the Giant's farm exceeded a fair number of them. Perhaps I am overweighing the bottom of the lists.

Whatever happened to that girl I knew, she was just like you- but was way more into me

by kenshin1 on Dec 19, 2005 2:48 PM PST up reply actions

Premature...

Do you have any idea Steve which way the Giants are leaning with their 1st pick this year. If so, are you familiar with the players, or at least the quality of this year's draft?

Whatever happened to that girl I knew, she was just like you- but was way more into me

by kenshin1 on Dec 19, 2005 2:51 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Premature...

If I were to put money on anyone (and this is WAY premature, as next season will have a lot to do with the picks), I'd say Long Beach State Junior Evan Longoria.

http://www.longbeachstate.com/bbo/bbc/BIO/biobbclongoria05.htm

Longoria played 3rd last year, but appears to be more of a middle infielder long term and is expected to man shortstop this year with Tulowitzki gone to the Rockies. Longoria led the Cape Cod league (a wooden bat summer league) in home runs and RBI this year, a good sign that his power may come through. BA ranked him the #3 prospect in the Cape Cod League and the #10 prospect for the 2006 draft (Hey, and we pick #10).

Longoria makes a lot of sense looking at past Giants picks. Lately, they've leaned towards polished college underclassmen (like EME and Copeland) who could move quickly but are not as old as college seniors. He's a fit in the Giants system's needs, particularly if he plays on the left side of the infield. And he plays at Long Beach State, where the Giants scouts are entrenched and have made picks/signings in recent years (Bowker, Jennings, Anderson).

The downside would be that we'd have to deal with years of 'Desperate' jokes...although that could be tempered with well-placed picture linking to that other E. Longoria.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Giants go for a high schooler with their compensation pick (#32 if Weaver returns to L.A., #33 otherwise). That's about where high school pitchers like Whitaker and Cain have landed in the past. If Matt Latos slips, I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants went after him. David Christensen might also be considered, if the Giants think they can lure him away from the Hurricanes...although I think he'll go to college.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 19, 2005 3:58 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Premature...

I agree. It is way premature, but Longoria does make a lot of sense. The Giants have often drafted players who performed very well in the Cape Cod League. I think that Niekro, Linden and Aardsma all fit into that category.

A college pitcher the Giants might target in this range is Oregon State's Dallas Buck. But a ton of things can change between now and June, especially for pitchers.

by steve S on Dec 19, 2005 4:40 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Premature...

From what I recall, BA published an article a while back discussing who would be the players they would pick and Longoria was listed for the Giants pick because, hey, he's the 10th best prospect in their opinion. BA also noted that the crop looks a bit thin right now but said that things hopefully will perk up after another season of H.S. and college ball.

So it is extremely premature. Plus aren't there players who haven't been signed from the last draft who could go early in the draft? That will affect things as well

BA also used the same lame Desperate Housewife joke as well (the crowd here prefers photo-links like this http://www.desperatehousewivesonline.com/images/eva/eva_10.jpg ; I guess you really haven't visited here much).

Anywhere on the left side of the infield would be great because we have no good 3B prospect in our system right now and our best SS prospect (Marcus Sanders) has a bum shoulder that should force him at least to 2B and perhaps to CF.

Just being picky, but Cain went a bit higher than a compensation pick 32/33, he was the 25th pick of the first round of the draft. Not a huge difference but the bonus drops from around $1.5M to $1.0M, showing the drop in quality in a quantitative way.

But to aid your case, I would have added Jerome Williams as an example instead, he was also a compensation pick in the 30-ish range.

by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Dec 23, 2005 5:10 AM PST up reply actions

Re: 20th...ish

I think you guys might be a little high there. Remember last year when the consesus was 25 and we came out at 17? I think on the AL side, Detroit, KC, Baltimore, NY, Boston, Toronto, maybe Texas (depends on how you rate out Diamond and Danks) could all be rated below the giants. On the NL side, Pirates and Mets may be tuff calls. They may drop as low as 20, but I think they'll hold thier own in the 17-18 range.

by prospecthound on Dec 19, 2005 8:53 PM PST up reply actions

Re: 20th...ish

PH, I think you know the rest of the minor leagues better than I do, but I would think that ...

a) Detroit with Verlander, Zumaya and now Cameron Maybin rates well
b) KC rates well with Alex Gordon and Billy Butler, although it may drop off quite a bit after that (Lubanski and Huber)
c) Boston should still rate well with Lester, Papelbon, Pedroia and now Craig Hansen and Jacoby Ellsbury, even without Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez
d) Texas rates well with Diamond, Volquez, Danks, Arias and Kinsler
e) Baltimore's top 4 of Markakis, Penn, Loewen and Majewski are probably better than the Giants top 4, although Baltimore drops off a lot after that

Do the White Sox still rate above the Giants after trading away Chris Young and Gio Gonzalez?

by steve S on Dec 20, 2005 4:21 PM PST up reply actions

Not That Much Better.

No, I don't think Sadler is that much better than Misch. I don't think any of our guys outside of Matt Cain are all that much better than any of the others. I'm not even sure there is a middle tier at #2,3. I mean, look at Sanders and Eddy Martinez-Esteve. BA rated Sanders' arm last season as a 20 on the 20-80 scale. Plus, he just had shoulder surgery. Yeah, he looks like the prototypical leadoff hitter, but is he ever going to be able to field a position? Same thing goes for Eddy. I would probably rank Sadler a little higher than Misch, though. Misch is strictly a finesse guy who took a giant (excuse the pun) step backwards last year while Sadler, even if he's a reliever, is a kid who throws serious heat and made progress last year. I'd personally rank a guy who has a good chance of being a major league setup man someday over someone who has only a small chance of making it as a starter and doesn't have relievers type stuff.

I don't remember Hedrick's name coming up in the chat. I'll have to go back and read it.

Maybe we should al just ignore short season ball, but Minicozzi put up some pretty serious numbers at S-K. Certainly much better than Kevin Frandsen the year before. I don't recall many folks being impressed by Frandsen either. I had him in my Top 50 last year, but ranked relatively low. Anyway, I think you've got to pay attention to a guy who comes out of the chute playing 2b and hitting .330 with an OBP of .411.

I don't know why Nunez didn't have a lot of XBH's. He certainly has the size to develop power and JM specifically said he appears to have power potential. Other than that, we'll just have to wait and see.

Richardson is a little more than just some numbers from the Rookie League. I'm not sure where I read it,but there was a note recently about Richardson having some serious speed. He certainly had nice SB/CS numbers. He also had that great OBP. Now, I'm guessing that it ain't all that hard to draw a walk in Rookie Ball, but if it's that easy, how come there were only 7 players with OBP's over .400 in the AZL? Again, we'll just have to wait and see, but somebody with that kind of OBP and that kind of speed gets my attention.

Yes, I would trade all those guys for Chad Billingsley. I would also happily trade our entire farm system, including Cain, for either the Dodgers or Angels system. But, I wouldn't trade it with the Mariners who have Felix Hernandez and a couple more second tier guys, but not much below that.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 17, 2005 6:46 PM PST reply actions

and ...

It had just seemed to me that you had previously implied you would rank Sadler 10+ spots ahead of Misch. Thanks for clarifying. I think I have Sadler about 5 spots ahead (and putting Hedrick and Coutlangus in between, FWIW). It appears you are right that Hedrick was not mentioned in the chat.

Based on the few games I saw of Frandsen and Minicozzi in Salem-Keizer, Frandsen is superior defensively and he has better power. I recall that the S-K manager referred to Frandsen as the best hitter on the team, although his stats were not that impressive for a #3 hitter.

One reaction I have to Nunez is similar to the reaction I had to Marcus Sanders in the second half. How little power does someone have when they have great speed but still have a hard time getting any doubles. After mid-June approximately ...
Nunez: 150 AB, 55 H, 8 XBH, 0 HR, 28 SB
Sanders: 167 AB, 49 H, 7 XBH, 0 HR, 15 SB
If you figure that someone with their speed probably stretched a couple bloop singles into doubles, the power looks even more anemic. I would clarify that Sanders' arm was a 20 at the end of the season (after the shoulder re-injury) and not at the start of the season.

As for Antoan Richardson, I guess I would just go back to what John said in the chat, "I have serious doubts about the bat that were not answered by a college senior out of the SEC lighting up the AZL." Interesting tidbit about his mother being an Olympic sprinter for the Bahamas, though.

Okay, so you would trade Ishikawa, Sanchez, Lewis, Whitaker and Ortmeier for Billingsley (5 for 1). Hypothetically, would you trade EME, Ishikawa, Valdez, Sanchez, Schierholtz, Lewis, Frandsen, Whitaker, Ortmeier, Accardo, Wilson, Copeland, Griffin and Sandoval for both Billingsley and Francisco Liriano (i.e., 14 B grade prospects for 2 blue chippers)?

by steve S on Dec 18, 2005 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

14 for 2

Yup. Man, if we could just have Cain and Liriano in our organization right now!! Add in Billingsley, who I think could possibley crack the Dodgers rotation this year and all my worries and problems woud be over.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 18, 2005 5:27 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks Steve

I don't post here very often, but I just wanted to say thanks for these two interviews. They were both very intriguing and interesting.

A couple of bits I might be able to add to your conversation:

According to the guy I talk to about the AZ Rookie league, he says that Richardson may be the fastest guy in the system, even faster than Sanders. However, his swing is even more unconventional than Ellison's and often ends up offering nothing more than swinging bunts, and had no projectable power whatsoever. The Giants were doing a ton of tweaking (and apparently still are this winter, as he's been meeting with SF trainers), and will likely keep Richardson in extended spring training next year to work on it more.
The deepness of our system is all at the low levels, and I think it'll be fun to watch and see how it shakes out the next couple of years, particularly the guys from S-K. Between Copeland, Mooney, Sandoval, and all the pitchers, that could be a fun group in a couple of years. I said the same thing about the 2003 Volcanoes, and most of that group just won the 2005 Cal League championship.
I guess I'm lower on Sanchez than most people. I've got him nowhere near my top 10. I've heard some questionable things about his makeup and work ethic, and despite his strikeouts, worry about how hard he could get shelled in the California League. If he thinks he can keep challenging that fastball down the middle of the plate at higher levels, all he's going to do is supply the power to a lot of home runs against him.
I don't have anyone at S-K for reports...so if you saw him, Steve, the player I'd most be interested in defensively would be Maroul, and how he looked at short. I don't see him having much of a future at third, even in our system...but maybe he's got enough bat to do something at the 6.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 19, 2005 3:07 PM PST reply actions

and Maroul

Brute, thanks for sharing your comments. I do read what you contribute in the Giants prospects thread forum at Scout.com.

Thanks for the report on Antoan Richardson.

I was a bit surprised to see you say the 2005 San Jose Giants were composed of 2003 Salem-Keizer Volcanoes, as opposed to 2004 Volcanoes. So I thought that out of curiosity I would check that out further. Among the 12 hitters with 150+ AB and 12 pitchers with 40+ IP:
2004 (8): Timpner, Martinez-Esteve, Bowker, Frandsen, Broshuis, Reina, Espineli, Hedrick
2003 (11): Jennings, Schierholtz, Ishikawa, Dobson, Floyd, Sadowski, McNiven, Coutlangus, Bateman, Peterson, Waddell
others (5): Wald, Rodriguez, Buscher, Alfonzo, Serrato

I saw Salem-Keizer in person about 7 times last summer. I also have a huge disclaimer about any scouting abilities I have. I thought he looked okay defensively, although much bigger in stature than your typical NWL shortstop. I think that a couple of the games I saw where when Maroul had a mini hot streak too with HRs in back-to-back games. What strikes me is how high his SO/AB ratio was at 33%, along with just 4 BB in 175 AB. (The only Giants farmhands with higher SO/AB ratios were in small sample sizes: Hector Perez, Jeremiah Luster and Andy Busch.) Based on that, I don't find any reason to contradict the expectation that Maroul will remain at shortstop as he moves to Augusta next year and that if he hits something like the 535 OPS Coutlangus had in 2004, he will be moved to the mound by the end of the summer. I am not sure how significant it was, but Maroul was bothered by a hip problem for at least part of the summer.

by steve S on Dec 19, 2005 4:29 PM PST up reply actions

Re: and Maroul

Yea, I'll admit that the 2004 Volcanoes were the bigger names...the 2003 team was one of my faves to follow and debate, so I'm a bit attached to the guys like Schierholtz, Ishikawa, Bateman, Dobson (whose friends I sat with for the Cal League championship this year) and Jennings. I certainly didn't mean to ignore the contributions of the '04 V's, though.

Maroul intrigues me a lot, just because he's got that David Bell sort of feel...he doesn't hit well overall, but he just always seems to come up big when it counts. That may be his biggest attribute, which would probably be why I'd be disappointed if he went to the mound, even if it makes the most sense. I hadn't known about Maroul's hip, so thanks for that tidbit.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 19, 2005 4:40 PM PST up reply actions