McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Network Bar & Login
Section Navigation
Main Blog Content
Secondary Sidebar: Links to Recent Stories, FanPosts and FanShots
Masthead

New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

BA's Giants prospects 12-30

by MiGigantes on Jan 27, 2008 5:39 AM PST Comment 55 comments

Yesterday afternoon, I received my copy of Baseball America's 2008 Prospect Handbook. Based on a previous article, we already knew that Brian Bocock was judged as the 11th "best" prospect in the Giants' system, but here's 12-30:

Clayton Tanner
Michael McBryde
Charlie Culberson
Waldis Joaquin
Nick Pereira
Osiris Matos
Jackson Williams
Wilber Buchardo
Erick Threets
Ben Snyder
Pat Misch
Kelvim Pichardo
Merkin Valdez
Brett Pill
Brian Anderson
Travis Denker
Sergio Romo
Brian Horwitz
Ben Copeland

Oh, and the overall system was judged to be the 23rd best in baseball. And among the top prospects in the game, Angel Villalona was ranked as high as 19th (by Jim Callis) to 48th (John Manuel, who also ranked Tim Alderson #50).

Have at!

-D

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Very interesting indeed. Now I can order my copy. Biggest surprise at first glance - Ben Snyder so high for pitchers, and Brett Pill getting respect.

"But I AM a stepchild!"-Pedro Feliz

by Smotheredinhugs on Jan 27, 2008 7:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

8th Worst

potayto, potahto

***

Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy

by hairball on Jan 27, 2008 8:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I hsve never understoodt that...

The word is clearly potayto. I hate everyone who disagrees with me on this one.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Jan 27, 2008 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hsve never understoodt that...

I've noticed my potato is more like "potaytuh". I can't stop saying it that way.

by ResDog on Jan 28, 2008 6:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Usually I'll say "po-tay-toh"

But lately I'll say more of "meat n po'tay'tahs"

Coming to you from the Land of Many Beers

by WalrusMan on Jan 28, 2008 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 8th Worst

"Worst," "best" -- I'm scared to imagine its place without Villalona or without having one the top drafts last year. Meanwhile, there's the World Champion Boston Red Sox with their solid team, fat payroll and ranking as BA's second best minor league system.

The Brian Sabean era can't end soon enough.

-D

by MiGigantes on Jan 27, 2008 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

23?

Have to say I'm disappointed in the #23 ranking. True, we don't have much talent in the high minors, but I thought BA generally didn't discriminate against high ceiling players in the lower minors, and we have a lot of them.

When I see a prospect like Tanner at #12, Culberson at #14, Joaquin at #15, Buchardo at #19 and Pichardo at #23, it makes me feel real good about our system, even if it will take 2-3 years to see the payoff.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 27, 2008 8:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 23?

I thought that BA used more of a 'potential not level' rating myself in past years, but in reading through the whole handbook, it seems pretty clear that they are shifting a little more towards a balanced approach. It isn't as pronounced as Sickels, who seems to discount anyone below A+ ball, but it still is there.

by prospecthound on Jan 27, 2008 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 23?

I'm not sure I'd say we have a lot of high ceiling talent in the low minors, though we are starting to get some depth there. Real high ceiling players in the system I'd guess would be limited to Villalona, Fairley, Bumgarner, and Alderson, with Sosa and Noonan an inch behind. But I don't think you could possibly apply that term to anybody else.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jan 27, 2008 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

High Ceiling

That's actually quite a few, more than most teams have.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 27, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

There's "high ceiling" and then there's "high ceiling with good shot at reaching it." Which of the Giants' prospects fall into the later group? Villalona? Alderson and Bumgardner? I certainly see fairly as belonging to the former group.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Jan 27, 2008 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

Well, I guess there's high and there's HIGH. Who do we have who can reasonably be expected to appear in their Top 100? I'd guess Villalona, Alderson, and possibly Bumgarner. Three in the Top 100 would be about in the middle with the Top teams having around 6 and the bottom 1. Add on top of that a lack of depth at most positions (and the places where we have depth, like SS, there's not much ceiling), and the fact that virtually all of our best talent is highly untested very low minors. I'll check over their comments in a day or so but, I don't see that 23 is any kind of crime. You could maybe make a case to scoot them up to 17 or 18, but how much of a difference is that really. If the guys from the '07 draft and Angel give us some good bust out seasons, and we get a nice bump from the #5 pick, there should be a dramatic move upward next year. And really that's the only thing that's important, not our rating in a book, but our kid's performances this year in their first full season challenge.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jan 28, 2008 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

Don't forget Nate Schierholtz, who doesn't get a lot of respect, but who I think should be Top 100, especially if being close to the majors is a plus. I've seen Henry Sosa listed in a few Top 100's too. I'd probably rank him and Noonan as close.

I agree that ranking doesn't matter, results do, but I'm still a bit disappointed with 23 as BA, in the past, has tended to rate prospects more heavily on ceiling than proximity to the majors.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 28, 2008 7:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

I'm very high on Noonan and have big hopes for a bust out from him. Really, Fairley, too. I think all the "raw talent" labels are a backlash about not playing on the show pony circuit. But their next year's version I believe (though I'd love to see Nick there). Sosa I suspect the lack of track record and High A fatigue he suffered will keep him just outside the 100. Again, a big season from him would be huge. I'd like to see him in AA and succeeding before '08's out.

You and I are just on opposite sides of the fence on Nate, and there's nobody in our system I more hope to be wrong about. I think his free-swinging ways will cause him to be eaten up by major league pitchers and retard his power. Given that he does still have defensive issues with routes (highly on display in some of his major league appearances last year) his bat is really going to need to force the issue and unless he seriously tightens up his pitch selectivity, I can't see it happening. But, as I say, if I'm wrong I will admit to it most enthusiastically.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jan 28, 2008 7:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

Today's Ask BA has an interesting question that throws a little more light on this issue. The question is to rank each team's #1 prospect in order. Callis ranks Villalona 14th (right after Wieters and before Fernando Martinez. He also notes that in his personal Top 50, Villalona ranked #19. In further comments he notes that the Reds have two propsects in his personal Top 10 (Bruce #1 and Bailey #10) and we can assume they have a couple more in Votto and Cueto, and that the Devil Rays have 5 players in his Top 26 (Longoria, Price, McGee, Davis, and Breignac). Four organizations placed nobody in his Top 50 (Phils, Twins, DBacks, and White Sox -- two of those thanks to trades with the A's) and though he ranked the JR Towles #47, I'd say it's a given that the truly wretched Astros organization wouldn't put anybody else in the Top 200 prospects, much less 100.

So that's a partial quick snapshot on how we fit in with the organization's as a whole.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jan 28, 2008 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

I'm certainly not suggesting that we rank up there with the Tampa Bays and Cincinnatis. But I look at a team like the Angels. BA is doing their Top 10 today. I'm not sure Brandon Wood is a better prospect than Villalona, or even Nate for that matter. Their #2 is Nick Adenhart who I am not impressed by at all. Walden has high upside, but a long way to go. Ditto Hank Conger. Beyond that, I don't recognize anybody on the list as being a top notch prospect, yet, I's sure the Angels are ranked a lot higher than the Giants. Personally, I like our system as well or better than the Angels.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 28, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

Wood's Ks are certainly a concern, but comparing him to Nate seems like some pretty serious rose-colored glasses. He has played in very good offensive parks, it's true, but he's a year younger than Nate, and has consistently hit for much more power than Nate at every stop. Particularly looking at his Isos we get:

Wood
Level Age ISOP XBH% IsoOB
A 19 .153 38% .071
A+ 20 .351 57% .062
AA 21 .276 57% .079
AAA 22 .225 43% .066

Schierholtz
A/A+ 20 .228 46% .048
A+ 21 .195 38% .044
AA 22 .170 37% .056
AAA 23 .227 39% .032

So while I can see some comparison here, there are some distinct differences in secondary average. While playing at each level at a younger age, Wood has shown decidedly more extra base power, and while he too certainly needs to tighten up his plate discipline, a bit more patience. Last year was the only year that Schierholtz can legitimately make a claim to have been superior, and 1) I'm not sure he actually was (due to the IsoOB difference), and
2) you have to compare Wood's worst season to Nate's best to make it a serious argument.

And then there's the Defensive issue. Wood did a lot of this as a SS, and he wasn't moved off the position because of defensive problems (rather because the Angels were loaded with SS at the time and it seemed the best way to get Wood to the majors). He could probably move back to SS now and play at say a Rich Aurilia (in his prime) level. Nate is an iffy RF with a plus arm, but below average speed, routes, and instincts.

The advantage to Wood seems pretty clear to me.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jan 28, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wood vs Nate

Career minor league stats:

Wood- .282/.350/.528

Nate- .305/.353/.504

Yes, Wood shows more power there, but the difference is almost all in those 43 HR's he hit in the Cal League and we all now know about how tough it is for a LH power hitter in San Jose Municiple Stadium. Nate has consistently hit for a higher BA and has successfully cut down on his K's.

When I look at Brandon Wood's minor league record and his short stint in the majors, the comp that comes to my mind first is Todd Linden.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 28, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wood vs Nate

No the difference is not all in those 43 HRs, nor in the 51 2B the same year. He showed decidedly more power in AA as well, with 71 XBH to Nate's 46, with a 57% to 37% XBH/H ratio advantage. It's really Nate's BA that makes them look even close (which is why I used Isos above).

Beyond that, I don't know, I love Conger, and think Adenhart's a pretty strong prospect (it'll take this year to rank him in connection to Bumgarner and Alderson, but right now he's got to be a little higher). And I just don't see the depth issue. We have some depth at middle reliever, but that tends to be the iffiest position to project (even with veterans). With the exception of Nate, or OF is pretty barren all the way down to Augusta, we have no decent 3B propspects, a couple of iffy but old 1B prospects, a bunch of MI who can't hit, and my rotund boy is the only thing like a catching prospect. That's some pretty skinny depth IMO.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jan 28, 2008 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wood vs Nate

Again, there's a pretty big difference in park/league factors between Wood's and Nate's AA experience.

When we have a Clay Tanner not making our Top 10, I think that's pretty darn good depth.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 28, 2008 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wood vs Nate

I think Wood is clearly a better prospect because of age and defense. But both ZIPS and BP translate Schierholtz's 2006 AA stats as being slightly better than Wood's. In 2007, of course, Nate is way ahead, especially given the park difference. So that's cool.

by Evan on Jan 28, 2008 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wood vs Nate

Wood is also a third baseman, which doesn't require quite as much hitting as a corner outfielder. Nate was a third baseman, but failed there.

by sharksrog on Jan 29, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Addendum

My argument favoring the Giants farm over the Angels is not limited to Wood vs Nate. IMO, we have more depth in our system.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 28, 2008 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: High Ceiling

I wouldn't trade Angel Villalona, Mad Bum, Timmy Two, Wendell Fairley or Nick Noonan for Nate Schierholtz. Therefore, I can't rate him over them.

by sharksrog on Jan 28, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Trading Nate

If it was a 1 for 1 trade, I might trade Nate for any of those names except Angel V. Shark, we know you are all freaked out over Nate's low walk rates. Over the course of his minor league career, Nate's OBP-BA is about .050 which means it's been better in the past because it was lower this year. There just isn't much reason to try to take walks if you can hit .333 with a .560 SLG% by swinging. As for the MLB numbers, it's not unusual for a kid making his debut to be more agressive at the plate. Umps don't give borderline strikes to rooks, so you might as well be aggressive. I'd rather see Nate up there swinging than looking at strikes go by like Todd Linden.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 28, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Trading Nate

If Mad Bum and Timmy Two in particular aren't good enough prospects that one wouldn't trade Nate Schierholtz for them, either I've overrated both of them or I have underrated Nate.

Incidentally, if the Giants could trade Nate for another team's prospect who was as good as either Mad Bum or Timmy Two, IMO they should do so immediately.

Clearly one difference between us is that overall you seem to prefer the sure thing, while I am willing to gamble on greatness. That is because I believe winning teams are made that way by stars and super stars. Wouldn't a team made up of average ballplayers be somewhat by definition averagish?

by sharksrog on Jan 29, 2008 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 23?

The Giants' upper minors are so horrible in terms of prospects, that I think it would be hard to rank them above average as an organization. #23 might be a bit low, but IMO not as far off as the guy who had them ranked #5.

by sharksrog on Jan 27, 2008 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

23 rules everything

by Cainer on Jan 28, 2008 8:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

It is actually a pretty interesting read this year. As the rankings were made before the dbacks sent most of thier top 10 prospects to the A's for Haren, you might want to bump most teams, including the Giants up a notch, as Arizona's system is now pretty bare.
I wouldn't lose alot of sleep over the Giants being rated 23rd (22nd). The Giants system appears poised to move up quite a bit by mid season. Much of the hit the Giants take in the book's rankings originate with the disasterous 05 draft, leaving the team with a dearth of ML ready players this season, and most of the system's strenghth is in short season, where it is discounted at the moment. By the middle of next season, all the Giants best kids should have a full season premier under thier belts, all of the really top end kids from 05 will have lost thier prospect status and there will be a blue chip draft pickup.

by prospecthound on Jan 27, 2008 8:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Yeah, I think (being optimistic I suppose!) that the Giants system will start to emerge as being one of the more solid systems this year. I doubt they'll be ranked in the bottom 10 by the time the 2009 books come out.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jan 27, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Good points, plus we should also remember that if Lincecum was like any other prospect, he would still be in the minors (like Bailey) and eligible for inclusion in our farm system. If we are to compare our system with others, we should add Lincecum and then compare.

"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley "I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 28, 2008 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Bailey was a high school player when drafted, Lincecum a graduating senior from college. I'm not sure I see the point of comparison there. All hedging aside there are fairly well agreed upon definitions for what prospects are and that's where the field of comparison is. Tim Lincecum isn't in our farm system and no amount of prevarication will put him there. That said, we still wouldn't be the system Reds if he were.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jan 29, 2008 7:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Since Tim Lincecum was nearly major league ready when the Giants drafted him, he should provide a big bump up in their drafting rating but have little impact on their development rating.

The best thing the Giants did (and I WILL give them credit for this) was to leave Tim alone.

by sharksrog on Jan 29, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Wow, some surprising omissions. I thought Pablo Sandoval and Jose Capellan would be on the list for sure. I was hoping Travis Denker and Thomas Neal would make it, too, though they're less surprising. As for real longshots, I'd hoped one of the Dominican league guys would make it.

Anderson and Horwitz seem ranked a little high for my tastes.

I'm jealous now, waiting for my Prospect Handbook to arrive.

by Dan from NM on Jan 27, 2008 10:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Denker made it.

As far as Sandoval goes, I'm sure he doesn't walk enough for their taste.

"But I AM a stepchild!"-Pedro Feliz

by Smotheredinhugs on Jan 27, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Oops, you're right. I should also mention that I thought Sadler and Schoop deserved consideration, but Baseball America already included them on its "31st team" so I knew they wouldn't make the list.

by Dan from NM on Jan 27, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Schoop higher than Sandoval? That is strange.

"But I AM a stepchild!"-Pedro Feliz

by Smotheredinhugs on Jan 27, 2008 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

I don't really agree with Romo and Misch being as low on the list as they are. They should at least be in the top 20, imo...

by boonitez on Jan 27, 2008 10:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

soft tossers rarely get love from BA

Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jan 27, 2008 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

I can't find a link so maybe I dreamt it, but I'm pretty sure Baseball America reported the Angel Joseph signing fell through. It was some kind of immigration-paperwork problem. (His parents are from Haiti.)

I don't recall anybody mentioning that around here, so I figured I'd throw it into this diary.

by Dan from NM on Jan 27, 2008 10:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Pill two spots ahead of Denker?

Denker is a year younger, hit much better at a higher level, and plays 2B vs Pill at 1B.

by mxmob33 on Jan 27, 2008 11:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

But Pill has some real power potential. And that's the difference I would imagine. Some of those 47 doubles could start turning into home runs.

"But I AM a stepchild!"-Pedro Feliz

by Smotheredinhugs on Jan 27, 2008 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

I suppose it depends on what type of doubles he was hitting. But at the same level (A ball), Denker hit 21 HRs, and he was only 19.

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find many big league 1Bs that posted a .737 OPS in A-ball at 22.

by mxmob33 on Jan 27, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

You're absolutely right. I was just trying to work my head around their logic. Honestly Denker was probably top 12 on my list. Pill would probabbly be around 20 to 25.

"But I AM a stepchild!"-Pedro Feliz

by Smotheredinhugs on Jan 27, 2008 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Denker is a very poor defensive infielder and a number of people think he'll be moved to left field. Unfortunately for him, his bat isn't good enough for a corner outfield position.

Denker also has been in Single A for 3 seasons now.

Brian Anderson: I can has spot in Fresno 'pen?

by Anticon23 on Jan 27, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

I don't disagree with any of that. But the same argument would apply to Pill's bat at 1B.

by mxmob33 on Jan 27, 2008 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

This list sort of lost me with Brian Bocock at #11. From what I saw of Bocock personally, I just don't see him having a ceiling anything close to guys like Tanner and Joaquin.

Merkin Valdez and Erick Threets on this list also have me confused. Sure, they have ceiling, but realistically reaching those ceilings?

SFDugout.com is BACK! Top 50 Prospects is starting...but, why are there two #50's?

by BruteSentiment on Jan 27, 2008 3:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

+1!

Bocock at #11 is ridiculously overrated. They have the wrong Valdez in the Top 30. It should be Jose Valdez. I agree that Threets has had plenty of time to show progress toward reaching his ceiling. Maybe he has shown some, but not nearly enough to think he's ever going to be a factor in MLB.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 27, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: +1!

Well Threets has finally started to put it all together at the highest levels. Meaning AAA and the Winter league. Merkin I understand your confusion, although even if he losses a couple of MPH off of his fastball, it's still in the 90's and that's pretty good if his slider is still Plus.

"But I AM a stepchild!"-Pedro Feliz

by Smotheredinhugs on Jan 27, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: +1!

Threets has started to put things together, I'll admit, but I don't think his realistic ceiling is as high as that ranking.

SFDugout.com is BACK! Top 50 Prospects is starting...but, why are there two #50's?

by BruteSentiment on Jan 28, 2008 12:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Re: Bocock vs. Tanner or Joaquin, I suspect BA sees him as an Adam Everett-type at shortstop, and those guys don't grow on trees. Meanwhile, Waldis has had but a handful of innings over the past season and a half, and even though I think he's solidly in our top ten a year from now, they want to see a little more consistency. Clayton, for his part, is an overachiever at a young age. He has nice makeup and has shown an advanced pitching acumen, but lacks the pure stuff of a top ten prospect. He's way he is now because of his success relative to his age and level. Joaquin because of his nasty stuff and high ceiling -- minus a peg for fragility.

It'll shake out a year from now when they each show how well they adapt to the next level, especially Bocock and Tanner. Joaquin will do fine as part of a flat-out exciting rotation in Augusta; one that should make last year's stat-oriented bunch pale by comparison.

-D

by MiGigantes on Jan 27, 2008 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Adam Everett?

I'd have two responses...

Bocock hasn't shown that he's even Everett's match in any of the major offensive categories.
Adam Everett isn't all that special. In a hitter's stadium, he's got a career .357 slugging percentage, and a sub-.300 OBP. Even with superb defense, that's a quality player only if he's surrounded by a lot of great players, which means he is NOT a great player.

Frankly, by my eye, Bocock is a strong defender, but he's not a Vizquel level, which he'd have to be to survive with his offensive output.

As much as I rake on BA, I will admit they do value defense. But in Bocock and also in Sharlon Schoop, I think they have greatly overvalued it. They need better offense to be good prospects.

SFDugout.com is BACK! Top 50 Prospects is starting...but, why are there two #50's?

by BruteSentiment on Jan 28, 2008 12:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

The Everett comparison is due to his defense, not offense.

-D

by MiGigantes on Jan 28, 2008 2:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Clearly even the experts have a hard time ranking prospects -- particularly those without much professional experience. Heck, even scouts don't always agree.

I would say that after the first half dozen or so it becomes REALLY difficult to differentiate between prospects.

by sharksrog on Jan 27, 2008 6:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: BA's Giants prospects 12-30

Interesting list. Personally i find Bocock & McBryde to be too high with Denker, Sadler & Sandoval too low.

There's also other differences like Misch, but prospect lists are hard to compile, given the different levels of players.

by GiantFan on Jan 28, 2008 8:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

McCovey Chronicles Christmas Cards

by thehavenot 1 day ago

136 comments | 8 recs

MCC Recipe Swap & Food Talk Jamboree

by jcb9 7 days ago

220 comments | 4 recs

What I Would Do With the Roster

by Davenport Deserved It 9 days ago

48 comments | 9 recs

Recent FanPosts

Candlestick_small

What This Giants Fan is Thankful For

by mlb22 about 6 hours ago

19 comments | 0 recs

Rank Your Giants Prospects

by Cody_ransom about 11 hours ago

84 comments | 0 recs

Brett Pill tearing up Venezuela...Bowker apparently scared of the country and going home

by jbpeterson 1 day ago

102 comments | 1 recs

Lincecum's Ks - A Very Basic Question on Judgement of Pitching Savvy

by Tycho 1 day ago

94 comments | 1 recs

Could the Giants get any Compensation Picks?

by Bay Area Sports Fan 3 days ago

56 comments | 0 recs

Shadow_grad_small

We're interested in Uggla...

by NorCalGiant 3 days ago

213 comments | 0 recs

Giants add four to 40-man roster

by wilriv21 4 days ago

149 comments | 0 recs

Timmy_avatar_small

Expansion Teams / Relocation Discussion

by Norm Median 5 days ago

216 comments | 0 recs

Howtheyscoredcat_small

Lincecum Arbitration Results Prediction Thread!

by howtheyscored 5 days ago

191 comments | 0 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts