Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

by FavoriteSpring on Dec 29, 2006 12:28 AM PST Comment 60 comments

Here's the non-subscriber content:

Drafting the young arm with the best pure stuff in the 2006 draft was a good start. Add an intriguing sign out of the Dominican Republic, and the Giants have the makings of a farm system.

Excellent Prospects
1. Tim Lincecum, rhp

Very Good Prospects

Angel Villalona, 3b
Jonathan Sanchez, lhp

Good Prospects
4. Emmanuel Burriss, ss

Average Prospects

Eddy Martinez-Estevee, lf
Sharlon Schoop, ss
Fred Lewis, lf/cf
Nate Schierholtz, lf
Billy Sadler, rhp
Mike McBryde, cf
Tim Lincecum, rhp

DOB: 6/15/84
Height/Weight: 5-11/160
Bats/Throws: L/R
Drafted: 1st round, 2006, University of Washington
What he did in 2006: 0.00 ERA at Short Season (4-1-0-10), 1.95 ERA at High A (27.2-13-12-48)
The Good: Best pure stuff of any 2006 draftee. Despite looking like a 13-year-old on the mound, Lincecum's unorthodox mechanics and the fastest arm action you'll ever see allow him to unleash 92-96 mph fastballs while touching 98-99 and maintaining that velocity throughout the game. Curveball is an even better offering, grading out by many scouts as a pure 80 on the 20-80 scouting scale. Slider and changeup are there and usable. Despite size and delivery, arm was remarkably resilient in college, as he often closed 1-2 days after racking up a high pitch count without ever having problems with arm soreness.
The Bad: Control can be a problem at times. Lincecum walked 216 in 342 college innings, and while he made significant improvements this year, his rate was still a relatively high 4.52 per nine innings.
The Irrelevant: The three highest single-season strikeout totals in Washington history are Lincecum's junior (199), freshman (161) and sophomore (131) seasons.
In a Perfect World, He Becomes: An all-star starter or an all-star closer.
Gap Between What He is Now, And What He Can Be: Low - Lincecum could have pitched out of the Giants bullpen at the end of 2006, but the team decided against it for a variety of reasons. He'll likely start 2007 at Double-A, and could be in the majors as early as the All-Star break.

2. Angel Villalona, 3b
DOB: 8/13/90
Height/Weight: 6-3/210
Bats/Throws: R/R
Signed: 2006, Dominican Republic
What he did in 2006: Signed a contract three days after his 16th birthday that included a $2.1 million bonus.
The Good: Absolute man-child and the top international prospect of the year. Already has plus-plus power to all fields and advanced pitch recognition. Good fielder with soft hands and a plus arm. Even an above-average runner.
The Bad: Um, he's 16! There will obviously be some weaknesses in his game, but we won't know what they are until they are exposed. At his age and his size, he could easily outgrow third base, but he's athletic enough where the backup plan is right field instead of first base.
The Irrelevant: International scouts saw Villalona hit a 400-foot home run with a wooden bat . . . when he was 13.
In a Perfect World, He Becomes: The sky is the limit, though Villalona is still on the ground. Whispers of the next Miguel Cabrera are understandable at this point.
Gap Between What He is Now, And What He Can Be: Very High - Again, he's 16. The Giants won't reveal their plans for Villalona, but all signs point to either a slow introduction to professional baseball with a year in the Dominican Summer League, or a half season in the Arizona Rookie League.

3. Jonathan Sanchez, lhp
DOB: 11/19/82
Height/Weight: 6-2/165
Bats/Throws: L/L
Drafted: 27th round, 2004, Ohio Dominican University
What he did in 2006: 1.15 ERA at AA (31.1-14-9-46); 3.80 ERA at AAA (23.2-13-13-28); 4.95 ERA at MLB (40-39-23-33)
The Good: Strong-armed lefty was moved to the bullpen in order to accelerate his progression, but moved back to the rotation and ended up making big league debut as a starter. 91-93 mph fastball is a plus pitch for a lefty, and changeup features excellent arm action. Goes after hitters with aggressive style that serves him well.
The Bad: Has tendency to overthrow breaking ball which causes it to lose break and get elevated, leaving it highly hittable. Has problems throwing strikes at times.
The Irrelevant: Sanchez's dominating four-year career at tiny NAIA Ohio Dominican included four no-hitters.
In a Perfect World, He Becomes: A No. 3 starter.
Gap Between What He is Now, And What He Can Be: Low - The signing of Barry Zito makes things a little more difficult for Sanchez, but he'll likely beat Brad Hennessey out for the final slot in the Giants rotation.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5783

Sorry the formatting seems to get screwed up in the transfer.

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 60 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

This excites me. If these guys actually live up to their potential, we'll be in for a fun ride in the next few years.

LicenseToPills: barry bonds says words, they have nothing to do with his thoughts, they are just subjects and predicates in his mental kingdom

by Natto on Dec 29, 2006 12:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

I would be absolutely thrilled to see Sanchez win the #5 spot, post a 4.85 ERA and win 10 games.

by allfrank on Dec 29, 2006 1:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Schoop that high? Sadler on the list but not Wilson? I think McBryde is a bit high too, but Goldstein has taken the BA principle of grading mostly (exclusively?) on potential over to the BP, so that doesn't really surprise me.

I think some people just splooge themselves on seeing an 18 year old in affiliated baseball. And from the first hand reports I've heard on Schoop, I'd say the Dawg has the potential to be one of those who disappoint fans only because of unrealistic expectations.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 29, 2006 3:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

I guess they're going nuts with the comparisons to Omar defensively. It is a pretty huge compliment to say a guy could be Vizquel-good at any age.

SFDugout: it's where all the cool kids go.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Dec 29, 2006 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Schoop Dawg!!

Wow, I've been a pimp for the Schoop, but nothing like ranking him #6!! If Burriss and Schoop are both top 10, where does that leave Marcus Sanders?

I, of course, vehemently disagree with leaving The Kev off the top 10.

Based on what I saw, I agree with the idea that Lincecum's curveball is special. His fastball ain't bad, but combine it with that curveball and you have a really special prospect. I guess the guy he reminds me most of is a young Don Sutton with a much better fastball.

That's the most I've ever read about Big V. Music to my ears!!!

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 29, 2006 6:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Schoop Dawg!!

A couple of DrB's reactions here are pretty much like I envisioned. First, he's been pimping Schoop, and I've been discounting it, and KG comes along and rates Schoop even higher. Second, we know DrB would be very unhappy to see Frandsen not make the list. One thing I will say in Frandsen's favor is that even if Frandsen is just a reserve infielder, does that really rank in value much lower than a player whose ceiling is becoming "a very good fourth-outfielder/occasional starter"?

Other observations:
a) interesting, but not too surprising, to see Villalona ranked ahead of Sanchez. I think it's been noted in the past that KG does not seem to be much of a Sanchez fan.
b) interesting, but not too surprising, to see Burriss all the way up to #4. I wondered if that might happen.
c) The big surprises are Schoop at #6 and McBryde at #10. And confirmation that the plan is to send both Burriss and McBryde to low-A next spring.
d) I am a bit surprised about ranking Lewis ahead of Schierholtz given the descriptions of their ceilings
e) interesting, but not really too surprising, that Sadler ranks ahead of Wilson
g) disconcerting that the only player in the system who is not 25 years or younger and has exceeded the prospect threshold is Matt Cain.

Yes, the following home-grown players are now already at least 26 years old: Correia, Hennessey, Lowry, Munter, Taschner, Knoedler, Feliz, Ellison, Lewis, Linden. The players on the 40-man roster who are 25 or younger: Acosta, Cain, Matos, Misch, Sadler, Sanchez, Threets, Valdez, Wilson, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Velez, Ortmeier, Schierholtz.

by steve S on Dec 29, 2006 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Schoop Dawg!!

Sending Burriss and McBryde to Low-A next spring is a surprise?

I'm not sure I'd think that sending them to High-A would be that big of a surprise. Them going to Low-A is simply expected, or at least I'm expecting it.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 29, 2006 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Schoop Dawg!!

No, I don't think what I wrote should imply that there is anything surprising about Burriss or McBryde being assigned to low-A next year. My observation was more that the write-up made it sound like Kevin Goldstein had been able to talk to people in the organization who indicated that strongly enough that he could report it.

Actually, I would anticipate that very few of the position players drafted in 2006 will skip low-A. The position players drafted and signed last year:
1S. Emmanuel Burriss SS

Mike McBryde CF
Ryan Rohlinger 3B
Brett Pill 1B
Matt Klimas C
Brian Bocock SS
Matt Weston LF
Brad Boyer 2B
Tyler Graham OF
Bobby Felmy RF
Sean Van Elderen 1B
Matt Downs 3B
Lance Salsgiver OF
Evan Bush 2B
Robert Davis C

From that list, the only ones I currently think we may see starting in San Jose next spring are Rohlinger, Pill and Bocock or Boyer.

by steve S on Dec 29, 2006 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Interesting list. But man, what does Kevin have to do to get some respect?

Great to hear about Villona's plus-plus power.

by orangeandblackattack on Dec 29, 2006 7:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Like I said, they grade on 'potential'.

Therefore, someone who is many many years from the majors but who has a glimmer of hope of becoming an MVP someday far outweighs a sure-thing starter whose ceiling is being a good role player.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 29, 2006 8:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Who are the "sure-thing starters" in the Giants farm system right now? I think there is one, and everyone is ranking him #1.

by steve S on Dec 29, 2006 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

By that, I'm referring to Kevin Frandsen (that's the only other guy in the system I'd say that about right now).

I admit, my mind isn't everyone else's. But I don't see Frandsen NOT becoming a starter sometime soon.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 29, 2006 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Frandsen just doesn't seem like he'll ever hit quite enough to be a good full-time starter. As a superutility man who gets 350-400 at-bats a year though, he has definite value. Of course, he'll likely not get that with scrap like Feliz hurting the team at third and Aurilia and Klesko splitting the rest.

DFA Everybody

by JakeS on Dec 29, 2006 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

He may never hit enough to be a good starter, but, given recent signings, the Giants might not have much choice but to start him in the near future.

But then again, Sabean never met a mediocre veteran he didn't admire from afar, so who knows.

by Bhaakon on Dec 29, 2006 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Crap, I didn't need to see that '400 foot shot/ wooden bat/ at the age when I was still watching cartoons' line in Villalona's makeup...at least they left the part out about Angel throwing three heaters past Mark McGwire at that country fair back in '02.

by biff pocoroba on Dec 29, 2006 8:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Thanks for the summary, Fav. Like DrB, it's great to actually hear a critique of "Big V." A 400 ft. homer as a 13-yr-old? Yowza! Where can I buy a Villalona jersey?

I got the fact that this list is weighted toward star-potential, and that's why Kevin didn't make it. Even so, I'd put Clayton Tanner above McBryde, just because he's actually shown me something so far. And Fred Lewis's potential... well, I think he's the second coming of Rikkert Faneyte.

Waiting for Nate, Marcus, Nick, & Emmanuel

by Lyle on Dec 29, 2006 8:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'll weigh in...

My Top 11

*Sanchez - think Sid Fernandez, minus the spare tire around his waist. I don't think the sneakiness of his fastball gets enough credit.
*Villalona - Just too soon, but I am inclined to think that if the Giants were willing spend cash on his, he has to be special.
*Lincecum - Scot Shields, 100 IP relief ace.
*Lewis - Shannon Stewart type hitter.
*Burriss - Luis Castillo at best, but probably not quite that good. [Castillo was in MLB at his age]. Has a better chance of success if he goes by Manny.
*Tanner - If he starts in the SAL, otherwise he drops way, way down if he stays in the pen. Should also go by Clay
*Sadler - Good reliever without enough control to be great
*Wilson - See Sadler
*Sanders - Must have injury free 07
*EME - See Sanders. Aside from Villalona, is the only hitter in the system that potentially strikes fear into opposing pitchers. Should really pick a last name. Either on increases his chance of success.
*Pereira - Will be more consistent, but without the dominant stretches of a Sadler or Wilson.

2007 is a make or break for: EME, Ishikawa, Schierholtz.

2007 is a developmental year for: Sanders, Villalona, all 2007 draftees.

To answer the criticisms:

I see Tim the Enchanter as a reliever because of his size, control, ability to help now, and repertoire. If his walks come down to a sustained 3/9 IP, I might be inclined to think he has a chance at starting.

I don't see Schierholtz hitting enough to be a MLB left fielder, or enough of a defender to play right. Sure, he had a great August and I certainly hope that it is a sign

I don't see Frandsen hitting enough to start at second, or being a versatile enough defender to be an asset as a utility. [Not that he would hurt a team as a UT guy.] Decent utility guys aren't all that hard to find. Now, I could still see Frandsen playing/starting a lot, but that doesn't make him an asset.

I don't believe in Ishi's bat much at all, and being a prospect as a 1B requires a big, big bat.

I give Schierholtz, Ishikawa, and Frandsen about a 20-40% chance each of making the needed adjustments/improvements needed. I would probably put Frandsen closer to 40. I am encouraged by his AFL, but it is the AFL. [See Harvey, Ken]

I very much ascribe to rating prospects more on star potential than the likelihood of reaching their potential. It simply isn't that hard to find a utility infielder or 5th outfielder.

Lastly, it isn't that I don't wish all these players well, it's that I doubt their abilities. I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong and see Frandsen hit 300/360/440, Schierholtz hit 280/340/530 with good RF defense, and Ishikawa hit 250/350/500.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 12:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: I'll weigh in...

I'd expect better adjustments out of Frandsen. While he's never going to hit for much power, I think the AFL demonstrated his ability to draw walks. The AFL wouldn't particularly skew walk abilities, particularly for players without power, and considering that it was his stated goal at the outset of the league to draw more walks I think he's demonstrated the ability to adjust.

I like the way they caught on to Schoop as well. One of the things that MLB Splits allows you to check is a player's line drive percentage. Changes in a player's level of play tend to have a smallish effect on Line Drive percentage. Schoop hit about 15.5% LD in Arizona (of Balls put into play) which is phenomenal for a 19 year old. Since LD% is pretty key in determining a player's BABIP and consequently his batting average, Schoop is starting to look like a serious diamond in the rough.

by orangeandblackattack on Dec 29, 2006 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Walks and the AFL

Definitely a good thing, but....

A few reasons walks could be skewed in the AFL

Sample size.
Sample size.
Sample size.
Some pitchers are there to work on other pitches.
Some pitchers are tired after a long season
Some pitchers are they on injury rehab
Some aren't very good at all.

I have no idea if he drew walks for any of those reasons, only time will tell if he stepped up his game.

Schoop should have been in my 2007 is a developmental year. If he is to remain a good prospect, I want to see a decent average [300] and a decent K/BB or a good walk rate.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Walks and the AFL

are there on injury rehad.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Walks and the AFL

Don't you hate it when you correct a typo and add anoter typo?

by taliesin on Dec 31, 2006 12:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Walks and the AFL

in this case, two wrongs make a right

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 31, 2006 1:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Walks and the AFL

I had to try so hard not to point out "rehad."
Omg! You misspelled "another." You looser!

by Snof on Dec 31, 2006 1:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Frandsen

With a minor league line of .321/.383/.453 seems like he's a larger chance than 40%. I'm not so much encouraged by the AFL stats, I'm more encouraged about his attitude and his wanting to change and become a better player.

Here's to a good 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or...

by WalrusMan on Dec 29, 2006 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen

This kid has raked up and down the minor leagues and gets no love. Meanwhile a kid who has not played gets top billing?

Would somebody please review the past seasons lists and see how they have panned out.

by wilriv21 on Dec 29, 2006 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen

Villalona has power potential though, Frandsen not so much. If Kevin wants to be a major-league regular he'll have to do it with plate discipline because he just doesn't have the tools to be a power hitter or the defensive chops to be a weak-hitting middle infielder. I see him as a .300/.350/.425 type of player, but if he develops into a .300/.375/.425 type of player he'd be a poor man's Marcus Giles.

DFA Everybody

by JakeS on Dec 29, 2006 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen

That first prediction is supposed to be .300/.340/.425, which would actually make him a slightly above average second baseman in the NL.

DFA Everybody

by JakeS on Dec 29, 2006 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen

Review what lists? This is the first year that BP has done a top 10 list for the Giants. BA has done top 10 lists for teams for a decade or so. If you want a comparison of whether Giants prospects noted for their potential or Giants prospects noted for their minor league performance have turned out better, I just do not think you can do that. The sample size is too small to have any meaning, particularly given how Giants fans bemoan the lack of any homegrown talent.

by steve S on Dec 29, 2006 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen

Dude, I think you're forgetting the brilliance of Marvin Benard and Pedro Feliz. S-T-U-D-S. Studs.

Chulk angry! CHULK SMASH!!

by CystedTwister on Dec 30, 2006 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

to clarify my percentage

I meant 40% chance to improve on his shortcomings, mostly significantly improving his walk rate. I am also encouraged by his desire to be more patient, but I am skeptical about his ability to improve. I see him having a lot of trouble with major league pitchers who can bust him inside.

What do you think he is capable of as a hitter, on a consistent basis?

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: to clarify my percentage

I think he could put up a line of .300/.350/.425 in the majors with the possibility of that .350 to go higher.

Here's to a good 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or...

by WalrusMan on Dec 29, 2006 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: to clarify my percentage

I'll agree that he could do that in a year - but do you mean so say that you think he will be a career .300 hitter?

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure..

But how many baseball players are actually career .300 hitters? It's really a lot how they change they're approaches in their later years as much as how good of hitters they are early in their career. Since Frandsen has shown he is willing to adapt I think he's a candidate.

Here's to a good 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or...

by WalrusMan on Dec 29, 2006 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

Well, my tusked friend, that is exactly my point.

Right now, unless he improves his power or bb rate, he must hit .300 to be a good player. And very few players hit a consistent .300, even when if they did so in the minors. Among the active hitters that have a career .300 average, the only player that profiles very close to him is Mark Loretta. So maybe he is Mark Loretta, but I wouldn't bet on it. Without question, it is important that he recognizes his deficiencies and want to fix them - but that doesn't mean he can.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 11:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

If he can be somewhere between Mark Loretta and David Eckstein, he'd be the best home-grown Giant positions player since Mueller.

Kind of sad, actually.

by Bhaakon on Dec 29, 2006 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

Dear god, can that please not be the standard for a good player?

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 11:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

You're right, that bar is set a little high for this team.

How about Feliz?

by Bhaakon on Dec 30, 2006 1:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

I don't think he needs to hit .300 to be a good player.

He's not a home run hitter, but he'll get decent slugging because he can hit doubles with regularity (and can leg out triples), something that should continue in the majors. Consider this: despite having just 12 home runs in 912 minor league at bats, Frandsen has slugged .453 in his minor league career. That's not worthless at all. Even if that drops to the .400-.425 range as a regular player in the majors, that's not bad. A .420 slugging percentage would put him in the Top 10 second basemen in the majors this year, and only a few points from scraping the Top 5.

If he could post a .330+ OBP (something I think he's completely capable of, even if batting .280), that's solid production and in my opinion, clearly starter quality.

And I think the OBP projection is low for him. If he can build upon the momentum of plate discipline he displayed in the AFL, I think .350 is a reasonable regular production from him.

A .760 OPS = Top 10 second basemen in baseball.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 30, 2006 12:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

In regards to Frandsen's .453 SLG in 912 career minor league ABs, I would note that just over 75 percent of those ABs have come in the Cal League and the PCL, perhaps the two most hitter-friendly full season leagues. That would tend to indicate to me that his major league power being less than a SLG of .425 is not just a possibility but a probability ... unless, of course, you think he still has some untapped power to develop.

by steve S on Dec 30, 2006 7:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

Power is the last tool to develop, don't forget. I think with a player like Frandsen you can expect some increase in XBH based on growing familiarity with pitchers and the patterns that teams will develop to try to attack him with over the years. Minor league players don't really get this benefit as player movement through leagues will greatly cut down how many times they see the same pitcher and they don't have the access to video archives that major leaguers do. An intelligent hitter should absolutely increase his power production through experience as he spends more years in the majors.

That said, I think the moves this winter have really impeded Frandsen's chances of becoming a major league starter, as he doesn't seem to have the arm for the left side of the infield and Durham's blocking him at 2B for two very important development years.

by Roger on Dec 30, 2006 8:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

Power is the last tool to develop, don't forget.

That should read "Power is usually the last tool to develop, if it develops."

Often, and I don't mean to say you are the only one, power is assumed to develop.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 30, 2006 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

Well obviously it's possible that no tools will develop. The reason for the truism is that many skills are outcropping of physical traits: speed, arm, hand-eye coordination. Power has a physical component, but it also involves developing an approach to hitting and can therefore, be reasonably expected to increase in an intelligent hitter. And I wouldn't say age is too much of a factor is this kind of development. Whether I take hall of fame examples like Wade Boggs and George Brett or more plebian examples like Ray Durham and Robby Thompson, experience-based power increases often take place after 30.

by Roger on Dec 31, 2006 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

Isn't that cliche usually applied to guys who are younger than Frandsen? 25 is pretty close to a player's physical peak.

by Bhaakon on Dec 30, 2006 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

He's 24.

by hammystyle on Dec 31, 2006 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sure..

That is a solid point about him having most of his at bats in hitter-friendly leagues, but I think that's offset by him having spent a number of those ABs adjusting to new leagues, particularly with shooting up the minors, and splitting time last year in the majors.

Not to mention that last year he was also playing with a broken rib that sapped his power.

And I do believe he has growth potential, but that won't heavily affect his doubles. I think he'll continue to hit them; in fact, I think his doubles power is better served in the spacious NL West parks where there's more room to hit than in a small ballpark like in Fresno where there's less room for balls to fall in.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 30, 2006 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A few things

1.) Not that having a league average player is a bad thing, but I define a good player as above average when you combine his hitting and defense.

2.) a 760 OPS puts him in the top ten among hitters, but doesn't consider his defense. I don't think you can project Frandsen as an elite level defender. I think average is a little more fair projection considering his athletic ability.

3.) Steve's point about the PCL and CAL league should not be overlooked.

4.) His slugging has been mostly batting average driven, and that is why I don't see a strong likelihood of it being sustainable. Very few hitter are able to sustain a .300 average without power - especially rhb without speed.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 30, 2006 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: A few things

I disagree heavily about his defense. He may not be an elite level defender, but he's a very good one. He was a BA award winner for best defensive third baseman in college, and has an average third baseman's arm (which is good at second). He was also a very good defender in San Jose and Fresno.

I don't think his miscues in his very short time in the majors (as previously noted, with a broken rib) are indicative of his ability. He's not just average.

He also has above average speed, and can steal some bases. He's not a speedster, but it is a tool he can work with.

by BruteSentiment on Dec 30, 2006 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: A few things

I'll say this:

I have only seen him in limited action at SS, but he stank when I saw him. And not the kind of stink that can be fixed. For example, he was pretty lousy on pop-ups on a day when the sun wasn't to blame. And he was pretty bad at SS in the AFL as well. I don't hold his MLB debut against him - even his awful hitting. Generally, it seems to me that generally speaking good/very good MLB 2B were SS in the minors. [Hudson is a notably exception]. Also, I said I think he will be an average defensive MLB second baseman, not a replacement level defender.

He can steal bases? Judging by his minor league numbers, he seems to be pretty good at getting caught. But my point wasn't that - it was that he isn't a Castillo/Pierre type who can maintain a high AVG by getting lots of infield hits.

Eckstein is my favorite comp, with a small chance of being Loretta [but healthy and consistent]. Both players are useful, but not all that hard to find. Grudzielanek is also a player that comes to mind.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 30, 2006 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: A few things

I think I'm as big a Frandsen fan as anybody. Even I admit that you really only want him if he saves you money that could be better spent somewhere else. He would have been a much cheaper option at 2B than Durham, but apparently the Giants had the money to spend on whatever they wanted, so in that case, Durham is the better option right now. Ditto for Richie Aurilia although I am disappointed that it looks like Richie will be taking most of The Kev's playing opportunities.

I have likened Frandsen to Loretta and Grudz too. Decent to good players if you don't have to pay them too much and if you don't have somebody better to fill the role.

As for Frandsen's prospect ranking, I put him at #3, not because he is a great prospect, but all our other prospects aren't very inspiring either. IMO, Kevin could play a decent starting 2B or utility IF role in right now. Can't say that with confidence about anyone else in the organization. Lincecum and Big V rank higher, but that's because they have such obviously higher upside with no "warts" accumulated yet.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 30, 2006 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I'll weigh in...

nahh bro, tanner should go by clay-tan

by Azmanz on Dec 30, 2006 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

Pleasantly surprised to see Schoop rated so high.

SFDugout: it's where all the cool kids go.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Dec 29, 2006 1:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

I really don't want to see Lincecum as a reliever unless he absolutely proves he can't start. The walk rate is high, but hey, so is Carlos Zambrano's, and I think he's as good a comp as any.

DFA Everybody

by JakeS on Dec 29, 2006 1:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Kevin Goldstein BP Giants Top 10 Prospects

I wouldn't mind seeig Lincecum as a 2nd half reliever if the team actually looks playoff bound. I think playoffs in the show as a reliever provide better development than a few missed August starts and I-league. But if the team goes nowhere, they shouldn't muck with him.

non illigitimi carborundum, excessum Sabeanus.

by Moderation on Dec 31, 2006 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Frandsen and Wilson are no longer rookies

and I suspect thats why they're not on the list. Both were on the active roster for more than 45 days before September 1, so they've lost their rookie eligibility.

by FavoriteSpring on Dec 29, 2006 4:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen and Wilson are no longer rookies

That's still no excuse to leave Kevin off the list:-)

by orangeandblackattack on Dec 29, 2006 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen and Wilson are no longer rookies

I wondered about that too, but I think Jonathan Sanchez was also on the roster for more than 45 days.

by Bhaakon on Dec 29, 2006 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frandsen and Wilson are no longer rookies

Here is an important distinction. To qualify as a rookie for the BBWAA (who vote on the MVP, Cy Young, Rookie of the Year, Manager of the Year awards), a player must ...
a) not have exceeded 130 AB or 50 IP
and
b) not have more than 45 days active service outside of September

To count as a prospect, only condition (a) applies.

by steve S on Dec 29, 2006 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs