Originally published February 2008
This is the time of year when all the prospect guru's start publishing their top ten prospects.
Baseball America (BBA) is probably the most well-respected of these lists. Its one of the few publications that really goes out and gets new, independent information about every team's players. Their writers talk to scouts and baseball developement staff to identify the best prospects. That said, the lists also reflect the judgments of the particular BBA staff.
John Sickels is another source of indpendent judgments. He does a lot of research to publish his book of prospects every year. Unlike BBA writers, who are constantly on deadline to produce articles for the magazine, Sickels actually has time to do "scouting trips" to watch prospects and make his own judgements. Of course, as a one guy show, he has doesn't have the resources to see everyone. And he is not a professional scout. So he may give too much weight to his own opinions and players he has seen personally and less weight to the opinions of those who get paid to identify the best players before its obvious to everyone.
Beyond those two, most of the other lists are rehashes of one another with a particular writer's biases about what is valuable. The SABR guys will add a stats overlay, people who are convinced pitching is important will emphasize pitching, people who think hitting is most important will grab people identified as the best hitters, etc. But most of these lists are based on reading BBA, Sickels and the blogsphere. They may or may not reflect the opinion of most scouts. In fact, in an effort to be interesting, they often have a bias toward having a semi-contrarian opinion.
Occasionally, they go beyond condensing others information and stray into outright plagiarism. One prominent Twin's blogger's list a few years ago was clearly just a rewrite of BBA's. He changed the order some and then rewrote the descriptions like a kid rewriting an encyclopedia entry for his school report.
There are also some local bloggers who take the time to talk to their local team's scouts and player development personell. They develop their own top ten lists for their favorite team. Those lists reflect a lot of input. While their judgments of prominent prospects may not be as well-informed as the national list makers, they often do a better job on players who are less prominent. If you are looking for hidden gems, these lists will often have them first.
Unfortunately, there are also lists that are based on little more than looking at the local leader boards for the minor leagues. Usually these stat-based lists are obvious, including players who are over-age for their league or harshly judging highly touted young prospects who have been less than successful while playing at a high level at an early age. These are the folks that projected Torii Hunter as a "slap hitter" while he was in the minor leagues because his power had yet to show itself.
The larger issue for every prospect list is that what makes a player a "top prospect" is often a moving target. Baseball America says its lists are based on a balance between a prospect's ceiling and how likely they are to reach it. So what you have is a subjective balance between two subjective evaluations. In short, these top ten lists are almost all art and no science. The result is that, while top ten lists are fun, they need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
Last week I looked back on Baseball America's top ten from ten years ago. The conclusion was that the order of the top ten was not very informative. Having followed BBA's lists for the last 20 years, that was not a surprise to me. While identifying that a player has major league potential is fairly easy, distinguishing how much of that potential each prospect will achieve isn't.
That doesn't mean there aren't players who stand out. There are. And most of those players go on to have great careers. But beyond a handful of truly special players with polished skills, the difference between number one and number 10 on most prospect lists is not very meaningful in the long run. It is likely that even a team's "top prospect" will not end up its best player.
The other thing to remember is that none of these list builders get paid to be right. If they are paid at all, its to be entertaining. And when they miss, they can quickly excuse their failure by pointing to the reality I just described that everyone misses. But major league scouts do get paid to be right. They don't have a job when they consistently under perform their peers. So when John Manuel at Baseball America makes Nick Blackburn the Twins number one prospect, and then admits he has him rated higher than the Twins, you have to wonder what he is thinking. If the team that has developed a player for five years isn't convinced, why should anyone else be?
That is one of the traps BBA falls into a lot. Over the years their lists are peppered with players who had one good season. When a player leaps from career minor leaguer to top ten prospect in one season, take it with a grain of salt. Player's tools don't usually develop that way. While they do have breakouts, it is not usually totally un-foreseen. They are players who have always had the potential and finally realize it.
An example from the BBA list ten years ago would be Chad Allen who is listed as the Twins 4th best prospect. Allen had a major league career, so you wouldn't call him a complete bust. But he was never in the same class as Torii Hunter, Jacque Jones, Corey Koskie or even Matt LeCroy, no matter where he appeared on the BBA top ten prospect list. My guess is Nick Blackburn ends up a similar case of overreaching.
On the other end of the spectrum is last year's draft choices. It is a rare player who changes his potential in the course of the summer after he has been drafted. With good reason, BBA usually lists the top draft choice from the previous draft in its top ten. It doesn't mean much about the player, but it tells you something about the strength of the rest of the list. If a player taken number 20 in the draft is immediately the team's best prospect, you know their farm system is not very strong. If the top ten includes a bunch of supplemental first round draft choices from the most recent draft, that is a clue that there wasn't a lot of competition for the list. Of course, it may be a player is better than his draft position. But that isn't usually something you find out over the course of their first summer.
So the basics of looking at prospect lists.
1) There really isn't much difference between number one and number ten on a list
2) Watch out for breakouts, don't pay much attention to recent drafts
3) Be very careful of being fooled by derivative lists and stat-based lists that appear on the internet. If a list doesn't reflect conversations with baseball development staff, it probably doesn't have much meaning.
Finally there is the recent trend of top 30 lists. To be blunt, these are little more than a laundry list of all a team's prospects. The rankings are pretty much meaningless and the difference between the bottom ten and the next 20 prospects won't mean much a year from now.
So as you hear about how the Twins didn't get the Mets "top prospect" for Santana, the appropriate response is really "so what". They got four of the Mets top ten and all four of them could turn out to be better than the guy at the top of the list.
John Sickels 2008-2009
Seth Speaks 2008-2009
Twinkie Town 2008-2009
Baseball America's Twins Top Ten 2007-2008
Josh's Top 50 Twins 2007-2008
Baseball America 2006-2007
Baseball America 2005-2006
Showing posts with label santana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label santana. Show all posts
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Santana's No Trade Clause
There have been a number of comments in the blogsphere about how Santana's no-trade contract had the Twins over the barrel. It is rumored that Seattle was interested in Santana, but he told the Twins he wouldn't waive his no-trade clause for a Seattle trade. There may have been other teams interested as well, but Santana's no-trade clause gave him the power to limit the market. The result was the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox were really the only teams in the race.
I think this misreads the situation. The Mets were probably not prepared to surrender four top prospects without an agreement from Santana on a long term contract. Likewise, with or without a no trade agreement, any other team giving up that much value would want to make sure they had more than a couple draft choices in compensation after one year.
The reality is that Twins only controlled one more year of Santana. With or without a no-trade clause, Santana had complete control over who he plays for beyond 2008. That, not Santana's no-trade clause, was the real limit on the value the Twins got for Santana.
Some people have suggested the Twins have "learned a lesson" and won't be handing out any more no trade agreements. Hopefully that isn't true. The Twins, like most teams, are reluctant to give players no trade agreements. But the Twins, have also been very successful creating the kind of environment where players want to stay. As a result, some players have been willing to give them a hometown discount. That kind of deal is tough to get without assurance for the player that he won't end up playing cheap somewhere else. It would be foolish for the Twins to abandon all no trade deals because of the experience with Santana.
I think this misreads the situation. The Mets were probably not prepared to surrender four top prospects without an agreement from Santana on a long term contract. Likewise, with or without a no trade agreement, any other team giving up that much value would want to make sure they had more than a couple draft choices in compensation after one year.
The reality is that Twins only controlled one more year of Santana. With or without a no-trade clause, Santana had complete control over who he plays for beyond 2008. That, not Santana's no-trade clause, was the real limit on the value the Twins got for Santana.
Some people have suggested the Twins have "learned a lesson" and won't be handing out any more no trade agreements. Hopefully that isn't true. The Twins, like most teams, are reluctant to give players no trade agreements. But the Twins, have also been very successful creating the kind of environment where players want to stay. As a result, some players have been willing to give them a hometown discount. That kind of deal is tough to get without assurance for the player that he won't end up playing cheap somewhere else. It would be foolish for the Twins to abandon all no trade deals because of the experience with Santana.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Comparing the offers
There are a lot of disappointed sports talk show fans out there as a result of the Santana trade. The question is - did the Twins take the best deal. Obviously, if high-profile prospects is the measure then no. But I don't think that is the measure.
All prospect evaluations face the same dilemma - ceiling versus certainty. When ranking a prospect's value how much weight do you put on their eventual potential as big leaguers and how much weight do you place on the likelihood they will ever reach that potential. Players who are certain major league players are no longer prospects. The jump from AAA to the big leagues is huge and even guys labeled "can't miss" sometimes do. So there is uncertainty with any prospect, but that doesn't mean the risk is the same.
The other part of that delemma is that the further a player is from the majors, the wider the range of his potential. What this means is that there are a lot more "potential hall-of-famers" in A ball than there are at AAA. As players move up the development ladder their real potential becomes a lot clearer.
The flip side of that, is that the more realized a player's potential, the more expensive he becomes in trade. Teams don't knowingly trade away the next Willie Mays. The Twins grabbed future stars like Liriano and Santana by recognizing their potential and then having them develop. You can say they got lucky. But the reality is that they recognized the potential. We tend to forget the players where that potential was recognized but never realized. Prospects are a numbers game. If you have enough of them, you will "get lucky" occasionally. But if you have prospects whose upside is mediocre major leaguer, even when you get lucky they won't really help you win any World Series..
So how did the rumored trades compare:
Yankees: Hughes, Cabrera, Tabata
Red Sox: Ellsbury, Lowrie, Masterston
Red Sox: Lester, Crisp, Lowrie
Mets: Gomez, Humber, Mulvey, Guerra
Lets start with the center fielders: Gomez, Cabrera, Crisp and Ellsbury.
Cabrera, Crisp and Ellsbury are all clearly more major league ready than Gomez. Cabrera and Crisp would be placeholders in center field for the Twins. Good players, but ones that would not really be the core of a championship team and would likely get shoved aside at some point the way Crisp already has been by Ellsbury in Boston. Of the two prospects, Ellsbury is clearly furthest along but he doesn't have Gomez speed, arm or defense. Nor does it look like he has Gomez power potential. What he does have is a much more advanced approach at the plate. He is also two years older than Gomez.
Hughes, Lester, Humber, Masterson, Mulvey
Hughes is clearly the top dog here. A potential ace and likely number two starter, he was the centerpiece of the Yankees offer. Lester is also a top pitching prospect who is close to being ready in the big leagues. The other pitchers included in the trades are all mid-range prospects with varying pedigrees. Humber, who was the third player taken in the 2004 draft, is probably the most intriguing since he is coming back from Tommy John surgery. If he fully recovers and shows the stuff that made him a high draft choice he could equal Hughes or Lester. Mulvey and Masterson appear to be mid-rotation option. Part of the numbers game for Twins rotation spots that includes a lot of other Twins prospects who are close to the majors.
Lowrie -
None of the other deals really had anyone comparable to Lowrie. And that may be just as well. The reports are that he isn't an everyday shortstop, he may not be a second baseman either and his bat may not be enough to make him a third baseman. But it is that bat, and his potential for versatility, that makes him valuable. Lowrie is the sort of player that could be valuable to a team like the Twins that often seems to need a guy to hold down a spot until a better prospect is ready. And is a solid bat on the bench the rest of the time.
Guerra - Guerra is a high-upside, big risk young pitching prospect. He could be the next Francisco Liriano, he could be the next Scott Tyler. The odds, as always with A-ball pitching prospects, are better for the latter. But Guerra's upside makes him the sort of player that can make a good trade great. The deals with the Red Sox and Yankees do not seem to include this kind of raw talent.
There is a lot of speculation about what deals were really still on the table when the Twins reached their agreement with the Mets. But I think if you look at the players they got, this trade is a classic Twins deal. Heavy on potential rather than immediate help. And for a small market team that is really the only way you win championships. You don't do it by letting other teams do your player development. You have to stockpile guys who have talent and then develop it.
All prospect evaluations face the same dilemma - ceiling versus certainty. When ranking a prospect's value how much weight do you put on their eventual potential as big leaguers and how much weight do you place on the likelihood they will ever reach that potential. Players who are certain major league players are no longer prospects. The jump from AAA to the big leagues is huge and even guys labeled "can't miss" sometimes do. So there is uncertainty with any prospect, but that doesn't mean the risk is the same.
The other part of that delemma is that the further a player is from the majors, the wider the range of his potential. What this means is that there are a lot more "potential hall-of-famers" in A ball than there are at AAA. As players move up the development ladder their real potential becomes a lot clearer.
The flip side of that, is that the more realized a player's potential, the more expensive he becomes in trade. Teams don't knowingly trade away the next Willie Mays. The Twins grabbed future stars like Liriano and Santana by recognizing their potential and then having them develop. You can say they got lucky. But the reality is that they recognized the potential. We tend to forget the players where that potential was recognized but never realized. Prospects are a numbers game. If you have enough of them, you will "get lucky" occasionally. But if you have prospects whose upside is mediocre major leaguer, even when you get lucky they won't really help you win any World Series..
So how did the rumored trades compare:
Yankees: Hughes, Cabrera, Tabata
Red Sox: Ellsbury, Lowrie, Masterston
Red Sox: Lester, Crisp, Lowrie
Mets: Gomez, Humber, Mulvey, Guerra
Lets start with the center fielders: Gomez, Cabrera, Crisp and Ellsbury.
Cabrera, Crisp and Ellsbury are all clearly more major league ready than Gomez. Cabrera and Crisp would be placeholders in center field for the Twins. Good players, but ones that would not really be the core of a championship team and would likely get shoved aside at some point the way Crisp already has been by Ellsbury in Boston. Of the two prospects, Ellsbury is clearly furthest along but he doesn't have Gomez speed, arm or defense. Nor does it look like he has Gomez power potential. What he does have is a much more advanced approach at the plate. He is also two years older than Gomez.
Hughes, Lester, Humber, Masterson, Mulvey
Hughes is clearly the top dog here. A potential ace and likely number two starter, he was the centerpiece of the Yankees offer. Lester is also a top pitching prospect who is close to being ready in the big leagues. The other pitchers included in the trades are all mid-range prospects with varying pedigrees. Humber, who was the third player taken in the 2004 draft, is probably the most intriguing since he is coming back from Tommy John surgery. If he fully recovers and shows the stuff that made him a high draft choice he could equal Hughes or Lester. Mulvey and Masterson appear to be mid-rotation option. Part of the numbers game for Twins rotation spots that includes a lot of other Twins prospects who are close to the majors.
Lowrie -
None of the other deals really had anyone comparable to Lowrie. And that may be just as well. The reports are that he isn't an everyday shortstop, he may not be a second baseman either and his bat may not be enough to make him a third baseman. But it is that bat, and his potential for versatility, that makes him valuable. Lowrie is the sort of player that could be valuable to a team like the Twins that often seems to need a guy to hold down a spot until a better prospect is ready. And is a solid bat on the bench the rest of the time.
Guerra - Guerra is a high-upside, big risk young pitching prospect. He could be the next Francisco Liriano, he could be the next Scott Tyler. The odds, as always with A-ball pitching prospects, are better for the latter. But Guerra's upside makes him the sort of player that can make a good trade great. The deals with the Red Sox and Yankees do not seem to include this kind of raw talent.
There is a lot of speculation about what deals were really still on the table when the Twins reached their agreement with the Mets. But I think if you look at the players they got, this trade is a classic Twins deal. Heavy on potential rather than immediate help. And for a small market team that is really the only way you win championships. You don't do it by letting other teams do your player development. You have to stockpile guys who have talent and then develop it.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Santana Deal
So the Twins finally pulled the trigger. Like most deals the Twins make, fans listening to the talk shows will be outraged at the failure to get more. When Frank Viola was traded, David West was supposed to be the center of the trade. But the real quality players were Rick Aguilera and Kevin Tapani. When Knoblauch was dealt, there were fans who couldn't believe the Twins failed to get the Yankees "top prospect", Rick Ledee. Rick Ledee? And there was outrage that A. J. Pierzynski only netted a reliever and a couple prospects (Joe Nathan, Francisco Liriano and Boof Bonser respectively).
We won't know for a few years whether this deal worked out for the Twins. None of the players they get are likely to be better than Santana while they play for the Twins. Whereas arguably each of those other deals actually brought back players as good or better than the player who was given up. But the reality is the Twins can't afford the risk of signing Santana to a huge contract for six years. The Mets can.
So who are these guys and why should we be excited:
Carlos Gomez - An extremely speedy outfielder who was playing in the major leagues last year at age 20. Sometimes those players fail. But usually a guy who can hold his own as a major leaguer at that age will get better and better. He has been described as a five tool player who is already an above average center fielder defensively and will develop some power. A little like a young Torii Hunter, though probably not quite in that league defensively. The Twins now have three young outfielders who are candidates for center field Gomez, Pridie and Span. Its likely at least one of them will develop into an above average major league center fielder. Gomez is probably the most likely contender to do that this year.
Philip Humber - Humber was a number one draft pick (third overall) in the 2004 draft. Last year was his first full season since coming back from Tommy John surgery. Its hard to know what the Twins got here. The news reports about the trade talk about him as a back of the rotation starter, but the scouting reports and his draft position would indicate he is a lot more than that if healthy. I look for him to take a spot in the rotation out of spring training. I think he has the best shot at having an immediate impact.
Kevin Mulvey - Mulvey was the Mets first choice in the 2006 draft. He was the 62nd player taken, in the second round. He is the typical college draftee at that position. His upside is a solid back of the rotation starter who will give you a lot of innings. That assumes that he has major league command of his pitches. He is probably pretty similar to Kevin Slowey, albeit a year behind him in development.
Deolis Guerra - This is clearly the guy with the highest upside. A 6'5" pitcher with great stuff but a long way from the major leagues. Lets hope it is fun to watch him develop. It could just as easily be painful to watch him fail.
This deal looks like it lacks a "can't miss" player. But then even the "can't miss" guys sometimes do, so having several chances is probably more important. Gomez, Humber and Guerra all look like players who have the possibility to develop into core players of a championship team. But, whatever you make of this trade, it looks like the Twins would have been a better team with Santana. This is taking what the market has to offer rather than rolling the dice on winning this year.
Now the question is what can they get for Joe Nathan. Because without Santana, Hunter and Silva this team is going to have to get some real breakthroughs to be competitive. Nathan is not going to make much difference.
We won't know for a few years whether this deal worked out for the Twins. None of the players they get are likely to be better than Santana while they play for the Twins. Whereas arguably each of those other deals actually brought back players as good or better than the player who was given up. But the reality is the Twins can't afford the risk of signing Santana to a huge contract for six years. The Mets can.
So who are these guys and why should we be excited:
Carlos Gomez - An extremely speedy outfielder who was playing in the major leagues last year at age 20. Sometimes those players fail. But usually a guy who can hold his own as a major leaguer at that age will get better and better. He has been described as a five tool player who is already an above average center fielder defensively and will develop some power. A little like a young Torii Hunter, though probably not quite in that league defensively. The Twins now have three young outfielders who are candidates for center field Gomez, Pridie and Span. Its likely at least one of them will develop into an above average major league center fielder. Gomez is probably the most likely contender to do that this year.
Philip Humber - Humber was a number one draft pick (third overall) in the 2004 draft. Last year was his first full season since coming back from Tommy John surgery. Its hard to know what the Twins got here. The news reports about the trade talk about him as a back of the rotation starter, but the scouting reports and his draft position would indicate he is a lot more than that if healthy. I look for him to take a spot in the rotation out of spring training. I think he has the best shot at having an immediate impact.
Kevin Mulvey - Mulvey was the Mets first choice in the 2006 draft. He was the 62nd player taken, in the second round. He is the typical college draftee at that position. His upside is a solid back of the rotation starter who will give you a lot of innings. That assumes that he has major league command of his pitches. He is probably pretty similar to Kevin Slowey, albeit a year behind him in development.
Deolis Guerra - This is clearly the guy with the highest upside. A 6'5" pitcher with great stuff but a long way from the major leagues. Lets hope it is fun to watch him develop. It could just as easily be painful to watch him fail.
This deal looks like it lacks a "can't miss" player. But then even the "can't miss" guys sometimes do, so having several chances is probably more important. Gomez, Humber and Guerra all look like players who have the possibility to develop into core players of a championship team. But, whatever you make of this trade, it looks like the Twins would have been a better team with Santana. This is taking what the market has to offer rather than rolling the dice on winning this year.
Now the question is what can they get for Joe Nathan. Because without Santana, Hunter and Silva this team is going to have to get some real breakthroughs to be competitive. Nathan is not going to make much difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
