Keith Law said in his chat yesterday that he encourages quoting of blurbs (with links) on sites like this to encourage discussion and exposure. Full cutting and pasting is an obvious no go.
Arcia has gotten the job done at every level, and as you mentioned, he put up stats that ranged from very good, to video game numbers. He has the tools as well, but people are down on him because they know him... at least that's all I can think of.
He should be the consensus number 2 propsect on this team, and I think a strong case can be made to put him ahead of Sano. I see no reason to think he cannot be an all star in the big leagues.
I have Arcia as the number 1 prospect on this team, and it really isn't close for me. How in the **** can you make post after post about Kubel being a better prospect than Arcia??? Look at the ****ing facts man, all this bull**** you're posting about people glowing over Kubel are so far off you're obviously ignorant about his minor league career. Kubel was an above average prospect at the same age Arcia is now and didn't deserve a huge top 20 ranking when he got it. John Sickles had him as a B ranking, while he has Arcia as a B+. Kubel was also the #8 prospect in the system prior to his breakout season, which again, happened at the same age Arcia will be durring 2013. Is it weird you're the only one posting this nonsense? What other evidence do you need?
Arcia is getting overshadowed by Sano right now in a big way. Sano has the best power bat in the minors and plays 3b. I rate Arcia higher because I don't think Sano will stay at 3b and he has contact issues. By comparison when Kubel was thought of so highly he had J.D. Durbin, Jesse Crain, Scott Baker, Glen Perkins, Jason Bartlett, Trevor Plouffe.... ect. So... yes, the system was incredibly weak while Kubel was breaking out. Almost any of the current top 10 prospects on the Twins would have been in the top 3 for that year, and receiving much more attention.
To be fair, Kubel was a better player prior to his knee injury. Had it not been for that his career would have gone much differently. I just find it incredibly irritating that you refuse to acknowledge age in relation to performance/level. Arcia is a better prospect than Kubel was end of story. The only evidence you have to argue is one year's prospect list which has Kubel at a higher position than Arcia is in this year's list (which again, Kubel is a year older). This is the same type of list that had Delmon Young as a #1 or #2 prospect for 4 years despite his lack of production and serious flaws. I'm done now. Sorry to everyone else for beating the horse.
Regarding Sano vs Arcia, if Sano ends up moving off of third base would he really have less defensive value than Arcia does now? If he does, it will be slight. If Sano can play a respectable third base, he'll likely have much more defensive value than Arcia.
Sano does have contact issues, but Arcia has severe power issues compared to Sano. Most scouting reports I've read state that Sano has the hit tool to utilize his power. He probably will not ever be a .300 hitter but he could be a .270 hitter, combine that with a good on base percentage and potential 40 home run power and it should be pretty clear why Sano is listed unanimously as the much better prospect.
Also, it should be noted that right handed hitters actually take a bit longer to develop than left handed hitters, so you should take that into account.
I'll take a guy with a legit shot of hitting .300 with 30 home runs over the guy with the legit shot of hitting .250 with 40 hrs. That's a lot of hits that you are taking away to get an extra 10 home runs.
I'm also not sure how Arcia qualifies as having "severe power issues" as compared to Sano. Yes, Sano could be a perennial 40 HR guy... assuming he fixes his contact issues, but Arcia could be a perennial 30 hr guy who has no contact issues. Both are on pace to reach the bigs at the same time. Arcia has the tools and much fewer question marks at this point. While I don't quibble too much about Sano being #1, the idea that Arcia is not in that discussion is rather strange. If Arcia is not #1, he should be the consensus #2 on any list.
Badsmerf, I don't think it's insulting to suggest that Arcia is similar to Kubel but that Kubel was the better prospect. I think that's true. Arcia might become the better prospect and you might argue that Arcia is the better 21 year old prospect. Arcia has never reached Kubel's highest BA ranking but is still young. But Kubel, even before his power developed, walked about as often as he struck out. That's a harder skill than power. When his power showed up in 04, he rocketed up the prospect ladder. Arcia has Kubel power but hasn't shown that plate discipline yet.
Additionally, Klaw had Arcia 5, BP has him 4, Mayo has him 5, BA has him 3, Sickels has him 2. Those 5 professionals avg Arcia as our #4 prospect right now. Hard to see how he's better than Sano, as you would suggest.
Brock and others are arguing that Arcia, by his current age, is a better prospect than Kubel when looking at where Kubel was at the same age. I don't really disagree with this, but...
My argument is that Kubel became the better prospect overall when it comes to where his "peak" was on these lists, not accounting in any form for age, and I'm talking about top prospect lists that encompass all of the minor leagues, not just the Twins. Kubel made the top 20 at his peak when his knee was blown out. Arcia is just now cracking Top 100's (Law has him 59, Mayo 93, and BA and BP didn't have him on their lists last year, while Law had him at 85).
Then we get to the point that in a season where Kubel was 21/22 years old, he demolished AA/AAA. Guess what age Arcia is going to be this year at potentially, AA and AAA? He's going to be 21/22. Yes Arcia finished the season where he turned 21 years old in AA, whereas Kubel finished the season he turned 21 years old in A+. But they are going to be at the same point this year for their age 22 seasons, and if you expect Arcia, let alone ANY other prospect in the minors to match what Kubel did there, you're expecting a lot.
It's great that Arcia has been better than Kubel from the rookies leagues and through A+, but I have to believe we all agree that success at AA/AAA should matter more, right? Even with the great numbers Arcia put up last year at 21 at AA, he's not on Kubel's level for me (as a prospect in the regard discussed above) and I don't put nearly the same stock in performance for less than a years worth of age difference that they are in these time frames, and will finish this upcoming season as.
They're both going to (likely) have made their MLB debut at age 22, so what happens to this argument then?
Edit: And as I post this I see Gunnarthor basically explained the point I'm trying to make here, probably better than I did. Thanks for that.
Sorry I blew up.
That is an incredible hypothetical to argue, you have to see that. Arguing a guy had a better prospect status after a break-out year that occurred in a season that is yet to be played by another player age-wise is.... well.... not arguable. What "we" are arguing, is that you can't say Kubel was a better prospect when Arcia isn't finished in the minors and Kubel's highest ranking occurred when he was a year older than Arcia currently is. Add to that Arcia has posted superior results comparatively age-wise and many will agree, at this same age (which is how you compare prospects) Arcia is further along. Let Arcia play through this season and we will see where his ranking is and his results. Then you can argue that Kubel was better. Now, its just not a valid argument.
You stated once that age doesn't matter. It does, and in a big way. Age is the only way to evaluate how much room for development a player has. Sometimes players develop faster than others true, but this is an exception rather than the rule. Most players (most humans) go through a similar physical development. When a player has the same amount of success as another player at a lower level, the player at the higher level is the better prospect since they are competing at a higher level. Example: Aaron Hicks. If he had mediocre results AGAIN last season he would have dropped out of my top 10. Arcia is a year younger and clearly outplayed him at the same level. I can't believe the argument Hick's defense will outweigh the offensive difference. Right now, I believe Arcia will be a better player than Hicks.
As for the discussion of Arcia vs. Sano. Yes, if Sano has to move off 3b his prospect status takes a hit. Simply because it doesn't take too much to play 1b. Arcia's defense is pretty good. The Kubel comparisons have obviously painted a poor picture of him. From what I've read, he will be an above-average corner OF. So, Arcia will make better contact, get on-base about the same (with more hits which is more valuable), play better defense. The only edge Sano has right now is possible positional importance and power. Plus, Sano hasn't seen the higher levels yet so everything is based on "tools". Just because I believe Arcia is a better prospect right now doesn't mean Sano wont end up the better player. I have a grip with prospect rankings because I feel they put too much emphasis on tools and ceilings rather than where a player actually is. This is why so many "top" prospects fail so horribly.