Eight Twins Prospects in Sickels top 175

[gunnarthor]

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2015/3/16/8215045/top-175-mlb-prospects-for-2015-john-sickels

 

Sickels at minorleague ball has put together his top 175. His rankings aren't quite as Twins friendly as others

 

Buxton - 6

Sano - 22

Berrios - 44

Meyer - 47

Gordon - 90

Stewart - 105

May - 151

Polanco - 169

In the picture, meaning he could make an argument for them in the 175-200 range -  Burdi, Gonsalves, Harrison, Rosario and Thorpe

 

 

[nicksaviking]

Ouch.  Anyone remember where we left the pitchforks?

[ashbury]

 

Ouch.  Anyone remember where we left the pitchforks?

In Bill Smith's gluteus maximus. I'm not volunteering to retrieve them.

[beckmt]

A little low on some of the players.  One person's opinion.  Not going to worry too much about it.  Some of Buxton's injury concerns weighed in here along with Sano not playing last year.  Pitching is pitching and was surprised Meyer was not lower.  Twins have been having injuries on their upper player, it just weighed more heavily here.

[gunnarthor]

Also, I probably should have posted this in minor league forum, not other baseball.  Could someone fix that?

[beckmt]

Also noted that closeness to the big leagues is a factor in his rankings, so most of the Twins are probably slightly lower because of this factor and most of the Twins better prospects are just hitting AA for a full season this year. 

[Mike Sixel]

IIRC, Sickels likes production......and, as beckmt points out, lots of these guys are still a ways from the majors.....

[bird]

 

Ouch.  Anyone remember where we left the pitchforks?

All the pitchforks got scooped up quick-like by Detroit fans. Not a single prospect worthy of a spot. Kill the messenger, Tigers fans.

[bird]

Some thoughts:

 

1. If talent was evenly distributed, both in terms of high-end talent and depth of talent, each team would have 4 prospects among the top 120, and they'd have roughly 7 prospects cited here if one includes the Honorable Mention names. By this measurement, the Twins have twice the talent and depth as does an average team.

 

2. The Twins have 5 prospects among the top 100. The rest of the division has 6. KC 2, CWS 1, CLE 3, DET 0.

 

3. The Twins have 8 top 175 prospects. KC 6, CWS 5, CLE 5, DET 0

 

4. The Twins have 13 prospects mentioned. KC 7, CWS 6, CLE 9, DET 4

 

5. That model of perfection, the Cardinals, have 4 top 100, 6 top 175, 0 honorable mentions beyond those six prospects, which equates to an average farm system according to Sickles. This should not be construed to mean the Cards aren't a franchise of excellence, but maybe it says something about how cyclical and difficult this business is, even for the best-run organizations. And maybe the Cards aren't perfect either.

[Monkeypaws]

Does Sickels put his pants on one leg at a time?

[markos]

 

5. That model of perfection, the Cardinals, have 4 top 100, 6 top 175, 0 honorable mentions beyond those six prospects, which equates to an average farm system according to Sickles. This should not be construed to mean the Cards aren't a franchise of excellence, but maybe it says something about how cyclical and difficult this business is, even for the best-run organizations. And maybe the Cards aren't perfect either.

 

Continuing down this line, the Rays are an interesting comparison as well. Both the Rays and Twins have 13 names either on the list or mentioned 'in the picture'. Of the Twins prospects, 11 of the 13 were drafted/signed by the Twins - only Meyer and May were acquired from other organizations. For the Rays, only 6 of 13 were signed/drafted by the Rays, and of those 6, 3 were in the 100-150 range and 3 were in the 'in the picture'. Despite having 18 first-round picks over the past 5 years and aggressively spending internationally, they have had a really hard time developing impact talent on their own. Drafting in the 20+ range is really hard for everyone.

[jay]

 

Continuing down this line, the Rays are an interesting comparison as well.

 

See, that's strange... I recall a recent time when the Rays were the "model franchise".  Shortly before the Cardinals held that title and shortly after the Twins held it.

 

Oddly, it hasn't been the Giants really at all despite 3 WS wins in 5 years.

[nater79a]

Some rankings are strictly on tools. Some, like this one, are more on missed time, performance and proximity to the majors. All in the eye of the beholder. No big deal either way, I guess.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

Oddly, it hasn't been the Giants really at all despite 3 WS wins in 5 years.

Sabean hasn't been loved by a lot of the smart sites.  He's gotten a bit more love the last couple years but he's been flogged pretty good by Klaw, fangraphs, etc

[jokin]

 

 

5. That model of perfection, the Cardinals, have 4 top 100, 6 top 175, 0 honorable mentions beyond those six prospects, which equates to an average farm system according to Sickles. This should not be construed to mean the Cards aren't a franchise of excellence, but maybe it says something about how cyclical and difficult this business is, even for the best-run organizations. And maybe the Cards aren't perfect either.

It's wonderful to be able to brag about winning the "battle" for most high rated-prospects.  Unfortunately, it's all just little more than words until that perceived talent translates to more wins and World Series appearances- or else we're stuck into waiting for "a tomorrow that never comes."  

 

The fact is, the Cardinals have almost continually drafted from the back-

end of the draft, and don't operate the franchise payroll based on an unlimited checkbook- so making the correct decision on personnel the vast majority of the time has been a critical part of their success.  They do however, have a history of rapidly developing to major-league-readiness, many of their supposed less-regarded talent and aren't nearly as subject to the boom and bust cycle- the cycle all too familiar in Twinsland.

[jokin]

 

See, that's strange... I recall a recent time when the Rays were the "model franchise".  Shortly before the Cardinals held that title and shortly after the Twins held it.

 

Oddly, it hasn't been the Giants really at all despite 3 WS wins in 5 years.

You haven't been around long enough.  The Rays and Cards both still have a lot to offer and perhaps emulate- the Twins did get Gene Glynn and Neal Allen from the Rays. The Giants have been held up as a model for success by many of us contributors on TD- going back to the very first spring of Twins Daily's existence.  But they aren't a perfect comp for the Twins because they usually reside in the top quintile for payroll. But, shrewd FA signings along with some decent small-to-medium-sized trades, plausible back-up plans usually in place, (and in a notable separation from the TwinsWay)-> quick turnarounds from disappointing seasons, and aggressive, shrewd use of payroll for the most part, are certainly areas of Giants excellence that the Twins could choose to emulate.

[Thrylos]

 

See, that's strange... I recall a recent time when the Rays were the "model franchise".  Shortly before the Cardinals held that title and shortly after the Twins held it.

 

Last time the Twins held that (or any) title was in 1991.  In the 00s they were the poster boys of "good enough" but not cigar.

[jay]

Last time the Twins held that (or any) title was in 1991. In the 00s they were the poster boys of "good enough" but not cigar.

It doesn't take a WS to be a "model franchise" though. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

 

The Rays were widely considered a model franchise (for lower revenue teams) for the last chunk of years and they didn't win any WS. Those 00 era Twins got plenty of kudos just the same.

[bird]

Having the kind of prospect pipeline the Twins have is not a matter of "little more than words". It's a reality.

 

Prospects by definition don't translate into wins while they're in the minors, of course, but it's completely reasonable to think that the Twins are on the verge of a transformative turnaround, is it not?

 

One can't make wholesale judgments about the future of an organization based strictly on the relative strength of the pipeline either, since teams employ different strategies. But I sure like our chances, and conversely, can see why there's some angst about the future among Tigers fans, given that they don't have a single prospect that would make the Twins Top 10.

[Thrylos]

Regarding what being in a top 100 (or so) prospect list:  If you are not familiar with this study from 4 years ago, you should be.  Really enlightening...

[jokin]

 

Having the kind of prospect pipeline the Twins have is not a matter of "little more than words". It's a reality.

 

Prospects by definition don't translate into wins while they're in the minors, of course, but it's completely reasonable to think that the Twins are on the verge of a transformative turnaround, is it not?

 

One can't make wholesale judgments about the future of an organization based strictly on the relative strength of the pipeline either, since teams employ different strategies. But I sure like our chances, and conversely, can see why there's some angst about the future among Tigers fans, given that they don't have a single prospect that would make the Twins Top 10.

 

 

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/543741/Overall_top_100_success_rates_medium.png

 

This is why you can't count all of your prospect chickens before they hatch and somehow translate "winning" the top farm system "battle" with the actual 162-game season battle.....

 

see all those hot shot arms???.... that's better than a THREE out of FOUR bust rate for Top 100 pitchers

[jokin]

Check the first table, and the two boxes on the far right hand side.... to sum up,

 

Further.... 1 in 16 position players from BA Top 100 lists became "perennial All-Star types"

And....      1 in 200 starting pitchers from BA Top 100 lists became "potential Ace types."

 

Chickens.

Need.

To.

Hatch.

 

before we can start the actual counting. 

[Mike Sixel]

It's exciting they have this many prospects. Maybe they'll promote some this year before they are out of it......

[ashbury]

 

And....      1 in 200 starting pitchers from BA Top 100 lists became "potential Ace types."

This makes me curious about their methodology.

 

Otherwise, where do potential Ace types even come from? Mostly unheralded guys?

 

I wonder for instance if they just added up prospect "counts" for those 14 years, thereby multiply counting the ones who are busts and only seeing relatively briefly the aces who get called up quickly?

 

Kershaw for instance made the BA top 100 list "only" twice. Mussina just once. The bums.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I was actually pretty okay with the list... until I noticed that Thorpe was missing. What the hell. How does that guy not crack a top 175 list?

[jokin]

 

It's exciting they have this many prospects. Maybe they'll promote some this year before they are out of it......

 

Right now it looks like only one new (aging and defensively suspect) veteran upgrade in the OF, and Escobar likely going to the bench represents a net downgrade for whichever veteran suspect ends up starting in CF.  One new veteran starting pitcher, one "new" old veteran starting suspect pitcher, and at least one, maybe more, new veteran suspect(s) in the pen.   In all likelihood, no prospects in the rotation, the pen, on the field or on the position player bench.  The whole thing looks pretty suspect.

 

Yep, I suspect that 73-77 wins sounds about right...  or... maybe a little optimistic on my part?***

 

***(I still hold out hope that this is all wrong, and unlike last year, the top guys that are dominating in AAA and AA are actually called up when they're dominating- not needing to somehow "show more consistency", and not some time in August or after September 1st.

[drock2190]

 

Regarding what being in a top 100 (or so) prospect list:  If you are not familiar with this study from 4 years ago, you should be.  Really enlightening...

 

Now I see why the Giants never won anything with Bonds, the prospects were failing left and right. But now they have won a few championships. Goes in cycles, Twins next up?

[jay]

I wonder for instance if they just added up prospect "counts" for those 14 years, thereby multiply counting the ones who are busts and only seeing relatively briefly the aces who get called up quickly?

This is exactly the method used.

 

Anything to satisfy the naysayers though...

Say, did you hear about the impending economic doom? Yeah, it's the same one we've been hearing about for a while, but they'll be vindicated as right eventually.

[gunnarthor]

 

Check the first table, and the two boxes on the far right hand side.... to sum up,

 

Further.... 1 in 16 position players from BA Top 100 lists became "perennial All-Star types"

And....      1 in 200 starting pitchers from BA Top 100 lists became "potential Ace types."

 

Chickens.

Need.

To.

Hatch.

 

before we can start the actual counting. 

 

I don't think anyone doubts that prospects don't always pan out, although there's probably a pretty big difference between Swarzak (#100 prospect 2006) and Meyer or Joe Benson (#100, 2011) and Buxton.  But you're also ignoring the prospects that make it that didn't make any top 100 lists.  The Twins revival in the early 2000s was mostly made up of prospects that were never ranked in any top 100 lists.  Koskie, AJ, Jones, Dougie Baseball, Mays, Radke, Santana etc.  Even Hunter only made the top 100 one year (and it was at 79). 

 

The 2014 Twins got some pretty good play out of some prospects that weren't rated - Dozier, Santana, Vargas, Plouffe.  And they have some nice highly regarded prospects coming up to support them.  Nothing wrong with looking forward to it.

[bird]

Multiple counting of names on a few top 100 lists and throwing it into a table obscures the accurate data on the subject.

 

The general success rates for prospects are fairly well understood by a lot of us. We know, for example, that there's a phenomenally higher rate of success for the top 10 draftees versus the bottom 10 draftees. 

.

But those statistics have zero bearing on what this Top 175 ranking looks like. The Twins have 13 prospects mentioned. Sickles doesn't project bust rates for any of the 200+ prospects mentioned.

 

Whether one tends toward optimism or pessimism, one has to acknowledge that the current Twins prospect pipeline is judged to be superior. One of the very best by any credible measure. Probably the best pipeline in the entire history of the organization, IMO. Anyone who can't get excited by this group of prospects, both the ones newly graduated like Santana, May, Arcia, Vargas, and Gibson or the dozen still in the pipeline, should have their pulse checked.