MLB.com midseason prospect list

[John Kelsey]

 

Few interesting things:

 

- Gordon is listed as a SS/2B for the first time in those lists

- For the first time ever a national prospect list has a brand new IFA signee right after he signed (Jelfry Marte)

- Finally, Javier, Diaz, and Graterol get the love they deserve (albeit not as much as they do) outside Twins' Territory, while other IFAs like Palacios, Rainis Silva, and Arraez getting snubbed

- Baddoooooooo, should likely be in this list ahead of some people

- Jorge, Jay, and Stewart at 7-8-9.  Really?

- Rortvedt who cannot hit his way out of a paper bag ahead of Garver (and Silva?)

- Other than that, it is what it is.   Interesting to see the 1-1 draft pick ranked as the 3rd best prospect of this draft.

 

Why would Silva be in the top 30?

 

Rortvedt is hitting better at Cedar Rapids as a 19 year old than Silva did as a 20 year old last year. 

[Seth Stohs]

 

Hey Seth- Why does Palacios not get more attention?  His offense seems really solid but his k/bb rate is about 4 to 1 and that is pretty bad.  With the rest of his numbers as solid as they are, it seems that scouts may think that he won't be able to fix that.  What is your take?  Is he a poor defender?  

 

He probably should get talked about more. He just took the GCL and ETown by storm in 2015, and then completely did nothing in 2016 and got hurt. Kind of disappeared from a prospect standpoint.

 

He's not going to walk a lot, but he's got a pretty good idea of the strike zone. He can hit. He's not big, but he's strong and has some pop in his bat. He's definitely going to move up lists, and should. His defense is fine.

[Seth Stohs]

 

The off season 40 & 50 rank should be interesting. Graterol rank as #12 with only 30 career innings pitched speaks loudly of his stuff.

 

Mayo and I spent a long time chatting about Graterol. I told him when I put him at like #14 after last season, I got beat up in the comments.His reports and my reports lined up pretty well to create would could be a really, really good pitcher. Now time will tell. 

[clutterheart]

 

How many 22 year-oid lefties can throw 96-98?  Also, at one time he was reported to have the best slider in the organization. If he was healthy, 8 would be too low.

 

But he is not healthy and if my memory is correct he has potentially career ending surgery.  

Today he is a bullpen arm who may never pitch again.  

[Seth Stohs]

 

Few interesting things:

 

- Gordon is listed as a SS/2B for the first time in those lists

- For the first time ever a national prospect list has a brand new IFA signee right after he signed (Jelfry Marte)

- Finally, Javier, Diaz, and Graterol get the love they deserve (albeit not as much as they do) outside Twins' Territory, while other IFAs like Palacios, Rainis Silva, and Arraez getting snubbed

- Baddoooooooo, should likely be in this list ahead of some people

- Jorge, Jay, and Stewart at 7-8-9.  Really?

- Rortvedt who cannot hit his way out of a paper bag ahead of Garver (and Silva?)

- Other than that, it is what it is.   Interesting to see the 1-1 draft pick ranked as the 3rd best prospect of this draft.

 

I'm 100% with you on Javier, Diaz and Graterol... And Palacios and probably Arraez...

 

But I gotta ask why so high on Rainis Silva?? I was kind of surprised he wasn't released before the short-seasons started... 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That was the report a few weeks ago. There was a new report in the last week that now they think it's just a shoulder impingement again and he's going to try to pitch again.

I missed that one too. Do you have a link?

[Thrylos]

 

 

 

But I gotta ask why so high on Rainis Silva?? I was kind of surprised he wasn't released before the short-seasons started... 

 

Silva's glove and game calling is at or close to MLB-ready.  His bat has been the issue.  For that reason I had him at 32 in my offseason list, down from 21 the season before.  From that writeup:

 

Why is Rainis Silva even in the list, no matter how good his fielding is, since he has no power and he is hitting so lightly?  First of all he is still 20 years old.  Secondly, he actually hits LHP very well now and he improved.  Here are his OPS against LHP by year and league: .539 in DSL in 2013, .521 in the GCL in 2014, .940 in Elizabethton and .889 in Cedar Rapids in 2015, and .754 in Cedar Rapids in 2016.  So something clicked for him in 2015 and continued to work in 2016.  Those OPS numbers are more than acceptable for a catcher, albeit in a platoon if necessary.  The hope is that something will click for the 20 year old when facing RHPs as well and reach his potential as solid every day bat with elite defense in the C position, otherwise his ceiling would be that of a platoon player.

 

So far this season he is hitting .326/.434/.442 overall as a 20 year old in  E-town (along with tossing about half of the would be base stealers out.)  I think that his potential is a solid MLB bat with elite defense in the majors in the catcher position.  This is at the Yadier Molina (career .737 OPS, 98 OPS+) level.   Still not close in thinking about my off-season list (I wait for trades etc, until a month or so before ST) but, if he continues, he will definitely receive top 10 consideration.  I know that he has been flying way under the radar, but has been on my list the last 3-4 seasons...

[Thrylos]

 

 

Why would Silva be in the top 30?

 

Rortvedt is hitting better at Cedar Rapids as a 19 year old than Silva did as a 20 year old last year. 

 

Past performance is a worse indicator for prospect future performance than current performance

Check my full reply above.

[mikelink45]

 

When are prospect rankings based on performance.

 

I could do a major league readiness listing.

 

1.) Mitch Garver

2.) Matt Hague

3.) Kennys Vargas

4.) John Curtiss

5.) Drew Rucinski

6.) Tommy Field

7.) JB Shuck

8.) Stephen Gonsalves

9.) Byungho Park

10.) Fernando Romero

 

Note... that isn't an actual list... but a quick look at most MLB ready in the Twins system.

That is a wonderful response.  Thank you.  This is something I have been thinking about a long time and I hope you do a full posting with notes on this topice - you are our source.

[mikelink45]

 

It's only 4, unless I missed someone.

 

Rooker doesn't even seem close to making the Top 100 at this point. He's only listed at 14 among Twins prospects.

That surprises me too. 

[gunnarthor]

Compared to other AL Central teams

Chi - 8 (1-69 range)

Cle - 2 (16-24 range)

Det - 3 (72-99 range)

KC -  0

MIN - 4 (31-84 range)

 

Chicago's uber prospect Giolito dropped a lot but our old friend Jose De Leon dropped the most.

 

Pipeline also just added the value of the top 100 guys to give a guesstimate on top systems right now (it doesn't look at depth, it's just a glance) and the Twins rank 12th.  White Sox 2, Cleveland 14, Tigers 23 and KC 28.

[gunnarthor]

The draft has a few tiers of rankings in this list as well.

 

21. Hunter Greene, RHP, Reds (No. 2 overall pick)
23. Brendan McKay, 1B, Rays (No. 4 overall pick)
29. MacKenzie Gore, LHP, Padres (No. 3)
31. Royce Lewis, OF, Twins (No. 1)
35. Kyle Wright, RHP, Braves (No. 5)

 

I think these five were the general consensus top 5 (in some order) and those 5 are separated by 14 spots.

75. Pavin Smith, 1B, D-backs (No. 7)
78. Alex Faedo, RHP, Tigers (No. 18)
86. Jeren Kendall, OF, Dodgers (No. 23)
87. J.B. Bukauskus, RHP, Astros (No. 15)
88. Shane Baz, RHP, Pirates (No. 12)
97. Keston Hiura, 2B/OF, Brewers (No. 9)

 

And then a little bit of weirdness in the back quarter. I don't think Kendall should be a top 100 guy right now at all. No Adell?

[Mr. Brooks]

MLB Pipeline barely had Rooker as a top 100 DRAFT prospect, of course he's not going to be anywhere close to a top 100 overall list.

[drivlikejehu]

I personally am skeptical that even experienced prospect-watchers should put their ratings over the clubs'. I don't see how you include Jeren Kendall in the top 100 and leave out Austin Beck, who was drafted way higher and signed for like $2.5 million more. Maybe you can have an occasional oddity, but in this case, 22 teams passed on Kendall in the first round - it's unsupportable for him to be in the top 100 unless the ranker is a better scout than half of MLB scouting directors.

 

 

[Guest]

That surprises me too.

 

Rooker ranks lower than some expected because of lot of history of college sluggers not making it, particularly based on K/BB ratio and age against competition. For example, when Benintendi was 20, he had 32 K's and 50 BB's in 276 PA's. Contrast that against Rooker at 21, when he had 48 K's and 16 BB's in 220 PA's. Rooker improved at age 22, with 58 K's and 48 BB's in 296 PA's, but he still didn't match Benintendi at age 20. Now we can project his growth and discount the age data all we want, and Rooker might beat the odds, but the ratings services aren't going to do that with him until his professional track record exceeds the growth curve of the average player with his background. 100 plate appearances in rookie ball aren't enough proof.

[Taildragger8791]

 

I missed that one too. Do you have a link?

 

There was a mention of it in the second item of this short article.

 

Edit: Forgot the article.
 

http://www.startribune.com/berrios-trainer-spots-a-flaw-other-postgame-notes/435496263/

 

[bluechipper]

 

Few interesting things:

 

- Gordon is listed as a SS/2B for the first time in those lists

- For the first time ever a national prospect list has a brand new IFA signee right after he signed (Jelfry Marte)

- Finally, Javier, Diaz, and Graterol get the love they deserve (albeit not as much as they do) outside Twins' Territory, while other IFAs like Palacios, Rainis Silva, and Arraez getting snubbed

- Baddoooooooo, should likely be in this list ahead of some people

- Jorge, Jay, and Stewart at 7-8-9.  Really?

- Rortvedt who cannot hit his way out of a paper bag ahead of Garver (and Silva?)

- Other than that, it is what it is.   Interesting to see the 1-1 draft pick ranked as the 3rd best prospect of this draft.

Isn't this just because he split time early with Vielma, and it doesn't have anything to do with what position they think he'll play?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I personally am skeptical that even experienced prospect-watchers should put their ratings over the clubs'. I don't see how you include Jeren Kendall in the top 100 and leave out Austin Beck, who was drafted way higher and signed for like $2.5 million more. Maybe you can have an occasional oddity, but in this case, 22 teams passed on Kendall in the first round - it's unsupportable for him to be in the top 100 unless the ranker is a better scout than half of MLB scouting directors.

Kendall is at 86.  For all we know, Beck is at 101.  Is there really a significant difference there?  It's basically equal with a tiebreaker.

 

Before the draft, MLB Pipeline had Kendall at 6 and Beck at 9.  Kendall is a college guy who is almost 3 years older than the high schooler Beck too, so it's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Hypothetically, maybe they believe Kendall has enough of an advantage in floor to make up for Beck's advantage in ceiling or something?

 

In any case, I value a different viewpoint on the matter, as opposed to MLB Pipeline quickly throwing their own opinions out to strictly adhere to draft/bonus order.  For what it's worth, early pro results don't look good for Beck either -- obviously too early to make any conclusive judgements from it, but maybe it's enough to lean on their pre-draft rankings as the tiebreaker rather than draft/bonus order.

 

If they are still sticking to Kendall a year from now, when actual performance data suggests their original evaluation was wrong, then I'd take issue.  Right now, I appreciate the different opinion.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Kendall is at 86.  For all we know, Beck is at 101.  Is there really a significant difference there?  It's basically equal with a tiebreaker.

 

Before the draft, MLB Pipeline had Kendall at 6 and Beck at 9.  Kendall is a college guy who is almost 3 years older than the high schooler Beck too, so it's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Hypothetically, maybe they believe Kendall has enough of an advantage in floor to make up for Beck's advantage in ceiling or something?

 

In any case, I value a different viewpoint on the matter, as opposed to MLB Pipeline quickly throwing their own opinions out to strictly adhere to draft/bonus order.  For what it's worth, early pro results don't look good for Beck either -- obviously too early to make any conclusive judgements from it, but maybe it's enough to lean on their pre-draft rankings as the tiebreaker rather than draft/bonus order.

 

If they are still sticking to Kendall a year from now, when actual performance data suggests their original evaluation was wrong, then I'd take issue.  Right now, I appreciate the different opinion.

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think their "opinion" is better than the actual decisions of MLB teams. Money talks - if MLB teams think so many players in the 2017 draft alone are more valuable than Kendall, it's just not logical to say he's a top 100 prospect. In an open market, there is zero chance he would get one of the top 100 bonuses among prospect-eligible players. We can be sure of that because he signed for near slot, meaning other teams could have clearly afforded to pay him, if they wanted to.

 

He's just one player, but that issue pops up with some frequency. People outside MLB just don't have the information needed to make such a dramatic departure from the MLB consensus . . . I mean, they can if they want, but it really strains credibility.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think their "opinion" is better than the actual decisions of MLB teams. Money talks - if MLB teams think so many players in the 2017 draft alone are more valuable than Kendall, it's just not logical to say he's a top 100 prospect. In an open market, there is zero chance he would get one of the top 100 bonuses among prospect-eligible players. We can be sure of that because he signed for near slot, meaning other teams could have clearly afforded to pay him, if they wanted to.

 

He's just one player, but that issue pops up with some frequency. People outside MLB just don't have the information needed to make such a dramatic departure from the MLB consensus . . . I mean, they can if they want, but it really strains credibility.

 

so, don't read prospect lists? take them with a grain of salt? admit they aren't perfect? What's your argument?

[mlhouse]

Two problems with the list:

 

1.   Jose Miranda should be in the top 15.  He is a SS that was drafted Comp B, a 19 year old hitting .336 with 6 HR at Elizabethton, and he isn't even in the top 30?

 

2.  LaMonte Wade is ranked too low.   WIth his approach  at the plate he has professional lead off hitter labeled all over him.  The Twins should look at getting him up in September to see if his professional ABs continue at the MLB level, and then pencil him in as a starting OF for 2018 if he demonstrates.

[drivlikejehu]

 

so, don't read prospect lists? take them with a grain of salt? admit they aren't perfect? What's your argument?

 

Um we're discussing a list, and that's the reason I don't like it. Are only some people allowed to comment on them? I don't get your complaint. I'm fine with lists that make sense.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Um we're discussing a list, and that's the reason I don't like it. Are only some people allowed to comment on them? I don't get your complaint. I'm fine with lists that make sense.

 

I guess I misunderstood, it seemed like your argument was that lists were inherently bad because they were sometimes wrong, not that a ranking or 10 were wrong. Apologies.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think their "opinion" is better than the actual decisions of MLB teams. Money talks - if MLB teams think so many players in the 2017 draft alone are more valuable than Kendall, it's just not logical to say he's a top 100 prospect. In an open market, there is zero chance he would get one of the top 100 bonuses among prospect-eligible players. We can be sure of that because he signed for near slot, meaning other teams could have clearly afforded to pay him, if they wanted to.

First of all, I think you are assigning a precision to this that just isn't warranted.  Kendall could be ranked 120 without any meaningful difference in assigned value from the guy ranked 86.  At that point, we're really talking a lean rather than anything definitive. And with scant pro resumes, I have no problem leaning based on pre-draft evaluation instead of a handful of month-old draft slots.

 

For that matter, while Kendall was selected 23rd overall, it isn't even clear that a majority consensus of MLB teams would peg that as his absolute value among draft prospects.  I am sure MLB draft boards are far from identical, especially after the top 5 or so.  For all we know, a few of the top and bottom teams in the draft may have pegged Kendall around 10-15 just like Pipeline and BA did but didn't have an opportunity to select him.  Heck, a few of the teams picking 6-22 may have had him that high too, but just behind their own special cases.  As a hypothetical example, the Brewers were apparently higher on Hiura to pick him 9, but who's to say they didn't have Kendall close behind him? Big picture, it would even out, of course, but we're not talking 100 slots here. It wouldn't take much to move a guy down ~10 slots or whatever.

 

While it's absolutely worth noting divergent opinions, and I'm glad gunnarthor posted the draft slots next to the rankings here, I see nothing in this particular ranking that should "strain credibility."

[gunnarthor]

 

Two problems with the list:

 

1.   Jose Miranda should be in the top 15.  He is a SS that was drafted Comp B, a 19 year old hitting .336 with 6 HR at Elizabethton, and he isn't even in the top 30?

 

2.  LaMonte Wade is ranked too low.   WIth his approach  at the plate he has professional lead off hitter labeled all over him.  The Twins should look at getting him up in September to see if his professional ABs continue at the MLB level, and then pencil him in as a starting OF for 2018 if he demonstrates.

Miranda and Baddoo are the two most glaring problems on this list.  I think both are top 15 prospects for us. 

[bird]

 

so, don't read prospect lists? take them with a grain of salt? admit they aren't perfect? What's your argument?

 

 

I pick take them with a grain of salt and admit they aren't perfect?

[Thrylos]

 

 

 

 LaMonte Wade is ranked too low.   WIth his approach  at the plate he has professional lead off hitter labeled all over him.  The Twins should look at getting him up in September to see if his professional ABs continue at the MLB level, and then pencil him in as a starting OF for 2018 if he demonstrates.

 

Starting OF in 2016?  Over whom?   Wade has an .808 OPS in AA.  Rosario an .815 in the majors, Kepler .740.  Do you mean over Buxton?

[mlhouse]

 

Starting OF in 2016?  Over whom?   Wade has an .808 OPS in AA.  Rosario an .815 in the majors, Kepler .740.  Do you mean over Buxton?

 

 

That is a ridiculous use of a single, contrived statistic. I would consider Wade over Rosario and Buxton at this time.

 

 Wade has a career minor league OBP over 400 and has maintained this at each step in the minors.  If he can project that to the MLB level, he could be a premier leadoff hitter for the Twins.   He has enough pop in his bat that he has hit 6-10 home runs each year (projected to 500 PA) that he isn't a total slap hitter.   I bring him up in September to see if he can continue those trends in the majors, and if he does he replaces Rosario as the starting LF.

 

[drivlikejehu]

 

First of all, I think you are assigning a precision to this that just isn't warranted.  Kendall could be ranked 120 without any meaningful difference in assigned value from the guy ranked 86.  At that point, we're really talking a lean rather than anything definitive. And with scant pro resumes, I have no problem leaning based on pre-draft evaluation instead of a handful of month-old draft slots.

 

For that matter, while Kendall was selected 23rd overall, it isn't even clear that a majority consensus of MLB teams would peg that as his absolute value among draft prospects.  I am sure MLB draft boards are far from identical, especially after the top 5 or so.  For all we know, a few of the top and bottom teams in the draft may have pegged Kendall around 10-15 just like Pipeline and BA did but didn't have an opportunity to select him.  Heck, a few of the teams picking 6-22 may have had him that high too, but just behind their own special cases.  As a hypothetical example, the Brewers were apparently higher on Hiura to pick him 9, but who's to say they didn't have Kendall close behind him? Big picture, it would even out, of course, but we're not talking 100 slots here. It wouldn't take much to move a guy down ~10 slots or whatever.

 

While it's absolutely worth noting divergent opinions, and I'm glad gunnarthor posted the draft slots next to the rankings here, I see nothing in this particular ranking that should "strain credibility."

 

Though the value between 86 and 120 isn't a huge difference, my point was just that the order makes no sense in light of the actual draft results. Whether or not one or two teams loved Kendall but loved someone else even more doesn't change the fact that a majority of clubs passed on him.

 

Collectively, they liked a lot of prospects more than Kendall. 

 

Prospect rankings are treated as being more subjective conceptually then they really should be. The best way to think about it is this: if all minor league players became free agents, and every team had an equal pool to offer those free agents, who would get the most money? That's the best prospect, period. And the ranking of prospects would follow the amount received.

 

The draft is not like free agency and so the ordering itself is not always useful. That's why I referred to bonus money. Even that is different from free agency of course, but it still tells us enough to know that Kendall is not objectively a top 100 prospect in MLB.

 

Now, for some random person, Kendall might be a top 100 prospect, but why would fans care about one random person's opinion? Collective opinions are stronger. Therefore, a rational prospect ranking should reflect the consensus in MLB, not the personal opinions of random dudes on the internet, even if they are knowledgeable. 

[drjim]

I wonder if these rankings reflect the order mlb.com had for their pre-draft rankings. At least that would be consistent.