Why Kaelen Culpepper Deserves More Respect on Twins Prospect Lists

K. Culpepper already has received a fair amount of respect. MLB.com has him as the Twins #4 prospect now. I guess you are wondering why Twins Daily writers put Kaelen lower. I don't know.

The contact/ ability to hit and arm strength are clear strengths, but Culpepper is not a speedster, has not hit with power, and his glove has yet to be lauded on any level. There is a good chance that Kaelen has himself a decent MLB career as a 2B/3B or strong utility player. The Twins clearly like him. As a first round draft choice he will receive a ton of opportunities to show his skill and this year will answer some questions about how the young infielder adapts to a higher level of professional baseball. I'm looking forward to watching him play next summer. I don't believe he is underrated at this time.

Hard to get excited about any player that hasn't done anything in High A or above yet, but he's intriguing. 

I'm interested to see if people here would have liked to trade him and, say, Gabriel Gonzalez for Luzardo. That's reasonably close to what the Red Sox gave for him. 

5 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Hard to get excited about any player that hasn't done anything in High A or above yet, but he's intriguing. 

I'm interested to see if people here would have liked to trade him and, say, Gabriel Gonzalez for Luzardo. That's reasonably close to what the Red Sox gave for him. 

 

What would we do? Clearly, the Twins did not want Luzardo. The Phillies don't roster good field/no hit players so the prospect (Caba) that went to the Marlins was an infield reverse of who Gabriel Gonzalez (good hit/no field OF) was last offseason. In other words, not too valuable. Culpepper is worth slightly more at this time although he is not ranked. In any respect, the Marlins were just dumping Luzardo.

39 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Culpepper is worth slightly more at this time although he is not ranked.

There's very few people that would say Culpepper is more valuable than Caba. 

2 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

There's very few people that would say Culpepper is more valuable than Caba. 

I agree. First thought though - name a modern Philly shortstop that hit .200 but had a top glove. I don't believe the Phillies placed much value on Caba. Second though - Gabriel gonzalez was in Top 100 slots last year. Have you seen him play? I like to watch the players and place very little status in bottom 100 prospects.

IMO, he turns 22 in about 5 days, and most likely will be in high A next year, at 23 in AA, at 24 in AAA and maybe the majors, that is why he is rated where he is on top of that he doesn't really project to much of a hitter. With that said I hope he really hits this year and will move very quickly up the prospect lists. Good Luck Kid!

29 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I agree. First thought though - name a modern Philly shortstop that hit .200 but had a top glove. I don't believe the Phillies placed much value on Caba. Second though - Gabriel gonzalez was in Top 100 slots last year. Have you seen him play? I like to watch the players and place very little status in bottom 100 prospects.

I think we're in agreement mostly. That the Phillies didn't pay all that much for a starting pitcher with big questions but big upside. Rojas their CF kind or fits that mold but that's irrelevant. 

That's why my question was if the Twins fans would make a similarly talented trade with Culpepper and Gonzalez. 

I really like his bat-to-ball skills & I'm impressed with how he can handle SS with his speed. If the Twins focus on bulking him up for more power he won't stay at SS. With his arm he's destined to 3B. It'll be interesting with what shakes loose when Correa can't handle SS.

58 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I think we're in agreement mostly. That the Phillies didn't pay all that much for a starting pitcher with big questions but big upside. Rojas their CF kind or fits that mold but that's irrelevant. 

That's why my question was if the Twins fans would make a similarly talented trade with Culpepper and Gonzalez. 

I would, Luzardo is at his low point at trade value. Even with the rotation we have, you can't have enough SPs especially if don't have any LHPs. IMO Gonzalez won't make it as a Twin & we have enough 3Bmen so we can spare Culpepper. Scale back on Luzardo for a while, he'll come around to be a reliable top-end LHSP. Too many teams were trying to lowball MIA but even though PHI having a very good rotation, they saw Luzardo as a bargain & cut the BS.

BPro has him at 272 in their top 500 prospects, behind Prielipp (248), Beltre (244), Raya (205) and Morris (194). ahead of Soto (316) and DeBarge (318) and Hill (321)

Any legit prospect that played 3 years of high D1 is going to do well in A ball. If we throw out prospect puppy love which seems to be in huge supply with these prospect articles we have a decent athlete that won’t stick at short. Has bat to ball skills but limited power. Good arm but not fast. So he could play third or left field which are bat first positions. He is going to have to really improve his hitting to make it to the bigs. I hope he does but I wouldn’t be betting my grocery money. 

Very good article, shedding more light on a player that, as you noted, hasn't received a lot of hype yet. I didn't realize that his plate discipline was so good. Very good, in fact. That's a start, but as others have noted, he will need to show a bit of power, and some defensive skills, as he moves up through the system. His debut was encouraging, so I hope for more progress this coming season. 

I like the optimism for Culpepper, as warranted by his early minor league stats. But I will curb my enthusiasm until he has a solid if not a breakout year in AA. 

Respect has nothing to do with rankings. Rankings are of little value and are a lazy way to produce written content.

Instead of rankings it would be more informative to group players in tiers and describe the range of ceiling/floor outcomes. Write about their attributes that will make them successful baseball players and the work they need to do on their weaknesses. Does their value come with a large range in ceiling/floor outcomes? That is a lot more work on the writer though. It might takes weeks or months to produce that content for a group of prospects.

In Culpepper’s case he was given an FV of 40+ by Fangraphs projecting as a bench player/low end regular at the time of the draft. It is the same as the value they gave several Twins last summer including Morris and Soto. All organizations have a bunch of players with a 40 or 40+ FV. It is silly to sort them into ranks and even sillier to give respect to some more than others based on a ranking. 

.

3 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Respect has nothing to do with rankings. Rankings are of little value and are a lazy way to produce written content.

Instead of rankings it would be more informative to group players in tiers and describe the range of ceiling/floor outcomes. Write about their attributes that will make them successful baseball players and the work they need to do on their weaknesses. Does their value come with a large range in ceiling/floor outcomes. That is a lot more work on the writer though. It might takes weeks or months to produce that content for a group of prospects.

In Culpepper’s case he was given an FV of 40+ by Fangraphs projecting as a bench player/low end regular at the time of the draft. It is the same as the value they gave several Twins last summer including Morris and Soto. All organizations have a bunch of players with a 40 or 40+ FV. It is silly to sort them into ranks and even sillier to give respect to some more than others based on a ranking. 

.

 

Prospect rankings have been a money maker for 40 years now. The depth of coverage is better but how many people can actually watch the players 10-25 times. The variables are immense and some of the best potential athletes just get homesick and can't handle the bus rides. It is a tough business and we all need to understand the fluidity of prospect rankings. Since the advent of milb.com streaming minor league games I have felt like those of us who have the time and interest are able to see a number of players more than was ever possible. Watching the games is better than video which is better than just looking over data, but nothing beats watching live. Even scouts and writers who make a good salary writing about prospects don't see guys often enough though.

5 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Respect has nothing to do with rankings. Rankings are of little value and are a lazy way to produce written content.

Instead of rankings it would be more informative to group players in tiers and describe the range of ceiling/floor outcomes. Write about their attributes that will make them successful baseball players and the work they need to do on their weaknesses. Does their value come with a large range in ceiling/floor outcomes. That is a lot more work on the writer though. It might takes weeks or months to produce that content for a group of prospects.

In Culpepper’s case he was given an FV of 40+ by Fangraphs projecting as a bench player/low end regular at the time of the draft. It is the same as the value they gave several Twins last summer including Morris and Soto. All organizations have a bunch of players with a 40 or 40+ FV. It is silly to sort them into ranks and even sillier to give respect to some more than others based on a ranking. 

.

 

I think you have a good idea here. Particularly because most of these articles are almost all about hitting with limited information about the other tools which is really important when trying to project their future. And a little more realism and less homerism would improve the quality of the articles. 

19 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Respect has nothing to do with rankings. Rankings are of little value and are a lazy way to produce written content.

Instead of rankings it would be more informative to group players in tiers and describe the range of ceiling/floor outcomes. Write about their attributes that will make them successful baseball players and the work they need to do on their weaknesses. Does their value come with a large range in ceiling/floor outcomes? That is a lot more work on the writer though. It might takes weeks or months to produce that content for a group of prospects.

In Culpepper’s case he was given an FV of 40+ by Fangraphs projecting as a bench player/low end regular at the time of the draft. It is the same as the value they gave several Twins last summer including Morris and Soto. All organizations have a bunch of players with a 40 or 40+ FV. It is silly to sort them into ranks and even sillier to give respect to some more than others based on a ranking. 

.

 

There is no quantifiable figure  for heart, dedication and drive at 20 yo. 

16 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Prospect rankings have been a money maker for 40 years now. The depth of coverage is better but how many people can actually watch the players 10-25 times. The variables are immense and some of the best potential athletes just get homesick and can't handle the bus rides. It is a tough business and we all need to understand the fluidity of prospect rankings. Since the advent of milb.com streaming minor league games I have felt like those of us who have the time and interest are able to see a number of players more than was ever possible. Watching the games is better than video which is better than just looking over data, but nothing beats watching live. Even scouts and writers who make a good salary writing about prospects don't see guys often enough though.

1 hour ago, Fatbat said:

There is no quantifiable figure  for heart, dedication and drive at 20 yo. 

Concur. These add to my desire to do away with rankings. Speed the words writing about the player. I want to know their perceived value at the major leagues with a ceiling and floor. Tell me about their assets and deficits. Tell me about their path to this point. Tell me about how close they are to the majors. Don’t waste words debating whether someone is 8 or 12 or 16. At that point they are all probably of similar overall value but with varying mixes of skills, ceiling, readiness and heart. It is those assets that should be respected not a very fluid position on a ranking system.

Think back to last winter and all that was written about SWR. There were some that wrote about his drop in ranking number about Twin prospect. There were others that wrote about his stuff+ and his hard work during the winter to improve his velocity. I want to read the second article. I don’t care that he moved from something like 8 to 19. He earns my respect based on his assets and not a number.

edit: back to Kaelen.

He is most valuable as a shortstop? What does he need to work on in order to be a starter at that spot in the major leagues?

Handling advanced pitching is also known as being a good prospect.  If that's your issue, it's like saying the key to doing well on an IQ test is being smart.

I'm not saying KC won't make it to the majors, but I see nothing yet that makes me think he'll be a good prospect.  It's good that he did well in A ball...that just gets him to the ladder, he's not climbing it.  Again, a superstar hitter will do well in A at age 18, an all-star at age 19, a potential regular at age 20, and at age 21, well, Culpepper hasn't shown anything at all really.  The inability to do anything in the SSS at A+ says a lot more about him than doing well at A.

When Nick Gordon was 21, he slashed .270/.341/.409 at AA, and I thought his lack of power combined with a AA K rate of 23% basically made him a pretty meh prospect, but thus far KC is much worse.  Will he be better than Gordon?  Possibly, and that says nothing.

The only thing I agree with is that he and Raya are close to the same ranking, but I have them both around 20 or worse.

12 hours ago, twinstalker said:

Handling advanced pitching is also known as being a good prospect.  If that's your issue, it's like saying the key to doing well on an IQ test is being smart.

I'm not saying KC won't make it to the majors, but I see nothing yet that makes me think he'll be a good prospect.  It's good that he did well in A ball...that just gets him to the ladder, he's not climbing it.  Again, a superstar hitter will do well in A at age 18, an all-star at age 19, a potential regular at age 20, and at age 21, well, Culpepper hasn't shown anything at all really.  The inability to do anything in the SSS at A+ says a lot more about him than doing well at A.

When Nick Gordon was 21, he slashed .270/.341/.409 at AA, and I thought his lack of power combined with a AA K rate of 23% basically made him a pretty meh prospect, but thus far KC is much worse.  Will he be better than Gordon?  Possibly, and that says nothing.

The only thing I agree with is that he and Raya are close to the same ranking, but I have them both around 20 or worse.

Everyone who ever switched jobs has some adjustments to make. Kaelen Culpepper played D1 baseball for Kansas State for three years. He did fine. The change to pro baseball most notably involves switching from an aluminum or composite of some sort to a wood bat. The difference is huge. Minor leagues play six days a week and ride buses. The routines are markedly different. One of the best college players I ever saw quit pro ball after one month because he was homesick and missed his girlfriend. You cannot compare Nick Gordon to KC at this point unless you have seen them each play in person a couple of dozen times. The stats are meaningless for first year players most of the time. For those who peruse the stats, try to watch the players in games. If it isn't practical to see the players live, which is almost never is, watch via milb.com. After about 50-100 at bats one can begin to discern the levels of skill. It is much tougher to gage fielding milb.com.

As far as Kaelen Culpepper goes, I have no opinion yet because I have only seen him in about a dozen games thus far. He seems to control the bat though and he make the routine plays in the field. We will all know more after this coming year.