Community Prospect #29
by epoc on Jan 27, 2012 11:59 AM EST
Email
Print
Ramon Cabrera is our #28 prospect. He got 29% of the vote in the last poll. Runner-up Tyler Glasnow received 21%. The list:
1. Gerrit Cole
2. Jameson Taillon
3. Starling Marte
4. Josh Bell
5. Luis Heredia
6. Robbie Grossman
7. Tony Sanchez
8. Kyle McPherson
9. Stetson Allie
10. Nick Kingham
11. Rudy Owens
12. Jeff Locke
13. Jarek Cunningham
14. Alex Dickerson
15. Zack Von Rosenberg
16. Colton Cain
17. Jordy Mercer
18. Zack Dodson
19. Clayton Holmes
20. Alen Hanson
21. Yamaico Navarro
22. Justin Wilson
23. Bryan Morris
24. Matt Curry
25. Jose Osuna
26. Gorkys Hernandez
27. Mel Rojas, Jr.
28. Ramon Cabrera
I'll add Irwin, Harold Ramirez, and Dilson Herrera to the poll. There were some other suggestions, but I didn't get the sense that anyone felt too strongly about any individual guy. On a related note, there were only 24 votes total in the last poll, which kind of suggests to me that we should end this thing at #30. We're still having some good discussion from time to time, but maybe we can continue that in a wrap-up thread without actually continuing the polling. I'll leave this poll up over the weekend, so everyone can weigh in on whether we should keep going or not.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
90 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 27, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.
"Matt Cooke and Evgeni Malkin for Brian Boyle, Derek Stepan, Brandon Dubinsky, Mike Rupp, and a first round pick." -JackCampbell
How many brooks would a Brooks Laich like if a Brooks Laich could like brooks?
+1
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
EXICARDO CAYONEZ
+1
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 28, 2012 9:20 AM EST up reply actions
In terms of continuing it
I have no problem with this thing running into perpetuity for all I’m concerned, but I think alot of us have bowed out because of an inability to provide an intelligent/educated opinion about the abilities of most of these guys. At least I have.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
Yeah, I'm kinda getting to that point.
There’s only a few more guys I still want to see get on the list: Gonzalez, Holt, Hague, Glasnow, and Colla, in that preferred order. Once those five are on, I’m pretty much done.
Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.
"Matt Cooke and Evgeni Malkin for Brian Boyle, Derek Stepan, Brandon Dubinsky, Mike Rupp, and a first round pick." -JackCampbell
How many brooks would a Brooks Laich like if a Brooks Laich could like brooks?
i m kinda torn between Hague and Gonzalez here
Hague had a good enough minor league career that I think he deserves to be on the list. Plus, the Bucs protected him on the 40 man. Plus that he’s a 26 year old in AAA may be a result of the rate at which he was promoted. He’s hit for average, done a decent job controlling the strike zone— i don’t know about his defense, but he might be able to provide 2 years of non-sinkhole production from 1B.
I see no point.....
…..in going beyond 30….. if the objective is to identify prospects. We already have more than one non-prospect on the list. Beyond 30, most additions will be non-prospects.
Going into last season
Robbie Grossman and Kyle McPherson were both ranked outside the Pirates top-30. My interest in going past 30 is that there are a handful of guys with too many warts right now to crack the top 30 but could also break out in a big way in 2012.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 28, 2012 9:53 AM EST up reply actions
I understand what you're saying.....
…..and it won’t bother me at all if epoc decides to continue.
However, my view is that the Grossmans and McPhersons can be added AFTER they break out and show that they belong….. as Grossman and McPherson did this past season.
Kinda wonder where Brooks Pounders would have fallen.....
…..if he hadn’t been traded. Pounders was #29 on my personal list.
We agree on that, Mr. E.
In fact, Rojas making our top 30 degrades the entire list for me. Rojas has played as a professional for 2 seasons….. and has put up 2 pretty bad seasons.
The biggest knock against Cabrera, on the other hand, is his size. He squeaked into my personal list at #30.
A year ago
Cabrera put up a nearly identical line in the SAL to the one Rojas put up this year.
funny how that happens
It’s almost like it doesn’t even make sense to try to judge a player by what he does in the low minors at age 20/21.
My view is.....
…..that prospects must and will be judged by looking at the total of whatever information and observations are available (regardless of age and level).
For example, guys like Taillon, Allie, Heredia, and Bell were deemed worthy of big bucks well before reaching age 20/21. We all know that Taillon performed reasonably well in his first season as a pro, Heredia was just OK, Allie was pretty bad, and Bell hasn’t played an inning….. but all 4 remain in our top 10 (as well as everyone else’s). I’m confident that the performance of Taillon, Allie, and Heredia has influenced where observers rate them as prospects, to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the criteria used by each observer.
As I’ve stated previously, I place high value on performance. As a player advances in level, I place higher value on performance at each higher level….. and I give “extra credit” for a player who achieves while “age-appropriate” (or younger) for his level. Others use different criteria (or put different priority on their criteria)….. and that’s OK.
To compare Cabrera and Rojas directly…..
Cabrera put up a pretty decent season in the GCL in 2009 (.789 OPS) at age 19. In fact, the Pirates thought enough of him to have him skip State College and advance to WV in the low-A Sally League in 2010. As you point out, his performance there wasn’t too good (OPS .654). However, Cabrera advanced to high-A Bradenton in 2011 and came back strong with an OPS of .881 at age 21.
Both Cabrera and Rojas played at age 20 in 2010. Cabrera’s OPS of .654 at low-A West Virginia was almost 100 points higher than Rojas’s OPS of .559 at Short Season A State College.
Then, in 2011 (both age 21), Cabrera put up an OPS of .881 at high-A, while Rojas posted a .647 OPS at low-A. That’s a pretty sharp contrast.
Obviously, things could change in 2012….. and I hope that Rojas finds himself. But for the past two seasons, Cabrera has played one level higher than Rojas and has performed MUCH better.
this seems very well reasoned to me
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 29, 2012 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, no one doubts that Cabrera's performed better than Rojas
At least offensively. But the bigger question is whether Cabrera has the physical tools to be a major league starter. If he doesn’t, and Rojas does, then Rojas is a better prospect regardless of which one hit better in A ball last year.
right
What they do in A-ball isn’t really the question. It’s maybe part of determining the answer to the question, but the real question is: which one is likely to be a better major league player. I don’t have any problem with the statistically-based calculations magnumo does w/r/t Cabrera and Rojas (well, except that Rojas is 5.5 months younger than Cabrera, so saying they’re both the same age isn’t quite true), but if you stop there and don’t go on to say, well, tools-wise, Cabrera has no power, is shaky defensively, and doesn’t have the athleticism to play anywhere else on the diamond if he can’t stick at catcher, while Rojas has all five tools and is a very good athlete, then you’re not really using all of the available information. You may still think Cabrera’s better after going through everything, but it’s a lot closer than magnumo is making it look (and there’s a lot more to it than magnumo’s claim that the only knock against Cabrera is his size).
Rojas may have better physical tools.....
…..but all the tools in the world are worthless if he doesn’t have the baseball skills to apply them. I’ve seen MANY good athletes who couldn’t perform on a baseball field.
I think we’re coming back to criteria. I value tools, but not as highly as I value performance. I’ll take a player with lesser tools who performs better any day of the week. For me, that holds true at any level of professional baseball, up to and including major league players.
Please note: I’m not arguing tools vs. skills as a mutally exclusive system. The best prospects (and the best players) are those who have an abundance of both tools and skills.
In reply to epoc: I agree with your question, “Which one is likely to be a better major league player?” To me, that question is not the same as “Which one has better tools?”….. or "Which one has the highest ceiling? In my opinion, it’s important to factor in the likelihood of the player developing his skills such that he can use his tools in achieving his ceiling….. and I see performance and performance trends as important in answering that part of the question….. and I think you have agreed with that.
Rojas’s performance to date indicates to me that he is unlikely to reach his ceiling. Yes, he improved from 2010 to 2011….. from really bad to mediocre. It’s clear that you and I have different criteria, or at least different weights on the criteria we use….. and that’s OK.
As far as age goes, I used the ages posted at the reference web sites I looked at. Obviously, there’s gotta be a cutoff date somewhere, and both sites I searched indicated that Cabrera and Rojas are the same age. Hey, I can give Rojas a very small break for being a few months younger, but that doesn’t change my current assessment that he’s not a prospect.
As I’ve posted before, I HOPE he develops and becomes a prospect….. but right now, he isn’t on my personal Top 30 list.
For the record, I do not see performance or performance trends in A-ball at ages 20/21 as particularly indicative of anything one way or another.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to value results over tools at the A ball level
These guys are all so far away from the bigs that the first thing you need to concern yourself with how well their physical abilities will translate to higher levels of competition. It’s the same thing in football, the leading rusher in the WPIAL doesn’t automatically win a scholarship to Pitt or Penn State. He might or might not, depending how the coaches judge his suitability to play at the next level.
I also noticed that you limited yourself to discussing Cabrera’s offensive results, because on defense his numbers were pretty bad, both in CS% and passed balls. Both of those numbers reinforce existing questions about Cabrera’s tools: does he have the arm and the footwork behind the plate to be an MLB catcher?
Pet peeve
and maybe it will just make people like me less, but maybe it will change at least one approach, but Rojas is definitely a prospect. He has a chance to play in the bigs, not a good one, but he has one. That makes him a prospect, just not a good one. Saying he isn’t one is the same as people who get pissed at “comparing” two players (or people or things) not close in value. You can compare any two objects in the world. It doesn’t make them similar but you can still do it. Scott Pollard is like Michael Jordan because they both played professional basketball. There you go.
Hmmmm...
So, what you’re saying is Brian Bixler is like Troy Tulowitzki, because they both play shortstop?
by Midnight Moose on Jan 30, 2012 4:06 AM EST up reply actions
I also agree with this from Mr. E about prospects
I agreed with magnumo above about why it makes sense to be more skeptical of Rojas than Allie or Cabrera, but it doesn’t mean Rojas is a non-prospect.
Moose: You can say “BB is like TT in that they both play shortstop” and it’d be true. I wouldn’t say “BB is like TT” full stop, but I’d be happy to say you can compare them — TT and BB are both shortstops, and TT is a much much better one.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 5:51 AM EST up reply actions
More on criteria
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to value results over tools at the A ball level. These guys are all so far away from the bigs that the first thing you need to concern yourself with (is) how well their physical abilities will translate to higher levels of competition.
That statement illuminates the criteria valued by maguro in ranking prospects. My view differs, at least in part:
- I agree that an observer must consider how well physical abilities will translate to higher levels of competition. That’s why I have stated that I value performance more highly at each successive level.
- On the other hand, I believe that performance at the various A levels (as a player progresses) provides important data ABOUT whether a player’s physical abilities will translate at higher levels.
By the way, thanks for the feedback on Cabrera’s defense. I had no opinion about his defense because I’ve never seen him play….. and I’ve seen MUCH written (on this board and elsewhere), warning about the credibiility of defensive stats in the minors, especially the low minors, for various reasons.
Besides, it seems to me that offense is much more important than defense in determining whether a player will make it to the majors. I believe in the old adage, “if a guy carries a good bat, they’ll find a place for him to play.” There are literally thousands of players out there who can play adequate major league defense….. but there aren’t so many potential major league bats.
Those are the reasons why I didn’t post anything about Cabrera’s defense.
He (Rojas) has a chance to play in the bigs, not a good one, but he has one. That makes him a prospect, just not a good one.
I submit that this quote illuminates Mr. E’s criteria.
My thoughts:
- That criterion is consistent with having a prospect list of 40 or 50 or more players….. and that’s OK.
- Others might say that prospect lists should consist of players who have a GOOD chance to make the major leagues, which would limit a list to 10 or 15 (or perhaps 20 prospects in a particularly strong system) ….. and that’s OK, too.
- I’m in between….. I see 30 as about right.
- Any way you cut it, the top 10 on a typical prospect list probably have a pretty good chance of making the majors (and most impact players will come from the top 10), the second 10 have a much lesser chance, the third 10 have little chance, and a jump from below #30 to the majors is rare.
- Occasionally, a minor leaguer will “figure it out” and establish (or re-establish) himself as a prospect, rising from low or off a top 30 list to higher on the list….. and subsequently make it to the majors. But that “figure it out” process is described by his performance and performance trends.
- Even If I accept Mr. E’s notion exactly as stated, Rojas STILL would not make my top 30. As I’ve posted several times, I HOPE he “figures it out.” If and when he does, I’ll include him in my personal top 30.
Stetson Allie
has played for one and it was an abject disaster. And he’s in the top-10…
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 27, 2012 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
True
On the other hand:
- The consensus of scouts (at the time each was drafted) was that Allie had a significantly higher ceiling than Rojas.
- For a prospect, one bad season is not nearly so damning as two.
- Allie is not as high on my personal list as he is on BD’s community list.
And I gotta feeling that.....
…..if Allie fails to show significant progress in 2012, and has another bad season, he likely will drop like a rock on top prospect lists.
I don't disagree with that
but that’s already what has happened to Rojas. It’s only one list, but PiratesProspects, for example had Rojas at 14 heading into last year and now he’s struggling to stay in the top-30. Allie was the better prospect but I don’t think it’s that much different than Rojas. Both are talented but raw. Rojas 2nd bad year dropped him nearly out of the top 30 and if Allie repeats his trainwreck 2011 without any progress, he might well fall outside the Pirates top 20 as well.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 29, 2012 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
Rojas showed progress, too. He improved his K rate and doubled his ISO while jumping from short-season ball to full-season ball. Not that he had a good year or anything, but he did play better this year. If Allie jumps up to SC and shows some improvements in his command, he probably won’t drop much at all heading into next year.
Seems that we’ve used different words to say essentially the same thing. At least it looks that way to me.
If you think we’re in agreement, fine. But I do not agree that Allie should “drop like a rock” if he doesn’t significantly improve next year.
I thought we had some common ground.
What I said was, “I gotta feeling that if Allie fails to show significant progress in 2012, AND has another bad season, he likely will drop like a rock on top prospect lists.”
But you seem to be implying that you disagree with my statement.
What you said was, “If Allie jumps up to SC and shows some improvements in his command, he probably won’t drop much at all heading into next year.”
I certainly agree with your statement….. because I assume that an improvement in his command would consist of and result in fewer walks than strikeouts (29 walks and 28 strikeouts in 26 innings in 2011), significantly less than 1 walk per inning, a WHIP significantly better than 1.88, and an ERA well below 6.58.
Perhaps it would be unproductive to try to quantify how much improvement would be “significant” or how much improvement it would take to keep Allie in the top 10 or 15….. but I gotta believe that, if his performance in 2012 is much like 2011, he will indeed drop like a rock..
Fangraphs Top 15 Pirate Prospects.....
…..was published today.
Here’s the first sentence from the introductory paragraph: “The organization has some true star power at the top of its minor league depth chart but things begin to peter out after the Top 3 prospects and the cupboard is rather bare by the end of the Top 15.” Apparently, they don’t think as highly of the farm system as many Pirate fans do.
For those who don’t want to take the time to click the link at the bottom of this post, their top 15 are:
1. Cole
2. Bell
3. Taillon
4. Sanchez
5. Grossman
6. Marte
7. Heredia
8. McPherson
9. Locke
10. Dickerson
11. Allie
12. Morris
13. Owens
14. Kingham
15. Cain
Sleeper: Hanson
A few other observations:
- They’re still high on Sanchez.
- They project 4 of their top 15 as relief pitchers (indicating they don’t share the disdain for relief pitchers as prospects which is often expressed here at Bucs Dugout).
- In their writeup on Bell, they state that the Pirates SHOULD be competitive by 2015. Personally, I HOPE our team becomes competitive before 2015….. but I FEAR that, come 2015, many Pirate fans will still be advocating patience.
Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/top-15-prospects-pittsburgh-pirates/
Not blaming you
But that article is terribly written.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I didn't think it was particularly well-written either.....
…..and I disagree with some of the author’s take.
On the other hand, I agree with the perspective that the Pirates’ farm system isn’t as strong (yet) as the consensus on this board.
At any rate, I posted it FWIW as additional relevant data from a fairly well-respected site.
but I FEAR that, come 2015, many Pirate fans will still be advocating patience.
I don’t fear it. I know it for a fact. Many posters on here will be advocating patience. And many posters on here will be demanding change now.
The differences in opinions are what makes discussion forums like BD fun. This would be a boring place, if we all thought in lockstep.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 27, 2012 10:09 PM EST reply actions
Actually, I'm of the opinion that intelligent people here will be mostly done with patience in the current front office if they are not competitive in 2013, and showing a system of major leaguers plus high minors studs that looks playoff worthy in 2014
I mean, intelligent people give this front office time for a rebuild, but understand that the fruits of the rebuild should come fairly soon.
Now, what I am somewhat fearing, is that NH finishes putting together a great system in place at the end of the year, with multiple breakout prospects and the top prospects shooting through the system vindicating his approach, and then he gets canned after a 70 win season, a new guy comes in and does one decent deadline trade after the Pirates start strong, and the new GM gets all the credit for “saving” the team. I fear this because yinzers and I would end up spending WAY too much time arguing over the legacy of a person who I don’t particularly know, for a franchise that doesn’t employ me, just because I like when credit is given to the right places in sports. (I don’t know why I care about what yinzers think, yinzers will be yinzers regardless and I should just live with that, but I’m unable to stop myself sometimes).
But such arguments are the nature of the beast.
For example, Ben Cherington has not done very much this offseason, in Boston. He’s traded for a couple of relief pitchers, added Sweeney and Ross, and made some minor moves.
But then again, he didn’t have to much. The Red Sox are loaded. They were playoff caliber last season, despite their collapse, and they’ll be contenders again, this season.
So, let’s say the Red Sox make the 2012 playoffs. I can guarantee you that there will be great debate on the Red Sox discussion forums, after the 2012 season, over how much, or how little, Charington had to do with it. And how much credit should go to Theo Epstein.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 28, 2012 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
Herrera
SojourningPirate asked for an argument for Herrera in the last thread, but I didn’t get around to it until now. First off, I think there are reasonable arguments to be made for a number of guys at this point, so I don’t have a ton of conviction behind this particular argument. My vote for Herrera relies more on intuition than evidence, honestly, but here’s why I like him.
He was signed as a sixteen-year-old for 220K, which means he shows enough promise to be signed as a 16-year-old, even if the bonus isn’t impressive. Of course, unimpressive IFA bonuses happen for a number of reasons, and in this case Rene Gayo has said that the Pirates have had a relationship with Herrera since he was 13. Gayo also seems to really like Herrera, indicating that he thinks Herrera is at least a four-tool player. (In the quotes I found, power is the only tool Gayo doesn’t mention; everything else is potentially above-average). I trust Gayo here, and a four-tool SS is a beautiful thing.
Herrera backed up the hype performance-wise last year, hitting .308/.413/.472 in the VSL, with a 32:40 BB:K ratio and 16/24 steals. This was in only 250 PA, which is a very, very small sample, and it’s also the VSL, so who really knows what it means. But Dilson was only 17, in his first year of pro ball, and more importantly, the stat line backs up Gayo’s scouting assessment: good hit tool, good speed, good arm (he played mostly 3B), so-so power (lots of XBH but not many HR). He played mostly 3B rather than the SS he was billed as, but I’m choosing for now to believe that that’s because he was a young kid in his first season. That’s how the Pirates treated Carvajal and Hanson, too: neither played SS in their age-17 season. Ngoepe also started out as a 2B, though he switched to SS midway through his first pro year.
Finally, the Pirates have shown indications that they think highly of him. Giving him 250 PA in the VSL as a 17yo means they like him, and inviting him to fall instructional league means the same. The latter also most likely means that they’ll be promoting him to the GCL for 2012, where he’ll play as an 18-year-old.
So I kind of look at it like this: The Pirates #8 pick in the 2012 draft will immediately become a top ten prospect for us, and if there were a four-tool HS SS who’s shown excellent performance, including good plate discipline, against older competition on the board the Pirates would have to seriously consider him for that pick. Of course, Herrera’s not a HS player. We’ve never seen him play, and the only scouting reports we have on him are one-sentence descriptions from Pirate officials. There’s not a lot to go on here, but for the reasons mentioned I have a very good feeling about him.
I’m also going to take a moment to pimp the other IFA I really like: Jin-de Jhang. He’s a Taiwanese catcher the Pirates signed last year. The info on him is even sketchier than that on Herrera. For instance, I don’t even know Jhang’s age. He’s a young guy, but I’m not sure exactly how young. At the time of the signing, which was for 250K, a very solid bonus for a kid from that part of the world, he was billed as a top Taiwanese prospect with good bat speed, good power potential, and a strong arm with the potential to stick at catcher. Like Herrera, he backed up the scouting reports in his first pro experience, and in fact was the top offensive performer in MLB’s Australian Academy last summer, hitting .391/.435/.594 in about 150 PA, including a 13:11 K:BB ratio. As with Herrera, it’s an impossibly small sample against questionable talent, but it’s still nice that he backed up the (admittedly sketchy) scouting reports. Like with Herrera, he was in the instructional league this fall, anticipating a move to the GCL for 2012. A young catcher who can hit? Yes, please.
That's a pretty strong case
for Herrera. In fact, I think you probably convinced me to vote for him next. I was going to go with Ramirez next, but he’s so unproven that I think I’ll go with Herrera instead who at least has some numbers in a foreign league.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 29, 2012 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
I think Ramirez would be a decent choice, too. I prefer Herrera because of positional value, mostly. Ramirez seems fairly likely to end up in a corner.
i still hadn’t really thought about voting/ranking these guys in the foreign leagues. but herrera was one of my favorite players to follow last year. he actually faded over the last month to end up with those nice stats iirc.
anyway, small sample sizes can have different meanings. striking out 20 times out of 40 (something like lakind) is a pretty large sample size for example. and then there’s a young but small pitcher with a good curve but no velocity getting good stats. that’s something to be careful of. but what i’m getting at is that a 17 yr/old like herrera hitting as well as he did impresses me so much more than him doing poorly would have me lose faith in him.
it doesn’t mean he’ll succeed in the majors but it gives him a big leg up to at least get to AA at a young age. if he can handle older competition at 17 (one year difference is a pretty big deal at this age – also why heredia is so impressive) then it’s pretty impressive even if in a sss. even the best players can have a bad stretch but the worst can’t have a good stretch. it’s like if a guy hits 5 hr in 80 abs it’s enough of a sample size to know he has good power. a guy with no power can’t hit 5 in 80. but if a guy has 1 in 80 then you can’t really make a good judgement just based on stats.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
