I’ll be around from 1-2pm to answer any questions you want to ask for a live chat.
This entry was posted on Monday, January 17th, 2011 at 9:16 am and is filed under Prospect rankings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I thought this year’s list was better than some in the past — no exotic reaches like some past years have had.
Also seems like you guys are changing your tune somewhat with respect to age. I dont think a 26 y.o. Hill would have made your list a few years back.
(these are not criticism or praise – just observations).
Not sure which ones you consider “reaches”.
And I agree that this list is a little more conservative than in years past. Players like Lynn and Craig and Hill are finding more purchase than they might have previously.
Degerman is one I’ll never let you live down :)
that was terrible even if he didn’t contract the yips
I get the feeling after reading this that you’re not too excited about our system currently? Agreed that we are too lopsided on pitching prospects; However, I do see some real potential in their as well… Hopefully next years draft puts the bow on our box of prospects.
I think that’s an accurate assessment of how I feel about our system right now, yes. 2010 didn’t do a lot to elevate prospects for me.
How can you say that 2010 didn’t do a lot for you as it relates to elevating prospects, when nearly all of the divisions made the playoffs or won their respective leagues? There has to be some player prospects involved with those accomplishments or am I missing something. It seems to me that when a player gets promoted to the next level… or even more levels…or added to the 40 man roster should register as elevated prospects, but maybe I am not understanding your prospect qualifications.
I share your feeling that the huge improvement in team records bodes well for the system. There is a big problem with quantifying that though for individual prospects. It’s hard to say that Springfield’s winning record means that Matt Carpenter or Tommy Pham is a better prospect than their numbers indicate. A club official actually made that claim though , saying that the organization’s emphasis on winning means that prospects are committing to that rather than to padding their individual stats.
Whether or not that is true I do think that the winning records indicate that the organization is teaching winning fundamentals and that this will help the better prospects to succeed once they come up.
I think this is an interesting issue that really deserves more discussion.
I meant to ask about Mark Hamilton. He’s hard to get excited about, since he has no use on the big league club, but I think he would at least be worth a shot as the heavy half of a 1B or DH platoon.
I hope I am wrong but I believe the Cardinals will be signicantly less successful in 2011 than they were in 2010. Giving
away Ryan weakened their defense. The Cardinals expectations on the likihood of revivals of older players who are on
the downhill side of their careers is surprising to me. I doult either player will be with the Cardinals in 2012.
You could be right about those players not being w. us in 2012, but I don’t see a team that’s worse than last year’s. 86 wins isn’t a high bar.
I thought last year’s team was good for 88-92 wins, so I was certainly wrong about that. And this year’s team has all kinds of red flags, with everyone a year older and key young players like Waino, Jaime, and Yadi showing signs of potential overuse by season’s end.
Still, worse than 86 wins? Anything’s possible, but I don’t see that as probable.
I hardly doubt loosing a guy who probably won’t start for one of the wost teams in baseball makes the cards significantly less successfull.
Granted they did get weaker on defense, but in that line you also have to acknowledge the .220/.280 line he produced. Even if it was Ozzie Smith himself, the cards can’t afford to carry that poor of defence.
Cardinal fans do amaze me sometimes. Everyone seems so down on Peter Kozma, but yet want nothing to sing the praises of Brendan Ryan. They seem to be a similar player.
Sorry. Ment that poor hitting, not defense.
Ryan is a much better defensive player. Ryan has been a sparkplug and the only sign of life on the team in the past and is probably not as bad a hitter as he was last year. Not as good as the year before but not as bad as last year. Without the injury to Freese and the trade of Ludwick last year, Ryans production would have been acceptable out of an 8 or 9 hitter.
The spark plug? What does that even mean? Is that a euphamism for sucks? Sparkplugs get on base at a better than .314 career clip.
a .230 average with a .279 obp is never acceptable for a starting player, at least out side of the 1960s.
Actually at 22 Ryan, like Kozma, struggled mightily with errors, only Brendan was still at A (but still hitting much better than Kozma has). Kozma has received praise from scouts regarding his defensive tools, if not his performance. Hard to say if Kozma will turn into the same sort of defensive star as Ryan, but it’s not out of the question.
Tiny but kind of interesting observation:
Just got my copy of BA with the NL Central Top 10 prospects.
In the write-up on Lance Lynn, who’s our #6 prospect, it says he has the ceiling of a #3 starter.
That’s the ceiling it assigns to Mark Rogers, who’s the #1 prospect for Milwaukee, and Jordan Lyles, who’s #1 for Houston.
I know Milwaukee just traded away some good prospects, and no one holds up Houston as an organization to be admired or emulated. (Their #2 prospect just got busted for DWI.) Still, it’s kind of fun to see our #6 guy projected to have the same ceiling as the #1 guys in 2 competing orgs, especially when the talent already in the majors is competitive with any in the division.
E-mail (will not be published) (required)
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Powered by WordPress, Mandigo theme by tom.
and Comments (RSS).
56 queries. 4.897 seconds.