Comments on: Early Invitees To Camp

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:34:41 +0000

Right. KG’s criteria for including/omitting guys with major-league experience are not clear to me, but I think he does consider time spent on a major-league roster, not just number of plate appearances or innings pitched. If so, it’s clear why Sanchez and Lynn aren’t there. They won’t qualify as rookies for the BBWAA RotY either, because of roster time. (I will say that I prefer his apparent attempt to use the BBWAA criteria, compared to ignoring it and just using PA and IP as is done on most prospect lists.) Note that he does put both of them on his top under-25 list, just ahead of Cox in slots 8 and 9.

Incidentally, Jaime Garcia slots in at #2 on that under-25 list … _behind_ Shelby.

By: bc

bc — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:09:42 +0000

I don’t think anyone’s ignoring it, that’s why he’s fallen off or way down on every prospect list. Blair had a 2.45 BB/9 in his last year at ASU, so the control problems are new. But like you say, we don’t know why he had such problems – injury? Change in mechanics? Steve blass disease? We don’t know. He still has more potential than a lot of organizational-type talents.

By: Lou Schuler

Lou Schuler — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:14:09 +0000

I don’t know the answer, but I actually prefer it that way. We know Sanchez and Lynn are major leaguers. I don’t think of them as prospects in the sense that a prospect is someone who could help the team in the future but isn’t yet a part of the team.

That said, I also like what Goldstein does at BP with the ranking of best players 25 and under, since guys that age are still at the low end of their developmental curve, more often than not.

By: wileyvet

wileyvet — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:41:03 +0000

I find Mayo’s last 6 rankings suspect. Does anyone know why MLB.com, Baseball Prospectus and Keith Law don’t include Eduardo Sanchez and Lance Lynn in their rankings? Technically they are both still rookies, as is Tony Cruz (I think). Do they use a different rookie standard?

By: Hugecardsfan

Hugecardsfan — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:47:07 +0000

By the way, if Serrano really is 17 and slinging what’s projected as a plus plus fastball, and already has feel for the curve and CU, it won’t take long before he’s higher than 20.

By: Hugecardsfan

Hugecardsfan — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:44:26 +0000

I didn’t think it was any stranger than to call Stock our #16 prospect. What has he shown to suggest that? The only thing I could figure was they haven’t given up on Stock as a pitcher if the catcher gig doesn’t work out.

Blair’s wildness certainly makes him suspect. I wondered if he could have been injured. If he doesn’t turn this around this year, I think he’s toast.

I also thought Gast at 10 was a bit of a stretch. I like the guy but I think he needs to step it up a notch this year to qualify for that ranking.

By: RCHIII

RCHIII — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:11:45 +0000

I don’t know…..Blair literally went “wild”. I don’t know how you ignore that. But the arm never goes away. But if I recall correctly (and I may not), he didn’t lose control with his offspeed stuff, it was his fastball – that’s a pretty big red flag for me. I guess the question is what changed from ASU? Could it be he was never that accurate and college hitters got themselves out? I hope that isn’t the case, but losing control on the fastball wouldn’t seem a common thing on more than a short term basis.

By: Lou Schuler

Lou Schuler — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:27:45 +0000

Just saw that, and came over here to note it.

By: bc

bc — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:28:36 +0000

Blair’s a first round pick with a 95mph fastball; pedigree and tools go a long way in prospect rankings (and they should, frankly).

By: J Dahlstrom

J Dahlstrom — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:07:31 +0000

Hopefully they’ve developed a “system” for analyzing and developing talent that will at least allow the organization to continue to build in the absence of Lunhow and the few others he took with him.