- Madison Bumgarner (Five Star prospect)
- Buster Posey (Five Star prospect)
- Angel Villalona (Five Star prospect)
- Tim Alderson (Four Star prospect)
- Rafael Rodriguez (Three Star prospect)
- Conor Gillaspie (Three Star prospect)
- Nick Noonan (Three Star prospect)
- Travis Ishikawa (Three Star prospect)
- Henry Sosa (Three Star prospect)
- Sergio Romo (Three Star prospect)
- Roger Kieschnick (Two Star prospect)
Just missed were Ehire Adrianza SS, Wendell Fairley OF, and Joseph Martinez RHP.
Kevin Goldstein notes:
Additional comments on other prospects in the comment section:Bumgarner is an obvious number one, but Posey isn't all that far behind him.
Some might flip-flop Villalona and Alderson at three and four, but I can't see
either player ranked lower that those two slots. Where Rodriguez slots in is
really a matter of your evaluation philosophy, but after that, it's anything
goes for the remaining six—Adrianza was the only player close enough to almost
make the list.
- Ehire Adrianza: "Absolutely outstanding defensive prospect, but there are tons of questions about his bat."
- Wendell Fairley: "The jury is still out on Fairley. He's toolsy as all get out, but a long way from being a baseball player."
- Scott Barnes: "I'm perfectly fine with somebody calling him a sleeper. It's not a huge surprise that he ripped through some low levels because of his polish, but the stuff is hardly pedestrian. He's solid across the board with an average-to-plus fastball and decent secondary stuff and he knows what he's doing out there. He could exceed expectations."
- Pablo Sandoval: "I really think 1B is his only option, to the point that he might fit a bit better on a AL team. I do think he can hit enough to be an every day first baseman, certainly at least on this team.".
Giants Thoughts
That was my Top 5 but I had Ishikawa 6th while he had Gillaspie 6th and Ishikawa 8th. I basically agree with what he wrote, based on what I've read about the prospects and their career data, as available.
I've been reading your blog for about a year now, so I'm a little embarrassed to ask, but what's the definition of a 5-star prospect? Is this simply a subjective scale of 1-5 or does it have a definitive explanation that differentiates it from a 4-star player?
ReplyDeleteYou agree with his ripping of "Little Money"? I sure don't. I think he has a shot to stick at 3B and if he has to move to 1B he will hit more then enough to hold his own as an above average NL 1B.
ReplyDeleteWell, basically agree, giantsrainman. There have been those with the view that 1B is Sandoval's eventual/only position; I don't know.
ReplyDeleteI do know that I would rather play him at 3B to see what he can do. Baseball America a few years ago thought that he could be OK defensively at 3B with experience. Another prospect book I like, Minor League Baseball Analyst, thought he could be average defensively at 3B also, though he pegged Pablo as a future platoon because of his troubles hitting LHP.
Jeremy, we must have a Vulcan mind link or something: I was looking at all the teams' Top 11's and the same thought came to me too, what is the definition? I looked around the glossary, plus checked the archives, but nada.
What he used to do was give word descriptions, so 5-star is Excellent Prospects, could be a star in the league I suppose, 4-star is Very Good Prospects, which is the next tier down, 3-star is Good Prospects, who is better than average, and 2-star is Average Prospects, which is what most players are. I know, not really that illuminating, but it is what it is.
Lastly, found some further info from Goldstein on the Giants: he thinks Bumgarner is the best pitching prospect in the minor leagues and "a system topped with high-upside prospects might field the single most talented squad at any level in any organization next season."
In a post regarding this list on minorleagueball.com, one of the commenters gave Goldstein's standards:
ReplyDeleteAnybody in the top 50 are considered 5-star prospects.
Anybody in the top 100 is 4-star.
As another commenter noted, what if there is less than 50 really good players? Seems kind of dumb to select 50 as 5-star when only 30 really warrant that.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/20/728932/bp-sf-top-11
I'm not a big fan of the star ranking system. I like ranking your prospects as to whose the best 10, but to differenate with 1-5 stars seems silly. He even says in his discription that Alderson and Villalona are essentially interchangable. Does this mean that Alderson is really a 5 star or is villolona a 4 star prospect. Maybe it is somewhere in between.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally these are prospects, we don't know what they are going to do it is all a gamble, I like BA's system far better, they list the 10 they like best in some order but don't really differentiate the list into potential, and then list the farm system best at each thing. This makes much more sense. A good example of this in Pablo I don't think he was anyones top 10 list but he was the best thing to happen all last year.
I can understand your viewpoint on the star system.
ReplyDeleteGoldstein is actually probably one of the better prospect writers because he goes into great detail on best case, likely case, and other details that we would want; however, you have to be a subscriber. I like that.
I also like Deric Mackamey of Minor League Baseball Analyst, because he rates them as to how good he thinks the player will be, how close, and what his eventually playing position may be, be it starter, platoon, bench, utility, relief, closer.
If it matters, BA totally whiffed on Sandoval for 2008 and Goldstein at least included him, though only as a 2-star.
Oops, didn't finish my thought, had a rough night...
ReplyDelete"...however, you have to be a subscriber. I like that" he takes a stand on what the player might turn out to be (Deric Mckamey too; this is his correct spelling of his name ) as well as give all the details that a BA might give.