2013 Post-Draft Top 30 Prospects

Jagielo. (Robert Pimpsner)

Jagielo. (Robert Pimpsner)

I don’t know how many times I said last month’s draft was extremely important for the Yankees considering the state of the organization, but it was a lot. Like, once a week since January. A lot. The team took advantage of its extra picks and landed three first round-caliber talents in the draft, which added some much-needed impact talent to the system.

Not a whole lot has changed in the six weeks since my last rankings, and that’s not necessarily a good thing. Some of the team’s top prospects continue to have disappointing years while there have only been a handful of breakout players. There’s an awful lot of raw talent in the club’s top ten prospects, but not many guys are putting it to good use right now. Hopefully that turns around in the second half.

Here are my pre-draft and preseason lists, for comparison. No one graduated to the big leagues between the pre-draft list and now, but the draft and a healthy crop of players fresh from the Dominican Republic means there’s actually quite a bit of turnover. Fitting those new guys in is always fun. Ages listed are as of today.

  1. C Gary Sanchez, 20, Hi-A: A promotion may not come this year, but Sanchez stays in the top spot because his defense is improving and he’s hitting a healthy .270/.332/.467 with 13 homers in a pitcher’s league.
  2. RHSP Rafael DePaula, 22, Hi-A: The team’s lone Futures Game representative was bumped up to High-A Tampa since the pre-draft list. DePaula has a 108/39 K/BB in 79 innings this year.
  3. OF Slade Heathcott, 22, AA: Heathcott’s power has yet to show up, but he’s stayed healthy this year and has torn the cover off the ball in July. He’s at .256/.322/.370 on the season.
  4. OF Tyler Austin, 21, AA: Austin’s performance has actually been trending downward in recent weeks and his power has been almost non-existent. This is a benefit of the doubt ranking.
  5. 3B Eric Jagielo, 21, SS: The team’s first first round pick offers a very polished bat at a hard-to-fill position to the system. Jagielo’s super-early performance has been encouraging (.311/.415/.467 in 13 games).
  6. LHSP Ian Clarkin, 18, no level: The team’s third first round pick has yet to make his pro debut and is currently sidelined with a minor ankle sprain. Clarkin adds a high-end left-handed pitching prospect to the organization.
  7. OF Mason Williams, 21, Hi-A: Williams has had a very disappointing year and not only because he isn’t hitting (.266/.341/.369). There have been problems with his … let’s call it … energy level.
  8. RHSP Jose Ramirez, 23, AAA: The Yankees aggressively pushed Ramirez — whose raw stuff rivals DePaula’s — to Triple-A and he’s held his own. He’s got a 73/33 K/BB in 65.2 innings.
  9. C J.R. Murphy, 22, AAA: The system’s biggest breakout non-pitcher prospect was promoted since the pre-draft list and continues to hit (.282/.361/.440) while improving behind the plate.
  10. OF Aaron Judge, 21, no level: The team’s second first round pick is the wildcard. Judge is physically huge and a good athlete with great power, but he’s very risky. He just signed and has yet to make his pro debut.
  11. OF Ramon Flores, 21, AA: I was high on Flores coming into the year but he hasn’t exactly rewarded my faith by hitting .239/.333/.325. Questions about his long-term power potential persist.
  12. LHSP Manny Banuelos, 22, no level: Banuelos is recovering from Tommy John surgery and will not pitch this year. Easy to forget he’s still so young because he’s been around forever.
  13. RHSP Jose Campos, 20, Lo-A: His stuff and command are not back to their pre-elbow injury levels, but he has been improving as the season progress. Campos has a 55/12 K/BB in 60 innings.
  14. 2B Angelo Gumbs, 20, Lo-A: Gumbs missed a month with a finger injury and was demoted since the pre-draft list. He’s hit just .229/.283/.355 with eleven steals on the season.
  15. RHSP Ty Hensley, 19, no level: Like Banuelos, Hensley is out for the rest of the season. He had hip surgery in the spring and is due to return in Spring Training.
  16. LHSP Nik Turley, 23, AA: Double-A Trenton is proving to be a challenge for Turley, who has finessed his way to 94/45 K/BB in 89 innings.
  17. RHRP Mark Montgomery, 22, AAA: Walks (40/20 K/BB in 33.1 innings) were an issue for Montgomery before had two shoulder-related DL stints.
  18. RHSP Corey Black, 21, Hi-A: The undersized Black has maintained his big fastball and lively stuff while starting every fifth day. He’s got a 84/39 K/BB in 75.2 innings.
  19. RHSP Bryan Mitchell, 22, Hi-A: Mitchell’s performance never seems to change (85/42 K/BB in 97 innings) but he’s a prospect list mainstay because of a nasty fastball/curveball combination.
  20. 1B Greg Bird, 20, Lo-A: Bird almost certainly would have been a top ten prospect in the system had he remained at catcher. At first, he’s just an interesting guy. He’s hitting .277/.400/.477.
  21. C Austin Romine, 24, MLB: Romine, who has played sparingly, is failing his extended MLB opportunity rather miserably (.158/.179/.211). His defense remains strong.
  22. RHRP Adam Warren, 25, MLB: Unlike Romine, Warren has made the most of his big league opportunity and carved out a niche as a reliable long reliever (35/12 K/BB in 43.2 innings).
  23. SS Abi Avelino, 18, Rk: A torn quad delayed the start of his season, but Avelino is here because he’s a very good defender whose hitting ability has developed much better and quicker than expected.
  24. C Luis Torrens, 17, Rk: A recently converted infielder, Torrens has shown some offensive skills (.271/.358/.407) early in his pro debut while working out the kinks defensively.
  25. LHSP Vidal Nuno, 25, AAA: Nuno suffered a groin injury two days after the pre-draft list was posted and remains sidelined. He’s shown signs of being able to help at the big league level.
  26. OF Zoilo Almonte, 24, MLB: He’s cooled off since the hot start to his big league career (.267/.312/.349), but Almonte puts up quality at-bats and contributes on defense as well.
  27. RHSP Luis Severino, 19, Rk: Thanks to an excellent fastball and improving slider, Severino has become one of the system’s top sleepers. He’s got a 22/5 K/BB in 16.1 innings so far.
  28. 2B Gosuke Katoh, 18, Rk: This year’s second rounder has hit well in very limited time (.340/.466/.681 in 14 games), but he’s here because of his all-around skills.
  29. RHSP Brett Marshall, 23, AAA: It was been close to a nightmare year for Marshall, though he has settled down of late after getting clobbered earlier this year. He’s got a mediocre 77/54 K/BB in 88.2 innings.
  30. IF David Adams, 26, AAA: Adams won’t be the last guy to struggle in his first shot at the show (.190/.260/.276). He’s since been sent back to Triple-A so he could play everyday.
Categories : Minors


  1. Jobu says:

    Suprised to see Bird but not O’Brien. O’Brien’s numbers are down a bit in Tampa but the power is huge so far this year and he is rocking a combined line of .314/.371/.598. Is it his age? (appears to be 24)

    • Jobu says:

      Sorry – bad math. Looks like O’Brien turned 23 today. So happy birthday Pete.

    • Mac says:

      I think you could certainly argue for O’Brien to make the list, but at the same time there’s age, Ks, and positional uncertainty working against him.

    • Mike Axisa says:

      O’Brien is a one-tool guy (power) without a position. Doesn’t walk, strikes out a ton, was old for his level (with Charleston). Meh.

      • Nat King Kong says:

        This cracks me up. O’Brien is hitting .314. I would think that counts as a “hitting for average tool.”

        You know who else was a one-tool guy with the Yanks under your description? Babe Ruth. I can just see your review of Ruth, after he quit pitching: “Ruth is a one-tool guy (power). Meh.”

        The hall of fame is littered with such “one-tool” guys, while the list of players with great defensive ability “tools” and “throwing arm” tools who never made it to the bigs because they couldn’t hit is longer than Johnny Damon’s Jesus beard.

        “David Ortiz? a one-tool guy. meh.”

        If a guy can hit they’ll find a spot for him. Just watching the pathetic Yanks offense this season should have taught you how important that “tool” is. Hitting is much more of a commodity now than it was just a few years ago. If O’Brien continues to hit the way he has this year, he’s going to end up in the show.

        Btw, Alex Rodriguez agrees with me. He said of O’Brien, after watching him play a few games, that he’s going to have a long career in the majors.

        • Preston says:

          He strikes out at twice the rate at A ball than Ruth did for his career in the bigs. Comparing O’brien to Ruth is idiotic. He’s not useless, but he needs to cut down on the K’s, start walking more and stick at a non 1b position and at 23 he’s old for A ball and running out of time to make those adjustments.

          • Nat King Kong says:

            First, I wasn’t comparing O’Brien to Ruth. Only a fool would do that. I was using Ruth (and Ortiz) as an example of how idiotic it is to blindly cast prospects off because they don’t have the speed “tool” or the throwing arm “tool.” Hitting is much, much more important.

            Secondly, he JUST turned 23 today. How many guys on this list that are 22 will turn 23 before the end of the season, yet get no comment regarding their age? This is O’Brien’s second year in the system, fercryinoutloud. It’s not like he’s been languishing for 5 years in the low minors. 23 is still young enough to make adjustments. Good grief, David Adams is on this list, at 26, after proving in an extended opportunity that he can’t hit big league pitching.

            Third, why does O’Brien have to “stick at a non 1b position”? Is there some rule that says a prospect can’t play first base? I don’t care if he comes up as a dh. If he can continue to hit the way he has this year, he’s going to be of use.

            • Preston says:

              David Adams struggled in limited time in the bigs. He didn’t prove he “can’t” hit big league pitching. David Adams is a plus defender at 3b and can stick at 2b and at O’Brien’s age he hit .309/.393/.507 at AA. It’s important to stick at a non 1b position because O’Brien’s bat isn’t elite. If you think it is, you need to look at the numbers actual MLB 1b types put up in the minors. They dwarf O’Brien’s at much younger ages. Maybe he turns into a Mark Trumbo type. But that’s his upside, without an extreme change in his walk and K rates.

              • Nat King Kong says:

                Adams had 35 games and 116 at-bats. I guess we have a different definition of what “extended opportunity” means. He failed to make adjustments and couldn’t hit. Just because he can play infield defense doesn’t mean much if he can’t hit. And, at 26, he’s a lot older, in baseball terms, than O’Brien is.

                O’Brien has arguably been our most impressive minor league hitter this year, and he’s in double-A in his second year in the system. If he turns into Mark Trumbo, I think that would prove my point. I would take Trumbo’s offense in the current Yankee lineup any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Adams, not so much.

                • Mac says:

                  I think 99.9% of people and you disagree with what extended opportunity means. You’re also picking the guy ranked #30 on the list. The difference between the MLB prospects of #11 and #31 is probably not all that great, let alone #30 vs. #31.

                  Unless I missed a promotion, saying that O’Brien is in AA when he’s just recently gotten to Advanced A is not helping your cause. You don’t seem to even know the facts.

                  • Nat King Kong says:

                    sorry Mac, I realize he’s Advanced A.

                    let me put it this way, if we’re making a deal with some team and they say, “I’ll do it if you throw in one of these two guys, Adams or O’Brien,” who would you rather trade?

                    Me, I’m keeping the guy who has the potential to hit. I don’t see Adams, at 26 now, as being much more than a possible utility infielder type.

                    • Preston says:

                      The point is that if Adams never hits, he still has the ability to be a utility infielder. If O’Brien, who isn’t a measurably better MiLB hitter than Adams was at that age, doesn’t hit he’s nothing.

                    • Mac says:

                      Sorry, NKK, but you said “O’Brien has arguably been our most impressive minor league hitter this year, and he’s in double-A in his second year in the system.”

                      You are now the one scrutinizing some prospects more than others. Adams hit as well or better than O’Brien at the same levels when he was younger. He largely kept it up through AA and AAA. He’s only debuting now because of a massive injury.

                      As I said, though, getting so worked up over #30 vs. #31 on the list is just silly. Even getting worked up over #20 vs. #31 is silly. All these guys have positives and negatives. No one knows for sure how they will develop. Reasonable people can disagree. That you don’t seem willing to let anyone else disagree with you is calling your reasonableness into question.

                    • Nat King Kong says:

                      Utility infielders grow on trees. The waiver wire is filled with them. I would much rather have a guy who has a chance to be an impact bat — and I realize that’s a longshot, as it is with most prospects — than a utility infielder who can’t hit much.

                      But, perhaps I’m judging Adams too harshly. Maybe he’ll make the adjustments and, if he gets another opportunity, tear the cover off the ball. Who knows? I just think, at this point, after watching Adams for 116 ab’s in the majors, that that’s more unlikely than O’Brien continuing to progress. But hey, just my opinion.

                      Reasonable enough for ya, Mac?

                    • Mac says:

                      No. It is not reasonable to care this much who is the Yankees #30 prospect vs. just off the top 30 list. Why do you keep trying to argue with everyone?

                    • Nat King Kong says:

                      I’m not arguing with you Mac. If I did, that would obviously be “unreasonable.” Clearly, it is unreasonable to disagree with you on anything, so I will no longer to attempt to do anything so foolhardy.

                    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

                      He’s not saying it’s unreasonable to have a discussion. He’s just saying that both your points and your methods of expressing them are unreasonable and make you seem foolish.

                    • nycsportzfan says:

                      You’ll always have a place in MLB if you can hit and hit for power, both things O’Brien has shown the ability to do, and/or at least give benefit of the doubt that he’ll continue to do(hit, the powers real).

                    • OhioYanks says:

                      Why are you giving the benefit of the doubt that a guy King in 1/3 of his A-ball PAs is going to continue hitting against significantly better Ps?

            • Mac says:

              You are overstating the case because you are choosing to ignore the level he’s playing at and the K%. There is a case to be made. You are just going too far to make it seem more obvious than it is.

              • Nat King Kong says:

                I don’t seem willing to let anyone disagree with me? Excuse me?

                Have I called you names or something? We’re having a reasonable discussion in which I disagree with you and Preston, Mac. I guess if I disagree with you, that’s called “getting worked up” and “being unreasonable.”

                • Mac says:

                  No, you are disagreeing with Mike’s list. It’s his subjective list. We are simply trying to explain to you the flaws in O’Brien’s game that justify that decision. I have not at all said that you can’t have O’Brien on your personal top 30 Yankees prospects list. In fact, I told you that I wouldn’t disagree with you if you put him right in the middle of it but that you were overstating your case with some of your arguments and by insisting he has to be on the list.

                  • Nat King Kong says:

                    I’m not insisting he “has to be” on the list.

                    I disagreed with the way Mike dismissed him, and voiced that disagreement. Last time I looked, this was a comment section on a blog.

          • Ghost of Joe Dugan says:

            While I agree with everything else you say 22-23 is not old for A+. The average age for an A+ MILB player is 22.4.


            That being said, the average age that future major leaguers are when they’re in A+ is about 21. I think that tends to support the idea that O’Brien is not a top prospect. O’Brien is a long shot to ever see the majors let alone contribute.


            • Nat King Kong says:

              Alex Rodriguez and I disagree with you.

            • Laz says:

              But he was only drafted last year. Quite a bit different than if he was drafted out of high school and only made it to tampa.

              • Preston says:

                No, this is not how it works, he’s been in college for four years learning and developing as a baseball player. This is the same thing people say when they talk about Future HOFer Ronnier Mustelier, but he was playing professionally in Cuba all these years. These guys are supposed to dominate these lower levels, which are in some ways inferior to the competition they’ve been competing against. It’s meaningless when they do hit well at those levels, it’d only be meaningful if they failed to.

                • Mac says:

                  I don’t know that it’s “quite a bit different,” but I do think it’s a little bit different. College ball is not pro ball and he only spent one year at a major program at that. We can’t simply ignore that time, certainly, but we also can’t pretend he was playing pro ball in terms of either the number or reps or the quality of those reps.

                  Also, Advanced A is not that low of a level for a college guy. It’s where he’s expected to be his first full season. He’s showing good and bad signs there. I certainly think there’s a good argument for O’Brien to be in the top 30 (I’d probably have him in my top 20, personally), I just think some people are overlooking the negative in insisting he has to be in the top 30.

        • Mac says:

          I get your point, I think, but the HOF is not littered with one tool guys. A true one tool power guy is rarely going to make MLB. A guy like Cody Johnson, recent Yankee farmhand example, had light tower power but couldn’t use it or defend well enough to justify a spot. Babe Ruth was a great all around hitter, with a career .342 average and .474 OBP. He led MLB in HRs, SLG, and OPS at 23 while still starting 19 games. At 24 he led the majors in a ton of categories and still started 15 games. You seem to overstate your case to the point of hurting your argument.

          I think that you can argue O’Brien is a top 30 Yankees prospect (probably could see him up to the middle of the top 30 even) and agree that the “meh” response is a little annoying. There are a lot of legit questions about him, though. That he’s not a top 30 prospect says something about their depth. This is also a subjective list, and you’re probably going to find O’Brien making some other lists.

          • Nat King Kong says:

            I think you need to read my original post more carefully Mac. I didn’t say he was a “true” one-tool guy. Mike did. I pointed out that he’s hitting .314. One of the “tools” is hitting for average. I said that, by Mike’s estimation, that would make guys like Ruth and Ortiz “one-tool” guys as well. Obviously, Ruth was not a one-tool guy. But if hitting .314 doesn’t qualify as a “hitting for average” tool, then there are, indeed, plenty of guys in the hall of fame who were one-tool guys.

            • Mac says:

              Are we talking Florida State League HOF or MLB HOF? The idea is that if he’s K’ing that much against Advanced A Ps (at 23 no less), it’s not going to get better when he gets to higher levels. Guys like Adam Dunn and Mark Reynolds hit for decent average in the minors, but then fell into .230-40 hitters in MLB. And they were younger and K’ing significantly less than O’Brien. They were K’ing low-20%s in the A-ball levels. O’Brien has been mid-to-high 20s and is up in the 30s early in his A+ stay.

              Like I said, there’s a case for O’Brien and I wouldn’t really argue if you wanted to rank him as high as ~#15. There’s also a case against, him, though.

              • Preston says:

                Reynolds and Dunn also walk at elite levels. If O’Brien walked the way Greg Bird does, he’d be on this list.

                • Nat King Kong says:

                  It is possible for guys to learn patience. Watching Robinson Cano this year is an example.

                  Look, I agree that O’Brien has some hurdles to clear before he could be labeled a top prospect, but I think he’s being scrutinized a lot more rigorously than other guys on this list who have similar shortcomings.

                  And the “tools” thing is so overrated.

                • Mac says:

                  Will be interesting to see how his patience progresses. He was up around a 10% BB-rate in 226 Charleston Pas, but down under 5% in Staten Island and now a short trip to Tampa. The K-rate could be an indictment of his patience, but I don’t watch him play or have the stats to say whether he’s swinging at balls, looking at strikes, or swinging through strikes (probably all three at that %, but I don’t know the breakdown).

                  • Mac says:

                    He’s also still got a chance to have way more defensive value than either of the other two. Even if he’s a bad part-time C that’s probably true, and maybe he’s actually decent at 3B. Reynolds and Dunn are basically DHs.

                    (Agree that patience/walking should probably be a 6th tool, though. O’Brien has a chance walk at a Reynolds level, I’d say, but probably not Dunn level.)

            • Preston says:

              The tool is also sometimes referred to as “hitting for contact” looking at his K rate it’s obvious he hasn’t been very good at that. Which means he’s going to have to rely on really high BABIP’s to maintain that average.

              • Nat King Kong says:

                If he doesn’t improve his contact rate, yes. Part of the whole point of projecting prospects assumes they will improve aspects of their game enough to perform at the major league level.

                • Mac says:

                  Not really. The whole point of projecting prospects is that most never will improve enough to play at the MLB level. You’re just handicapping exactly how unlikely they are to make it.

                  25-30% Ks is really, really bad. Perhaps you’re not aware of how bad. You’ll find some guys who did that for a season in the minors, but see how many 3 or 4 year college guys you find who did it across short-season, Low A, and High A only to eventually make it. O’Brien can overcome it, but it severally impacts his prospects.

                  • Nat King Kong says:

                    Ummmm ……. whatever you say, Mac.

                    • Mac says:

                      You honestly think that most prospects: “will improve aspects of their game enough to perform at the major league level?”

                      Historically this is just not true.

                    • Nat King Kong says:

                      No, that’s not what I said. I’m saying that the point of projecting prospects is that it’s FUN. It’s fun to try to project how a prospect in your favorite team’s organization could turn out. To some extent, you project that they will continue to improve and one day become a star in the majors.

                      Of course I don’t think that every prospect — or even hardly any — will ever actually achieve that, but it’s kind of the whole point, for me at least, of prospect watching.

                      If you looked at it your way, what’s the point of even bothering to watch how prospects do in the minors?

                      Just my opinion, though, Mac. Not trying to be unreasonable here or anything.

                    • Mac says:

                      I would say that the point of ranking prospects is to rank them in order of their expected contribution. Maybe I’m wrong, but that seems like a pretty basic thing to me.

                      This is really confusing. You get mad at everyone who quotes and disagrees with you, and then you turn around and twist other people’s words all around to make their points unrecognizable.

                      Several people have tried to make the same points to you and you just keep… doing whatever you are doing. You seem to be disagreeing with them, or maybe you are just trying to defensively not admit you were wrong.

                      Whatever it is, this is not fun.

                    • Nat King Kong says:

                      Where did I “get mad” at you or anyone, Mac? Until you started calling me “unreasonable” and accusing me of not letting anyone disagree with me.

                      I was simply disagreeing with Mike’s dismissal of O’Brien, and then engaged you and Preston in a conversation, which, it seemed, was a pretty reasonable conversation until you started throwing around those accusations.

                      Now you’re doing it again. So, show me where I “got mad” with anyone — up to the point where you started accusing me of being unreasonable? Did I call anyone names? Did I accuse someone of being unreasonable, simply because they disagreed with me?

                    • Mac says:

                      People are disagreeing with your conclusion, but not with your underlying points. They are letting you know that there are other premises they are using to arrive at their conclusion in addition to the premises you are using. Semantics aside, you keep just dismissing the points people are bringing up. That’s not a reasonable discussion to me, no. No one is disagreeing with you that O’Brien is hitting well in A-ball and could go on to be a good MLB player. They are just telling you that he has a lot of improvement to make as he advances and that reduces his chances relative to other good prospects. Your only response to this is that he could get better. So could any prospect. He could improve at something he is extremely bad at is not really a viable argument when there are a lot of other good prospects. As I’ve tried to say a dozen times now, prospect rankings are completely subjective and reasonable people are disagree.

            • Bryan says:

              Stats and scouts don’t always agree. Clearly Mike is saying he’s not expected to be a .314 hitter as he climbs the ladder. He is, however, expected to hit for power. Put the soapbox away.

        • nycsportzfan says:

          I’m with you that O’Brien must be on this list and in my opinion, is a better prospect then Bird simply becuase O’briens bat is the best tool either possess. If either is to make the show, it’d be becuase the ability to hit and hit with power which O’Brien can do. Regardless if his K’BB ratiio isn’t great, he still has time to get that in line, and his overall season is clearly good enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, to at least be on this list. Shoot, i’d have O’Brien top 12-15 prospects in our system.

          • Preston says:

            Age vs. level matters. Bird has a better walk rate and a lower strike out rate at Charleston than O’Brien did, while being more than two years younger. With his size and the power he’s already showing I think Bird might end up growing into more power than O’Brien has too.

          • Mac says:


    • Jim says:

      Peter O’Brien should be on the list, he has 15 HR, 26 doubles and 2 triples in 264 AB..
      That Adds up too 60 doubles, 34 HR, 4 Triples in 600 AB!
      For a Catcher! Who is hitting .314!
      Plus he should be a prospect, he was a 2nd round pick just last year.

  2. Chip says:

    I see that you’ve fallen completely off the Austin Aune bandwagon. I assume its because he hasn’t really hit and isn’t really a shortstop?

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      The switch away from SS probably hurts a ton. Those early box score lines are downright scary, although if that even means anything is up for debate.

    • Mac says:

      He was never really expected to stay at SS. In fact, some people were surprised they even tried him there last season. It’s a small sample, but the guy is repeating Rookie Ball and K’ing 62% of the time. Still has plenty of potential, but it would be hard to justify putting him ahead of anyone on this list.

    • Mike Axisa says:

      No longer a shortstop and he’s had extreme contact issues in rookie ball. He was in the 31-35 range, but yikes.

  3. kenthadley says:

    Three guys just drafted make the top ten. Doesn’t that contradict the consensus that Cashman has done a wonderful job over the past 7 years that he’s been in total control of the farm system? It sounds like a slam, but I am really just asking the question since like most fans I only know what I read and don’t evaluate these kids.

    • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

      Is that the consensus?
      Seems like most (at least here) think the opposite and think that Cashman has been awful.
      The reality probably lies somewhere in between.

      • Cool Lester Smooth says:

        I thought the consensus was that people at either extreme are stupid…

        Seriously, though, Cash has done a good but not great job with the farm system. He’s not Cardinals level, but he’s done a damn sight better than, say, the Astros (pre-Luhnow).

    • MannyGeee says:

      Probably has a lot to do with their value never being higher than it is right now before they have a chance to sully it by playing in the higher levels. Tremendous potential>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual results when talking about prospects.

      Remember, DBJ was on these lists recently too…

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Other than the reach twins of 2010 and 2011, I’d say your first round picks should be shoe-ins for your top 10. Three solid picks. Not very surprising they’re where they are.

      I think there’s examples of anything anyone would want to cherry-pick from for any argument with the system.

    • Chip says:

      I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Banuelos, Hensley and Montgomery have all had pretty serious injuries and guys like Adams, Williams, Flores and such have pretty much fallen on their faces so far.

    • pat says:

      Realistically speaking, three first round picks should most definitely slot into your Top 20. Plus, 5 of the guys on the list have seen major league time this year. I know we want/ need stars to be perennial contenders, but having guys good enough to make the bigs alone is an accomplishment. I know that sounds defeatist or whatever, but it’s the truth.

      • I'm One says:

        Yup, we’ve had these discussion before and the metrics show just how hard it is to actually make it to The Show, and even more difficult to have a large impact once you arrive.

      • kenthadley says:

        I think all of the above points are reasonable and valid, but it appears to me that we have a minor league system that is mediocre…as far from the worst as it is from the best. Top picks could/should make top 20 but IMO three shouldn’t make the top ten unless that system isn’t particularly good. I guess I’d define “good” as a system that provides impact players (not necessarily stars) annually. I don’t think the results of the system are supporting the “championship mantra” that we continually hear about from Hal and Brian. Just one fan’s opinion.

        • Mac says:

          I think it’s your expectations more than anything. A system that provides impact players annually is probably the best in baseball at that time. And it’s probably not going to do that for more than a few years at a time. There are other considerations, as well, such as where the team drafted (if you’re picking top 10 every year you better be getting impact players), how they were acquired (trading away veterans is going to get you prospects, but not necessarily wins), and who is in front of guys (a starter on a bad team might not even make the bench of a really good team). There are growing pains with young players, ups and down, this years impact young player might be next years struggling your player.

          I don’t think anyone would say that the Yankees have had the best system in baseball since Opp took over. It’s been consistently above average in well respected rankings, though. Produced a good amount of talent and impact players.

          The first round pick complaint, though, just seems completely off base to me. The Cardinals are considered the best system in baseball, and their two late firsts are considered top 10 prospects in their farm system by most. Most first rounders are going to be mid-top 10 on their team’s media prospect rankings just due to upside.
          Prospect rankings also mean very little. A bunch of well respected media types were calling the Royals’ farm system the best in the history of baseball just a few years ago. It has turned out very little MLB impact to date.

          • Preston says:

            If anything it’s a knock against our recent first rounders that they weren’t immediately top ten guys. Culver was an out of left field pick, Bichette was barely a top pick (51st) and Hensley had the shoulder abnormality before he ever signed.

          • Preston says:

            The pitching for the Royals didn’t work out but Hosmer has started hitting and Cain and Escobar are nice players. Wil Myers is looking pretty good in Tampa, and I think it’s too early to give up on Moustakas.

            • IRememberCelerinoSanchez says:

              I’m not sure Escobar is a nice player (career 76 wRC+, 63 wRC+ this year) and he wasn’t a product of the Royals system (they got him in the Greinke trade and didn’t play in the minors for the Royals).

              Given the amount of hype around the Royals system, the amount of high picks they had after losing seasons, and the rankings of their prospects, it’s hard to look at the results as anything but a big disappointment.

            • Mac says:

              My point was just that collectively they haven’t had much success to date, let alone the most success of all time. Not that none has done anything. I don’t think they’ve done much, though. Hosmer is a light hitting 1B to date, Cain and Escobar have positional value but don’t hit much, Myers and 2 others traded for Shields is a nice haul but not incredible, and I haven’t given up on MooseTacos but he’s done little to date.

              Just that prospect rankings aren’t the end all. They tend to be heavily influenced by groupthink, recent trends, and upside.

              • Preston says:

                One great class is never going to transform a terrible team into a good team. The Royals had been very bad at developing talent for a while, one good group wasn’t going to turn it around. This is an article about the impact of a top farm system. It has an impact, but not as much as people would expect. http://baseballanalysts.com/ar.....the_fa.php

                • Mac says:

                  I am saying that it’s not a great class. Not even a very good class. Arguably not even a good class. I’m not convinced that it’s above average.

                  Other people are saying that too.

                  You seem to be ignoring that without actually justifying it with any evidence. You listed a few guys who aren’t actually all that good to date (with the exception of Myers, who got them Shields). One trade for an impact player and maybe five starters who look pretty average or worse at their positions. Is that a great class?

                  • Preston says:

                    Actually it’s pretty good, if they already had a .500 team these prospects might be what put them over the top. Instead it took a 60 win team to a 75 win team.

                    • Mac says:

                      Again, dude, can we stop talking about how good the team is and focus on the actual prospects?

                      You have done nothing to show that this is a good “class” of prospects. Can you share the evidence of where it ranks against the league? We’re talking about several years worth of prospects graduating in one organization. (An org with early picks that traded away veterans to get several of their top prospects, but we can just talk generally and I still don’t think it’s a great “class.”) Anecdotally I am looking around the league and seeing that most teams have graduated a few starters in the past few years.

                    • Preston says:

                      So we’re talking about this group of prospects. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs.....ty-royals/

                      That looks like a pretty good list to me.
                      Eric Hosmer- 1.5 WAR 2013 (and hitting much better lately)
                      Salvador Perez- 1.4 WAR 2013
                      Both are solid everyday players this season.
                      David Lough and Jarrod Dyson are good platoon/bench type guys.
                      Tim Collins and Aaron Crow have become solid bull-pen pieces.
                      Danny Duffy has made six spot starts this season.
                      Christian Colon most notably is still a usable prospect, although he’s struggled at AAA so far.
                      If you count the year before, which I think people were when they were calling it the greatest system ever you get Holland, Escobar and Cain.
                      Sure it would be nice to get an elite player but four starters, two bench players, a solid bullpen and guys that swung a trade for a near number one starter is a pretty big impact. Is it as big as some others, no. But that doesn’t mean that talent evaluators were wrong. It just means that none of these guys hit their ceilings. Mike Trout is worth more than any teams system by himself. That doesn’t mean that the Angels had a great system, it just means they hit gold on one guy. And like I said I’m not giving up on Moustakas yet.

                    • Mac says:

                      If you really think that talent evaluators were not wrong to say that was the best system of all time when I can name probably a dozen systems that turned out about as much talent in the same time period, I don’t know what to say. I could see saying they weren’t wrong about being the best at the time, though even that doesn’t seem certain to me.

                      You don’t seem to be making any attempt to compare their results to the rest of the league. If those results are close to league average (and I imagine that they aren’t too far off), there’s not much of a case that this was the best farm system ever.

                      (The Angels are an arbitrary example, but even their farm has turned out Trout, Trumbo, and Segura. Not considered a particularly good farm the last few years, I don’t think, they’ve beat the Royals for solid starting MLB players. Plus Bourjos came up towards the end of 2010. Again, just a random example that you brought up to say they didn’t have a strong system. Still about as much success.)

                    • Mac says:

                      I even forgot Hank Conger, Walden, and Richards. The Angels were BA’s #15 org in 2011, coincidently.

                      My original point was just that the prospect rankings have only so much to do with future success.

    • Mac says:

      I think any reference to him (and Opp’s staff really) doing a great job is more in comparison to the prior situation. Overall they have done a very respectable job with the farm system for years now. Plenty of top prospects and plenty of depth.

      As others have said, a solid first rounder is going to fall into the middle of the first rounder for just about any farm system. Higher for a bad one. The Cardinals are graduating quite a few guys, but even what is considered the top farm system in baseball has their late first rounders make their top 10 list: http://www.examiner.com/articl.....pects-list

      There’s a ton of upside for just about any first rounder.

    • JobaWockeeZ says:

      They haven’t had a bad farm since 2008. Yeah it looks weak so far but no it doesn’t mean Cashman failed.

      The failing part is actually using the strong farm but that’s another part entirely.

    • Deathstroke Heathcott says:

      Well, there’s no CashmanSucceeded meme going around so I don’t think there’s quite that consensus you speak of.

  4. HTD says:

    Are any of the recently drafted high school pitchers particularly interesting (i.e. Rookie Davis, Dan Camarena, Gabe Encinas etc)?

    • pat says:

      Encinas had just seen a big velocity bump before having TJ, and was having a pretty good year so far. Davis is pretty intriguing. Big frame (6’3″ 230lbs) He throws a pretty heavy 2 seamer (92-93 ish ) with decent/raw offspeed stuff. He’s holding his own in the NYPL. Camarena has two very good offspeed pitches but the fastball velocity is still pretty much fringe average, though. In my head I picture him as a young Manny B without the velocity yet.

      • Chip says:

        Davis might be one of those guys who gets better as he moves up the system due to the better infield defenses behind him.

        • pat says:

          Agreed. Plus, from looking at some of his pics, I don’t think he’s 235 lbs of solid muscle. Once he can burn off some of the baby fat as he matures maybe he could see an uptick in velocity.

          • JohnnyC says:

            Don’t know if that’s worked for CC.

            • pat says:

              Lol, yes that is certainly baffling. Guess we might have to get him back to the buffet line more often.

              • JohnnyC says:

                I think the weight loss has affected his mechanics. He has a slight hesitation right on top of the rubber when he loads to get his arm in the right slot. His slower arm speed has sapped his velo. I don’t think it’s age or the effects of recovering from surgery to remove chips.

      • JohnnyC says:

        Camarena could use a couple of more ticks on his 4 seamer but his pitchability is off the charts. Could be a mid-rotation guy and being a lefty is a real plus.

    • Mike Axisa says:

      Encinas definitely and I’m a Camarena fan, but he was awful for the first few months of this year. Encinas was great but he blew out his elbow.

    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

      Don’t forget Jordan Cote!

      He should be in SI once he finishes rehab.

  5. MannyGeee says:

    That’s a whole lot of hurt prospects…

  6. trr says:

    I like DePaula. It looks like he could be pitching in the Bronx by 2015.

  7. Robinson Tilapia says:

    We appreciate the benefit of the doubt on Austin. I know I’m certainly giving it to him as well.

    Being that some guys here are here on early scouting and brief performance, where would you have places Omar Luis? David Palladino show enough to be anywhere near the list? Any other intriguing new guys you considered?

    Your boy Dan Camerena is conspicuous by his absence. What’s up there?

    • Mike Axisa says:

      I don’t know enough about Luis to rank him right now. Want to see more from Palladino. Camarena was a 25-30 guy and he just got pushed out by the new draft/IFA guys. Still a fan even though he’s stunk for most of the year.

      • Nate says:

        “Most” of the year? C’mon Mike. Camarena’s last 8 appearances have been dynamite and thats HALF of his year. That’s a guy making adjustments and getting better.

      • Andrew Brotherton says:

        Deitrich Enns, who has this year been utterly unhittable over two levels with 3 plus pitches and has transitioned from a reliever to a starter without missing a lick. Lefty with 3 plus pitches?

  8. DERP says:

    I am a little surprised that Katoh is on here but O’Neill is not considering how they were ranked as draft prospects.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Probably a victim of “21-30″ and “the guys right below” being easily interchangeable, with Katoh’s early numbers versus O’Neill’s striking out as we speak putting one over the top.

    • Mike Axisa says:

      O’Neill’s complete lack of plate discipline scares the crap out of me.

    • Greg says:

      I don’t like to make too sweeping a statement based on such a SSS, but I will anyway (i hated him before and after the draft too, though) and I’m calling’ it: O’Neill sucks.

      He has to make such incredibly dramatic improvements to his K and walk rates (not easy to do, and he’s a college player) to even resemble a middling prospect, it’s hard to have much faith. His plate discipline is so horrible now that it’ll never, ever be good, just have to hope for “not terrible,”, and even if he can do that his tools aren’t at the level where projecting him as more than a 4th OF/second division starter makes much sense.

  9. MannyGeee says:

    “Not including Ronnier Mustelier is a travesty” in 3……2…..

  10. DERP says:

    Was Ben Gamel given any consideration? I don’t think he has been on any recent lists, but he is having a nice season. 121 wRC+ in A+ and just turned 21

    • Mike Axisa says:

      Yes. Having a good year but he’s mostly a no-power corner outfielder who isn’t an elite defender. Cave is similar.

      • Mac says:

        Also describes Flores to a T. Not meant to be snarky and don’t really care that they’re not on your list, but doesn’t seem consistent if that’s the explanation for why Gamel and Cave didn’t make it.

        Why do you call Cave a corner guy? (Serious question. I don’t take exception to his exclusion, but depending on how the knee heals I was under the impression he’s a good CF prospect with elite defensive tools.)

        Also, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss Gamel’s power potential. Not huge by any means, but he’s doing respectably in a pitchers league right now. Hits a good number of doubles, some of which could turn into HRs with some more time in the weight room.

  11. Dicka24 says:

    I hate to say, but outside of a couple of players, the system doesn’t look all that hot. It’s almost as if it’s regressed over the last few years. Long gone are the days of Montero and the Killer B’s. I will say that I do think that the outfield trio of Williams, Slade, and Austin are simply going through some level related growing pains. You’d like to see them get promoted and rake, for reassurance sake, but struggling at A+ or AA after being promoted doesn’t mean a prospect will be a bust. I’m holding out hope anyway.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      It’s a sobering list, but also one you can look at and see reading very differently in a year’s time.

      • hornblower says:

        It looks like Murphy will hit. The Yanks need a 3rd baseman soonest. He started there and they moved him because they didn’t think he would hit enough. Maybe he can go back. He wasn’t bad at it.
        The Yanks think they have a find in Enns and what happened to Nuno.

        • Mac says:

          Murphy came into the system as a C, but played some 3B, mostly when splitting time with Sanchez as I recall, but we’re only talking 14 games. I think that was more a question of whether he could C defensively than how well he would hit. Generally you want to leave a prospect at the most premium defensive position he can play, and C is one of the most premium spots.

          • hornblower says:

            Good post Mac. but the present club shows how premium a position 3rd is. If the young man can play the position and hit .275 with 15 homers he would bat fourth on today’s Yankees. Being able to play multiple positions is something sorely lacking on the big club.

            • Robinson Tilapia says:

              Don’t forget that they did draft a third baseman who is not expected to be a “one level per year” kind of guy.

              • hornblower says:

                The kid from ND looks like a good one. But Murph. has shown he can hit. Anyone who can hit and play multiple positions can play for the big league club. I am sick of watching little right-handed infielders get the bat knocked out of their hands.

    • Chip says:

      Also, it looks like Austin is getting completely swallowed up by the huge ballpark in Trenton. He’s got a puny .068 ISO at home and a .153 ISO on the road despite there being other large ballparks in the league. He just doesn’t have the huge Montero like power that it takes to get it out of there.

    • jsbrendog says:

      ” Long gone are the days of Montero and the Killer B’s.”

      you mean the over hyping of guys who have all amounted to jack squat?

      • JobaWockeeZ says:

        If you’re talking about guys who haven’t amounted to anything that’s been the farm since like 2000. There’s an exception here or there and you can probably name them all on one hand.

        • Jim Is Bored says:

          His point


          Your head.

          The point is people are pining for a minor league class that has yielded nothing. If they’d rather pine for the early 90′s of Jeter/Pettitte/Mo and co, then fine.

        • Robinson Tilapia says:

          Spoken like someone who hasn’t been wasting time here since the inception of the blog. Oh, wait.

    • Mac says:

      I disagree and find the depth to be better that it’s been in, well maybe ever. Both the depth of top prospects and the depth generally.

      It’s not as sexy as having several top 100 prospects coming off strong years, but the system is just as healthy to me. I’d rather have strong prospect depth than a few top guys because of the volatility of prospects.

  12. Frank says:

    Like the list, but reading through the blurbs…insane how many of the Yankee prospects are having down years. I know it’s all part of a process but you should have a relatively even number of guys overperforming and underperforming. Seems to be heavily weighted to underperforming. Not sure if that’s aggressive promotions or what but it is a bit concerning.

    The problem with this list is that not one of the past three top picks (Prior to 2013) is in the top 10, and only Hensley is even on the list. I don’t care what anyone says…that’s on Cashman and DO. They overdrafted on Bichette and Culver and there’s very little you can argue with there. Really a shame too, b/c they passed on some good talent in those drafts who would have been excellent picks and made their 2014 189MM dream a lot easier (Castellanos, Syndergaard, Walker, Brentz, Sanchez,

    • Chip says:

      Yeah, the Yankees really banked on bloodlines and makeup there and got slaughtered for it. I remember them saying after the draft how proud they were of getting Culver as they apparently picked another team’s pocket on him. It’s good to see them drafting more pure talent that isn’t a huge injury risk now. Hopefully they’ve learned to balance the shoot the moon mentality of Brackman/Cole and the ultra conservative mentality that lead to DBJ/Culver.

      • Mister D says:

        I don’t think the Culver pick was conservative at all. He was an up-the-middle HS kid in an underscouted area they thought (1) wouldn’t last until the end of R2 and (2) would be a higher than late R1 pick if he came out of college. Bichette on the other hand … yeah. That was gross off the bat (baseball pun).

        • emac2 says:

          Culver was a good pick because he was in an unscouted area and someone with the team was afraid they might not get him if they didn’t take him too early?

          Are there any reasons that relate to his ability or projection? Spending first round picks on hidden gems no one else noticed is questionable at best.

          • Mister D says:

            Depends on how much you trust your scouting department, right? If you really love a player’s upside and you know your only shot to ever get him in your system is by overdrafting in the 1st, that’s what you do. Like I said, the profile matters a lot in terms of assessing whether its worth it. Culver being an athletic SS in the northeast is very different than Bichette being a bad mechanics corner.

            • Mister D says:

              (I imagine nuance-less dummy will jump on this (not you), but Mike Trout was the same theory. If he’s playing HS ball in the south, odds are the Angels don’t have a chance to get him in the 20s.)

              • emac2 says:

                You can’t run player development looking for Mike Trout’s no one noticed and you can’t waste first round picks on blood lines and bets that your scouting department is better than everyone elses.

                • Mac says:

                  You definitely can do that, and if you will occasionally find a gem. You’re missing the actual cold weather argument, though. It’s not just that these kids aren’t scouted, it’s that they aren’t fully developed because they’re only playing a few months a year against inferior competition. Vs. a kid in Cali or Florida or Texas who plays all year round against other top preps. Therefore, they are considered to have more predictability. This is common knowledge. Not some Yankee specific thing.

                  You can also take the consensus guy and have just as poor results. The consensus guy when Culver was picked was Stetson Allie, who wasn’t even Ping anymore a year later. The consensus guys when Bichette was picked have largely fared no better: Howard, Norris, and Boyd. Bell is doing a little better this season offensively but it’s also his second year in Sally and his fielding is questionable even for a RF.

                  • emac2 says:

                    OK – what gems have the Yankees found with this super secret drafting plan?

                    and please stop pointing out that there is no way to guarantee success in the draft as though longshots and highly rated players are the same risk.

                    • Mac says:

                      You seem to be incapable of having a conversation and just looking for an argument.

                      Whose rankings are you talking about? You keep referring to this mythical draft ranking.

                      Joey Votto wasn’t a top 250 draft prospect according to BA. You seem to be talking about things you don’t know much about.

                    • emac2 says:

                      “Whose rankings are you talking about? You keep referring to this mythical draft ranking.”

                      I’m not sure what rankings I keep referring too but my point was the Yankees drafting players in the first round that no other clubs have on their top 50 board.

                      My whole point is NOT to look at any one list in the first round. You should be drafting players in the first round that have loud enough tools that they get noticed in an industry where everyone is searching for people with skills.

                    • Mac says:

                      Yeah, that’s kind of what I figured.

                      How do you have access to every MLB teams’ draft board? (I would bet you there is not one human alive who actually does…)

                      Different draft boards are going to vary. This is something you seem unwilling to admit. You don’t know what draft board you are referring to, but you keep talking about a “top x prospect” as if there is some consensus. There isn’t.

                    • emac2 says:

                      I’m unwilling to admit that prospect boards vary?

                      Aren’t you the guy that just argued that there was only one way to make a prospect list?

                    • Mac says:

                      I commend your persistence. I just wish you were more willing to have a discussion and less dead set on arguing over trivial nonsense rather than trying to learn something from other people.

                      Yes. You have indeed insisted that there is one “ranking” for prospects. I pointed this out in one spot where you talked about the “#25″ and “#100″ prospect, and I asked you on whose board.

                      No. I argued that there is one way to project future outcomes, as excepted in statistics. This is not something I made up. It’s really well excepted. You can make your prospect list however you would like, but there is one right framework to do it through. That does not mean all prospect lists will look the same. I explained to you very, very clearly that the actual probabilities different people assign to different outcomes will vary. Again, this is not something I have made up. I went to a top notch university where I learned this. I am simply trying to share the information with you now that was shared with me there. You can keep rejecting it, but I don’t really understand why you are choosing to do that. You seem to have no idea how to project future outcomes statistically, and I was trying to share that with you. Not trying to argue with you over nothing,

                    • Mac says:


                • Mister D says:

                  Right, and lets pretend the Yankees picked 7th in 2010. They reportedly had Trout sitting 2nd on their board. The argument of not reaching would say ignore your scouting and stick with the safe consensus picks. Trout would have worked out amazingly if just one other team hadn’t found him. Culver obviously didn’t. It’ll work out far less than 50/50 because the draft works out less than 50/50, especially at the bottom of the 1st.

                  • Mac says:

                    Votto is another cold weather example where the Yankees were apparently very high on him, with the Reds being the only other team at all his games or according to a Yankees’ scout the only other team on him as a first round talent. Reds just had the opportunity to take him first.

                    • Mister D says:

                      But Votto and Trout were obviously going to become stars and Culver obviously was going to suck!!!

                    • Mac says:

                      I’m sure every team can play this game, but it just goes to show you how much luck goes into the whole thing. Substitute Votto for Weeden and Trout for Slade and I bet that the general outlook on Yankees’ player development does a 180. Someone else signs Cano and Gardner goes in round 2 and it probably looks infinitely worse. Four players over the course of a decade or whatever can probably make all the difference between being one of the best and one of the worst in terms of results.

                  • emac2 says:

                    You’re going to justify a draft strategy because you think you know what the yankees were thinking a few years ago and then hypothetically assume they picked 20 points higher. After this you pretend a reach for a top 5 or 10 player is the same as a reach for a top 100 player on some boards?

                    Grasping at straws at it’s very best.

              • Chip says:

                I say that he was conservative in the sense that there was no doubt that he would be able to play shortstop. The problem was that almost nobody projected him to become any sort of decent hitter.

                • JohnnyC says:

                  And how many great offensive shortstops are there now in the post-steroids era? There’s great value in a guy who can absolutely field the position vs. the unlikely possibility that he’s the second coming of Alex Rodriguez.

                  • emac2 says:

                    That’s not the case. Just because there aren’t many people on earth that can play short and hit with power doesn’t mean there’s any shortage of good fielders who can’t hit.

                    • Mac says:

                      “Because I say so!”

                    • emac2 says:

                      Because I can see what is in front of me.

                      Are you even a baseball fan?

                      Don’t we have a good fielding short stop in NY that we just got on waivers because he can’t hit?

                      Do you have an interest in discussion or just being an idiot?

                    • Mac says:

                      Luis Cruz is in MLB and has been for a few years. If your late first rounder makes MLB at all, that is a successful pick. There is a shortage of athletes capable of playing MLB SS, absolutely. That’s why so few of the guys who can do it can hit.

                      Instead of calling me names, try learning something.

                    • emac2 says:

                      If you waste your first round pick on a player you can get on waivers it is not success.

                      You don’t know anything about this game do you?

                      Did you take a statistics class and have someone tell you baseball is a good exercise?

                    • Mac says:

                      Stop with the insults. It’s not necessary.

                      Something like 70-80% of 1st round picks never make MLB for more than a cup of coffee. If you take a pick and it’s in the top 20-30% of picks taken around that area of the draft, what would you call it? I would call it a success.

            • emac2 says:

              I don’t think I agree with that. Long shots where your scouts differ from most other scouts shouldn’t be in the first round.

              • Mister D says:

                Because the consensus always pans out? Drafting in hopes of getting that 25th best player every year isn’t going to build a very solid system.

                • emac2 says:

                  So the solution is to not take the 25th best guy and instead take someone no one has in the top 100 and hope for Mike Trout?

                  Who told you the 25th best guy in every draft wouldn’t give you a solid system? Have any of our shots at outsmarting the world generated anything?

                  • Mac says:

                    This, by the way, is an example of the mythical “draft ranking consensus” you keep referring to. A top 25 guy on what board?

                    • emac2 says:

                      mythical drafting consensus? you are the opnly one that keeps referring to mythical rankings and media reports as though they are all the same…or different…depending on what point you are arguing at the time.

                      Do you understand the concept of context? I was responding to someone who make a top 25 reference.

                    • Mac says:

                      Again, a top 25 guy on what board and a top 100 guy on what board?

                      You keep instigating fights rather than discussing the issues.

              • Mister D says:

                Also, drafting by consensus justifies taking Donovan Tate over Mike Trout. It cuts both ways, its just easier to second guess when you go against the grain.

                • emac2 says:

                  No it doesn’t cut both ways. Taking long shots every years doesn’t mean you get Mike trout or anyone like him ever.

                  You are going to argue that you should ignore all of the scouts except one of your own and then go with his hunch on a player without enough at bats to show his skills?

                  • Mac says:

                    It does cut both ways. You’re making a lot of implicit assumptions including that there is some universal consensus among scouts (Law and BA can be 50 spots different on a guy, for example, and Mayo or Sickels or whoever else might agree with one side, the other, or be in-between). ANd that if a consensus exists among media types (which it does not) it is more accurate than team scouts. That media “scouts” are as good as or better than MLB scouts in general, let alone the scouts of one individual team (where there will be variability among teams). And that the Yankees are listening to one of their scouts and not sending multiple guys to take a look at a serious first round pick candidate (teams often go to every game of a kid they really like that early).

                    I don’t think anyone is arguing what you are portraying them to argue, and suggest that you look at the actual argument being made.

                    • emac2 says:

                      Wow that post was garbage.

                      I’m haven’t made any of those points.

                    • Mac says:

                      Look up what “implicit” means, and then get back to me champ.

                    • emac2 says:

                      It’s cool that you learned a new word today..yesterday… but that was still a bunch of garbage that had nothing to do with what I was saying.

                      Did you really come to the conclusion that I thought your post was garbage because I don’t know what implicit means?

                    • Mac says:

                      No. To be honest I came to the conclusion that you thought it was garbage because you aren’t very smart. Those are all absolutely assumptions that are implicit in your comment. You don’t even seem to understand what you write, let alone what other people write. As evidenced here and by continually referring to “draft rankings” and then saying you don’t know what draft rankings you are referring to.

                    • Mac says:

                      You should also look up “creeping determinism” as defined by Fischhoff if you actually want to get a better idea of what is going on here.

              • Robinson Tilapia says:

                So we should always just draft from whatever top prospect list ESPN spits out, crossing out the guys picked already, and just picking the next guy on the list?

                Where do I apply for this simple job?

                • Mac says:

                  At Fenway

                • emac2 says:

                  What kind of fool thinks that ESPN represents anything?

                  Do any of you understand that scouting is a profession?

                  • Cool Lester Smooth says:

                    We do, but you don’t seem to understand that the scouting “consensus” accordin to ESPN and BA means jack shit to any team other than the ones whose scouts talk to BA and ESPN. *cough*The Red Sox*cough*

                    • emac2 says:

                      poor simple Lester.

                      Are you trying to say that you hate the red sox and can only find baseball information at BA and ESPN?

                    • Mac says:

                      What’s your issue? You seem to be calling everyone on the board names without actually making any points. I have no idea what you’re arguing, just that you want to argue with everyone.

                    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

                      You know, your lacking reading comprehension would be a lot more forgivable if you were at least somewhat capable of civil discourse.

                      What I’m saying is, since you’re apparently the special kind of slow that needs to insult others in order maintain a minimum level of self-esteem, is that BA and ESPN’s rankings are only instructive as to the opinions of the scouts they talk to. The Red Sox’s scouts talk to BA, which is why they seem to “draft so well” in the eyes of the uninformed.

                    • emac2 says:

                      I got that.

                      I never said anyone should follow those guys (ESPN or BA) and if you are trying to put those words in my mouth it shows an unwillingness or inability to understand what I’m saying even when I repeatedly try to explain my point.

                      Do you think ESPN and Baseball America are professional scouting services?

                      Did I ever say the Yankees should follow the media or fan driven mock draft industries?

                    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

                      My point is that you know exactly jack shit about the “scouting consensus,” so you’re in no position to say that the Yankees have been bucking it.

            • emac2 says:

              I’ll take that as a no.

        • Mac says:

          Who did they pass over for Bichette, though? You can’t just look at picks in isolation. He was taken 20 picks lower than Culver and almost none of the guys drafted after him have worked out (I’m talking mostly worse than him… several guys taken shortly after him as doing 3rd tours in short season). They passed over some good prospects for Culver. Bichette was also much less of a reach in terms of consensus rankings. He was picked about 50 spots ahead of where BA thought his talent dictated, while Culver was more like 100.

          I’m not particularly upset about either pick and find both easily defensible. Neither has worked out to date, but that’s how the draft goes.

      • Mister D says:

        (In case its not obvious, I loved the Culver pick at the time and would be fine with it again in the future. Didn’t work out, but the theory behind it was pretty nice, I thought.)

        • pat says:

          Same with CJ Henry. People bagged on the pick after he flamed out, but his MLB blurb from the draft that day had Arod comparisons. Just found it-

          C.J. Henry
          Putnam City High School
          Position: SS B/T: R/R
          H: 6’3″ W: 205
          Born: 1986-05-31 Class: HS
          Scouting report:
          Built similar to Alex Rodriguez. Similar kinds of ability. Puts some strength into a slightly uppercut swing. Home run power from alley to alley. Quick and agile in the infield w/ sure hands. Likes to run. Good instincts on the base paths. Makes everything look easy.

          Is Cito a bust? Most likely, but the same scouts that brought you Mason and Ty Austin that year also loved Culver. Sometimes you just miss. It happens and it sucks bigtime, but it’s not uncommon.

          • emac2 says:

            The same scouts?

            Or are all scouts the same.

            Anyone who pretends Culver was anything like Arod at that point is shouldn’t be listened too on draft day.

            • pat says:

              Did I make a Culver/Arod comparison or are you making one up so you can smarmily shoot it down?

              • Jim Is Bored says:

                “are you making one up so you can smarmily shoot it down?”

                Otherwise known as Internet Arguments 101

              • Travis L. says:

                Pat…it says that in the scouting report. Paragraph at the botton. emac was saying that if the scout believed Culver was similar to A-rod (and apparently wasn’t), then that guy (the scout) shouldn’t be listened to on draft day. Relax.

                • Mister D says:

                  But … aren’t the odds pretty high that a lot of the Yankees scouts who saw and loved Trout are the same ones who signed off on Culver?

                • Mac says:

                  That scouting report is about CJ Henry. And it compared his body to A-Rod’s not his game. Henry was the Yankees’ 1st in 2005. Later traded for Abreu and then a college basketball player (brother of Xavier Henry).

                  • emac2 says:

                    Anyone who uses the name of probably the best prospect ever when writing a report about a prospect he is reviewing doesn’t have the toolbox needed to be a scout.

                    • Mac says:

                      This is beyond ridiculous. You keep talking, but you’re not saying much. Why are you determined to pick baseless fights with every single person on here?

                      He compared their body types. Said nothing about their games. Henry was a hell of an athlete with a great build. A-Rod is convenient reference to the prototypical build.

                    • emac2 says:

                      why are you defending that idiot?

                      Why aren’t you reading the things you quote?

                      Why aren’t you confronting me with specific quotes instead of statements that I don’t seem to want this or that?

                      It said build and ability deal with it.

                    • Mac says:

                      No. It said “similar kinds of ability.” That is pretty clearly referring to his potential.

                      I am not defending anyone. I am critically thinking about what was written. You are dismissing it on first blush because he dared to say any prospect had 5-tool potential and a prototypical build. Come on, you didn’t even know what player the scout was referring to when you started criticizing him. What does that tell you?

                      Do you actually have an argument that CJ Henry was not built like A-Rod and did not have 5-tool talent? Or just want to fight? He has a great athletic build and did have 5-tool talent. There’s really no doubt about it.

                      It is absolutely amazing to me that you could truly believe the things you write. Just blows my mind. I really hope you are under 18.

                    • emac2 says:

                      ““similar kinds of ability.” That is pretty clearly referring to his potential.”

                      ya think? Did someone have to tell you that? it’s a scouting report, of course it’s about potential just as Arods scouting report was about potential.

                      Critical thinking? Is that what you call it? :)

                      Comprehension would be a much more critical skill.

                      He had no business being compared to Arod in terms of ability.

                      Do you know what that term means? you seem to keep ignoring it.

                    • Mac says:

                      This is getting really silly.

                      When someone addresses something head on, by definition they are not ignoring it. I said very, very clearly he was referring to potential. Henry did have 5-tool potential. A-Rod was the standard for 5-tool SS at the time, and Henry had that kind of potential. That he never reached it does not mean he didn’t have those kind of abilities. He did.

                      I implore you to stop assuming you are right and start discussing things. You are clearly wrong on several points, but just keep trying to argue with me. Look into CJ Henry as a prospect. He was raw, but he had great potential.

                  • emac2 says:

                    BTW – What does similar kind of ability mean to you?

                    The ability to walk and eat?

                    • Mac says:

                      Potential. Henry had unlimited potential. 5-tool potential. He was a raw two sport athlete, though. This was the consensus. Please feel free to go back and look instead of continuing to talk about things you know nothing about.

                    • emac2 says:

                      So you think it was reasonable to scout Henry as having Arod potential?


                    • Mac says:

                      Yes. And so did a lot of other people. I know you’re not much for words, but do you understand what potential is?

                      Again, look up creeping determinism. When Henry was in HS he had almost limitless potential. It was not inevitable that he would flame out. It only seems that way to you now because he did flame out.

                    • emac2 says:

                      A lot of other people?

                      You’re so full it your eyes are brown.

                      Find me anyone capable of caring for themselves that thinks that.

                      Again, I don’t care about your mental problems. If you have a baseball question or comment please proceed.

                    • Mac says:

                      Slinging verbal abuse at me does not help your case.

                      Yes. Henry was a raw prospect with tons of potential. There is no debate. I was actually around in 2005. That was the consensus. Where are your sources that he didn’t have tons and tons of potential?

              • Mister D says:

                “Anyone who didn’t know then what I know now is obviously an idiot and I’m obviously very smart.”

                • emac2 says:

                  Do you know anything about the kind of prospect Arod was coming out of high school? No competent professional ever compared Arod to Culver.

                  • Mac says:

                    Are you a comedian or what? Who is comparing Culver to A-Rod?

                    Do you know who CJ Henry was? You don’t seem to if you don’t realize he has a prototypical body type and 5-tool potential.

                    • emac2 says:

                      “Who is comparing Culver to A-Rod?”

                      Some scout that was quoted at the top of this section of comments?

                      Try to keep up.

                    • Mac says:

                      No, you fucking moron. The scout was quoted comparing CJ Henry to A-Rod. You have no idea what anyone is even talking about, yet you continue to act like you are smarter than everyone else. It’s really pathetic.

                    • Mac says:

                      I really have been trying to help you out. You just seem to have no interest in learning, though.

                    • emac2 says:

                      You should focus on getting yourself help instead of trying to help people on the internet. I don’t think anyone wants your help. Your “years of experience” are underwhelming at best.

                      I’m glad you found a mistake so you could relish in a debating point.

                      Well done!

                    • Mac says:

                      I don’t really want to get into this, but you are calling me names on an anonymous forum and I have a problem?

                    • Mac says:

                      And I never said anything about years of experience anywhere.

    • emac2 says:

      Is it on cash or is it on the person who made up the list?

      You could do a top 10 list of hot players that would make everyone feel great.

    • Shittyshittybangbang says:

      Shhh Frank, even though I absolutely agree, that kind of talk invokes the “n” word around here. Yup, you guessed it ………, NARRATIVE ! Oooh, scary !

      • Jim Is Bored says:

        Yeah except no. A narrative is “Cashman had no control over anything and it’s all his fault.”

        Saying, “Our FO as a whole seems to have underperformed on the last few drafts” is a fair opinion. As long as you realize that a lot of FO’s underperform, the draft is anything but a guarantee, and 1-2 years of poor past performance is not much of a guarantee of future results.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        What do you think this “narrative” is? I’m curious.

      • Mac says:

        Whether or not you want to call it a narrative, but there are just factual inaccuracies in there. Hensley isn’t in there because of a genetic hip issue no one knew about. He cherry picks a few guys that Culver went ahead of and tries to stretch is out to include DBJ and Hensley by magic or osmosis or something.

    • pat says:

      Castellanos cost more than almost our entire draft last year. Owenrship decided to give us a hard budget because they’re jerks. Not that we passed on him because we didn’t like him, more like ownership wouldn’t have let Cash+Co sign him.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Ramirez is overperforming.
      Murphy is overperforming.
      I think we can say Zoilo’s exceeding expectations as we speak.

      It’s not a slam dunk that Slade is underperforming. Health is one thing he’s being judged by, and that’s gone well.

      I’m not here to overly praise anyone, but that’s closer to even than you’re making it.

      • Mac says:

        Sanchez at least hitting expectations, De Paula probably exceeding them. Katoh, Torrens, Bird, Nuno, Severino meeting or exceeding. 5 of the top guys haven’t really had a chance to exceed or fall behind this year: Manny, Hensley, and the 3 1sts.

        • Robinson Tilapia says:

          I was focusing more on upper level guys, but fair enough.

          • Robinson Tilapia says:

            Also, if I’m going to put little stock in Austin Aune’s striking out three times every at-bat, I should also, I guess, take positive performance at that level with a grain of salt.

      • Bo Knows says:

        Disagree about Ramirez and Murphy

        In Ramirez’s case his problem has been lack of health

        Murphy’s peripherals both underlining and otherwise are practically identical to what he’s done his entire career save for his time in AA.

        His BABIP swings wildly because due to him only playing in 25 games in AAA, but his LD rates in AAA have been hovering between 15-19% which is more in line with what he’s done in A ball and High A (averaged around 19% at this level) than in AA (where he had an 11-13%), to his entire career, his walk rate has improved 3%, his strikeout rates are identical. One of the things that is different is his percentage of strikes looking, which is down to 3% which is actually what it was in A ball than what he did in AA where it was around 6%. This hints at him being more aggressive, and taking advantage of the early counts where pitchers try to throw strikes to get ahead.

        • Mac says:

          I think it’s very fair to say that Murphy is outperforming expectations. His BABIP was not that high in AA, yet he was well above league average for the first time since Charleston. His success has carried over to AAA.

          • Bo Knows says:

            Outperforming expectations sure, but I don’t think he’s over performing. I think this is closer to his true talent level as a hitter.

            • Robinson Tilapia says:

              Stuck in semantics there. What I mean probably meets your definition of “outperforming” rather than “overperforming.”

              • Bo Knows says:

                Not semantics, outperforming expectations means “our” expectations, the fans. Over-performing, means he’s playing over his head and talent level; which I don’t believe to be the case.

                • Mac says:

                  I would say it is semantics or the equivalent (a misunderstanding). I took overperforming to imply expectations, not ability. You took it to imply ability, not expectations. The comment RT responded to was talking about overperforming in the context of down years, so I think if anything it was implied that RT was referring to expectations rather than ability and you read the wrong thing into it.

                  • emac2 says:

                    Once you learn a little more about the game you wont get tripped out by so many common terms.

                    • Mac says:

                      Your stupidity really knows no bounds. I was trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are really a class A moron. You seem to have no intelligence whatsoever. And instead of just admitting you don’t know everything you are pretending to, you resort to insults. This is not a good way to go through life. It’s not going to get you very far.

    • Mac says:

      You should probably be open to hearing others out if that’s really what you think.

      Hensley is injured. He is not top 10 in this particular list, but he’s still got tremendous talent.

      Who did they pass over for Bichette? Look at the next 20 picks and there’s literally only one guy who has really impressed as a pro.

  13. Mister D says:

    Upside of potential MLB starter / regular contributor cutline between #15 and #16?

  14. your mom says:

    Where’s Cito and DBJ damn it!

  15. Kosmo says:

    Williams has been hitting over .300 since June 1st. Unlike last season when he hit LHP well he´s struggled so far this season vs. LHP.

  16. Preston says:

    If Corey Black was 6’2″ he’d be a lot higher on this list. The guy has electric stuff and is getting results as a starter at high A. The only reason anyone thinks he’s going to be a reliever is his height. I think ranking Clarkin over guys like Ramirez, Banuelos and Campos who have had lots of minor league success is a little premature. I think the bottom ten is kind of a hodge podge, I’m not sure why any of them are better than O’Brien or why draftees like Oneill and Wade wouldn’t make it when Katoh and others did. That said, I think it’s a good thing that we have probably ten more guys who have a legitimate argument of being included in this list. As always thanks Mike.

    • Billy says:

      Katoh was a second round pick and O’Neil was a third. Katoh has raked thus far and O’Neill has struck out like 60% of his ABs. I think it is as simple as that. These lists are ever-changing; right now those guys represent the best 30 prospects in the system.

      • Preston says:

        He’s K’d a lot but 60% is a big exaggeration. He’s hit .290/.351/.380 and he’s supposed to be an elite defender and base runner. My point was that the bottom ten are interchangeable. You could argue it either way. Having that kind of depth is a good thing.

    • Matt Filippi says:

      There’s also a ton of effort in Black’s delivery. O’Neil has a long way to go.

      • Preston says:

        I don’t put any stock in that kind of stuff. We have no idea what causes arm injuries. Plenty of max effort guys succeed and plenty of guys with smooth deliveries lose their careers to injury.

  17. emac2 says:

    Thank you for the List!

    I’ve been waiting for someone to be brave enough to put out the first one.

    How are you rating guys? Chance of making the majors? Chance of being a star, equal combination of those two and health?

    • Mac says:

      I have no idea how this list was made, but there’s a lot of info out there for making projections if you are interested (not just for baseball players, but statistics in general). Basically, you project the probability of different expected outcomes. A simplistic example could be a marginal AAA guy who you think has a 50% chance at being replacement level and a 50% chance of being a 1 WAR player, so his projection is 0.5 WAR/year (again, oversimplifying just to illustrate).

      • emac2 says:


        Are you kidding?

        There isn’t a single rule for prospect lists. You have a list of the prospects you like the best and you can use whatever parameters you choose.

        You can prefer high ceilings or high floors, elite tools or well rounded tools. His list could be most likely to make the majors or most likely to be stars.

        I wondered what rules Mike uses because the list seems a bit inconsistent.

        • Mac says:

          I am not talking about baseball prospects. I am talking about projecting future outcomes in general. What’s probably taught as Statistics 201 at any college.

          Instead of assuming that you know everything, try learning something new. This is basic stuff that anyone who wants to do anything involving statistics or projecting future outcomes should be familiar with. I am not trying to say I am really smart. This is basic stuff that anyone with a quantitative undergrad degree has most likely been exposed to. I’m talking a business or econ degree, not even a math degree. It’s also just the way that people think, even if subconsciously.

          What I am saying is that if you are making projections correctly, you don’t have to make the trade-offs you are implying are necessary. You multiply the expected outcome vs. the expected probability (whether your literally do this or just do it mentally). People will definitely disagree about the probabilities are for different players. Historical returns can inform it to some extent, but there’s a big subjective element involved.
          Different lists might vary along the lines that you suggest because someone has a generally optimistic or pessimistic view about certain things, but it all fits into the framework I am trying to explain to you.

          • emac2 says:

            Did I hurt your poor little feelings or something?

            I asked Mike what parameters he used to rate the prospects. I wasn’t asking you anything or saying I knew anything in my question.

            If you don’t comprehend the question even after I explained it once please just move on. I’m not here to educate you and don’t respect any of the knowledge you bring to the table.

            I’m excited that you are in school though and hope you are able to continue.

  18. nsalem says:

    Surprised no to see Enns.

    • AJosh says:

      I was curious where he fell out, too. Wonder who the “just missed the cut” kind of guys were.

      Dietrich Enns isn’t really young for his competition, but he is having a pretty awesome year so far (90/21 in 62.0 total innings).

      • nsalem says:

        He’s only 3 month’s older than Corey Black.

      • nsalem says:

        He’s under the median age for High A. What are you taking about?????

        • Preston says:

          He hasn’t pitched a meaningful sample at High A. So I don’t think that’s the level he’s being judged at. I do agree he probably should have made the list. Although it’s always an uphill climb when you were a 19th round pick to change the perception.

        • AJosh says:

          Easy there. I said he isn’t really young. Enns is moving up, so smaller samples at multiple levels. Black has been there all year. Not sure they are a great comparison.

          I’m just curious how close he is to the list. They are both A ball pitchers, long way to go.

  19. Tony says:

    Dietrich Enns has to have nearly pitched himself onto the bottom third of this list, no? He’s been hit a little bit in a tiny sample at Tampa, but he’s put up better than a 3-1 K/BB and is getting a chance to start.

  20. Jim Is Bored says:

    Looks like most other teams prospect lists, with a little less A+ talent and a lot more B, B+ talent. A lot of teams would trade systems with us pretty quickly.

    • JohnnyC says:

      Yes. See Sherman’s column today on Futures Game, hyping Mets prospects in particular. (And lamenting Yankees) One thing a veteran like Sherman doesn’t stipulate is that the great preponderance of players who have ever participated in the Futures Game don’t ever become viable major leaguers. Reality gets in the way of narrative and agenda. Selection process for FG is even more biased than for the ASG. As we all know, Hiroki Kuroda is not on AS team, therefore he is not an AS. Ipso facto, Joel.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      I would rather unscientifically say this is what I think an average, ordinary system looks like. Not barren. Not loaded.

      • Jim Is Bored says:

        I think we’re a slightly above average system; at least if I agree with what most “experts” have said.

        Still, I’d say if 10-15 teams want to trade systems with us, it’s at least not a disaster.

      • Mac says:

        I think that the depth is better than average and I think that most system rankings get caught up a lot in the upside of the top few guys.

  21. Andy in Sunny Daytona says:

    No Renzo Martini?

    You’ll rue the day, Axisa. RUE IT!!!

  22. Bryan says:

    I know I am going to get crap for this but I am not willing to give up on Culver.

    He is still one of the youngest guys in his league and is middle of the road in offensive production for the position and plays good defense. It sucks he has yet to reach his potential but he’s still only 20.

    • Bryan says:

      As a 20-year-old with Charleston in the South Atlantic League, he has put up a .231/.317/.369 line, good enough for a 96 wRC+ in a low-offense environment. Even repeating the league, there are only nine players younger than Cito in the Sally League. Of the 17 shortstops in the league with at least 250 PA, Cito ranks 8th in wRC+. The only two shortstops ahead of him that are younger are 6th and 7th, and within three points of wRC+.

    • pat says:

      Silver lining is that he hits .247/.321/.427 on the road, I guess? Anybody? Bueller?

    • Andy in Sunny Daytona says:

      I agree with you. This has been his first year hitting exclusively right-handed.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      I was actually going to reply somewhere else about him. There’s been a pulse, at the very least, at the bat. If he develops into a UTL, then he’s developed into someone who can serve a purpose on a 25-man roster. That’s fine with me, even if he’s a first-rounder. I certainly think there could be a bath to that for someone who, like you said, is 20 years old.

    • Mac says:

      Good point. A big part of the issue is expectations. A lot of people have unrealistic expectations for a first rounder. Now, I don’t think Culver has been a good first rounder to date. And they passed over guys who have looked better to date to get him. However, his results are neither as out of the ordinary as most fans make them out to be nor a kiss of death to his MLB prospects.

  23. YanksFan says:

    So you want to sell but they don’t have much to sell. The NYY can have a 189 payroll and have 4 high priced players on it. The problem is A-Rod’s contract. CC & Tex are not as crazy. Cano’s may not be as crazy and will expire after the other 3 which is why I’m not as concerned.

    Not just you, but other comments and media have said that the Yanks can’t win this year and shouldn’t sacrifice their blue-chip prospects. Where has it ever been suggested that that is the plan? Since Cash got control in 2005 he have not panicked and traded anyone of significance. They lost Shef & Matsui in the same month and he didn’t do that. Why would he start this year?

  24. John C says:

    ANother one to keep an eye on is SS Thairo Estrada who has taken Rookie ball by storm so far. He has wowed scouts so far according to BA’s Ben Badler

  25. Robert says:

    There are no bad prospects,I respect all the hard work all these kids did to be drafted by the NY Yankees.

    Now there are bad scouts, Who are the Yankee scouts?

    Try ranking them with there peers!!!

  26. Frank says:

    If Yanks are lucky, maybe a couple of these guys pan out. IMO, a lot of over hype for many of these players. Taking this year’s draftees out of the mix, no one really there who stands out as future star.

    • Bryan says:

      It’s hard to draft star players when you never draft in the top 10. Combine that with the new international signings limitations and it becomes ridiculously difficult for a team like the Yanks to get the guys necessary to make a star-studded minor league system.

      The Yankees have done an amazing job with pitchers though. We have guys like Adam Warren and Phelps who were drafted outside the top rounds as college guys and turned into legit starters. We have Nova and Nuno. We have Turley who we drafted in the last round of his respective draft!

      Yes we don’t have too many stars, but we have a system littered with MLB caliber guys nonetheless.

  27. Vern Sneaker says:

    It’s sure more fun reading the list and fantasizing about the futre than watching the big club play this year.

  28. CONservative govsrnMENt says:

    The scouting v. development issue is still murky to me in terms of assigning blame for the farm system.

    And I still believe that Culver and Bichette were strategic picks to save cash for later draftees, which is misguided but more on the keeper of the purse strings than Oppenheimer.

    Few prospects have linear development and I’m hopeful that Austin et al will get back on the upswing soon.

  29. I love seeing JR Murphy succeeded as much as he is. I always felt like he was the afterthought in the catcher convo; and for good reason…he was never a ‘super prospect’.

    It’s seeming like he’s got a little bit of everything though. Romine always has the defense, and Sanchez/Montero were these can’t miss hitters that were lacking behind the plate.

    Good to see Sanchez progressing defensively though, that’s encouraging.

    I’m thinking about going to Staten Island to catch Jagielo this weekend…gotta love $20 tickets for the best seat in the house, haha. That barely gets you in the door at YS3.

  30. Phil says:

    I feel like Murphy and Banuelos are being underrated right now. They are only 22 and have had results in Triple A while many other prospects ranked close to them are doing mediocre in AA or A ball.

    Nuno seems to be underrated too. I know he is old and doesn’t get a ton of strikeouts, but he dominated every step of the minors and has done well in his short time in the Majors

    • Mac says:

      For me it’s especially Banuelos and Hensley who are being underrated right now. I suppose it might just be the uncertainty of recovery, but Banuelos especially had a procedure with a very high success rate and has somehow fallen quite far without playing. I don’t know much about the historic success coming off of surgery for hip inpingements like Hensley’s. These two could provide a huge boost to the perception of the farm next season. It should be a bit like adding two first rounders at the start of the season.

    • Bo Knows says:

      Get hurt its only natural to fall. Banuelos I’m sure will regain his stock, Hensley is a very interesting and potentially frightening (in a good way) case. His hip abnormality prevented hI’m from using his properly, and legs to drive himself and generate velocity, it also prevented him from getting extension probably affecting command as well. That means the yankees have a guy who can hit 97-98 mph and average 93mph on nothing but essentially arm strength and his core muscles until this point. What happens when he gains the complete use of his lower half like a pitcher should have acess too?

      • emac2 says:

        Why is it only natural to fall if you get hurt and are expected to fully recover? How many teams would hear about the injury and decide that there are now 10 other prospects in the system they would rather trade for?

        Are Ramirez, Clarkin and Flores more likely to have an impact in the majors than Manny?

        I agree his ultimate value as a prospect might be a little lower but there is no way he’s been passed by a dozen guys in this system.

        • Preston says:

          I agree, this is TJS. He’s got like a 90% chance of coming back as good or better than before. Where would a healthy Banuelos rank? I find it hard to believe he’d be lower than number 3. If he still has a 90% chance to be that guy, why are we knocking him that far down the list? I’d slot him in right behind Jagielo at #6 at the very least.

          • Mac says:

            Agreed, and might even rank Banuelos higher myself. I think people are also putting too much stock in a few AAA starts before his first injury last season. As I recall, he came back and was dominating for a few starts before the elbow thing.

        • Bo Knows says:

          You can’t perform, also if you suffer from a major injury or are put out of commission, it puts the most important skill into question; health. For me, and a lot of ranking systems health takes precedence over talent.

          Example: I seriously doubt there are 16 better prospects than Dylan Bundy on a pure talent level, but his health is now a question mark and until he comes back and performs its going to be a question mark.

          • Mac says:

            I think you’re oversimplifying things. Slade has had as many health problems as just about anyone in the minors, but his skill is putting him very high on a bunch of different lists.

            Health is an important consideration, but it is not a skill. A skill is an ability acquired through training. Unless it’s all out of shape guys who get injured, this isn’t really the case here. It is a bit of a trait, maybe, but it also involves a lot of luck. Someone like Slade or Jose Ramirez can go on to become a strong MLB contributor after getting hurt virtually every year early on, while any SP could blow out his shoulder any start.

            Especially in these cases. TJS happens to tons of Ps who otherwise have healthy careers. A hip inpingement may or may not mean anything about Hensley’s long-term health.

            • Bo Knows says:

              Slade went unranked in alot of lists for years because he wasn’t healthy, he was towards the back end of the top 10 in the Yankees system because he couldn’t stay healthy.

              While it is true any starting pitcher can blow their arm out, the one’s that do are higher risks because statistically when something like that happens once, the risk for re-injury is higher. Also I never said that these guys are never going to recover, I said that until they prove they are healthy again and are on the field playing there stock should take a hit. It’s not because they aren’t talented, but because they are at a higher risk.

              Also health is most definitely a skill, not in the traditional sense but its a skill none the less. Countless careers have been derailed by the inability to stay healthy, many guys have become “what if” stories because they are as fragile as glass. Mike says it best when he refers to health as the “6th tool”

              • Mac says:

                So, Slade suddenly gained this magical skill after years of not staying healthy by staying healthy for one year? Doesn’t seem like much of a skill if the moment you are not injured you have it back.

                Do you have the stats to back up these claims that once you suffer any injury you are more likely to get injured again? If this is the case, how has Slade regained his health skill and how are you expecting Manny and Hensley to do the same?

                When you recover, you have the skill back?

                Health is a skill, but not according to any accepted definition of a skill?

                You seem to be in way over your head here. Health is a trait, not a skill. A skill is something you acquire through training.

                • emac2 says:

                  You’re going to look back at some point and wonder what you were being drugged with.

                  You argue both side of the same issue and seem to think it’s the same side.

                  • Mac says:

                    Again, son, you are insulting people over the internet. You have no ground to stand on.

                    Do you actually have a baseball related comment, or just want to call me names?

    • emac2 says:


      Results count

  31. Phil says:

    It’s also interesting to me that DBJ and Cito get a lot of criticism but somehow Aune (who is MUCH worse than them) has been able to avoid it.

    • Bryan says:

      It is hard to criticize someone when they have been in the minors for all of one year. More importantly, he has only gotten a small taste of the minors since he spent time in ext st and only had 168 ab in 2012.

    • Mac says:

      Agreed. I think it’s partially that a lot of fans don’t really know much about anyone taken after round 1, and hold first round guys up on some sort of pedestal.

    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

      Aune is also a physical freak who is playing baseball full time for the first time in his life this year.

      Different standards.

      • Mac says:

        I don’t think that the standards are actually different. Just that people are holding them up to different standards.

        Culver is a great baseball athlete who played in a cold weather state with weak competition. He’s only one year younger than Aune.

        • Cool Lester Smooth says:

          I’m saying that Aune should be held to a different standard than a guy like Culver, because his raw physical abilities are simply on another level.

          TCU wasn’t giving Culver a full ride as a QB.

          • Mac says:

            I am disagreeing with you. There are different types of athleticism, and the ones relevant in FB are not necessarily relevant in baseball (or even at different positions within the same sport to some extent). Culver wasn’t a top FB player (I have no idea if that was by choice, due to lack of ability, or what), but he is considered a plus defender at a premium position that Aune is considered physically incapable of playing at even the lowest levels of the minors. Culver was considered a good athlete when drafted. What we’re really talking about, though, is their offensive abilities holding both back (granted, Culver has a much lower hurdle rate as a SS). You don’t have to be a great run-jump athlete to his a baseball well. Culver has excuses just like Aune does, as a cold weather guy playing NY state competition.

            I know these kinds of examples lead conversations off track, but Kevin Youkilis is a physical schlub who is a much better pro baseball player than CJ Henry.

            • Cool Lester Smooth says:

              Culver can’t even sniff Aune’s power, though, and he’s also a RH hitter, while Aune’s a lefty.

              Also, a pure baseball player in upstate New York gets way, way more reps than a football player in Texas who was polished enough to be getting scholarships offers.

              • Mac says:

                Aune is a RF and Culver is a SS. I hope that Aune has more power than just about any non-PED SS. Matt Joyce, for example, has far more power than Jeter. Power he’s actually using in games at the MLB level.

                That’s a lot of speculation. Besides the actual number of reps, we are also talking about the quality of those reps. I don’t know the exact quality of the Ps they faced, but Texas has a lot more good P prospects than NY.

                • Cool Lester Smooth says:

                  But they’re still reps. Aune is insanely raw. He missed fall ball and most of summer ball because of football.

                  Now, Culver is much more likely to make the majors than Aune is, but Aune still has star potential that Culver really doesn’t.

                  My point is that they’re completely types different prospects, an should be evaluated differently.

                  • Cool Lester Smooth says:

                    Crap, I meant to kill the italics after “insanely”

                  • Mac says:

                    My point is that the same criteria applies to any prospect. The backlash against Culver has been too strong. Aune has been written off by plenty of people, I think, but hasn’t gotten the ridiculously overzealous hatred that Culver has from Yankees fans for failing to get off to a strong start.

  32. Reggie C. says:

    I am now convinced that no pre or post draft list thread going forward for the next couple years will fail to mention all of the following has beens: CJ Henry, Cito Culver, DBJ, “the Killer Bs” (the phrase), and Yeezus Montero.

    Aside from JR Murphy, the list is chock-full of under-performing prospects. Here’s hoping Sanchez keeps taking steps forward with his plate discipline and defense as his power is steadily showing itself. Sanchez definitely looks to be a 20 homer hitter in the bigs, which makes him a blue-chipper in any farm. The young man just has to shore up the defense and make it passable.

    Depaula’s breakout season is in full swing; checking out his boxscore is always fun. Can’t overlook the decent chances that Jose Ramirez and/or Jose Campos could settle in the second half and really draw good attention from the rest of the prospect watching community.

    Jagielo, Clark, Judge … i guess we’ll see whats in store for these guys though who knows if Jagielo or Judge see any full-season team game action.

  33. hlrjr says:

    no love for tyler wade? he’s one of the few legitimate shortstops we drafted/ have in the system. granted its rookie ball, but the kid has an .865 OPS.

  34. Dave M says:

    Watching yesterday’s futures game really made me see how bad the Yanks system is currently. And I’m usually a guy who defends their prospects.

    • Mac says:

      It’s an All-Star game with about 2 guys per system. I don’t think it’s actually a good indication of where a farm system or even a player is.

      We’re talking about a subjective definition of “star.” Some of the selections were fairly questionable. Yankees’ top guys aren’t all having great seasons but a few could have made the game without second thought (especially Sanchez) and a bunch could theoretically justify a selection next year. Austin played last season. Romine played in 2011. Romine and Noesi in 2010. If you go back and look through rosters there are some MLB stars, but not that many who actually played in the game.

      It’s also only the top of every system. Cardinals, for example, as considered to have the best system in baseball and only had two reps, which is league average.

  35. Kvothe says:

    No Betances? I know he failed as a starter, but he’s looked pretty promising as a reliever so far, no? Thought he might sneak in at the very end over a guy like Adams.

    • mike myers says:

      seriously. I would much rather have Betances in my system than adams. Adams will never stick in the majors, however B could have a nice RP career.

      • Cool Lester Smooth says:

        What team do you work for?

        I’m assuming you must be a scout if you’re making authoritative claims like “Adams will never stick in the majors.”

  36. Jack says:

    Haha clarkin over Ramirez. Never pitched in the minors >>>>a starter in aaa. Okkkaaayyy. This is the same guy who didn’t rank depuala last year cause he “hasn’t pitched in the US yet”

    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

      You do understand that Mike has never, ever ranked a player who has never played in the US, right?

      Also, unless Ramirez develops a real breaking ball, he’s going to be a reliever.

  37. jesse says:

    Yes, Mason Williams has been a disappointment this year, but he’s hitting .340/.385/.474 since May 31 (108 PA’s). Perhaps he’s turning it around.

    As for the lack of energy: I believe a scout told this to Josh Norris a month or so ago. Obviously, this is a concern, but hopefully it’s something he’s worked on.

    I’m still a big fan.

  38. Laz says:

    Would have bumped Murphy/Ramirez up a few slots. They have both proven themselves at trenton, and working on it in AAA. Maybe they aren’t proven yet, but they sure should be rated higher than the recently drafted.

    • OhioYanks says:

      I tend to disagree with that outlook. The recently drafted have higher ceilings than Murphy and Ramirez has gotten hurt basically every year. You can make an argument for the two that you have, but basing it entirely on level would make it pointless to bother with a top 30 ranking.

  39. nycsportzfan says:

    And just to add to Peter O’Brien, he just went 3-5 with a 2B tonight. Hes now hitting 307BA at Tampa after hitting 325BA in Charleston. Thats also with Power,and not just HRs, but doubles. Hes been a extra base machine, and was a former 2nd rd pick, based on his bat. Hes done exactly what was thought when he was drafted.

    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

      The issue with O’Brien is that he strikes out WAY too much for a college kid in A-ball and doesn’t really have a defensive position. There’s very, very real Cody Johnson potential there.

  40. nycsportzfan says:

    No Dietrich Enns on the back end of that list either? Had brilliant 2012, and has continued that over to this yr, and after dominating Charleston, hes now pitched to a 3.04ERA in 5starts with 28k 8BB ratio. He could possibly see Trenton by seasons end, and at least to start the 2013 campaign. O’Brien and Enns would be on my top 30list.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.