Org prospect rankings are BS

by AZranger on Feb 11, 2007 9:09 PM CST

We make too much of it when a team is ranked in the top 5 or the bottom 5 (or 8, or 10...). The current concern over the Rangers system is being overblown.

For the past few years, everyone has bemoaned the terrible farm system of the Yankees. They were annually ranked in the bottom 5 by most publications. Writers claimed they didn't have enough depth or talent to trade for top players.

Meanwhile, they developed:

Wang - who, despite a low K rate, is a solid #2/3 starter.
Cano - who just hit .340
Cabrera - the best 4th OF in the league, and a guy who'd be starting & possibly starring everywhere else

And traded for:

Randy Johnson/Javier Vazquez
Alex Rodriguez
Bobby Abreu
Scott Proctor
among others (yes, I realize they were able to take on salaries other teams can't)

And within one season, they vaulted from bottom 5 to top 5/10 in most farm system rankings. Basically they developed Hughes & Tabata and traded for Sanchez and a few mid-tier prospects.

My point is these rankings swing wildly every year or two. A good draft this year, and a couple of existing players having healthy/productive seasons, and the Rangers will be out of the cellar. Not worth getting too down about.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think you're generally right

A couple of things I'd say though:

The Yankees are a bad counterexample, as they're the exception to most baseball rules.
They do swing wildly and that is a result of comings and goings of top players. But that doesn't mean that they're a useless measure. They're just very time specific.
There aren't many teams who stay in the 28th spot year after year and maintain a winner. And there aren't many teams who stay in the 2nd spot year after year and never win (although both have been done). As a general trend, if you look at most teams, it's a pretty good indication of stability.
They naturally tend to favor teams that pick HS players like the D-Rays and Braves, so you just have to take that into account.

But you're right, having one year or a couple of years where you're near the bottom doesn't doom a franchise, nor does shooting up to the top for a year or so. They're weighted very heavily to top end talent, as they should be, but as a snapshot that doesn't tell you everything you need to know.

I think that Kevin Goldstein's U-25 top tens are enlightening, and I might go one step further and say that maybe the most useful gauge for how much young talent an organization has is to consider all pre-arb players. Then you're taking into account all of the valuable, cheap players on the major league roster as well as the growing assets in the system.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 10:34 PM CST reply actions

Two examples

One is the Yankees, but you're right - they are the exception to most baseball "rules."

The other is St. Louis. They've had one of the "worst" systems for some time now, yet they win regularly. And despite having an awful system, Jocketty always has chips to make significant trades. Part of the reason for the current poorly-rated system is the Mulder dea. Regardless - they've had a system that "experts" have trashed for some time, yet they continue to do produce players.

Both for themselves:
Pujols
Reyes
Duncan
Kinney
Molina

And for trades:
Edmonds (Kennedy)
Rolen (Polanco, Smith)
Walker (Narveson and someone?)
Mulder (Haren, Barton, Calero)
Renteria (Looper)

Bottom line - a low org ranking doesn't mean a team can't continue to develop players for themselves and trade bait.

by AZranger on Feb 11, 2007 11:12 PM CST up reply actions

To me

the Cards are the best example of someone who prospect-mavens don't seem to like but who are productive. Haren was underrated for sure. However they're primarily living off of Pujols and great major league trades like the ones you mentioned, as well as the Carpenter move. But still, SL is a good example.

I agree with your central point that one low ranking doesn't really indicate that much. It is what it is, can change quickly, and is only a portion of the organizational picture.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 11:30 PM CST up reply actions

You forgot tomention

that the Yankees have also managed to develop baseball's #1 pitching prospect (phillip hughes)

by BudLight on Feb 11, 2007 10:54 PM CST reply actions

No, he mentioned him

But what he failed to mention was that while Hughes/Tabata got them into the top half of rankings, it was their 2006 draft in which they repeatedly spent over slot that got them securely into the top ten. Betances, Chamberlain, Kennedy, Melancon, etc., etc., they really added a lot from this draft, as did Boston with the same tactic.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 11:00 PM CST up reply actions

Fair point

And if the Rangers continue to be willing to spend over-slot (Whittleman, Teagarden, Brigham, Lemon) - they'll have the same opportunity this summer.

by AZranger on Feb 11, 2007 11:14 PM CST up reply actions

I agree

Even if they spend at-slot they could make a huge difference with the draft, combined with the Latin kids and guys who are in position to raise their profile significantly this year, as I mentioned in the thread about their low BA ranking.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 11:25 PM CST up reply actions

Zy, any word on the Pasiano(?) kid

from the McCarthy/Danks deal?

by tklawless on Feb 12, 2007 12:04 AM CST up reply actions

I haven't seen much

Daniels commented on him in reaction to the trade and claimed he was critical.

John Manuel said the following about him in his trade commentary for BA:

Paisano, 19, has yet to play in the U.S. A righthanded hitter, he's a Venezuelan who batted .338/.430/.477 with 20 extra-base hits (no home runs) in 195 at-bats in the Venezuelan Summer League in 2006. He ranked second in the league in batting and on-base percentage and led the league with seven triples.

So all he's really doing there is quoting stats. Phil Rogers, who did the White Sox entry for their Prospect Handbook, didn't even list him among the 74 prospects prominent enough to put on their depth chart, so either he didn't really know about him or people he talked to didn't think much of him.

Maybe our scouts did a really good job on him though.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 12:45 AM CST up reply actions

Zywica...

you and your Latin prospect fetish...

by benmor78 on Feb 12, 2007 6:14 AM CST up reply actions

This

is more of an obscure trade return fetish, and at least in this case I'm obviously not the only one. I'd never heard of Paisano before we traded for him.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

Paisano

A friend of mine in Chicago told me that Daniels was on sports radio there this weekend. Supposedly JD said the trade was basically McCarthy for Danks+Masset, and Paisano for Rasner. Made some mention that they really liked Paisano longterm.

by AZranger on Feb 12, 2007 9:23 AM CST up reply actions

Well

I guess our scouts did a good job with Rupe and Francisco (although Webster has been a bit of a disappoinment), hopefully they made a good evaluation. I like Rasner.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 1:47 PM CST up reply actions

Does he show up in the U.S. this year?

by tklawless on Feb 12, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions

I think he's got to

He's plenty old enough and he basically dominated the VSL. I've got to think he's on a short season squad, either in the NWL or AZL, and probably the AZL.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 1:43 PM CST up reply actions