Top 100 Prospect List

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 9, 2007 11:03 AM CDT in News

Top Prospect Alert has a new top 100 prospect list up...

I've always found their list to be a bit quirky, but for what it is worth, they have four Rangers in the top 100 -- Eric Hurley (#32), Taylor Teagarden (#68), John Mayberry, Jr. (#89), and Kasey Kiker (#95).

Geez...what are those guys thinking? Four guys in the top 100?

Don't they know that the Rangers have one of the worst farm systems in baseball? I mean, that's all I've been hearing since last summer...

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hmm

Those were my four votes for best prospects in the system, although with Kiker before JMJ.

by Brett Perryman on Jul 9, 2007 12:05 PM CDT reply actions

what about whittleman

he has to be looking like a better chance to have a solid career than mayberry at this point atleast

by weslyenkid01 on Jul 9, 2007 1:28 PM CDT reply actions

Haven't we discussed

the thinking here at length?

The marks against Whittleman are that he's repeating low a, that his defense has not been good, and that he has now faded badly of late.

In Mayberry's favor is that he has exhibited the power that was anticipated but largely unseen from him and how he has started well in AA.

A month from now there might be more evidence that Whittleman is the better prospect, but Mayberry's power upside has to weigh pretty heavily when neither player figures to wind up at a defensive skill position and neither has just consistently dominated offensively in their pro careers. And frankly, I tend to like the Whittleman kind of hitter better than the Mayberry one. I just think that you have to take what Mayberry is doing in AA a little more seriously than some others, at least for now.

by Brett Perryman on Jul 9, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions

yes ur right

mayberry is always gonna get looked at of being something pretty important bc of what he could do someday

by weslyenkid01 on Jul 9, 2007 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Is Mayberry...

changing minds with his good play in Frisco? I heard he was suppose to suck pretty bad. I'm with you about Whittleman.

by Parman @ Lone Star Ball on Jul 9, 2007 2:00 PM CDT reply actions

how do you

have jmj over kiker

FWIW, TPA used to have one of the best prospect lists on the 'net -- had a top 300 and measured eye, isolated power, etc with comments on every player in the top 250 i think-- it was amazing

by knockoutking24 on Jul 9, 2007 4:52 PM CDT reply actions

4 guys in the top 100

is not that good... it is really just average. And if you consider where they are ranked, then it is probably pretty bad.

30 teams in MLB, our best is at #32. Then we have #68, #89, #95.

The "average" team would have players at #15, #45, #75 and #105.

In other words, if you had dumped all minor league guys into a draft, it would look like the Rangers didn't have a first round pick.

Anyway, I am happy with those guys being up there (a lot better than only 1), and I think that in a year we'll doing better: Hurley will be in the top 15, Teagarden in top 50, Kiker, JMJ and Wittleman (and maybe Beavan and Main) all possibly in there too.

by JBImaknee on Jul 9, 2007 5:23 PM CDT reply actions

Analysis

That is a killer way to explain it. Well done.

by 3Bagger on Jul 9, 2007 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Agree with all that.....

excellent analysis, btw......the outlook on the farm has definitely improved, tho'....

by tklawless on Jul 9, 2007 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Four is good

I know that it's right around the margins, but we are talking about pretty thin margins. If the Rangers got four on, say, BA's list next spring I'd be pretty impressed, especially given how many people expected one for us early this season.

Four top 100's is a nice sign that your system is getting to where it needs to be.

You kind of alluded to this, but I would say that the most troublesome thing about where we are right now is that I'm not sure where our next really good prospect (say top 30) is going to come from, once Hurley promotes. The best candidates are probably Castillo followed by Main and Beavan and it's just hard to have any idea there when neither of the latter two has thrown a pro pitch and Castillo hasn't even started to dominate short season ball.

Kiker will probably follow a path pretty similar to Danks, being in there consistently but never getting real high because he doesn't offer projection. And I don't see any position players who have much of a chance of reaching that status, unfortunately. Again, the one guy with the tools to do it down the road might be Santana, and from the outside you just can't tell at this point whether he's a star prospect or a raw project with limited offensive ability. Teagarden will never reach that status with BA.

by Brett Perryman on Jul 9, 2007 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions

And since I'm reaching way down

Font and Grullon are guys who I think need to be mentioned any time we talk about our draft picks. They have similar promise and experience. If they can get Beavan and Ramirez signed, the AZL-LA range has a really nice group of pitchers:

Kiker
Poveda
Phillips
Castillo
Brigham
Main
Beavan
Ramirez
Font
Grullon
Carlos Pimentel
Evan Reed
Tommy Hunter

That really is a ton of good arms in those levels with lots of high upside (and downside obviously).

by Brett Perryman on Jul 9, 2007 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions

OK, please explain

One month ago, nearly everyone (and I include LSB commenters...and I assume I'll be questioned by those who didn't) said that the Ranger Farm system was a disaster.
What happened in the last month?
I'm not attacking, but it seems to me that emotions seem to overrule stats, even though the overtone is the opposite.
I'm an idiot! There...we've taken care of those comments. Now help me understand.

Hit me in the eye...maybe I can see better.

by Clueless on Jul 9, 2007 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions

farm system

i don't really recall anyone saying the system was horrible, it's just lacked position prospects for a while and it's really lacking in outfield prospects.

The rangers system isn't the worst in baseball, but it certainly is nowhere near the top.

"Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!" "If you don't throw strikes first, you're last."

by rentz on Jul 9, 2007 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions

With all due respect

even Adam mentions above that he's been hearing that since last summer. In the same vein, I'm hearing some wavering on whether it's really time for rebuilding because of the recent success. No wonder the Rangers are wishy-washy...they must take surveys!

Hit me in the eye...maybe I can see better.

by Clueless on Jul 9, 2007 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions

well

i think the bit about the worst system was sarcasm, though i could be wrong.
Because i remember something a while back about a writer commenting about how awful the rangers system was, but someone said that someone close to the cardinals said they'd take the rangers system over several teams.

"Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!" "If you don't throw strikes first, you're last."

by rentz on Jul 9, 2007 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions

we all thought

the system was in below average state, but most of us also think that it will move up to about the middle third thanks to development and the just-passed draft.

by t ball on Jul 9, 2007 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Please read this

http://www.lonestarball.com/comments/2007/3/30/204210/793/3#3

by Brett Perryman on Jul 9, 2007 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions

What am I missing?

What's your point?

Hit me in the eye...maybe I can see better.

by Clueless on Jul 9, 2007 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Well that doesn't give the whole picture

but my point is that since around March, like t ball said, some of us have been saying that while the system ranked low over the winter and probably deserved to, it would probably look quite a bit better later this summer. What I linked were the expected improvements to the system, but we've also seen a lot better seasons from the better prospects in the system than we had for the last few years, so guys like Duran, Whittleman, etc. stepped up significantly.

And all of that is an explanation for your misperception that "One month ago, nearly everyone (and I include LSB commenters...and I assume I'll be questioned by those who didn't) said that the Ranger Farm system was a disaster."

I don't know what your sources were a month ago, but they probably weren't those of us on here who talk about the system. They probably were more commercial sources (national publications, our local papers and radio stations), since they're behind and operating under knowledge that was current this winter.

by Brett Perryman on Jul 9, 2007 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Thanks, zywica

Appreciate your patience.

Hit me in the eye...maybe I can see better.

by Clueless on Jul 10, 2007 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions

your a idiot

tons of these guys are overanked...especially the yankees guys abd plus who cares if a guy is ranked 30# or 80#, if you can play ball you can play ball it doesnt matter where you rank

by weslyenkid01 on Jul 10, 2007 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions

an idiot

by Randy Richardson on Jul 10, 2007 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions

you're

I like hamburgers.

by Bob Loblaw on Jul 10, 2007 1:22 AM CDT up reply actions

is my comment

i dont think so i think i hit the nail on the head with who can or cant play and with the yankees

by weslyenkid01 on Jul 10, 2007 1:25 AM CDT up reply actions

I like...

...hamburgers too.

by tricer on Jul 10, 2007 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions

What's the thought

process on Marcus Lemon? He seems to do really well as the lead off man. A guy who plays good defense, walks, and has a good amount of speed. It makes me wonder why we drafted Julio Borbon when we did.

by FirebatM3 on Jul 10, 2007 12:15 AM CDT reply actions

Late read

Just got back. What no Duran?

To have any four of a hundred is more representative of having 1/25 of the better regarded guys. Strict sequential ranking at the level most of these guys are is ... well, no guesswork is good until and unless they stick in MLB. There are 30 teams/systems. We have 1/25 of the list. That's at least 16% better than 'worst'. :)

Time does funny things. The worst of which is, it keeps moving when you don't.

by Ed Coffin on Jul 10, 2007 1:39 AM CDT reply actions