Top Prospect Fan Poll -- Results on homepage

[TheCrew07]

I started out where RobertR is, but I've moved over to where And That and Colbyjack are, my transition had everything to do my trying assign value to players, and where I'd like the Brewers to spend their money. Since the bullpen came out on the bottom, I have hard time justifying spending money there, especially on a closer. I can live with a 1 year deal for Hoffman, but it's such an overrated position that I just don't see value in the salary vs innings pitched.

 

I had Aguilar in my top 10 because his stuff is wicked and he can provide salary relief in the bullpen. Just because the team has $85 million or whatever to spend, it doesn't mean they should spend it on marginal value just because they have the money. If Yo and Parra make it through the season healthy and effective I'd rather see them get extended and buy out a year of FA than spend money on the bullpen.

 

edit. And thanks Colby!

[RobertR]

I'm missing something in the above. I get the "his stuff is wicked" idea, but the "he can provide salary relief" part flies over my head. Every prospect can provide salary relief. We were paying Craig Counsell $3 million last year, so a utility infielder can supply salary relief. Heck, the Brewers would be better off if they had another top pitching prospect instead of paying $10 million for Suppan. Or if they had a young prospect at catcher instead of Kendall. Or a cheap, young prospect in CF instead of Cameron.

 

I'll put forth the argument that relief pitchers are among the most fungible players in all of baseball. Plenty of them are waived every year and find success elsewhere. And, I think it's partly because they pitch so few innings that very few get the playing time to find their legs at the major league level, at least with their first organization, because people get so sick of them costing the team games in the meantime.

 

Robert

[jjfanec]

I agree with the sentiments of andthat and colby. How much better is for the stability of a bullpen if you can have a couple in house young guys who will be there for 4 years instead of trusting in waiver wire pickups each year? No one is saying you should not try a guy at starter if he has a shot to be one, but the thought is that a guy who can be solid out of the bullpen saves a team from having to pay a reliever a lot of money, especially when relievers are so hard to project year to year. If we could have developed guys in our bullpen we would not have had to pay a bunch for Riske, Gagne, Mota (I know it was a trade but it was salary related b/c of Estrada) and even Hoffman. That's why I am high on a guy like Robert Wooten as well. Sure he was a college guy but 44 K's to 6 BB's is terrific.

RobertR you are right that a young utility infielder provides salary relief just the same as a reliever, so I would argue both are important to have. Teams draft infielders and outfielders to provide future depth. It is nice to a cheap, young option as a 4th OF and as a utility IF just like it is cheap young option in the pen. The last two years we saw how much a bad bullpen can hurt and how expensive and risky it is try to build one through free agency. That is why to me guys like Aguilar, Dillard, Wooten and Pena are exciting prospects.

[logan82]

Is it a failure to develop relievers or just a general failure to develop pitchers within the system? Seems to me that the Brewers are just bad with pitchers in general. Instead of failed starters becoming relievers for us, they become nothing with few exceptions.

[RobertR]

I get what people are saying. Prospects are good.

That's not really my point. I'm kind of in the "There's No Such Thing as a Relief Pitching Prospect" camp. Or, more precisely, the percentage of touted relief prospects that develop as intended and contribute right away probably is less than you'd think.

They're not as valuable as starting pitching prospects and they have a tougher path of development since they don't pitch as much. And an injury is probably more devastating than it is to a starting pitcher. Having a group of relief pitching prospects is a very good thing, but picking any one out of that group is probably as much an exercise in luck as anything else. It's very possible that the guy that will be the most effective relief pitcher at the MLB level simply isn't on anyone's radar for various reasons. To me, developing relief pitching is more a function of depth, with only a few exceptions, and any one relief pitcher carries a very high degree of risk, at least until he's logged time at AAA.

Which isn't to say that if they make it through the fires of the minors and the growing pains of the majors they won't be valuable. Only that they carry more risk of flaming out than other prospects. And, with few exceptions, they don't have the reward of other everyday position player or starting pitching prospects. They do have a significant reward, obviously, but every good prospect has a significant reward.

Or, basically, if you're a relief prospect below AAA, I'm going to be wary. Which is not to say that the Brewers shouldn't draft guys they project to be relievers, but that I think it's easy to overrate those guys if they have a good year, or underrate them if they struggle one year.

Robert

[madbad2000]

Great debate so far. I'm in the camp that having relief prospects is a good idea, but I'm with Robert and that I'd try to develop as many starters as possible. Starting pitching is so much more valuable then relievers, that has to be factored into a top prospect list. Teams like the Brewers need to develop cheap talent at every position on the field. So if I rank a reliever, he better be exceptional at his job and higher up the chain. I usually take the higher ceiling, lower level starter over a solid, upper level reliever.

 

This is probably one reason I like piggybacking starters at lower level. You get to use more "starters" and see how they throw in longer spurts. Once you get to High-A start stretching out those whom you think will be the better option to start and develop your relievers from there on up.

[RobertR]

I should add that I'm no fan of training a pitcher in the minors to only go one inning. I'm not fond of it in closers and setup men, but I'm especially not fond of that in guys that will likely be cutting their teeth in MLB in the 5th, 6th, or 7th. The ability to sop up multiple innings and keep other guys fresh is often taken for granted in the bullpen and is one of the reasons that bullpens can struggle down the stretch.

 

Robert

[jjfanec]

I should add that I'm no fan of training a pitcher in the minors to only go one inning. I'm not fond of it in closers and setup men, but I'm especially not fond of that in guys that will likely be cutting their teeth in MLB in the 5th, 6th, or 7th. The ability to sop up multiple innings and keep other guys fresh is often taken for granted in the bullpen and is one of the reasons that bullpens can struggle down the stretch.

 

Robert

I agree with a lot of what you said. I think developing starters is a priority and if a guy has a chance to be a starter take. As well if in the draft you have two equal pitchers and one looks to be a starter and the other is a reliever the starter is more valuable. However, I think a guy like Aguilar who pitched well in the AFL (yes he has flaws but he has nasty stuff) is a better prospect than a starter like Seidel (who struggled last year) or Anundsen (who seems to have limited upside).

I agree completely with trying to have relievers trying to be multiple inning guys if possible. I think it is a mistake to pigeon-hole guys as one-inning guys early on. That is what I like about how the Brewers are handling a guy who is obviously a reliever like Wooten. He is averaging over two innings per appearance.

[colbyjack]

Robert, I agree with everything you're saying, and typically agree that closers are made, not born. I guess if you're not a fan of teams developing short relievers you can take some comfort in the fact that the Brewers are really only doing so with a few prospects, and those prospects have been enjoying success in the roles that they're being developed.

 

In addition, Dillard was developed as a starter up until two seasons ago, and so was Pena. It has been rumored that the Brewers have considered developing Aguilar more as a starter because he does have a pretty good changeup, but I also know he has a history of arm troubles dating back to college. For him it may be that he can't go more than a few innings.

 

Wooten is somewhat of a different prospect, one that was used as a set-up man and closer throughout college and will continue to be developed in that same role. His stuff however is fringy, but not well rounded enough to start. I like Wooten, but it will be interesting to see how he fares against higher level hitters.

 

And they haven't used a high pick on any of these players. Pena was an international signee, Dillard signed via the DFE process, while Wooten and Aguilar were taken after the 10th round.

 

And since other teams have had proven success developing players exclusively as short relievers, I'm glad the Brewers are doing so as well.

[RobertR]

While I may not be exactly a fan of teams grooming guys to be short relievers, I'm also aware that you have to tailor things for particular circumstances. Eckersley got his role because of his age and injury history. If there's a good reason to limit a guy, there's a good reason. It's when you do so without a good reason, that I think you kind of defeat yourself in the process.

But, I don't want to appear overly dogmatic about the whole developing relievers thing. There's no single right way to develop pitchers, relief or starters. If it had been a top 25 list, I'm sure Aguilar would have made my list. Good chance if it was a Top 21 list for that matter. I've got him ranked a little over a half dozen slots below the concensus, which in the grand scheme of things isn't much. A guy that could contribute to the MLB team, but there are some caveats and risks involved. I just happen to think that some of the starting prospects will be able to convert to reliever as a fallback and have more upside.

Robert

[LouisEly]

The omission of Cain, Lawrie, and Lucroy on someone's ballot have to be accidental, right?

 

I can understand Lawrie, and Cain to a certain extent, but Lucroy floors me. He is a better defensive catcher than Salome, and for those concerned about his hitting his combined 20 home runs (10 each in Brevard and WV) was tied with Gamel and LaPorta (yes, fewer ABs) for second in all of their minor leagues behind Laynce Nix. That's more HRs than Gindl, Green, Salome, Gillespie, Katin, or Brad Nelson. Combined .301 BA, .377 OBP, and .872 OPS for Lucroy this year, and had a higher SLG and OPS at Brevard, notoriously not a hitters paradise, than Taylor Green.

 

My only thoughts are that a lot of you guys really missed a couple strong pitchers in Bramhall and Brae Wright.

 

I didn't miss Wright. If the list had gone to 25 I would have included Bramhall.

 

Developing effective (and hopefully exceptional) young, cheap relievers should be (and I think, is becoming) a priority for the Brewers as they have to realign more of their payroll costs out of the bullpen and in to rotation and everyday lineup.

Well said. While there may be reasons for developing a reliever (arm history), and while I agree that the top prospects should "start" or piggy-back until AA, if a guy has flamed out as a starter after a couple years at AA/AAA or a later-round pick that can be fast-tracked like Wooten then he should be developed as such. Experience counts in the bullpen, and I'd prefer that if their career path is in the pen that they have some experience before getting there. I look at a guy like Jose Capellan and wonder if they tried developing him as a starter too long and subsequently burned out his arm. Conditioning probably played the biggest role, but had he been converted to a reliever sooner perhaps he would have held onto his upper 90's fastball longer.

[TooLiveBrew]

Just want to say thanks to Patrick for taking the time to compile the rankings & sort out that list. A great read as always -- I've never not learned more about our top prospects from your articles.

[TheCrew07]

Robert,

 

I agree that all prospects provide salary relief, I guess I didn't explain myself. Say Jeffress fails as a starter for example ala Gagne, but turns into an excellent bullpen arm. That transition is something that takes years as I think we'd all agree that our starting pitchers should be given every opportunity to succeed in that role. Jeffress is maybe 3 years from a conversion to a reliever where as Aguilar is at AA and could be pitching in AAA by the break, and possibly help the big club this year. Most of our bullpen guys were not drafted as such, and those that were drafted for that role were taken late in the draft, getting value out of any draft picks past the 10th round excites me. It wouldn't bother me to have 1 good solid relief specialist per level because we're grooming pitchers specifically for the late innings and if even 1 of those kids were to pan out it would provide significant salary relief at positions where I think DM has overspent in the past.

 

I think you're point about a lack development was very interesting and something I hadn't considered, but not every failed starter is going to make a good bullpen arm. The Brewers haven't abandoned the traditional way of letting players fail as starters first, it's just they've added a new wrinkle with very low risk associated with it. I agree with you though in that I like relievers that pitch multiple innings so I would like to see the relievers at AA and below pitch multiple innings per outing. I really liked that piggy backing concept they were running at both levels of A ball, unfortunately they ditched it, though maybe with all the pitchers taken last year they'll have to start doing that again to get al those young arms enough innings.

 

I see where you are coming from, but I think there's also value in trying to groom a kid like Aguilar as a closer.

[logan82]

They were using the piggybacking of relievers at AAA for at least a little while with Turnbow as well.

 

I guess developing relievers would create a need to identify if a player can start at an earlier stage than they are currently making that decision if it is going to take 3 years to develop a reliever. Otherwise you are going to have to try to pass them through waivers or put them on then= MLB team to finish their development.

[madbad2000]

I don't agree that it takes 3 years to develop a reliever. Maybe three to develop a pitcher. I agree it's different approach to pitching, but not so significant that it requires three years to make the change. Going the other way from a reliever to starter would take longer in that you have to stretch out your workload to go more innings and still be effective. The nice thing about going from a starter to reliever is that you can let it all go as a reliever. Much the same way that you move down the chain defensively from shortstop, to third to first due to the difficulty level of the positions...it's easier to move from a starter to reliever.

 

The more I think about it the more piggybacking makes sense. Limits innings at the lower level while still getting a good amount of work in to learn.

[TheCrew07]

my 3rd try at this as Yuku is testing my patience today...

 

I didn't mean to suggest that it takes 3 years to covert a SP to a RP, I was using a young man like Jeffress as an example. I think if he's going to be converted that it's 3 years away, that he'll be given every opportunity to make it as a starter. This year in AA, next year in AAA, the following year in MLB... unless he absolutely tanks it and they decide to move him earlier, but that's a worse case scenario in my opinion. With the lack of top of rotation talent in the upper minors, the Brewers need Jeffress and Braddock to make as SP and be healthy. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that it's always slow conversion from SP to RP. My point was supposed to be that drafting relievers very low in the draft is a classic low risk/high reward type of move and is a new wrinkle in addition to the tried and true practice of converting SP to RP, which the Brewers are still utilizing. I didn't make my entire post clear enough.

[logan82]

Oh, ok. I got the impression that you thought the Brewers were slow to pick up on who is going to be a reliever and who is going to be a starter.

[RobertR]

I get the feeling that we're conflating prospect ranking with drafting strategy and player development a bit. I'm certain that it does make sense to go after relief pitchers, especially lefties, later in the draft than, say, drafting a good field, no hit catcher or shortstop. Or drafting a starting pitcher that gets by mostly on guile.

 

There's certainly a place for developing relievers. But, ranking them, because of their limited innings and development hurdles, is hardly an exact science. Which is why I'm cautious about singling out any reliever.

 

Robert

[DHonks]

Robert, part of me values drafting relievers, and part of me says that two of the more successful relievers the Crew has developed are Mike Adams and Joe Thatcher, both undrafted.