Prospect Depth

[mkm13]

I have seen a number of people this year state how deep the organization is in quality prospects compared to what it used to have. For those that have been heavily following the minors for awhile, is this actually true or are some people overvaluing some of the current younger guys?

[biedergb]

I'm not one of those who 'have been heavily following the minors for awhile' like a lot of contributors here, but I do think there is a little of both. Our depth is improved, but yes, a lot of this is due to perceived depth in the lower minors (A-league, rookie league and recent draft). But take any position and there are at least 2 quality prospects at that position. Former weakness areas like 3B (Gamel, T. Green, Trejo) is an example -- 2 legit prospects who may not stay at that position and another younger player with a lot of upside. Another position like C which has Salome, Lucroy and we can add Zarraga, Garfield.

 

While none of this means that we will have another crop of stars like Fielder/Weeks/Hardy/Hart come through, this depth is good as when a prospect either is hurt or doesn't fulfill promise there are others waiting in the wings to take over. Look at this year -- we've had injuries to Seidel, Periard, Cain among others and now a suspension to Jeffress, yet there is no sense of 'doom' in the minors, because there are new guys and others that are taking advantage of the situation.

 

I'm sure there is more analysis from others, but my quick answer.

[uwisfan]

agree; there are many guys to follow in each of the clubs this year and the initial look at this year's draft is pretty exciting. The top-shelf talent still has questions, as mentioned, because we dont have a clear Ryan Braun or Prince Fielder yet. The pitching in the lower minors is also much more exciting, because we've drafted a lot of pitchers the past 2 years.

 

Also, we have several talented pitchers recovering from serious injury and starting to pitch well.

[mkm13]

Right, but I just think a lot of people don't remember a lot of the talented prospects from years past that didn't turn out. I certainly do hope what people say is true because we definitly need a wave of good pitching prospects to come through soon...it is tough to be successful for an organization with our payroll to consistently be competitive when we have to pay a quite a bit for 4/5 pitchers like Suppan and Looper. I would rather have the 4/5 pitchers be young players who don't get paid much so we can spend money elsewhere. Thanks for the information.

[BrewPackBuck]

Right, but I just think a lot of people don't remember a lot of the talented prospects from years past that didn't turn out. I certainly do hope what people say is true because we definitly need a wave of good pitching prospects to come through soon...it is tough to be successful for an organization with our payroll to consistently be competitive when we have to pay a quite a bit for 4/5 pitchers like Suppan and Looper. I would rather have the 4/5 pitchers be young players who don't get paid much so we can spend money elsewhere. Thanks for the information.

 

Most of our top of the rotation guys are a few years away but if you are looking for 4/5 type pitchers in the Minors look no further than Dillard, Butler (who could be a 3 imo), Cody (the AAA one), Green, and even Burns who is up in the Majors. Those guys dont project more than a 3-5 spot in the rotation and can be cheap options for us. Also these guys are all in AAA besides Butler. Hope that gives you the information you want.

[BrewPackBuck]

I do think we have a very talented system and may or may not be overvalued depending on someones opinion.

 

AAA - Salome, Escobar are the two people focus on the most as top tier talent but dig deeper and you see some nice role players like Katin, Gillespie, Heether, Irribarren. Cody and Dillard are nice cheap options the Brewers have for the starting rotation along with Swindle and Axford for the pen.

 

AA - Lucroy, Cain and Green highlight this team with the bats, no real role players I see out of these guys. Braddock, Butler, Baron, Hand, Jones and Wooten are a mix of nice starters and bullpen arms. I would love to see Braddock start again but we will see.

 

A+ - Gindl, Schafer, Haydel, Brewers are some of the more notable bats, Coporan and Wilson could become role players for the Brewers. Anundsen, Periard, Rogers, Rivas, Mercedes, Jeffress, Bowman and Aguilar are the pitchers that are interesting on this team. Im still holding out hope we see Peralta in this group and not see Anundsen.

 

A - Lawrie, Dennis, Komatsu, Delaney are the more notable bats in this group with some role players of Kemp, Duran and Fatse. Strong group of pitchers. Peralta, Siedel, Scarpetta, Nieves, Frederickson, Adams, Richie, Tyson, Ohlmann and Watten. I might be view some of these guys higher than others but that is a solid group of starters and bullpen arms.

 

R+ - Garfield, Dykstra, Arias, Zarraga, Prince, Trejo, Davis and Stang are the ones I usually follow out of this team. Arnett, Bucci, Odorizzi, Salmon, Rosario, Morales, Bueno, Krestalude and Currie top the pitching in Helena.

 

R - Walla, George, Roberts, Sizemore, Lind and Halton are the bats out of this group. Pitching we have Billings, Lintz, Wawrzasek, Lasker, Lambertus, Guerrero and Dabrowiecki.

 

Im not going to do the DSL league. This is just my opinion of guys that have some kind of chance to make the Big Leagues either starting or playing a role (or bench) and you will see other peoples opinions differ from mine. Im just REALLY REALLY excited about seeing all these pitchers graduate.

[mkm13]

Right, but a lot of the guys you have listed you are following simply because of where they were drafted and not because of what they have shown. For example, Dystrka hasn't shown much of anything yet. For the most part, each year we have a draft pick per round. So if you made a same list 10 years ago you would still have a lot of guys listed in the lower levels similar to what you have now. Are our prospects at the lower levels truely performing at a higher level and showing more than in years past or are you following them because of hype around them/where they were drafted?

[TheCrew07]

Gamel should be included in that list someplace...

 

We have a huge internal upgrade at C, an impact bat in Gamel, and exciting toolsy players in Escobar and Cain. I personally like Green's bat very much, he's a patient/productive hitter. He may have limited upside, but he'll be a solid player if he can stay healthy. Beyond the guys that will likely start we have solid depth at AAA in Heether, Gillespie, and Katin. I don't see Katin being a bench player with his high K totals, but if someone got hurt he could be an above replacement level every day type guy for someone.

 

I've beat the pitching to death all the way down the system.

 

Schafer and Gindl in A+ could be good enough to start, Wilson as previously mentioned is intriguing.

 

In A ball we have 2 more potential impact bats in Dennis and Lawrie, I like Sanchez as depth on that team and Kemp has a nice bat, but I'm not sure where he fits.

 

R and R+ are loaded with intriguing athletes and arms, as well as players with Power potential.

 

I've said it many times before but I like the system better now than when it was the #1 system being headlined by Weeks and Fielder. We have more than enough position players to fill all of our holes and the pitching is as exciting as it's been since I've been following the minors.

 

For the record, the only 2 position players that didn't do what I thought they would were Nelson and Krenzyl, which isn't bad. On the pitching side I learned a valuable lesson rooting for Little Ben on stuff and peripherals... I was never that high on Sarfate, and Eveland disappointed me a bit but he's now on his 3rd organization. JDLR was an enigma and was disappointing as well.

 

Some of the kids will certainly disappoint but we have enough high ceiling depth with nice role payer talent sprinkled in that I'm very pleased with where the system is at. It's only major flaw is the lack of top of the rotation talent at AA or AAA, but that will not be an issue next season or going forward for the next couple of years.

[BrewPackBuck]

Right, but a lot of the guys you have listed you are following simply because of where they were drafted and not because of what they have shown. For example, Dystrka hasn't shown much of anything yet. For the most part, each year we have a draft pick per round. So if you made a same list 10 years ago you would still have a lot of guys listed in the lower levels similar to what you have now. Are our prospects at the lower levels truely performing at a higher level and showing more than in years past or are you following them because of hype around them/where they were drafted?

Yeah and? Being drafted early means you have alot of talent and usually has a higher ceiling than players drafted later so yeah Im going to follow those guys more closely even if they dont do well right off the bat. Gamel was a 5th round pick and I started following him more closely when he was in A+. I just dont see what the deal is? 10 years ago I wouldnt know what the minor leagues was so I cant answer that question. I also listed guys that where drafted past the first couple rounds too. Also not every kid coming in is going to light the world on fire some take time to get accustomed to the pros so some players I follow is because of the hype and the ceiling they have.

[mkm13]

I asked because I am trying to compare the minors now to years past. Listing guys that were high draft picks does not tell me much when I am trying to compare now to 10 years ago because outside of compensation picks, we have 1 pick each round every year. So roughly speaking, there will always be an equal amount of 1st, 2nd, etc round picks in the system. I know in general when it comes to recruiting in college, or valuing any players a lot of people like to overvalue youth or the unknown, which is basically why I was asking this question. It would be great if our prospects are truely more talented and performing at a higher level than before. I haven't been around long enough to know. Thanks for the information.

[Godspeed]

Good God, 10 years ago we were just done hyping our #1 prospect of the mid-90s, Valerio De Los Santos (ugh). That's how bad it was pre-Jack Z. 10 years ago, there was Sheets, Nuegebauer, JM Gold (*sigh*), and a bunch of nobodies. Kyle Peterson and Chad Green had already flamed-out. Bill Hall eventually came out of nowhere to make something of himself at High Desert, but that wasn't until later. 10 years ago, a guy like Dykstra would be automatically heralded as system saviors (not that he doesn't have plenty of time to turn it around). The fact that he's just regarded as quality depth at this point and we're completely okay with that speaks volumes of how far this organization has come.

[uwisfan]

yeah, the difference now is that brewer scouting is amongst the best in baseball for the past 7 or so years... and they actually sign their picks and even look internationally now. This is what has led to their revival, not just some flukey season like they hoped for in the past.

[mkm13]

Well I understand they have had good luck bringing up quality position players the last 5 years. But again, when people say this is the best depth they have ever seen in the system, how are they determining that? Are the prospects now truely higher prospects and performing better? For all I know, most of these guys could turn out to be Brad Nelson/JM Gold types. I am not an expert at all when talking about prospects that is why I am asking. For all I know, our pitching prospects could all be throwing 95+ and are striking out more than a batter an inning and in past years that was never the case.

[uwisfan]

Hardy is ranked as one of the best SSs in the NL, and Escobar could be even better. Gamel looks like he'll stick at third, and though he hasn't performed at the plate yet, he has a very high ceiling as shown by his minor league stats (was named first half player of the year in all the minors IIRC, though he tanked after playing injured).

 

The early returns on the other youngsters in terms of stats and ages look very encouraging. While we don't have a guaranteed Braun or Fielder, there are a ton of guys that legitimately project reaching the majors.

 

They have had more than their share of minor leaguers on the allstar teams and I think AAA, AA, and A+ all finished in first place this first-half season. There has to be some talent there.

[JJHardy7]

Well I understand they have had good luck bringing up quality position players the last 5 years. But again, when people say this is the best depth they have ever seen in the system, how are they determining that? Are the prospects now truely higher prospects and performing better? For all I know, most of these guys could turn out to be Brad Nelson/JM Gold types. I am not an expert at all when talking about prospects that is why I am asking. For all I know, our pitching prospects could all be throwing 95+ and are striking out more than a batter an inning and in past years that was never the case.

If you knew exactly what every prospect could do in the minors long-term, they wouldn't be called prospects. I think you want some 'evidence' when there really isn't any. It's just a collection of thoughts and ideas. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but it's also not a reason to just think it's a bunch of junk. In the minors, it's about ability/potential and not 100% stats. I don't know how you want anyone to prove that. You've asked if it's true and that's just an opinion. I don't know of anyone here who can predict the future 100%, but X might be your best bet if that's what you're looking for.

 

[mkm13]

I know you can't "prove" what you are talking about. I was mainly trying to direct this post to those who have followed closely for awhile. I have been following pretty close the last 2 years and that is not enough time to be able to compare to the minors 5+ years ago. A high amount of prospects flame out the higher you go in the minors so I would assume the Dystrka type players are more easily not remembered as being good prospects if they flame out early (not saying he will just that there is a good chance).

 

Again, I certainly hope we are as loaded as some suggest, I was just wondering from those that have followed it for awhile if we are truely that loaded or of some over value the unknown and someone forget about the prospects from past years who never worked out.

[Postseason2006]

I agree with the original post. Brad Nelson is a clear example of this. He was named Minor League player of the year at A ball. So?

 

And I also agree with just being drafted high should not automatically mean "high prospect". This is a clear example with Brent Brewer. The Brewers drafted him because he was an athlete in which we passed on guys who were better baseball players.

 

I can remember all the busts for years from Kenny Felder to Antoine Williamson to Chad Green to Gabby Martinez(I think) to Kyle Peterson who everyone knew his throwing motion would end his career.

 

It's pretty obvious Lawrie was a great choice at this point. Reading everything about the guy hitting Hovechar. You can't help to see this kid is a keeper. This Brewer organization has come a long ways since the days of Wendy and Sal.

[JJHardy7]

I know you can't "prove" what you are talking about.

 

Well then what are you looking for? I think it's pretty clear this team is in a much better position in the minors than it's been in years...it would've had winning seasons 10 years ago if it was where it is today. I think if you want to compare the 'best ever' or something like that you'll have to wait until the current wave gets to the bigs and compare it to the group guys in Milwaukee. And usually you're high round picks get on the radar sooner than late round picks...it's just how it works. Guys that were drafted later have to 'prove' they belong, but guys like Mitch Stetter will eventually get the props they deserve. I personally think it's too early to compare this crop to the guys in Milwaukee, but that's part of scouting and such. I do think the one thing this wave will bring that should beat the current Milwaukee crew pretty easily is pitching. The one flaw with the last wave was pitching. I also don't think it's fair to compare any prospects to Braun or Fielder...those guys are very, very special. I think if you want to compare the current prospect you just have to start with the amazing pitching depth we have at the lower levels. In a few years, you could have cheap, young guys in the rotation and that should save the team a lot of money to spend elsewhere.

[Godspeed]

Drafted high means "high potential". No one here is saying otherwise.

[SoCalBrewfan]

Really, there are two different ways of looking at the system...one is top tier talent, guys likely to be above average major league players...the other is depth, guys likely to fill holes and be useful. Really, the first is more important, as there are lots of ways to fill holes, but very few places a team like the Brewers can land an all-star caliber player without growing their own. Starting in 1990 or so, you could look at the baseball america top 100 as a external measure of the top-tier talent. It's obviously not a perfect list, (Jeff Cirillo never cracked the list) but it tells you how guys were viewed at the time by presumably non-biased observers. Most of the top 50 guys in any one year will play in the bigs, though some will blow out early and others will be bench players or relievers.

 

In 1990, the Brewers had a top ten guy, Greg Vaughn...the next couple of years they placed Tyrone Hill and Dave Nilsson fairly highly (Hill made the top ten once, Nilsson the top 30). In the mid 90s, Geoff Jenkins and Antone Williamson made the list more than once...as did Valerio delos Santos...but the highest any of those guys got was 49 for Jenkins.

 

Then a long gap, with Sheets and Neugie the most prominent exceptions. See, it's been pretty rare for the Brewers to have top 50 guys...that's basically it for the first fifteen years of the list.

 

In 2004 the Brewers had four guys in the top half of the list...Weeks, Fielder, Hardy, and Jose Capellan (remember him?)...I think that's more on that one list than in the previous decade combined. Since then they've been very well represented, with Braun, Gallardo, Escobar, Gamel for example. This past offseason they had four on the top 100 (Escobar and Gamel top 50, Lawrie and Jeffress as well). Guys at that level are very hard to come by. While we're off the 2004 peak a bit IMO, BA and others put the Brewers in the top third of systems now, and they have a pretty steady pipeline of talent going. This is really the golden age of Brewers prospects...and the team has had enough depth that behind those top guys we've had a healthy number of Corey Hart or Manny Parra types, even a Mitch Stetter or two...major league contributors to support the core guys, and who might well be considered core guys if things break right.

 

There is one other candidate for the golden era of Brewers farm clubs IMO...in the 1980s, the Brewers drafted and developed the likes of Sheffield, Vaughn, Bill Wegman, Darryl Hamilton, John Jaha, BJ Surhoff, Dan Plesac, Glenn Braggs, Dale Sveum, Bill Spiers, Jamie Navarro, Troy O'Leary.

 

By the end of the 80s that trailed off, though there was a flurry of success in the mid 90s with Loretta, Cirillo, Matheny, Jeff D'Amico and Ron Belliard. Only the latter two ever cracked the BA top 100.

[TheCrew07]

I get what you're saying, and you'll notice that I didn't list Dysktra or Brewer above. The point that I feel is being missed here is that even the kids who are not really projectable are more talented than their counterparts were when I started following the system. Nelson was a name sure, but the talent around him just stunk. Looking at the position players on all of the teams AAA through A ball, each team has 2 or 3 position player prospects that have a realistic chance to be everyday MLB players, that's absolutely fantastic. In the past we were hoping that Nelson would catch fire, or Krenzyl would figure it out, now those players are players like Kemp and Wilson, players who have value, but don't really seem to have a home on the MLB team looking forward. Will Vass and Delaney be everyday MLB players? Possibly, but I doubt it, however they are excellent role players for a young A ball club. A guy like Farris who I've never even considered a prospect is actually leading the FSL in stolen bases (I realize Ford was a speedster as well). We've never had this much depth position wise top to bottom, and we've already traded off high ceiling and/or producing position talent in Brantley, LaPorta, and Fryer.

 

The team needs to have a couple of ultra toolsy players like Brewer, McPhearson, and Richardson in the system... or latin players like Arias and Trejo... while those players are typically boom or bust type players, you just can't draft on stats alone. X harps on SD all the time, he makes an often overlooked point, teams that take a more sabermetric approach to drafting haven't faired well because they end up selecting too many players that have low ceilings, the players are mostly maxed out when they are drafted. To get extreme talent like Yo and Braun, you need to take your shots with kids that have room to grow, every pick or player in the system shouldn't be a "safe" pick. Isn't it worth the chance at a potential all-star talent to have 3-5 toolsy players in the system at any one time? I'll take 1 out of 5 on those kind of players because impact talent is very difficult for a team like Milwaukee to come by through other means, for us it's all about the system.

 

Both Z and Sied have talked about trying to draft all-stars, not just average players, we have our fair share of safe and productive players, but we also have some exciting athletic talents, and I really like the mix in the system right now. For example, I love that we have a fairly safe thing at C in Lucroy, but also a toolsy player with high upside in Salome.

 

I didn't like the Dykstra pick because Lenny got bye most on attitude (and PEDs), and I don't think that attitude translates well when drafting bloodlines, so I'm not one to anoint someone a prospect because of where they were drafted.

 

The best case I can make is to look at the power 50 today, and compare it to like 7/10/2003... just look at the first 25-30 names on each list that should pretty much say it all. The levels and ages are off because they've continued to to go up as the players have advanced.

[biedergb]

I'll stick by my original assessment. 5-10 years ago, if a top notch pitching prospect was suspended, or several top hitters were injured, we would look at a lost season. This year, I almost forgot that Cain was MIA. Sure some of this is due to Brewerfan, the internet and the blogosphere, so that I have more information on the 47-th round draft pick.

 

For some 'evidence': look at it is simply this -- look how successful the teams are doing, and the fact that most of the roster is players who are appropriately aged for their leagues (ie, not a bunch of former MLBers making AAA or AA squads look good like we had in the late 90's). Team success with a roster of real and fringe prospects is an indictment of depth in my mind.